Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

So, what EXACTLY were those claims that you find so credible? Reports of specific behavior? Let’s hear it. Otherwise all that’s out so far is vague allegations from unnamed sources. You seem very vehement about things you couldn’t possibly know, and very vague for all of your histrionic repetitions.

No histrionics here my friend. The details in the articl are scant/ merely that there is documented evidence that at least two of her aides quit because they felt humiliated and bullied. The aides themselves are unnamed in the article but there is a limited pool of possibilities so they aren’t exactly anonymous. The claims were vetted and specific emails, including dates are referenced in the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

You’re either nuts or Camilla. Diana was beautiful and luminous. Kate and even Meghan can’t hold a candle to her looks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

So, what EXACTLY were those claims that you find so credible? Reports of specific behavior? Let’s hear it. Otherwise all that’s out so far is vague allegations from unnamed sources. You seem very vehement about things you couldn’t possibly know, and very vague for all of your histrionic repetitions.

No histrionics here my friend. The details in the articl are scant/ merely that there is documented evidence that at least two of her aides quit because they felt humiliated and bullied. The aides themselves are unnamed in the article but there is a limited pool of possibilities so they aren’t exactly anonymous. The claims were vetted and specific emails, including dates are referenced in the article.

DP. This is the issue with all of the palace sussex battles. This makes the BRF look bad as well. Either she was a bully and they waited YEARS to do anything or she’s not and this is a smear campaign. There were so many people that outranked Meghan that could have defended those people she allegedly bullied and did not at the time when it mattered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

You’re either nuts or Camilla. Diana was beautiful and luminous. Kate and even Meghan can’t hold a candle to her looks.

Have you ever actually really looked at a picture of Diana?
I think everyone has a major case of "the emperor's new clothes" about her looks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

Do olympic athletes count?

In a sport where only the Uber wealthy have access to the best horses, boarding, and long list of working class mopes to care for the animals? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

You’re either nuts or Camilla. Diana was beautiful and luminous. Kate and even Meghan can’t hold a candle to her looks.

Have you ever actually really looked at a picture of Diana?
I think everyone has a major case of "the emperor's new clothes" about her looks.

She had youth on her side and was super put together and fashionable. I hate how the current young royals dress. Everything Kate wears is either Diana cosplay or looks like something a sister wife from Utah would wear. And Meghan seems to be unable to consistently find close that are tailored correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

Do olympic athletes count?

In a sport where only the Uber wealthy have access to the best horses, boarding, and long list of working class mopes to care for the animals? No.

Sure, sure. But you don’t make the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

So, what EXACTLY were those claims that you find so credible? Reports of specific behavior? Let’s hear it. Otherwise all that’s out so far is vague allegations from unnamed sources. You seem very vehement about things you couldn’t possibly know, and very vague for all of your histrionic repetitions.

No histrionics here my friend. The details in the articl are scant/ merely that there is documented evidence that at least two of her aides quit because they felt humiliated and bullied. The aides themselves are unnamed in the article but there is a limited pool of possibilities so they aren’t exactly anonymous. The claims were vetted and specific emails, including dates are referenced in the article.

DP. This is the issue with all of the palace sussex battles. This makes the BRF look bad as well. Either she was a bully and they waited YEARS to do anything or she’s not and this is a smear campaign. There were so many people that outranked Meghan that could have defended those people she allegedly bullied and did not at the time when it mattered.

DP. No the BRF didn’t wait “YEARS” to do anything. Maybe it took a while for complaints about MM to bubble up and maybe their first instinct was to protect MM (since she was family). But in any case she was only a working royal for - what? - like a year and a half? Unless a boss’ alleged conduct is truly egregious, these kinds of complaints from employees generally take a while to work through the system (they have to be investigated, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

You’re either nuts or Camilla. Diana was beautiful and luminous. Kate and even Meghan can’t hold a candle to her looks.

Have you ever actually really looked at a picture of Diana?
I think everyone has a major case of "the emperor's new clothes" about her looks.

She had youth on her side and was super put together and fashionable. I hate how the current young royals dress. Everything Kate wears is either Diana cosplay or looks like something a sister wife from Utah would wear. And Meghan seems to be unable to consistently find close that are tailored correctly.

Yes, she was young and had nice clothes. And she was charming. And all of that made her stand out in a very ugly family.
I think Kate's clothes are alright. Meghan cannot seem to dress herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

You’re either nuts or Camilla. Diana was beautiful and luminous. Kate and even Meghan can’t hold a candle to her looks.

Diana had style and charisma. I think Kate and Meghan have more natural beauty than her though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

Do olympic athletes count?

In a sport where only the Uber wealthy have access to the best horses, boarding, and long list of working class mopes to care for the animals? No.

Sure, sure. But you don’t make the rules.

I don’t but only the most delusional would say that equestrianism (?) is a sport that is accessible to anyone but 1%. And my point was that they haven’t accomplished anything without the position and wealth of their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment on GOMI is perfect:

mama meowed:

It just makes me laugh that Meghan rolled up into the palace with these diva boss babe demands and an exacting “work ethic” that no one could keep up with like she was some super A lister or high powered former CEO or executive. Like, lady where do you get off. You were a former ensemble player on a cable show. Please spare me the sob story of how no staff could keep up with your professional demands. It sounds like she was being a huge brat and was drunk on her newly found power and status. That’s MUCH different than being a demanding boss although she wouldn’t know that because she never was a boss or had subordinates before in her C lister life!

Getting a position on a regularly airing show is likely more than the whole British family (save possibly Philip) could do if they had to make things happen themselves. I don’t think a single one of them that isn’t a married-in graduated with honors of any kind which is the one opportunity they have to show their stuff without their name (sorta).

Do olympic athletes count?

In a sport where only the Uber wealthy have access to the best horses, boarding, and long list of working class mopes to care for the animals? No.

Sure, sure. But you don’t make the rules.

I don’t but only the most delusional would say that equestrianism (?) is a sport that is accessible to anyone but 1%. And my point was that they haven’t accomplished anything without the position and wealth of their family.

I guess you must be really impressed with Meghan getting a gig flashing a suitcase on Deal or No Deal. I'm sure she totally got that due to her superior acting skills and no other reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

She does seem narcissistic but she’s seriously gorgeous and charming so count me as one of those buying it. She reminds me a lot of Diana honestly- another hot mess beauty people couldn’t take their eyes off of, especially when compared to the rest of the fugly and boring royal family.

Diana was not beautiful. She was blonde and blue-eyed, that's all. And yes, significantly better looking and charming than anyone else in that family. Absolutely not a beauty though.

You’re either nuts or Camilla. Diana was beautiful and luminous. Kate and even Meghan can’t hold a candle to her looks.

Diana had style and charisma. I think Kate and Meghan have more natural beauty than her though.

I agree with this. Diana had the IT factor, which not many people have. And she was naturally photogenic. But Kate and Meghan are both far prettier than her.

She was also a product of her times- in today's social media world, would she have been as beloved? Who knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claims made by the times article were vetted and very credible. It sounds like there are multiple people who Meghan picked on and bullied- not just one. The Times is not a tabloid and this article would never have been published if they weren’t 100% able to back it up.

Meghan is a bully and a narcissist. Terrible person who is fake fake fake and is charming enough so that people buy her fake ness.

So, what EXACTLY were those claims that you find so credible? Reports of specific behavior? Let’s hear it. Otherwise all that’s out so far is vague allegations from unnamed sources. You seem very vehement about things you couldn’t possibly know, and very vague for all of your histrionic repetitions.

No histrionics here my friend. The details in the articl are scant/ merely that there is documented evidence that at least two of her aides quit because they felt humiliated and bullied. The aides themselves are unnamed in the article but there is a limited pool of possibilities so they aren’t exactly anonymous. The claims were vetted and specific emails, including dates are referenced in the article.

DP. This is the issue with all of the palace sussex battles. This makes the BRF look bad as well. Either she was a bully and they waited YEARS to do anything or she’s not and this is a smear campaign. There were so many people that outranked Meghan that could have defended those people she allegedly bullied and did not at the time when it mattered.

DP. No the BRF didn’t wait “YEARS” to do anything. Maybe it took a while for complaints about MM to bubble up and maybe their first instinct was to protect MM (since she was family). But in any case she was only a working royal for - what? - like a year and a half? Unless a boss’ alleged conduct is truly egregious, these kinds of complaints from employees generally take a while to work through the system (they have to be investigated, etc.).

Isn't this the reason why they hired an outside law firm to investigate the claims? It casts a bad light on both Meghan and Harry for the allegations and on the BRF/grey men who protected the family over protecting the staff. No one looks good here.