Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

I think there is more to it - angling for a takedown of Charles and William. Harry seems like a bitter angry man out to oust his father and brother from their lofty perches above him.

Almost worked for Scar in the Lion King

"You know Meghan does voice acting?" LOL 😂 Seems like the actress liked that script.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

Who else would investigate it? Would this normally be handled by HR??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

Oh and please do tell, what are the names and faces of the people who were allegedly bullied by Meghan?

That's the difference. You can't name any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

Who else would investigate it? Would this normally be handled by HR??

Normally the Palace HR department but in this case could get verrrrrrry interesting. There were reports in Australia that Meghan threw hot tea at staff. That's assault not just bullying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brilliant. Have never seen this segment before.

Love how anything and everything that shows just how dumb the Meghan haters gets duly ignored... lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This one, too.

Meghan throwing hot tea at staff? Are people out of their mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear Lilibet is 21 days old. What responsible parent would get on an airplane to a foreign country with a newborn baby even preCovid? If this thread is any indication of the idiocy Megan and Harry have to deal with, than I definitely feel for them. I would not have the patience for such foolishness, it’s one thing to attack H&M but all bets are off when innocent babies are involved.

+1

I was told not to bring my baby near a crowd of people until she had her first shots. no way would i take a 21 day old baby on a plane.

You know they aren't going to fly commercial, right? There wouldn't be a crowd.

Get a grip. Even on a private plane there is a pilot and staff in a relatively small space. Aside from that no one 21 days after giving birth wants to deal with an infant crying because their ears popped on a flight of that length. LAX to London is almost 12 hours. There’s a lot to criticize them for but this is just cuckoo.

I'm not criticizing, but people are talking about things that aren't relevant. Like a "crowd". There are plenty of reasons not to travel, but acting like would be traveling on a flying Greyhound is not one of them.

It doesn’t have to be a crowd, it’s about not taking a 21 day old newborn to a foreign country who hasn’t had the proper vaccinations against a host of diseases. sheesh please try harder!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

Oh and please do tell, what are the names and faces of the people who were allegedly bullied by Meghan?

That's the difference. You can't name any.

You think a law firm is going to out staff that are under an NDA? Dream on. You want names and addresses so Meghan stans can go and harass the former staff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

Oh and please do tell, what are the names and faces of the people who were allegedly bullied by Meghan?

That's the difference. You can't name any.

You think a law firm is going to out staff that are under an NDA? Dream on. You want names and addresses so Meghan stans can go and harass the former staff?

You're delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The evidentiary weight of their accusations is in the royal family’s response in my opinion. They splashily announced they were going to hire a diversity czar. Then today they’re like “actually we aren’t going to do that.” Then Buckingham palace released their diversity numbers and refused to specify what the numbers are relative to positions (I.e. are any of the POCs that work for them in none household staff positions?). Kensington Palace refused to release their numbers because based on photos of their staff that are available they likely have an even smaller percentage. Then they just said “our family isn’t racist” but then it is also revealed they lobbied to be exempt from workplace racial discrimination measures. They don’t care about actually being racist but bristle at the idea of being called racist. Perhaps they think of racism as a sort of low-brow, American thing?

The fact that H&M can plausibly smear them as racists without providing receipts is really just their own chickens coming home to roost.

Word salad. Until the Harkles provide actual proof their claims about the baby’s skin color it’s all hearsay and makes the rest of their whining also suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you, and that’s what makes it unconscionable. The timing of the “allegations “ did, indeed cast a bad light on Meghan and Harry — as it seems it was intended to do. If interest in the investigation sputters out, or if nothing is reported, there will forever be a hazy sense that Meghan did something mean and bullying — without anyone having to provide either specific details of what she actually supposedly did, or any specific resolution. So hazy allegations smearing Meghan’s behavior, character, and fitness are actually noxiously bullying in and of themselves — as long as they remain unsubstantiated. Pretty twisted stuff.

But isn't that, though, what H&M did to the royal family? Someone said something racist about Archie. Who? Won't say. What did they say exactly? Can't share that. When did they say it? Can't say. To whom did they say it? Meg and Harry begin exchanging glances. It's the exact same thing. A hazy allegation of racism without details, its only evidentiary weight is that H&M need it to be true to fit the narrative of a poor little prince and his lady love.

The difference is that Meghan and Harry have attached their name and their word to their allegations. The bullying allegations against Meghan have no names, just a vague, ill-defined attack by a faceless entity. There's a difference.

Then why is an outside law firm investigating the claims (Steptoe)? Doesn't sound baseless, vague or nameless to me.

Oh and please do tell, what are the names and faces of the people who were allegedly bullied by Meghan?

That's the difference. You can't name any.

You think a law firm is going to out staff that are under an NDA? Dream on. You want names and addresses so Meghan stans can go and harass the former staff?

You're delusional.

The Palace probably has receipts on that incident too. Let's see what happens. Aannnnnnnddddd - attack the messenger not the message par for the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear Lilibet is 21 days old. What responsible parent would get on an airplane to a foreign country with a newborn baby even preCovid? If this thread is any indication of the idiocy Megan and Harry have to deal with, than I definitely feel for them. I would not have the patience for such foolishness, it’s one thing to attack H&M but all bets are off when innocent babies are involved.

+1

I was told not to bring my baby near a crowd of people until she had her first shots. no way would i take a 21 day old baby on a plane.

You know they aren't going to fly commercial, right? There wouldn't be a crowd.

Get a grip. Even on a private plane there is a pilot and staff in a relatively small space. Aside from that no one 21 days after giving birth wants to deal with an infant crying because their ears popped on a flight of that length. LAX to London is almost 12 hours. There’s a lot to criticize them for but this is just cuckoo.

I'm not criticizing, but people are talking about things that aren't relevant. Like a "crowd". There are plenty of reasons not to travel, but acting like would be traveling on a flying Greyhound is not one of them.

It doesn’t have to be a crowd, it’s about not taking a 21 day old newborn to a foreign country who hasn’t had the proper vaccinations against a host of diseases. sheesh please try harder!

Yeah, I took my five month old baby on a end of maternity leave trip overseas and my pediatrician definitely grumbled and asked me to wait til 6 months. She would have called child protective services if I had gone when the baby was 21 days old.

[Anonymous]

All hail the Queen Grandmother. Who immediately drove over to see her beloved grandson as soon as his flight from L.A. landed.

F PWT.


But 30 minutes after arriving in Windsor - and before he even had time to unpack - the Queen, 95, was pictured driving towards his home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All hail the Queen Grandmother. Who immediately drove over to see her beloved grandson as soon as his flight from L.A. landed.

F PWT.


But 30 minutes after arriving in Windsor - and before he even had time to unpack - the Queen, 95, was pictured driving towards his home.

Maybe she will give him a stern talking to about his ungrateful behavior.