New Sussex project with Netflix re polo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

I think Harry and Meghan are grotesque, primarily on the basis of their view of “charity work.” I’m also anti monarchist, detest Andrew, and believe his dead parents failed to control him and correct him, and that he should be prosecuted and imprisoned for his acts other than as a trade rep. I ALSO voted for each of the Clintons for president, am vehemently against right-wing ideas, believe Amber Heard was abused, voted for Obama twice and admire Michelle, and am more of a Khanna-Sanders-Porter-Warren Democratic idealist than a centrist.

There was no Daily Mail campaign that convinced me that the Sussex pair are garbage. The racism charge is so forking stupid. I’m mixed race, just like Ms Nibbs. She’s an as-hole and he’s worse. Their fans are just goddamned brain dead. Good luck! I’m sure the show will be inspiring and titillating and get the ratings of Narcos.

And yet you admit you get your info from racist hate subs like SMM. And funny, I was unaware of the whole Meghan industrial hate complex until I stuck a toe into the Daily Mail during the whole "Kate is missing" hysteria and wondered WTF was going on with their Meghan coverage, so you don't seem completely honest about the DM.

And you're responding to, but not addressing the content of, several posters who have identified a hate machine directed at Meghan, Hillary, Martha Stewart, and others.

Something doesn't click here....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

PS. Obviously KP had its own motives for spreading rumors about Meghan to British tabloids. But we can easily guess what those motives are.

I'm more interested in the mentality of women who spend their days here, and in the racist SMM hate sub, raging against a woman they've never met.

Did KP force Meghan to make interviews about how horrible it was being in the royal family? No one told Meghan that working Americans do not want to listen to rich people complain about how hard life is in the palace or mansion. She was truly clueless, and while Oprah asked the questions, Meghan was the one who sat on TV and whined about her very hard life. Yet, despite crapping on the family that gave her royal status, she continues to want to be called Duchess in the U.S. where we do not have royalty. She deserves all the criticism of her hypocrisy.

Any normal person would exit the thread at this point. They might even engage in some much-needed introspection.

Not DCUM's resident hater and SMM racist hate sub denizen. Who continues to pop up with but... but... what about that one time someone else's butler in NYC called Meghan duchess, huh, huh? We must all spend months repeating that story to ourselves and using it to amplify our hate for her.

You did not answer the question. Who exactly forced Meghan to look like an a-hole on the Oprah interview. The answer is Meghan herself, in her own words. You're welcome.

DP. This is a common trope of the online hate machine: she [insert name of literally any public woman here] *made* me hate her! All this hate is her fault!! It's organic because she's the WORST!

But let's look critically at your argument here. You're saying that it makes sense that there are literally thousands of pages of hate directed at Meghan Markle online because she once did an interview with Oprah that you feel made her look like an "a-hole." Let's see, Google tells me that said interview occurred in 2021, just over 5 years ago. Also, reviews are mixed. Some people do feel Meghan and Harry came off as complaining and navel gazing. Other people were sympathetic, especially to Meghan talking about her experiences with mental health and the criticism she received in the press and internally within the royal family.

Why this be something you are still upset about? The Andrew formerly known as Prince did an interview just a few months ago where he continued to lie about his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and invented a truly ridiculous story about whether or not he is physically capable of sweating. And yet Andrew simply does not engender the same degree of hate as Meghan does, or anything close to it, even though it is now clear that Andrew is likely a pedophile who associated with a known pedophile and sex trafficker AFTER he was convicted of sex trafficking, and Meghan... has a sort of cringeworthy jam distribution business? I truly don't know.

I still don't know where the hate comes from. Disliking Meghan, finding her tedious, choosing to avoid discussion of her online -- sure, I get it. That's how I feel off and on about both Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Pratt. But this level of rage and hate? I don't get it. It's not because she seemed like "an a-hole" in a 5 year old interview. That can't be why.

Let's keep working on it. Why *else* do you hate Meghan Markle so much?

DP. Waiting for a response to this excellent post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

I think Harry and Meghan are grotesque, primarily on the basis of their view of “charity work.” I’m also anti monarchist, detest Andrew, and believe his dead parents failed to control him and correct him, and that he should be prosecuted and imprisoned for his acts other than as a trade rep. I ALSO voted for each of the Clintons for president, am vehemently against right-wing ideas, believe Amber Heard was abused, voted for Obama twice and admire Michelle, and am more of a Khanna-Sanders-Porter-Warren Democratic idealist than a centrist.

There was no Daily Mail campaign that convinced me that the Sussex pair are garbage. The racism charge is so forking stupid. I’m mixed race, just like Ms Nibbs. She’s an as-hole and he’s worse. Their fans are just goddamned brain dead. Good luck! I’m sure the show will be inspiring and titillating and get the ratings of Narcos.

If you are anti-monarchist, you should appreciate Meghan for helping to cause problems for the royal family. Doesn't mean you would *like* her, but you could view her as tool who would help accomplish the goal of destroying the BRF from the inside out.

Your level of passion makes no sense based on your stated politics. Sure, Meghan and Harry participate in the same BS charity boondoggle a lot of celebs do. This makes them truly no different than most celebrities, including the rest of the royal family. Lots of rich people use charity both to burnish their image and promote their brands. Some people would argue that at least Harry actually founded the Invictus games after seeing the success of the US Warrior Games, and the Invictus Foundation, which seems to do a lot of good, exists because of him. That doesn't mean they can't be gross about charity, but the idea that they are somehow worse than other celebrities is odd. They objectively are not.

To say, "but, but, I like Michelle Obama" is not a convincing argument. Nor is it particularly convincing to spend pages and pages calling Meghan names and then say "oh yeah, I hate Harry too" like an afterthought. You have outlined why you might not like Meghan (or Harry) but not why you would HATE them to the degree you do, or why you would focus so much vitriol towards Meghan online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

PS. Obviously KP had its own motives for spreading rumors about Meghan to British tabloids. But we can easily guess what those motives are.

I'm more interested in the mentality of women who spend their days here, and in the racist SMM hate sub, raging against a woman they've never met.

Did KP force Meghan to make interviews about how horrible it was being in the royal family? No one told Meghan that working Americans do not want to listen to rich people complain about how hard life is in the palace or mansion. She was truly clueless, and while Oprah asked the questions, Meghan was the one who sat on TV and whined about her very hard life. Yet, despite crapping on the family that gave her royal status, she continues to want to be called Duchess in the U.S. where we do not have royalty. She deserves all the criticism of her hypocrisy.

Any normal person would exit the thread at this point. They might even engage in some much-needed introspection.

Not DCUM's resident hater and SMM racist hate sub denizen. Who continues to pop up with but... but... what about that one time someone else's butler in NYC called Meghan duchess, huh, huh? We must all spend months repeating that story to ourselves and using it to amplify our hate for her.

You did not answer the question. Who exactly forced Meghan to look like an a-hole on the Oprah interview. The answer is Meghan herself, in her own words. You're welcome.

You didn't answer two questions.
1. Why are you fixated on the black woman, when Harry is an equal or greater (his book) partner in explaining Mexit?
2. Why on earth shouldn't the Sussexes push back on tabloid, palace, and social media (you, SMM sub, twitter) straight-up lies?

Oh, and Meghan was fine on the Oprah interview.

Oh he is annoying too. But he does not give interviews where he exagerrates his position. Meghan has always done this. She claimed to be the main star of suits when she was five or six on call. She created a podcast claiming to be a founder and compared herself to incredibly successful CEOs of major companies. She is a legend in her own mind. If she would accurately describe her business and her acting career as BJ girl on 90210 and file cabinet f€ck girl it would be more honest.

Look, nobody wants to read more of your nasty hyperbole about Meghan.

You can like her jam or not. Personally, I fell asleep trying to watch her show. But I'm not here cussing about whether founding a multi-million dollar online lifestyle store actually qualifies her as a founder. I'm not cussing about her perfectly innocent roles on various shows. I mean, who TF cares? Why do you care so much?

I'm still waiting for your response to 11:42's very good insights and questions. That's what's interesting about this thread: what drives your unhinged posts like the one above?

Show me a white bit actress who married à royal then moved away from the country and kept the royal title and perks while complaining about them. I'll wait.

There is no white equivalent to compare her too because only a few people a century marry into a royal family. If you a white woman who has done the same detestable crap, I will gladly snark on said person. Because no one wants to hear a rich person crap on the institution that gave them everything. This goes for royals, actors, athletes, etc.

Let's try this again.

Here's a direct question: Do you spend your time on hate subs directed at Ghislaine or Andrew to the extent you admit to patronizing the Meghan racist hate SMM sub? Do you spread misinformation and curses about Ghislaine as frequently as you spread lies and curses about Meghan? Why not?

Here's another direct question: why is it so unreasonable for Meghan and Harry to defend themselves against a vicious social media and tabloid hate campaign that runs lies generated within the palace, by the tabloids, and by social media sites like SMM, which you admit you patronize?

[Anonymous]

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

Also just want to note this is provably false. While having relationships with longtime friends and family is not evidence someone is a great person, Meghan and Harry have both. Meghan is still friends with many of the people she was close to before meeting Harry, in fact this was one of the reasons she wound up being eager to return to the US after things went so poorly for her in England. She is also very close to her mom (closer than I am to my mom). Harry is still close with many of his best friends from growing up, including (on topic!) the friends he made via polo. He also continues to maintain relationships with some of his cousins despite the extreme weirdness of his relationship with his immediate family, one that is not particularly suprising given: it's the British royal family, his parents divorced and then his mother tragically died when he was very young, his brother is the chosen heir of the family business and they have a lifeline rivalry, and his dad wound up marrying the woman with whom he very public cheated on Harry's mom. It would actually be a little weird if Harry was extremely close to his dad and brother given that history, I don't know anyone with that amount of family disfunction who has a close or normal relationship with their parents and siblings unless they had a LOT of therapy as a family.

This is a normal amount of longterm relationships. Neither impressive nor obviously evidence of them being terrible people. Just... standard. They do not appear to be total sociopaths.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure anti-monarchist Michelle Obama lovers and Sanders voters aren't spending their time on racist hate subs like SMM. As this poster claims to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

Also just want to note this is provably false. While having relationships with longtime friends and family is not evidence someone is a great person, Meghan and Harry have both. Meghan is still friends with many of the people she was close to before meeting Harry, in fact this was one of the reasons she wound up being eager to return to the US after things went so poorly for her in England. She is also very close to her mom (closer than I am to my mom). Harry is still close with many of his best friends from growing up, including (on topic!) the friends he made via polo. He also continues to maintain relationships with some of his cousins despite the extreme weirdness of his relationship with his immediate family, one that is not particularly suprising given: it's the British royal family, his parents divorced and then his mother tragically died when he was very young, his brother is the chosen heir of the family business and they have a lifeline rivalry, and his dad wound up marrying the woman with whom he very public cheated on Harry's mom. It would actually be a little weird if Harry was extremely close to his dad and brother given that history, I don't know anyone with that amount of family disfunction who has a close or normal relationship with their parents and siblings unless they had a LOT of therapy as a family.

This is a normal amount of longterm relationships. Neither impressive nor obviously evidence of them being terrible people. Just... standard. They do not appear to be total sociopaths.

Thanks, pp. I thought all of this. But racist hater pp is so exhausting, I gave up trying to rebut their claims.

I could add that Meghan's father and sister sold her out to the tabloids for $$$. Even now, the Daily Mail's Caroline Graham either moved close to Thomas Markle in Cebu, Philippines, or she regularly flies over there to report on things like his new love affair with his much younger Philippino nurse.

It's actually amazing that Meghan hasn't spoken publicly about the BRF or her own family for 3-4 years, since maybe Oprah. Meghan's years-long silence makes the hate even harder to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

Also just want to note this is provably false. While having relationships with longtime friends and family is not evidence someone is a great person, Meghan and Harry have both. Meghan is still friends with many of the people she was close to before meeting Harry, in fact this was one of the reasons she wound up being eager to return to the US after things went so poorly for her in England. She is also very close to her mom (closer than I am to my mom). Harry is still close with many of his best friends from growing up, including (on topic!) the friends he made via polo. He also continues to maintain relationships with some of his cousins despite the extreme weirdness of his relationship with his immediate family, one that is not particularly suprising given: it's the British royal family, his parents divorced and then his mother tragically died when he was very young, his brother is the chosen heir of the family business and they have a lifeline rivalry, and his dad wound up marrying the woman with whom he very public cheated on Harry's mom. It would actually be a little weird if Harry was extremely close to his dad and brother given that history, I don't know anyone with that amount of family disfunction who has a close or normal relationship with their parents and siblings unless they had a LOT of therapy as a family.

This is a normal amount of longterm relationships. Neither impressive nor obviously evidence of them being terrible people. Just... standard. They do not appear to be total sociopaths.

Thanks, pp. I thought all of this. But racist hater pp is so exhausting, I gave up trying to rebut their claims.

I could add that Meghan's father and sister sold her out to the tabloids for $$$. Even now, the Daily Mail's Caroline Graham either moved close to Thomas Markle in Cebu, Philippines, or she regularly flies over there to report on things like his new love affair with his much younger Philippino nurse.

It's actually amazing that Meghan hasn't spoken publicly about the BRF or her own family for 3-4 years, since maybe Oprah. Meghan's years-long silence makes the hate even harder to understand.

This is a common complaint of online haters though -- they will impute all *coverage* of the hated woman to the woman herself. So even though Meghan hasn't spoken publicly about any of this in years, the haters will say that she is "always" complaining or that she "constantly" criticizes the royal family. There is a perception of her as someone who is running to the tabloids or complaining online all the time, yet it's a falsely created one.

I truly believe that the only way women like Meghan could avoid this kind of criticism would be to disappear from the public eye altogether. But I'm not sure that's even possible because of Harry. Meghan could do nothing, she could just sit at home with her kids never interacting with anyone outside her immediate family every again, and her mere existence would still be blamed for anything people associate as wrong with Harry. Harry has been MUCH more public than Meghan over the last several years, making far more appearances for his charities, traveling to England multiple times, making public speeches, yet she gets the bulk of the criticism. It's quite interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

Also just want to note this is provably false. While having relationships with longtime friends and family is not evidence someone is a great person, Meghan and Harry have both. Meghan is still friends with many of the people she was close to before meeting Harry, in fact this was one of the reasons she wound up being eager to return to the US after things went so poorly for her in England. She is also very close to her mom (closer than I am to my mom). Harry is still close with many of his best friends from growing up, including (on topic!) the friends he made via polo. He also continues to maintain relationships with some of his cousins despite the extreme weirdness of his relationship with his immediate family, one that is not particularly suprising given: it's the British royal family, his parents divorced and then his mother tragically died when he was very young, his brother is the chosen heir of the family business and they have a lifeline rivalry, and his dad wound up marrying the woman with whom he very public cheated on Harry's mom. It would actually be a little weird if Harry was extremely close to his dad and brother given that history, I don't know anyone with that amount of family disfunction who has a close or normal relationship with their parents and siblings unless they had a LOT of therapy as a family.

This is a normal amount of longterm relationships. Neither impressive nor obviously evidence of them being terrible people. Just... standard. They do not appear to be total sociopaths.

Thanks, pp. I thought all of this. But racist hater pp is so exhausting, I gave up trying to rebut their claims.

I could add that Meghan's father and sister sold her out to the tabloids for $$$. Even now, the Daily Mail's Caroline Graham either moved close to Thomas Markle in Cebu, Philippines, or she regularly flies over there to report on things like his new love affair with his much younger Philippino nurse.

It's actually amazing that Meghan hasn't spoken publicly about the BRF or her own family for 3-4 years, since maybe Oprah. Meghan's years-long silence makes the hate even harder to understand.

This is a common complaint of online haters though -- they will impute all *coverage* of the hated woman to the woman herself. So even though Meghan hasn't spoken publicly about any of this in years, the haters will say that she is "always" complaining or that she "constantly" criticizes the royal family. There is a perception of her as someone who is running to the tabloids or complaining online all the time, yet it's a falsely created one.

I truly believe that the only way women like Meghan could avoid this kind of criticism would be to disappear from the public eye altogether. But I'm not sure that's even possible because of Harry. Meghan could do nothing, she could just sit at home with her kids never interacting with anyone outside her immediate family every again, and her mere existence would still be blamed for anything people associate as wrong with Harry. Harry has been MUCH more public than Meghan over the last several years, making far more appearances for his charities, traveling to England multiple times, making public speeches, yet she gets the bulk of the criticism. It's quite interesting.

Agree. Plus, the Sussexes need to support themselves and pay for security, now that Charles has cut them off from both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

PS. Obviously KP had its own motives for spreading rumors about Meghan to British tabloids. But we can easily guess what those motives are.

I'm more interested in the mentality of women who spend their days here, and in the racist SMM hate sub, raging against a woman they've never met.

Did KP force Meghan to make interviews about how horrible it was being in the royal family? No one told Meghan that working Americans do not want to listen to rich people complain about how hard life is in the palace or mansion. She was truly clueless, and while Oprah asked the questions, Meghan was the one who sat on TV and whined about her very hard life. Yet, despite crapping on the family that gave her royal status, she continues to want to be called Duchess in the U.S. where we do not have royalty. She deserves all the criticism of her hypocrisy.

Any normal person would exit the thread at this point. They might even engage in some much-needed introspection.

Not DCUM's resident hater and SMM racist hate sub denizen. Who continues to pop up with but... but... what about that one time someone else's butler in NYC called Meghan duchess, huh, huh? We must all spend months repeating that story to ourselves and using it to amplify our hate for her.

You did not answer the question. Who exactly forced Meghan to look like an a-hole on the Oprah interview. The answer is Meghan herself, in her own words. You're welcome.

You didn't answer two questions.
1. Why are you fixated on the black woman, when Harry is an equal or greater (his book) partner in explaining Mexit?
2. Why on earth shouldn't the Sussexes push back on tabloid, palace, and social media (you, SMM sub, twitter) straight-up lies?

Oh, and Meghan was fine on the Oprah interview.

Oh he is annoying too. But he does not give interviews where he exagerrates his position. Meghan has always done this. She claimed to be the main star of suits when she was five or six on call. She created a podcast claiming to be a founder and compared herself to incredibly successful CEOs of major companies. She is a legend in her own mind. If she would accurately describe her business and her acting career as BJ girl on 90210 and file cabinet f€ck girl it would be more honest.

Look, nobody wants to read more of your nasty hyperbole about Meghan.

You can like her jam or not. Personally, I fell asleep trying to watch her show. But I'm not here cussing about whether founding a multi-million dollar online lifestyle store actually qualifies her as a founder. I'm not cussing about her perfectly innocent roles on various shows. I mean, who TF cares? Why do you care so much?

I'm still waiting for your response to 11:42's very good insights and questions. That's what's interesting about this thread: what drives your unhinged posts like the one above?

Show me a white bit actress who married à royal then moved away from the country and kept the royal title and perks while complaining about them. I'll wait.

There is no white equivalent to compare her too because only a few people a century marry into a royal family. If you a white woman who has done the same detestable crap, I will gladly snark on said person. Because no one wants to hear a rich person crap on the institution that gave them everything. This goes for royals, actors, athletes, etc.

Let's try this again.

Here's a direct question: Do you spend your time on hate subs directed at Ghislaine or Andrew to the extent you admit to patronizing the Meghan racist hate SMM sub? Do you spread misinformation and curses about Ghislaine as frequently as you spread lies and curses about Meghan? Why not?

Here's another direct question: why is it so unreasonable for Meghan and Harry to defend themselves against a vicious social media and tabloid hate campaign that runs lies generated within the palace, by the tabloids, and by social media sites like SMM, which you admit you patronize?

I disagree that Meghan is a victim. People dislike her because of her whining.

Who caused Meghan to give an interview whining about her life? Maybe someone can show her pictures of homeless or sick people so she can understand not getting your preferred tiara is not an actual problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

PS. Obviously KP had its own motives for spreading rumors about Meghan to British tabloids. But we can easily guess what those motives are.

I'm more interested in the mentality of women who spend their days here, and in the racist SMM hate sub, raging against a woman they've never met.

Did KP force Meghan to make interviews about how horrible it was being in the royal family? No one told Meghan that working Americans do not want to listen to rich people complain about how hard life is in the palace or mansion. She was truly clueless, and while Oprah asked the questions, Meghan was the one who sat on TV and whined about her very hard life. Yet, despite crapping on the family that gave her royal status, she continues to want to be called Duchess in the U.S. where we do not have royalty. She deserves all the criticism of her hypocrisy.

Any normal person would exit the thread at this point. They might even engage in some much-needed introspection.

Not DCUM's resident hater and SMM racist hate sub denizen. Who continues to pop up with but... but... what about that one time someone else's butler in NYC called Meghan duchess, huh, huh? We must all spend months repeating that story to ourselves and using it to amplify our hate for her.

You did not answer the question. Who exactly forced Meghan to look like an a-hole on the Oprah interview. The answer is Meghan herself, in her own words. You're welcome.

You didn't answer two questions.
1. Why are you fixated on the black woman, when Harry is an equal or greater (his book) partner in explaining Mexit?
2. Why on earth shouldn't the Sussexes push back on tabloid, palace, and social media (you, SMM sub, twitter) straight-up lies?

Oh, and Meghan was fine on the Oprah interview.

Oh he is annoying too. But he does not give interviews where he exagerrates his position. Meghan has always done this. She claimed to be the main star of suits when she was five or six on call. She created a podcast claiming to be a founder and compared herself to incredibly successful CEOs of major companies. She is a legend in her own mind. If she would accurately describe her business and her acting career as BJ girl on 90210 and file cabinet f€ck girl it would be more honest.

Look, nobody wants to read more of your nasty hyperbole about Meghan.

You can like her jam or not. Personally, I fell asleep trying to watch her show. But I'm not here cussing about whether founding a multi-million dollar online lifestyle store actually qualifies her as a founder. I'm not cussing about her perfectly innocent roles on various shows. I mean, who TF cares? Why do you care so much?

I'm still waiting for your response to 11:42's very good insights and questions. That's what's interesting about this thread: what drives your unhinged posts like the one above?

Show me a white bit actress who married à royal then moved away from the country and kept the royal title and perks while complaining about them. I'll wait.

There is no white equivalent to compare her too because only a few people a century marry into a royal family. If you a white woman who has done the same detestable crap, I will gladly snark on said person. Because no one wants to hear a rich person crap on the institution that gave them everything. This goes for royals, actors, athletes, etc.

Let's try this again.

Here's a direct question: Do you spend your time on hate subs directed at Ghislaine or Andrew to the extent you admit to patronizing the Meghan racist hate SMM sub? Do you spread misinformation and curses about Ghislaine as frequently as you spread lies and curses about Meghan? Why not?

Here's another direct question: why is it so unreasonable for Meghan and Harry to defend themselves against a vicious social media and tabloid hate campaign that runs lies generated within the palace, by the tabloids, and by social media sites like SMM, which you admit you patronize?

I disagree that Meghan is a victim. People dislike her because of her whining.

Who caused Meghan to give an interview whining about her life? Maybe someone can show her pictures of homeless or sick people so she can understand not getting your preferred tiara is not an actual problem.

Meghan and Harry went on Oprah FIVE years ago, in March, 2021. Where they countered the hateful press narratives by explaining that she had been driven to consider suicide, and had a miscarriage, as a result of the terrible press beating she received in Britain.

Why are you calling an admission of suicidal thoughts "whining"? Why are you still making this all about Meghan? And why are you still beating that dead horse FIVE years later, as a supposed key reason we should all hate Meghan?

JFC

[Anonymous]

One interesting development is that the Mail's hit pieces on Meghan and Harry don't seem to be landing like they used to, before Andrew's Epstein links hit the fan last year. Sure, the Mail's comments section is overrun with monarchist bots (there are interesting theories about who pays for those).

But it seems like a lot of Brits looked at the Sussexes, then they looked at Andrew MW and the palace cover-up. And they started asking themselves who the really problematic royals were.

So the Mail has branched out into hit pieces on Fergie, Beatrice, and Eugenie (Andrew's wife and daughter).

Still the women, though. Of course. Fergie definitely had shady Epstein ties. Beatrice and Eugenie may have shady Middle Eastern ties, but nothing's been proven yet. But you guys, don't look at Andrew, Charles, or William, and don't ask what they knew! Look over here at these women....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

PS. Obviously KP had its own motives for spreading rumors about Meghan to British tabloids. But we can easily guess what those motives are.

I'm more interested in the mentality of women who spend their days here, and in the racist SMM hate sub, raging against a woman they've never met.

Did KP force Meghan to make interviews about how horrible it was being in the royal family? No one told Meghan that working Americans do not want to listen to rich people complain about how hard life is in the palace or mansion. She was truly clueless, and while Oprah asked the questions, Meghan was the one who sat on TV and whined about her very hard life. Yet, despite crapping on the family that gave her royal status, she continues to want to be called Duchess in the U.S. where we do not have royalty. She deserves all the criticism of her hypocrisy.

Any normal person would exit the thread at this point. They might even engage in some much-needed introspection.

Not DCUM's resident hater and SMM racist hate sub denizen. Who continues to pop up with but... but... what about that one time someone else's butler in NYC called Meghan duchess, huh, huh? We must all spend months repeating that story to ourselves and using it to amplify our hate for her.

You did not answer the question. Who exactly forced Meghan to look like an a-hole on the Oprah interview. The answer is Meghan herself, in her own words. You're welcome.

You didn't answer two questions.
1. Why are you fixated on the black woman, when Harry is an equal or greater (his book) partner in explaining Mexit?
2. Why on earth shouldn't the Sussexes push back on tabloid, palace, and social media (you, SMM sub, twitter) straight-up lies?

Oh, and Meghan was fine on the Oprah interview.

Oh he is annoying too. But he does not give interviews where he exagerrates his position. Meghan has always done this. She claimed to be the main star of suits when she was five or six on call. She created a podcast claiming to be a founder and compared herself to incredibly successful CEOs of major companies. She is a legend in her own mind. If she would accurately describe her business and her acting career as BJ girl on 90210 and file cabinet f€ck girl it would be more honest.

Look, nobody wants to read more of your nasty hyperbole about Meghan.

You can like her jam or not. Personally, I fell asleep trying to watch her show. But I'm not here cussing about whether founding a multi-million dollar online lifestyle store actually qualifies her as a founder. I'm not cussing about her perfectly innocent roles on various shows. I mean, who TF cares? Why do you care so much?

I'm still waiting for your response to 11:42's very good insights and questions. That's what's interesting about this thread: what drives your unhinged posts like the one above?

Show me a white bit actress who married à royal then moved away from the country and kept the royal title and perks while complaining about them. I'll wait.

There is no white equivalent to compare her too because only a few people a century marry into a royal family. If you a white woman who has done the same detestable crap, I will gladly snark on said person. Because no one wants to hear a rich person crap on the institution that gave them everything. This goes for royals, actors, athletes, etc.

Let's try this again.

Here's a direct question: Do you spend your time on hate subs directed at Ghislaine or Andrew to the extent you admit to patronizing the Meghan racist hate SMM sub? Do you spread misinformation and curses about Ghislaine as frequently as you spread lies and curses about Meghan? Why not?

Here's another direct question: why is it so unreasonable for Meghan and Harry to defend themselves against a vicious social media and tabloid hate campaign that runs lies generated within the palace, by the tabloids, and by social media sites like SMM, which you admit you patronize?

I disagree that Meghan is a victim. People dislike her because of her whining.

Who caused Meghan to give an interview whining about her life? Maybe someone can show her pictures of homeless or sick people so she can understand not getting your preferred tiara is not an actual problem.

Meghan and Harry went on Oprah FIVE years ago, in March, 2021. Where they countered the hateful press narratives by explaining that she had been driven to consider suicide, and had a miscarriage, as a result of the terrible press beating she received in Britain.

Why are you calling an admission of suicidal thoughts "whining"? Why are you still making this all about Meghan? And why are you still beating that dead horse FIVE years later, as a supposed key reason we should all hate Meghan?

JFC

Because her own words and behavior is why she is disliked and she refuses to own her words and behavior

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Martha Stewart -- another wildly successful woman that a certain segment of the population just needs to rage about.

Socialmediapathy? misogysocial? misogyonline? Still workshopping a label for online hate towards successful women like Meghan, Hillary and Martha.

It's not just online hate, though the internet (especially in its current iteration) definitely amplifies it. People hate them in real life, too. Neither of my parents are online in any real sense and they have both always hated Hillary Clinton. They also hate Monica Lewinsky. They are neutral on Bill Clinton.

Kind of like people will hate Meghan Markle, Amber Heard, and Blake Lively but have no opinions to express on, say, Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein himself.

Curiously, while they definitely get sexism and criticism directed their way, right wing women like Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem don't get this treatment. Nor Ivanka or Melania. Yes, people hate them, but I'm talking about the hate machines. Like I'm looking on Reddit right now and I can't find anything akin to SMM on any of these women. Despite being a lot more relevant to most Americans lives and WAY more powerful than Meghan.

It's almost like a lot of the online hate directed against women is part of right wing hate machine. Would be curious to see the links to both manosphere and right wing media. It feels like it's all of a piece.

That's an insightful point, that much of the online rage seems to be coming from a right-wing hate machine. You're right, where is the hate for Ghislaine Maxwell, who IRL groomed and trafficked underage girls? Sure, Bondi and Noem get some ridicule for things like cowboy cosplay or the MAGA woman look, but it's nothing like the frightening hate that's cranked out daily by the Murdoch press, the British tabloids, and subs like SMM with their full-time hate content creators.

In Meghan's case, a study by Bot Sentinel found that 83 Twitter/X accounts were responsible for 70% of the hate posts against Meghan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/27/meghan-markle-twitter-hate-campaign/ or similar article here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2021/10/27/researchers-uncover-coordinated-campaign-against-harry-and-meghan-on-twitter/

Omid Scobie's book talks about how Kensington Palace traded rumors about Harry and Meghan in return for the tabloids burying news about William's affair with Rose Hanbury, and doing puff pieces on the Waleses.

It goes on and on. Depressingly.

You take the side of a couple who over time truly cannot maintain relationships. It’s so silly.

I think Harry and Meghan are grotesque, primarily on the basis of their view of “charity work.” I’m also anti monarchist, detest Andrew, and believe his dead parents failed to control him and correct him, and that he should be prosecuted and imprisoned for his acts other than as a trade rep. I ALSO voted for each of the Clintons for president, am vehemently against right-wing ideas, believe Amber Heard was abused, voted for Obama twice and admire Michelle, and am more of a Khanna-Sanders-Porter-Warren Democratic idealist than a centrist.

There was no Daily Mail campaign that convinced me that the Sussex pair are garbage. The racism charge is so forking stupid. I’m mixed race, just like Ms Nibbs. She’s an as-hole and he’s worse. Their fans are just goddamned brain dead. Good luck! I’m sure the show will be inspiring and titillating and get the ratings of Narcos.

And yet you admit you get your info from racist hate subs like SMM. And funny, I was unaware of the whole Meghan industrial hate complex until I stuck a toe into the Daily Mail during the whole "Kate is missing" hysteria and wondered WTF was going on with their Meghan coverage, so you don't seem completely honest about the DM.

And you're responding to, but not addressing the content of, several posters who have identified a hate machine directed at Meghan, Hillary, Martha Stewart, and others.

Something doesn't click here....

I’ve never once referenced that site. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One interesting development is that the Mail's hit pieces on Meghan and Harry don't seem to be landing like they used to, before Andrew's Epstein links hit the fan last year. Sure, the Mail's comments section is overrun with monarchist bots (there are interesting theories about who pays for those).

But it seems like a lot of Brits looked at the Sussexes, then they looked at Andrew MW and the palace cover-up. And they started asking themselves who the really problematic royals were.

So the Mail has branched out into hit pieces on Fergie, Beatrice, and Eugenie (Andrew's wife and daughter).

Still the women, though. Of course. Fergie definitely had shady Epstein ties. Beatrice and Eugenie may have shady Middle Eastern ties, but nothing's been proven yet. But you guys, don't look at Andrew, Charles, or William, and don't ask what they knew! Look over here at these women....

“Hit piece” on the deeply corrupt Epstein connected Yorks. WTAF. Andrew is a credibly accused rapist and all of them, in adulthood, socialized with a post-conviction Epstein.

They and the Sussexes, who use charity events to pay themselves, should all be thrown into active volcanoes.