Duchess Meghan’s personal assistant has quit ‘suddenly,’ ergo Meg is a diva


Embed from Getty Images

Here are some photos of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at the annual Festival of Remembrance in London on Saturday evening. She re-wore a black coat from Stella McCartney, and it looks like all of the royal women at this event wore black. Meghan and Harry got pushed to the back of the royal box, behind the Duke of York. I suspect it wasn’t so much about seniority or one’s position in the line of succession – the Duke of York is a veteran (of the Falkland War). Although Harry is a veteran too, so I don’t know, maybe it was shady that Meghan and Harry were pushed to the back at an veterans’ event. This was Meghan’s first public appearance since the Royal Sussex Tour.

In Meghan’s absence from public view, the British tabloids have been trying to mine a new anti-Meghan angle. I guess they got tired of extensively and exhaustively quoting her father and half-sister, because the new thing is to constantly paint Meghan as some kind of diva. Which… I mean, she may very well be, we haven’t seen enough of her as a duchess to really determine that. Like most of the British press’s cudgels against Meghan, I think this is just another version of calling her “uppity.” The story last Friday was that Meghan desperately wanted the Queen to allow her to borrow an emerald-bejeweled tiara for her wedding, but the Queen shut her down, and Meghan and Harry were both in a huff and basically the Queen was like “your girl is diva!”

Except… that story makes no sense. As part of the Sussex wedding exhibition at Windsor Castle, Meghan described the process of selecting the Queen Mary’s Diamond Bandeau, saying that the Queen had pulled a few options and the Queen allowed Harry and Meghan to choose their favorite. Meghan and Harry made it sound like the diamond bandeau was their favorite choice, and they were both grateful to the Queen for being so generous with the collection. So why all the emerald drama? Gee, I wonder. And if the Queen was so miffed at Meghan’s diva-ness, why did the Queen quickly arrange a day trip with only Meghan so soon after the wedding?

There’s also a new story where the subtext is all about “Meg is a diva!” The Daily Mail’s gossip column Eden Confidential reports that Meghan’s personal assistant Melissa has “quit suddenly, just six months” after the wedding. A source told the gossip column: “It’s a real shock. Why would she want to leave such a prestigious job so soon?” Maybe it’s because Meghan is a monster! Maybe Meghan is covered in scales! Maybe Meghan forced Melissa to eat a pie while Meghan recorded it and laughed! Or, you know, maybe Melissa had her own reasons, or maybe Meg wasn’t happy with her. The Mail is acting like this is the first time someone from the Kensington Palace staff departed suddenly, like William and Kate didn’t hemmorage high-profile staffers for years. If you remember, “Poor” Jason Knauf became a thing only because William threw tantrums at several press officers who subsequently left their jobs in a steady clip. Kate’s also lost a few PAs and several house-staffers over the years too.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

315 Responses to “Duchess Meghan’s personal assistant has quit ‘suddenly,’ ergo Meg is a diva”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chef Grace says:

    Sometimes people just don’t fit.
    Or sometimes life happens.

    • TooMany says:

      Yes there are so many possibilities and none of us will probably ever really know. The whole thing with the tiara too – isn’t it possible that Meghan did have her eyes on a different one but the Queen didn’t even deliver it as an option? It’s also possible that the emerald tiara was never in Meghan’s sights and it’s total BS. All of this is speculation.

      • kara says:

        No actually. It isn’t speculation. The Times reporter Valentine Lowe has been on the record with an “inside” source from the Queen’s court. They would never quote the queen in such an offhand and falsified way otherwise. This is not the National Enquirer. Anyway, Meghan is just being particular, hardly a diva, but let’s not be so defensive about this

      • Kerfuffle says:

        You mean the tiara story? Except the the details don’t make sense (for it to be correct, The Queen would have had to present Meghan with a tiara that she didn’t intend to loan, because only 2 tiaras that have been publicly worn have emeralds). And LoL if you’re asserting that The Sunday Times is super careful about going on the record abou the Queen in a story that is literally about an adult man having a tantrum.

      • kara says:

        @kerfuffle- Yes, well, Lowe was on record today saying he stands by his story (minor or bitchy as it might seem to you and you would be right in thinking so) which he has corroborated from a legit inside source from HM’s court- THAT is pretty much as on the record as it can get. I am asserting that newspapers like the Times, which unlike the DM, do not have a dog in the fight, are very very careful while reporting things her Queen would have said. And these are the kinds of things that ‘leaked’ during the War of the Wales- adult men and women throwing tantrums et al.

      • Natalie S says:

        Having a source doesn’t make it true. It just means someone really wants this story published, and right on time for Meghan’s first public appearance since the tour. Now instead of the stories being about the success of the tour, they’re about Meghan supposedly throwing tantrums over tiaras.

        The details of the story don’t make sense. What is this Russian tiara that Meghan was allowed to see? Because it’s not Eugenie’s tiara, which isn’t Russian.

        Also, splitting up the offices now means that the press can freely disregard whoever the Sussexes choose as their pr person because it doesn’t mean risking annoying the Cambridges.

      • Nic919 says:

        Low only stated he had a source but what if it was Andrew? He has plenty of reason to divert attention away from his shenanigans. He also says that it wasn’t necessarily Meghan who had a tantrum and that it was Harry. But the article states otherwise so which is it? To believe his version, then there has to be some mistake attributed to the Queen, who placed a tiara in front of Meghan that she knew couldn’t be used or that she was negligent in having promised to Eugenie. The tiara Eugenie wore was not seen since the 1930s, so unless Meghan had researched obscure tiaras, she wouldn’t even know it existed. Even tiara experts like the Order of Splendor, who do know about tiaras, doubt the version of the story as outlined, and it’s not like OOS is Meghan fan page.

      • Agenbiter says:

        If you buy the story that the Queen presented a selection, the notion that Meghan had ‘gotten her eye on’ the Russian emerald tiara makes no sense. Where and when would Meghan have seen it before the Queen presented the selection? And if it was part of the selection the Queen presented, why would the Queen do that and then refuse it? Or wouldn’t she just say ‘My bad – shouldn’t have included that one’ rather than ‘Meghan will choose from what I present’?
        (Good additional points @Nic919 – I wrote before I saw yours)

      • Kerfuffle says:

        My point is, the story makes no sense because the details don’t add up. And Low is standing by his “source” while still not addressing the fact that it makes no sense, and is blocking people on Twitter that challenge him on it.

      • MrsBump says:

        we cant shout fake news everytime we hear a story that we dont like.

      • Tina says:

        I think it was the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara, which is Russian and can be worn with either emeralds or pearls. I think the Queen offered it with pearls, Meghan asked for emeralds, HM said no, and that is how it went down. I am a big fan of Meghan’s, but the Times is a reputable paper and Valentine Low is a good reporter. I believe the story.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Mrs Bump

        And conversely, we can’t believe every negative story we hear, just because it’s about someone we don’t like. ;-)

      • Kerfuffle says:

        @Tina: no. The Queen isn’t loaning that out and Meghan isn’t asking to borrow that one.

      • Tina says:

        Kerfuffle: just because she hasn’t loaned it out in the past doesn’t mean she didn’t intend to do so this time. The last time a second son (Andrew) got married, the bride was given a brand new tiara. Optics wouldn’t permit a new tiara this time, but HM may have wanted to honour Meghan especially.

      • Kerfuffle says:

        Still nope. It’s one of the Queen’s favorite tiaras. She doesn’t loan them. Not to mention, it doesn’t fit the description – it’s provenance is known. AND the Queen wears it frequently, so if there was any question about it being acceptable to be worn, having the Queen wear it would be a significantly larger issue than Meghan.

      • Jessica says:

        I think the issue with the emeralds, if the one in question is the Grand Duchess Vladimir Tiara, is that they originally belonges to Indian royalty. They’re not original to the tiara but were added by Queen Mary after she bought the tiara from her Greek royal family relatives (who were in dire straits after exile). I can see the modern royal family not wanting to display the fact that they have these jewels stripped from a former colony. Frankly they probably should give them back.

      • Megan says:

        There is no way Meghan would have a tantrum over anything related to HM before her wedding, or after, frankly. Meghan is playing the long game and she won’t make foolish mistakes like that.

      • Tina says:

        Diana wore it, so it’s not true that the Queen never lends it out. The Queen hasn’t worn it since tensions significantly worsened with Russia following the Skripal poisoning.

      • Natalie S says:

        @Megan. I agree. There’s no benefit to Meghan at all to make that tiara her hill to die on to the point of risking upsetting the Queen

      • suze says:

        Diana never wore the Grand Vladamir tiara in public. Ever. She wore two tiaras in public, the Cambridge Lovers Knot and the Spencer tiara.

        That is a fact.

        The Queen has not loaned that tiara out to anyone for public use. It is a large tiara, and it is highly unlikely that it was ever considered for Meghan’s wedding day, either by the Queen or Meghan herself.

        Meghan is not stupid and she wouldn’t be throwing a fit over something like that and the Queen would not break 90 some years of character and suddenly start loaning jewels that she has reserved for her own use.

      • Tina says:

        Sorry, yes, it appears that the internet has mislabelled the Cambridge Lover’s Knot for Diana. But Camilla has worn the Grand Duchess Vladimir (with both pearls and emeralds).

        And the Queen does what she wants. She broke the habit of a lifetime by inviting Meghan to stay overnight on the royal train – neither Harry nor Kate have ever been asked to do that. It is also highly unlikely that high-placed palace sources would lie to reputable reporters, and that they would believe them. I’m sure it has all blown over by now, especially following such a successful tour. But I believe that it happened.

      • Amy says:

        @ Suze, actually Princess Diana has worn another tiara in public. She has worn the Spencer HoneySuckle Tiara. The HoneySuckle Tiara is actually the older of the two major Spencer tiara’s. Sorry not trying to be a ” know it all”, I am a huge Princess Diana fan. I do believe it has only been worn once in public. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong!

      • entine says:

        Sure which one is this tiara?https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c8/0c/a6/c80ca67c3cbaff2baa0fade16aeb7611.jpg
        It looks lie the GDV tiara worn by Diana, but I am unsure of the event.

      • aaa says:

        I am pretty sure that neither Diana nor Camilla have worn the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara, the photos of Diana and Camilla in the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara are photoshopped. I am also pretty sure that Diana never publicly wore the Spencer Honeysuckle tiara but there is a photoshopped image of her in the tiara.

      • hypocrite says:

        This is actually the 2nd time Meghan has “upset” the Queen. First one, on their outing, she was told by the Queen’s personal aides to wear a hat. Meghan did not show up with a hat and her lack of respect towards the Queen was duly noted. Yes, this has all been reported, those were the exact words. I know people don’t want to believe certain things because they really really like Meghan and dislike the other one but dismissing sources when it comes to these types of stories is also silly.

      • Snappyfish says:

        I believe it was, as stated above, the Grand Duchess Vladimir. The Queen favors that tiara. She has worn it both with the emeralds & the pearls. Whether it was offered w/pearls (which I doubt) & The DOS requested the emeralds is a thought but I doubt the Queen would have offered it at all. It is too “senior or important” a piece to be worn by a new royal. I am sure if the DOC wanted to wear it, she too, would have been turned down. I am sure Tiara’s have an order as too who wears them. If the Queen wears/worn it, it’s off limits. It is a beautiful Tiara but my favorite is the Orienat Circlet.

        The one the DOS wore was lovely. It suited her & the dress. This all seems like dross

      • Eliza says:

        I took that story to mean they were looking at buying a tiara for Meghan w emeralds. The Russian tiara is known to be Russian, it’s not unknown. Eug’s looks Russian in style but isn’t Russian. As Camilla then Kate will be the one who eventually wears and chooses the loans for family, he may have wanted her to have her own and the Queen was you get these 3 options, select.

    • mint says:

      I think its common knowledge, that working for the royals is a pain in the ass. They dont pay well and you have to work 24/7 365 days a year. So its not that prestigous like they make it out to be. I dont fault her for leaving. Maybe it wasnt a good fit. Maybe both wanted different things. Happens everywhere.
      As for the Tiara. I can totally see, that Meghan wanted the Emerald Tiara. Because as seen with Eugenie the green looked spectacular against the white of her dress. And between Kate, Meghan and Eugenie, I think Eugenies was the best Tiara. I also believe that Harry threw a hissy fit about the Tiara and the Queen shut Meghan and Harry down. gave them a selection to choose from and that was it. Emotions run high before weddings and they had a lot of stress, especially given the Thomas Markle Situation.
      Both can be true. Families fight, people can be brats, but you get over it and move on. They could have an argument about the tiara or Meghan having her “diva” moment before the wedding and the Queen still likes her. I dont think its one or the other. And as seen in recent years, the Queen got softer and doesnt hold grudges anymore for too long.
      As for the exebithion- of course they would not admit to it how it really went down, if there was a “tiara war”. Because it would make everyone involved look like an out of touch asshole, when fighting over millions worth of tiaras.

      • kara says:

        +1 ITA with everything you said

      • Kerfuffle says:

        1) yes, the royals are notoriously difficult employers

        2) so you think that the Queen presented Meghan with a tiara that she didn’t intend to loan her? Because for the story to be correct, that had to happen (that tiara had been publicly unseen for decades, so Meghan would only know about its existence if directly shown).

        This is what bugs me. It’s a story that doesn’t make sense. Does it ultimately mean anything? No, it has no impact on anyone’s life. But I’m not a fan of inconsistencies.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Kerfluffle:

        With regards to Meghan knowing about the tiara or not, I bet the palace has some sort of record of what tiaras there are and possibly their history…..I would imagine catalogues of some sort.

        In any case, if I had the prospect of choosing a tiara for my wedding, I would do a 6 month dissertation before hand…..there would be no tiara in the history of the BRF I wouldn’t know about extensively – and I bet Meghan is far more resourceful than me – so I reckon she probably had a reasonable idea of the possible options coming.

        The Emerald version of the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara (as Tina mentioned above) is absolutely stunning – not surprised they pursued it hard.

      • mint says:

        @Kerfuffle
        I dont understand why the story can only be true, if the Queen made a mistake of presenting Meghan a collection of Tiaras and then refuse to lend it to her.
        Meghan put a lot of thought into her wedding dress look. She had the blue from her dress which she wore on their first date woven into it, the veil had every flower from the commonwealth on it- so I guess she also put a lot of thought and time into which Tiara she wanted to wear.
        I dont think that the royal jewel collection is just stored somewhere – I am pretty sure, like Bella DuPont, that they have some sort of archive/ catalogues/books and she/ Harry/ her stylist went through them and wanted the Emerald one. I do not think that the Queen is involved or consulted on every step of the choosing process – she just stepped in when things got tense and they apparently pushed too hard for the (off limits) Emerald Tiara. HM solution was, that she put both Harry and Meghan in their place in presenting them a collection of Tiaras and made her point clear that “She gets what tiara she’s given by me”.

      • Anon says:

        The whole emerald tiara canard was a plant by Eugenie’s grabbing, ever-attention-seeking mother. Period. Fergie used her daughter’s wedding as an comeback tour, of sorts, that didn’t really work. (She acted like an ass at the wedding, by the way). Also, all the boring stories about Eugenie’s wedding screeched to a halt three days later when the baby announcement came, which foreclosed any possibility of “honeymoon pap strolls” for the newlyweds.

        Look, nobody is buying that H+M “had words” over a damn tiara and had to be scolded by the Queen. Conveniently, the original story posted a pic of the alleged tiara in question on Eugenie’s head. It’s well known that the York’s are broke, bitter and ruthless. This just confirms their pettiness in trying to stretch their narrative a little bit further.

    • Jeuje says:

      @Natalie S- going on record means that the story can be verified. Hence a “source” to back it up. Why would someone from HM’s court make it up? HM is an impartial person in all her family dramas. The leak is definitely strategic and well-timed to hurt, I agree, but the story cannot be entirely made up. It’s possible they are embellishing it though.

    • Himmiefan says:

      True, I’m sure not everyone wants the pace of working for the royals, or something happened in the aid’s life. We just don’t know. As for the tiara, Meghan might have wanted something with emeralds, but I’m certain she was very gracious with the selection given to her. Meghan has more than proven that she’s kind and has a good head on her shoulders. She’s not going to do something stupid like giving attitude

  2. Millenial says:

    Maybe the PA went on the 16 day Australia trip and came home and was like “omg that trip was punishingly insane, never again” and found a regular 9-5?

  3. Annie. says:

    We have been hearing stories about the “drama” of the Cambridges, The Queen hating Kate and Camila, Charles angry with the Middletons, etc… For years now.
    It’s what the press does. It is not surprise they are doing the same with Meghan.
    I mean, this is what the press does. They build people up to then try to bring them down.

    ETA: I liked the dress she was wearing last night, but I hate the coat. It looks like a badly tied bathrobe. A very fancy one, but a bathrobe all the same

    • Bren says:

      The British press has never built Meghan up. They’ve had a foot on her neck from the start.

      • Pleaseletgo! says:

        @Bren exactly. The uk press never liked Meghan.

      • missreader says:

        No, but they’ve shaded her while making it seem like a compliment throughout the Australia tour. The ‘let them eat cake’ or ‘Meghan stuns in..’ when they disapprove of the cost has been the du jour reporting. style. The Daily Fail specialises in this backhanded bitchery. I think an experienced press advisor for H and M should help rectify things very quickly.

      • Tina says:

        The tabloids (especially the Daily Mail) don’t like Meghan. The broadsheets (including Low in the Times) have generally praised her, especially on this past tour.

      • PrincessK says:

        Absolutely. Meghan is just too beautiful for people’s liking and she sells magazines and newspapers and they have to keep the stories rolling out, true or false.

        The Daily Mail is the main culprit. I have repeatedly tried to refute the story that three staff have suddenly handed their notice in. But DM totally refuses to accept any of my comments on the story because they know I have caught them out telling blatant untruths.

        The story DM put out is total nonsense. The departure of Edward Lane Fox was well planned long before the wedding. Samantha Cohen was on a six month loan from the Queen before her retirement from working with the Palace. DM as usual is just trying to stir things up. Harry must be furious at the way Meghan is being treated. Its quite relentless, I would have thought that the media would have been a bit more easy on her now she is expecting but no.

        Also the Australia tour was hugely successful, and the British have a sad tendency to want to pull people down when they become too successful. Very different from Americans who really like success stories. I just hope that Meghan understands all this.

      • Marshmallow IV says:

        Will and Kate got plenty of flack for their tours, too. Too expensive. Not enough work. Inappropriate clothing. Brownnosing by fashion choice. No speeches. etc.
        All justified, btw.

    • Muffy says:

      Why is M’s tailoring always so poor? The arms are pulling, the waist could be fitted properly.

      She’s pregnant but a lovely shaped woman—there’s no excuse for this.

    • Himmiefan says:

      Exactly, the press has to print something to get clicks on websites. If Meghan has attitude, would the Queen have shown her so much favor? I don’t think so.

    • Syd says:

      It was raining/pouring- both her coat and stockings had water here and there.

  4. Annie. says:

    As for the seating arrangements, it is basically the same as the previous year, just that Andrew is sitting on the first row next to Camila, since Charles is sitting in Philip’s place.
    The Queen and her heirs on the first row (and Andrew, as I have already mentioned), and then the rest.

    Even if Harry is 6th in line and Andrew is 7th, the children of the monarch take precedence.
    It will be Harry and Meghan on the first row with Charles, Camila, William and Kate when Charles is King. At least until the Cambridge kids start attending

  5. Natasha says:

    People leave jobs for many reasons, but the gutter press have chosen to speculate that this is because Meghan is a diva, using a lot of ‘might be’ and ‘could be’ type statements to justify the conclusion that they have come to. It ‘MAY BE’ that Meghan is a diva, as this is a possible reason for a member of staff quitting their job! Zero facts involved. The press just need their next story on Meghan.

  6. cate says:

    I see the stocking problem has returned. Love that coat!

  7. minx says:

    She looks pretty as usual, but someone needs to tackle her blush problem.

  8. Paris says:

    This is smear campaign.
    Someone is just jealous, that Meghan and Harry are happy.

  9. W1hatever1 says:

    The makeup was a miss yet again. Blend the blush/bronzer Meghan!

    As for the coat I liked it the first time she wore it with jeans but this time it just looks like she is wearing a bathrobe!.

  10. MrsBump says:

    I can’t imagine her being a diva less than a year after her entry into the family.
    She’s too smart for that, and she’s clearly eager to please and ingratiate herself with the elders of the family, as anyone with 2 brain cells would do.

    She’ll toe the line of propriety the same way Kate does, though she’ll probably work harder in the beginning, to show herself as capable, i predict the appearances will go down after she’s had children and feels more accepted and comfortable in the role. Sort of like what we all do when we first join a new company and get to hang out with the CEO. Kate having never held a job, probably never realized that.

    Anyway, in my opinion this story is just nonsense peddled by the press because they’ve got nothing else to chew on.

  11. Digital Unicorn says:

    We don’t know the whole story, the royals pay badly so maybe she got a better paying job elsewhere. Not everyone is cut out for that kind of role. If it becomes like a revolving door en there is a problem. The. Cambridge had that situation for a few years but it seems to have settled down.

    By alll accounts the lead up to the wedding was v stressful for everyone involved, we all saw the drama with her family.

  12. cate says:

    A journo on Twitter confirmed the tiara story and had sources to back it up. Such a strange story all around.

    • Elisa says:

      The tiara story is in The Times UK, and not the Daily Fail, so a more reputable source…

      • Pleaseletgo! says:

        Shame. Its was an exclusive from the sun. The times just copied the same story saying “it has been reporyed yesterday by the sun”. The times is now reprinting the tabloid story. No confirmation just copy and print.

      • MrsBump says:

        Just read the story in the Times.
        If this is true, then that’s very disappointing, and it corroborates the “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets” story.
        I thought she was smarter than that, she’s willingly entered into a family where hierarchy is everything, the sooner she learns her place, the better it’ll be for her.

      • Olenna says:

        @Pleaseletgo,
        Ditto on the copy and paste by the Times. You’ve got journos/editors cosigning this unverifiable story. I read through this entire thread (see link) by Low (Sun) and Wootton (Times), and it only confirms that, for me, the British press has a bead on the Duchess and they’re not going to stop shooting as long as it keeps making money and satisfies readers who are hungry for negative press on her. The story is full of holes and inconsistencies and, as some commenters noted, it makes the Queen look bad as well. But, if one is predisposed to assume the worse about the Duchess, they will and they don’t need this story to do it.
        https://mobile.twitter.com/valentinelow/status/1061239597684981760

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        It originated in the Sun from what I understand and they are just as bad as the Fail for making sh!t up.

        The comment Harry allegedly made about ‘what Meghan wants Meghan gets’ is old and has been going around since the engagement was announced. I can imagine him having that attitude.

        Plus I don’t like the angle of these stories in that she is someone who knows her own mind and is being made out to be a difficult diva. Knowing what you want and being a pain in the ass are 2 very different things.

      • Tina says:

        Val Low (of the Times) said that he spoke to Dan Wootton’s source independently, and verified the story. I think it’s important to note, however, that Harry is the one who received the dressing down from the Queen and Harry’s behaviour seems to have been worse than Meghan’s.

    • Harla says:

      I just don’t understand why she would be offered a tiara only to be told no, that just doesn’t make since.

      • CanadianGirl says:

        What if it was the tiara Eugenie wore? And it was in the initial offering but Eugenie made a fuss of “no, I want that one” and granddaughter trumps in-law. The Russia bit makes no sense, but family wedding drama with two weddings so close? Thst fits perfectly.

      • MrsBump says:

        Apparently, after further checks, it was decided that the russian provenance of the Jewels would not be acceptable. Who knows? In any case, that tiara seemed quite ostentatious, much more than that worn by Kate or Eugenie. The one she went for in the end seemed more appropriate for a bride entering the family. Now that’s she a bona fide member, bigger pieces wouldn’t be a problem

      • Natalie S says:

        I don’t think Eugenie’s tiara is Russian. I’m not a tiara person though so perhaps someone who is knows better about this. The only thing in common with the other tiara in the Sun story is both tiaras have emeralds.

        It sounds like two unrelated stories that are linked because of the tiaras containing emeralds and it’s sounds like really great gossip for Meghan to be denied a tiara, get angry and then Eugenie to get it instead. Is Andrew behind this because he’s been openly petty about the weddings.

        But according to the Sun, Meghan was offered a tiara she couldn’t have (why?), then told off about it when she wanted it because of Russian concerns even though Liz herself wears a tiara that has Russian origins.

        And did the Times independently confirm the story or did they reprint what was in the Sun? Is that normal for a reputable paper to just reprint a tabloid story?

      • Ainsley7 says:

        There have been rumors for a long time that another Art Deco tiara of Queen Mary’s that has a sapphire in the middle also has an emerald that can go in its place. Margaret was the last to wear it and only ever wore it with the sapphire. Since it’s been a long time, they may have forgotten about the emerald option when it was offered. It actually has cleaner more modern lines and I could see her wanting that one, but maybe not wanting the sapphire because of the connection to Diana and Kate. It would be literally in the middle of her forehead after all. It could also be that she wanted a tiara from somewhere else since the Queen allegedly told Harry that Meghan would be wearing a tiara that she loaned her. Probably an embellishment, but a weird thing to say unless Harry threatened to steal it (joking). The lesson here is that they need to start wearing all this jewelry they have hidden in the vaults. That’s the real problem.

      • Kerfuffle says:

        I agree that this story makes no sense. The only way it’s true is if The Queen offered Meghan a tiara that she didn’t intend to let her use. Especially since there was really only one emerald tiara worn publicly, so it’s not like Meghan would have pictures ahead of time of what she wanted.

        Also, someone mentioned Maria Federovnq’s sapphire bandeau. That was actually on the watch lists prior to the wedding and not once was there discussion of her not being able to wear it because it’s Russian. That’s a weird thing to say.

      • hershey says:

        That does seem sort of silly, why bring out a tiara that would be unsuitable? I so agree.

        But if it was withdrawn, she and or Harry should have been gracious about it. The tiaras belong to the queen.

        The story might not even be true, or might have been leaked with some key details left out.

        It does seem whoever leaked has negative intentions towards Meghan and Harry.

    • pearlime says:

      To me, that story makes Harry look bad rather than Megs.
      And the story they told for the exhibition, that Kaiser mentioned, does not discredit anything. It could easily describe what happened afterwards – with a very positive spin.

      • Gigi La Moore says:

        Sorry, that’s not how that works. It’s always a woman’s fault when a man is acting out because of course she’s the one who put him up to it. Plus, she’s a woman of color so she’s automatically the big bad villain in this piece.

    • Hershey says:

      Valentine Low authored the Times article about the tiara. He confirmed on Twitter that he confirmed the Sun story with Dan Wootons source

    • norah says:

      the journalist is someone who doesnt like meghan and has written a few nasty articles – so nothing new

      • vera says:

        What? The journalist has no axe to grind. Let’s not dismiss everything. like someone said upthread, it’s ok to have family disagreements, doesnt mean Megs is acting out. When an inside source called William “a control freak”, we believed it, didnt we?

      • Natalie S says:

        @vera. William has been called that for years. I remember he was called full of himself by a gossip columnist back in the mid 00s and even I thought she had gotten it wrong. The impression is there now because it has been routinely said about him. It’s not just one strategically timed story.

        I think the context for Meghan is the press is still annoyed at being called out by Harry. And they just spent the summer publishing stories from her terrible family even though it was clear that the family was using the press to harass Meghan.

    • Kerfuffle says:

      No, he says he has sources to back it up but provides no actual names or evidence.

  13. Harla says:

    I believe that Meghan is a diva but I don’t think that it’s a bad thing. Meghan worked hard for many years before she married Harry building a life that she could be proud of, a live that included service to others and she cultivated friends that supported that lifestyle. If she were a man the press would be talking about her determination, her drive, her ambition, her relentless pursuit for perfection but since she’s a woman she must be a diva, with all the negative connotations that brings. It is quite possible that “Melissa” was not up to snuff for Meghan, that she didn’t really share the vision that Meghan and Harry have for their future, the work that they want to do and causes they want to highlight going forward. So if living her life the way she wants to live it makes her a diva then I say All Hail Diva Meghan! And for every woman out there that is labeled a diva or worse for living their life on their own terms then I say Hail All Divas! You are an inspiration to us all!

    • someonetrue says:

      First of all, I like her ambition, SEcondly, volunteering for a soup kitchen is NOT a life of service. Thirdly, you can be a perfectionist without lll treating people that worked for you or cutting off people once you are done with them. There have been stories before about Meghan cutting people off and being demanding and acting beyond her “stardom”.

      • Pleaseletgo! says:

        @someonetrue. Its upsetting when people keep repeating lies about Meghan. Give us names of people she discared when she is done with them? Why without any evidence you and the tabloids smearing or defaming meghan? The markles? Are you saw their behaviour? Imagine you and your mother dealing with this kind of toxic since young. And please dont tell they became like this because meghan stop speaking to them. You can see by their actions they are very abusive and manipulative. All of them have no relations with each other including their own kids. Meghan has nothing to do with that. For hwr sanity she wa is and will keep her distance. Since she was born these people have been hell. Maybe not thomas but his behaviour before the wedding and after is just shameful.
        Ex husband? So she is the first one to divorce a husband? Tell me how she used him? He does not gave any film and she got suits by her agent and audition. He was a nobody when they met. She was struggling as actress he too was steuggling as producteur even if his family maybe has money. Meghan used to do jobs to pay bills by herself: deal no deal, waitress, calligraphie, she even said she has money to repair her car. So tell me?
        Ex best friend? They were friend 30 years. So why so long if she is an user. Btw the ex friend said in daily mail she choose trevor team beauce she did not like meghan divorcing trevor because she liked him much. She discarded meghan. So stop the lies and the rumours.
        Meghan is not a saint but please i am not falling by the ovious lies.

        Abt tiaragate meghan worked all her life for her living and not expecting something from anybody. I doubt much she will trhow a tantrum in front of the queen for a ridiculous tiara before the wedding.
        Also doubting harry will say meghan gets what meghan wants. Not the kind of language harry use. I called it rubbish. Harry called out british press racist and he was right and unfortunaletely the abuses are continuing. You have just to read the twisted headlines by the tabloids and their comment section.
        Kate maybe got critics but the level of abuses is disgusting. Even in kp IG people whishing her to lost the baby or to be killed..
        @minx yes kate is the one who is the winner in this. The sun article stated kate and meghan clashed because of how meghan is treating the employees. Trying to paint kate the saint and meghan the witch. And over the internet you got: think god kate is our future queen, got class unlike the half bred…

  14. missreader says:

    I’ve definitely seen legit newspapers pick up the Tiara-gate story. Honestly it doesn’t surprise me that Her Majesty’s court (or rather the courtiers surrounding HM) would let this leak. I also don’t think it reflects too poorly on Meghan. She might be used to a more ‘organised’ and professional way of functioning and while planning a wedding, a minor speed bump here or there is natural. The leaking of the story is the interesting bit as it feels like it is done to establish the ‘pecking order’ and Meghan’s place in it. Again, not surprising. Every royal spouse from Philip down to Fergie, Diana and Kate have been made to feel the burn. Why would Meghan be any different? I think Meghan is well-meaning and has her heart in the right place. I definitely think Charles likes her but these leaks will increase (just as Kate was targeted for her hair or for being a Wisteria sister). But she will have to learn how to grin and bear it and play the long game (like Sophie). The ancient institution known as the BRF will always win over you and the faster you build a strategy to deal with it from the inside, the better you will end up looking to the public. I think Meghan, being a super sharp and direct person herself, has somewhat fundamentally misunderstood how the BRF and British press- with their stupendously crafty brand of ‘shade’- operate.

    • hershey says:

      Supposedly palace is not happy with how casual they are with the public.

      Apparently their security team is concerned that Harry is listening to Meghan, rather than the trained professionals charged with keeping them safe.

      • Nic919 says:

        When there was a security concern in the Fiji market Meghan didn’t so much as say a word when they whisked her out. And when it comes to walkabouts Harry has been doing them for years before Meghan even entered his life. We don’t see security people try to pull them away when they do them so this is totally made up. Nothing Harry and Meghan have done during walkabouts is different from what William and Kate do or even Charles and Camilla. All the younger ones have given hugs and done a few selfies.

      • Because it’s always the woman’s fault, Hershey? I don’t think I’d go around repeating a story that’s so obviously sexist. Harry is a grown man who thinks for himself, and does what he wants.

      • hershey says:

        @Sophie side eye,

        Mentioned that story because it was leaked the same week as the other leaked stories. I have no way of knowing if any of them are true.

        And nothing about the story seemed sexist. A newly married man prioritizing his partners point of view hardly seems sexist to me.

        Any man deciding he’s a grown man who is going to just do what he wants seems far more sexist to me

    • indian says:

      Lol. Wait, are you telling me a TV actress has a more organized and professional attitude to work, than the people that work for the Queen and her family? I wonder, how the British Empire survived for 400 years, without American actresses to help organize? Come on, I like Meghan’s audacity and drive, but let’s not act as if she is the only one that’s smart and organized and professional and the rest of the royal family are some uneducated, unprofessional idiots, waiting for their saviour.

    • Mego says:

      I think the story makes Meghan look really bad because it comes out and implies that she mistreats the staff.

      • Lexa says:

        There’s a second bit in this story that was kind of buried within the articles, but I’m surprised no one has brought it up. Both the Sun and the Times articles imply that Kate had to talk to Meghan about Meghan’s treatment and attitude toward the staff at KP though I don’t think either of them are clear on exactly why, other than Meghan having different expectations.

      • arsesds73 says:

        @Lexa. Yes this is one of the reasons why this article just seems so odd to me. The article says that there was a clash between Kate and Meghan over how staff was treated? It makes Meghan look like some terrible boss and that Kate is this wonderful angelic person (I am sure she is) but the negative implication of Meghan and her personality is what strikes me about this. It is possible she had her heart set out on a different tiara that was later vetoed, but I don’t think that either of them had a tantrum so to speak. Instead the queen must have offered Meghan to personally come look at some tiaras as a way to make up for vetoing the previous one that she had her heart set out on and she graciously accepted and as such chose the bandeau tiara. I think this story has been embellished a lot to make it seem like she is a difficult person to work with, it seems like a critique piece of her personality and who she is as an individual. Also the Queen’s comments of why does she need a veil even though she’s been married before seems very out of character for me. I think that’s why we’re so surprised by this article because they are basically implying that Meghan is this difficult person with a difficult personality.

      • hypocrite says:

        “I think that’s why we’re so surprised by this article because they are basically implying that Meghan is this difficult person with a difficult personality.”

        Well, since nobody really knows her, how can anyone say for sure that she Isn’t this way in real life??? Celebs always paint a different picture of themselves to the public. That’s why they hire PR people to polish their image. We don’t know what she is like but the Times article is clearly putting it out there that she is a difficult person who is rude to staff. A reputable source- they have said this person was taken aback and shocked by her behaviour. Surprising all around to people who think she’s the best thing ever to happen to this country.

      • hershey says:

        Whoever leaked the story definelty seemed to want to make her look bad.

        The assistant may have left over details like failing to clip tags or other short comings not included in the story.

        Or she may have decided after dealing with the chaos Mr Markle caused during the wedding, she would rather not deal with Mr Markles threats during or after the pregnancy.

        I would imagine it was a high stress job, that is only likely to become more stressful.

  15. Enny says:

    Given that this Melissa person was apparently either unable or unwilling to iron Meg’s clothes or even remove tags from Meg’s garments during the tour, one wonders what she was actually doing and why she’d be surprised if Meg was royally displeased with her job performance.

    That’s the job. If she didn’t want it, couldn’t handle it, then it’s for the best for everyone that she move on. It’s possible Meg handled it much like these types of inadequacies are dealt with on set – screaming, swearing, belittling – but Meg would be far from alone in that, and any staffer for someone in the Royal Family night expect that there’s little difference in expectation or temperament between the Royal Family and the Hollywood executive. And it’s not a trait peculiar to Meg either.

  16. Sleanne says:

    I have been an Executive Assistant (diff from a PA but similar at times) for nearly 20 years. It it very much about fit – personality, skillset, and trust. It can take over a year in some cases to be fully functioning as a team. This year I left a position after a couple years bc I was trying to force a professional relationship that wasn’t there. I was staying bc the position had perks and I tried to make it work. The person i assisted was a great, we just didn’t mesh in our work. I found a new post and within weeks it was clear I did the right thing. I absolutely love my working relationship now. I think PA roles are similar to mine in this reapect. It could just be about fit. I also sign insane confidentiality/gag orders and i can’t say anything for decades. Hopefully the BRF does this too…

  17. Summer says:

    Plenty of turnover in jobs like this, they are lucrative for their prestige but notoriously low paying. People usually move on the minute they have a better offer.

  18. Gigi La Moore says:

    Here’s the thing, if this story is true, why would the queen put the woman in a room full of tiaras that she wouldn’t be able to choose? The queen is quoted as saying, “Megan will get the tiara I give her”, again if that’s the case just hand the woman a tiara and say , “here you go” and move on. I feel like since this trip, the DM is trying so hard to make her look bad on a daily basis. Article after article of just how horrible she is. I have heard the Middleton’s know people at the DM, so it makes me wonder… Also weddings are stressful times so I’m sure there were some words that were said.

    • Jeuje says:

      OH PLEASE. Kate is being blamed for this now??! The DM doesnt spare anyone..not Kate, not William (WillNot, Duchess Dolittle), not Camilla, not Charles..no one. This is just how vicious the press is. It’s a little beneath you to blame another women for Meghan’s troubles just because they happen to be sisters in law.

    • jeuja says:

      not true. virulent racists maybe but I think it’s really low to paint Kate as some Machiavellian plotter

    • Nic919 says:

      I think Andrew is behind this tiara situation. He has to create a distraction because of his comments supporting Saudi Arabia and being dropped from a university. Sarah is also now getting back in the press. Besides the DM hasn’t really covered this first, it was the Sun and then the Times.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Yeah I can buy Andrew being behind this – that fact that the Fail hasn’t jumped on it is telling. The Fail hates Andrew so that could be why they haven’t run with it.

        Andrew and Fergie have both been open about them wanting Eug’s wedding to be bigger and better than Harry’s. The RF is not above throwing each other under the bus to get good press.

    • Yami says:

      Thing that gets me is that Meghan is understated in her jewelry choices. The tiara that she wore is exactly her style. Simple, clean, elegant. I can’t imagine her in anything else. Even her wedding ring doesn’t have colored stones. I don’t buy that Meghan would want something so showy, it made no sense in her color scheme either.

      • Noni says:

        actually emeralds with her white, clean cut dress would work well. I could see her holding out for that to complete her look. Understated but with that hint of pizzazz that was missing. Eugenie looked beautiful with it

      • I agree with Yami. I felt at the time that Meghan’s tiara was perfect, I can’t imagine her in one with colored stones, not her style. Besides, if she really wanted something so badly, enough to throw a fit, then H&M could have had one made that would be exactly what she wanted.

      • jojoba says:

        @Sophia, Nah, getting a new one is not the custom. There’s no history or heritage attached to it. I feel like this was a tiara conflict involving Eugenie and Andy is the source. But this is not on Meghan. Harry should have stepped up and not thrown the tantrum.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Exactly, one more reason why I don’t believe tiara-gate, or I think it was just a comment or two and was much, much less dramatic than the press is making it out to be.

      • windyriver says:

        Also agree with Yami. Her jewelry choices are understated, and she’s not known for a pop of color with her clothes either, something she could actually use more often.

        But also, wasn’t the big focus of her wedding outfit the train? That long train with an embroidered flower from each of the Commonwealth nations, etc. we kept hearing about? A more ornate or colorful tiara would have distracted from that.

        For Eugenie, on the other hand, no train, the tiara was the focus (plus the v-neck back of the dress). She chose what suited her style and focus, and I believe Meghan did the same.

      • hershey says:

        Queen Mary had another bandeau tiara very similar to the one Meghan actually wore. For the first 30min or so after it was seen, the press were reporting that tiara.

        That tiara was made in Russia, has two center stones that can be swapped out. One of those is an emerald.

        The tiara hasn’t been worn since around 1960.

        It does seem crazy that she would be shown it if it couldn’t be worn, but perhaps a staffer made an error?

        It would surprise me if she had worn a Russian piece as it would have been commented on widely in the press.

        The Queen does have some pieces she does wear. But they have been seen less often since the Romenovs remains were identified. Prince Philip assisted with that identication with a dna sample.

        The remains are only now receiving proper reinterment, and some details concerning George Vs involvement in denying them asylum in Britain recently surfaced.

        The Queen has worn Russian jewels, but with some of the history recently coming to light, it would have been insensitive to show case Russian jewelry in this high profile wedding.

        The Queen does still have distant Romenov cousins living in the UK.

        Hopefully neither Harry or Meghan would throw a fit about being told they could not use a tiara with a possible Russian origin.

        The Queen supposedly compensated her living Russian cousins to make up for the low prices her grandmother paid for them early in her reign.

        Would love to know if this was a mistake by a staffer or perhaps Harry was aware of tiaras not worn in public.

        Eugenie and her tiara likely were not a real issue. The two couples were engaged almost at the same time. I would guess Eugenie likely got to make her pick first as she is the queens granddaughter.

        I would let my daughter choose before a daughter in law. Which might make my son unhappy, but the groom isn’t the one wearing the jewelry. Fortunately I’m not yet worrying about things like that yet.

        I’m guessing even for the queen, these things are tricky. At least she lucky to have lots to choose from.

    • Mego says:

      The story is bizzare but I hardly think the Middleton family is behind it. Their modus operandi is to drop a story that builds up the Cambridges.

  19. Serphina says:

    So after reading the article and comments in many places, i am wondering if maybe Megs knows wgat she wants and is firm. Of it were a man it would have a positive spin.

    So sad all the hatred towards a woman who is working hard to learn and please – not to mention in her new adopted homeland. I read what the hater Brits post and it really is alarming. I admit i haven’t been kind about Kate’s work ethic or her wardrobe malfulctions but the comments i have read on the daily mail make me cringe.

  20. Patty says:

    I didn’t get any impressions from either story. It’s a fact that one of the PR people quit. I didn’t read anything more into it then just that. As for the Tiara, I’m sure there is a system in place that provides some limited choice. I’d imagine that the Queen probably selects a few and says choose between these as opposed to letting each bride to be go through all of them. I think both of these stories are to be taken at face value and I’m not picking up on any anti Meghan vibes from either. Although I suppose if you feel that the press is always biased against Meghan; you’ll find bias in everything.

  21. Ann says:

    The tiara story was reported in The Times (U.K.) and it was just in People Magazine. What do you think Meghan and Harry are going to say in public? That they were mistreated by the Queen…give me a break.

    • Natalie S says:

      I find it so strange that People magazine which generally seems to function as an outlet for publicists, is publishing negative stories about Harry and Meghan. That is unusual.

      • hershey says:

        Times ran the story as well. People is an outlet for publicists, but this story probably came from Buckingham Palace or Clarence house instead of Kensington.

        Why the stories were put out is the real question. Jealous backbiting? Or more senior courtiers looking to rein in a couple getting out of bounds?

      • Hashtagwhat says:

        THIS. If you look not just at one article but at the whole royal press ecosystem so to speak, a clear message is being sent here. First it was in Jobson’s book (what Meghan wants, etc), then the tiara bit (even Lainey got in on this and speculated about the pregnancy hype at wedding being payback), the separate courts, and esp the aide leaving. The palace refused to comment or even give aide “Melissa’s” last name but they went through the trouble to publicly give her praise. WTF? That means that Melissa had a legitimate grievance.

        I can’t stand the phrase “put in her place” but I think it’s clear that the Queen is sending Meghan a message. Her and Harry both.

      • Natalie S says:

        I think it’s Andrew. He’s been openly petty about comparing the weddings. Whoever it is, so far People has decided to go with them over looking for favor from the Sussexes.

        I think People Magazine was one of the publications that would refer to Kate as Princess Kate? They’ve stopped doing that.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        They’ve actually been running negative-leaning stories about Meghan for a few months now. People is one of the outlets that have most frequently posted articles comparing Meghan unfavorably to Kate.

      • Natalie S says:

        @Hashtagwhat. There was a comment on GFY that last night, Elizabeth had on the same brooch she wore for Harry and Meghan’s wedding. If the message was coming from her, wouldn’t she not do that?

      • Bluthfan says:

        It’s being pushed by the Cambridges IMO. william is unhappy that his brother and wife outshone him during their tour. The Sussexs tour went over with huge crowds and no missteps. Every single one of the Cambridge tours have had PR problems.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      It was copied and pasted from the Sun. It’s funny how many of the posters in this thread will readily believe a story about Meghan supposedly being a diva, but cry foul at the slightest critique or negative story on Kate.

      • Hashtagwhat says:

        Just because it was “copied and pasted from the Sun” doesn’t make it not true. It was an exclusive from Dan Wootton, the exec editor of the Sun, then other outlets did run with it. Subsequently Wootton tweeted further defense of the article and Valentine Low confirmed it. The Times, the Telegraph, and even People went with it. Even Lainey, who works with Meghan’s closest friends, spelled out how Wootton was considered to be a reliable source. The Sun is not always reliable, of course, but in this case, they appear to have gotten the story.

        What’s amazing is the all out worship on this site to the point that Meghan can have no faults whatsoever or even occasionally show bad manners.

        Maybe she’s just a complex person who we can admire sometimes and side eye other times.

      • Natalie S says:

        But the actual details of the story don’t make sense. What is this Russian tiara that apparently cannot be worn even though the Queen has worn a Russian tiara, but was shown to Meghan anyway?

      • Beach Dreams says:

        @Hashtagwhat, as Natalie S. and other posters have said, the details don’t even match. Even excluding what Meghan and Harry said about the tiara selection, the story still doesn’t make sense.

        Dan Wootton is hardly reliable. He claimed Thomas Markle knew about the pregnancy before it was announced; Thomas admitted he found out just like everyone else. He also claimed Doria would be interviewed by Oprah and months later…nothing to say on that “story”.

        It looks like you’re willing to embrace cognitive dissonance just to believe that Meghan’s a “diva”, which says enough to me.

      • Cocoagirl says:

        Valentine Lowe another one from the Times has corroborated it independently hasnt he? He seems impartial, unlike Wootton. Wooton did write good things about meghan in Charles’ book though

      • Hashtagwhat says:

        Where is the cognitive dissonance in believing that NOT ALL stories but this story is likely true about her?

        My guess is the Russian thing was meant to be a red herring. I think the queen knew Eugenie wanted to wear an emerald tiara and therefore she so declined to let Meghan do the same, lest the press have a field day with “Eugenie copying Meghan”. After all Eugenie did postpone her wedding so Harry and Meg could get married in the spring.

        Beach Dreams, please don’t make it personal. I’m offering a dissenting opinion and there’s simply no reason why that should offend you so.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        The Sun is not above making sh!t up and Wotton is not always a good source. I can believe Harry got a rollicking from his Grandmother for his attitude (both he and his brother have previous for bratty behaviour) – as for Meghan I don’t know enough about her behaviour to really make a judgement. Was she a nightmare on Suits? I never watched it. I don’t recall ever reading anything about bad behaviour from her even on the celebrity gossip blogs.

        It could be that there is some truth in this but maybe it wasn’t Meghan who was being difficult but him.

        IIRC, there were reports of similar behaviour from both William and Katie Keen around their wedding. William had a tantrum over the guest list and she was allegedly very demanding over how the cathedral was dressed and the evening reception. Weddings can turn the most even tempered people into Bride/Groomzillas – its one of the most stressful things a couple can do.

        As for Tiaragate, I don’t think its the same tiara as Eugenie wore – hers was made by a french company in the 1920s (used to belong to the Queen Mother). I think there are more than one emerald tiara in the royal vaults thou not sure. The fact that a blood princess wore it means that there is providence.

      • Cocoagirl says:

        Yeah, I buy it. Weddings bring out the worst in people, especially people who know what they want. It is possible that Meghan was unhappy with this, why not? Very plausible.

      • Natalie S says:

        @Hashtagwhat.

        More that Meghan selected an emerald tiara and then the offer was rescinded because Eugenie spoke up and also wanted to wear an emerald tiara? Can’t have that, that’s too sympathetic to Meghan and might make the Yorks look bad. Better to throw her under the bus entirely and say she wanted a tiara that was too politically sensitive to wear at that time and threw a tantrum about it.

        Or to be fair, maybe both Meghan and Eugenie wanted to wear an emerald tiara, the Yorks asked the Sussexes to pick a different stone, Meghan refused, and Andrew had his mother intervene. Liz generally tends to stay out of these things. And she did publicly make an effort with Meghan both during the wedding and afterwards. Andrew was openly petty about comparing the weddings. The Yorks were peeved about the pregnancy announcement and post-tour planted a story about Meghan in the press.

        Or there was no conflict at all and someone made up a story about Meghan being told no and strategically released it to steal the thunder, so to speak, from the tour.

        And I think Eugenie postponed her wedding for Beatrice. Zara married soon after William and Kate so two family weddings close together wouldn’t have been an issue unless the Yorks were also trying to get press attention for the wedding.

      • Hashtagwhat says:

        @Natalie, I’m speculating based on what is at this point a credible story that’s run in multiple outlets on both sides of the Atlantic. You are speculating based on what, your deeply held wishes? Where is any basis for what you’re saying?

        From Vanity Fair https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/09/princess-eugenie-wedding-engagement-delayed

        “It’s my understanding that Eugenie and Jack decided some time ago that they wanted to get married, and there was some talk about a wedding in 2017, but they had to wait for Harry to go first,” according to the source.

      • Natalie S says:

        A deeply held wish? I mean, talk about getting personal…

        Oh, dear. From the article:
        Why Princess Eugenie Wanted a Wedding Even Bigger Than Harry and Meghan’s
        “It’s my understanding that Eugenie and Jack decided some time ago that they wanted to get married, and there was some talk about a wedding in 2017, but they had to wait for Harry to go first,” according to the source. “The feeling among the Yorks is that she deserves her moment in the spotlight and a big royal wedding with all the frills.”

        So, it sounds like partly it was a press thing. They only had to wait a few weeks to announce their engagement and then it sounds like Meghan and Harry had first pick at a date but the Yorks also chose to create some distance in order to garner attention.

      • Nic919 says:

        Valentine Low spoke with Wotton’s source but that doesn’t mean the source doesn’t have an agenda to push. If it’s Andrew and I bet it is, then this is revenge for the pregnancy announcement ending the Eugenie wedding publicity tour on the Monday after the wedding. If Meghan was so hard to manage, why would the queen have done an engagement specifically alone with her and used the train well after all this happened. And unless we want to say the Queen is the best actress ever, there was no tension seen between her and Meghan during that visit. Neither during the summer ascot visit either. And since Charles has publicly supported Meghan from day one and her popularity has increased his, this is exactly the kind of thing Andrew would so because it targets his brother and kills all the positive Charles news that was coming out due to his 70th. And that’s when all these stories started coming out.

      • hypocrite says:

        It’s funny how many of the posters in this thread will readily believe a story about Kate, but cry foul at the slightest critique or negative story on Meghan…

        It works both ways.

  22. Aisling says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a quick Google search confirm that this was always supposed to be a six month post to settle Meghan in?!!!

  23. Flying fish says:

    I’ll say it again, Meghan needs a full time make up artist and a stylist.
    Her make up looked off and the white stockings did not work.

    • Citresse says:

      Yeah, I had another look…the lighter stockings could be support especially given her pregnancy but the colour is off…..light stockings even alabaster white nylons worn with black shoes were hip during early 80s.
      I see MM and the others showed up today in London but Philip is a no show. Yes, his 97 years have caught up. I’m guessing he’s at Sandringham.

  24. Talie says:

    That tiara story totally feels like it was planted by Andrew. I mean, we all know Eugenie wore the emerald one and if there was really an issue over the provenance of the gemstones, then it would’ve been vetoed for her too.

    I also think Charles team needs to watch it. His sons seem to have been coming around on him lately, but the bitchy stories about them and their wives are uncalled for.

  25. HeyThere! says:

    MM is a new Royal, and what I mean by that is she doing her own thing over 35 years!!! Sometimes personalities and priorities just don’t mash, and no one the ‘evil one’! Also, she is pregnant and is going to want to be SUPER comfortable with staff. My guess is it wasn’t a good match, but no ones fault!

  26. Royalblue says:

    After the couple’s wildly successful tour someone feels the need to put the Duke Duchess in their place. Stories about her baking banana bread and giving kids leftover food shows a level of kindness not displayed by others before, hence makes them look bad. It is not going to be easy for her with backstabbers in her midst.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I think the British press was not expecting the tour to be as successful as it was. An American journalist on the tour wrote negatively about traveling with the Brit reporters. I’m also willing to bet that some in the Firm—be it actual members or the “suits”—are uncomfortable with the level of attention they got as well.

    • Yami says:

      I agree. She’s a star and Brits don’t generally like tall poppys. I honestly feel like this is a concerted effort to diminish her star and brand. She does make everyone else except the Queen look bad. Meghan’s not always had privilege or wealth, she’s actually very kind and thoughtful and so smart. For people who’ve mainly skated by on title and wealth, she throws them into relief and not in a good way. I mean the Grenfield cookbook, building those relationships and connections. Kate could never,would never more to the point. Meghan is at another level and they want to keep her down.

      • Missreader says:

        This is exactly the point i made above. She is hardworking and likeable but she has miscalculated what the British press and royal insiders value- her “hit the ground running” attitude is refreshing but it seems naive to expect that the pre-existing royals and their coteries will just sit back and be shown up. I’m not saying she shouldnt work hard..her ethic seems strong but her strategy to handle the blowback has to be stronger. To expect any other outcome except a pushback for the “confident, brassy American” image the Brits will invariably have of her, is not grounded in reality, Andrew WILL push back, DM WILL paint her as thirsty and fame-hungry, Eugenie’s wedding and the emerald tiara WILL be discussed. But Meghan needs to have a sound strategy for this, as brutally unfair as it is. This is really the big leagues now.

      • hypocrite says:

        “Meghan’s not always had privilege or wealth, she’s actually very kind and thoughtful and so smart. For people who’ve mainly skated by on title and wealth, she throws them into relief and not in a good way. ”
        No, she doesn’t. She’s now one of them, her ego has grown after getting a taste of this lifestyle. Disrespecting staff is crass, rude and demanding behaviour. I dont care who it is, you don’t talk down to staff.

    • Tina says:

      This is not a story that makes anyone involved look good, including the Queen. The tabloid press generally doesn’t like Meghan, but the broadsheets (including the Times) have praised her, especially during the last tour.

    • Bluthfan says:

      Yep the tour was too successful and someone’s nose is out of joint. I’d place money on the Cambridges myself. Williams always been a petty jackass. But it could be Andrew as well.

    • PrincessK says:

      Exactly there is a lot of jealousy around about the popularity of the Susssexes.

  27. Lexa says:

    I think many things can be true about a person—I think Meghan cares about others and is a hard worker, but I could also believe she’s a perfectionist with very high standards for herself and the people who work with her and in the pressure cooker of that tour maybe the PA had enough of the gig.

  28. Jessica says:

    Guys, the emerald tiara Eugenie wore is not the one in this story. Meghan allegedly wanted the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara. Eugenie wore the Greville emerald tiara.

    • Kerfuffle says:

      That makes NO sense. The Grand Duchess Vladimir is so far from Meghan’s style, and if I know that the Queen doesn’t loan the tiaras that she personally wears, then Meghan knows. And seriously, that thing couldn’t be farther from Meghan’s style.

      • Tina says:

        Well, it fits the details of the story. It’s Russian. It can be worn with either emeralds or pearls. I can absolutely believe that the Queen offered it with pearls, Meghan asked for emeralds and the Queen said no.

      • Olenna says:

        The tiara was pretty obscure before this little blow-up. I doubt Meghan knew the tiara could be accented with either emeralds or pearls. If TQ presented it to her with emeralds, then said she couldn’t loan it as is with them, then shame on TQ. Personally, I’m glad she didn’t wear a tiara like the Vlad. Unlike Eugenie’s, there’s nothing stunning or elegant about it, and it wouldn’t have suited Meghan’s wedding ensemble or her slender face.

      • Tina says:

        I am not a tiara expert and I knew about it, but that’s maybe because I was so obsessed with the emeralds that the Queen wore on her state visit to Ireland (including the Grand Duchess Vladimir). I definitely agree that none of the people in this story come off well, including the Queen.

      • Kerfuffle says:

        @Tina: no, it doesn’t. You’re just trying to make it fit. There is NO WAY Meghan asked for that tiara. Because again: no one borrows the tiaras that the Queen wears, and she still actively wears that one. And it is so far away from Meghan’s personal style.

        @Olenna: no, that tiara is not obscure. It’s very well known if you follow that sort of thing.

      • Tina says:

        Again, it is not outside the realm of possibility that it was one of the tiaras the Queen offered to Meghan to choose from. Just because she hasn’t lent it out before doesn’t mean she will never do so. I’m sure Meghan wouldn’t have asked for it if it hadn’t been offered, but I can easily see Meghan (and especially Harry) being unhappy if it was withdrawn from selection.

      • Kerfuffle says:

        Anyone who follows this stuff will tell you that it is 100% off base to suggest that. NO. There is a ton of protocol when it comes to tiaras, including QE2’s personal protocol. Read up on Order of Splendour, which is filled with people who actually know about the subject. The tiaras that QE2 wears are strictly reserved for her. No one else wears them. No one would ask to wear them.

      • Tina says:

        With respect, a lot of what Americans think is “royal protocol” is nothing of the kind. I am not a tiara expert, but I am British and I have been following the royals for over 30 years. The Queen decides what she wants to do. And she gets to change her mind.

      • Kerfuffle says:

        You still have no idea what you’re talking about here, British or not.

      • Tina says:

        Well, neither of us knows as much as the reputable reporters who’ve talked to palace sources.

      • Olenna says:

        @Kerfuffle, thanks. I stand corrected. After looking at old pics of TQ, this tiara is only familiar to me without the additional jewels.

      • layla says:

        I know nothing about tiaras and royal protocol… but a simple and quick Google search shows that Diana wore this tiara (with pearls), so the theory that no one gets to wear a tiara TQ actively wears kinda falls flat immediately.

      • Anatha. A says:

        Hasn’t the Duchess of Cornwall worn the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara on several occasions? In both versions with emeralds and with pearls?

        The fact that the Queen doesn’t give away tiaras she wears herself is a rumour. She probably has her favourites that she prefers to keep for herself. But if the occasion fits she probably lends out everything.

        If the tiara story has any truth to it, I can see her denying emeralds if she knew that Eugenie would want to wear some.

      • Yes, Diana did wear the grand duchess. TQ gave Diana that tiara during her marriage to Charles. I can only assume that after Diana and Charles’ divorce (omg my auto-correct “corrected” Charles’ to cheaters lol!), the BRF took it back. I think the only person TQ might give it to is Kate, and so I doubt it was ever in the running for Meghan.

        Honesty, there’s been a running attempt to compare Harry’s wedding to Eugenie’s in a negative way ever since Eugenie got engaged. First she supposedly had to “wait” to get engaged because Harry decided to marry Meghan, then the big “Meghan wore a coat to steal thunder!” scenario, the “they announced their pregnancy only three days after E’s wedding, and now Meghan couldn’t have a tiara she wanted because Eugenie was wearing an emerald tiara at her wedding months later?

        I could swear this is Andrew’s way to extend the press about Eug’s wedding to massage his own bruised ego, and this has nothing to do with Eug, Harry, or Meghan.

      • Tina says:

        That pic of Diana is actually mislabelled, it was the Cambridge Lover’s Knot. But Camilla has worn the Grand Duchess Vladimir, with both pearls and emeralds.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Order of Splendor site is the most accurate tiara and jewels site out there and is the best source to follow. No reporter has a clue compared to that site. If you read the twitter feed they outline just why this tiara story is so off. And the site isn’t a fan page of any kind so there is no pro or anti Meghan bias. It’s really a great site in general to read up on all the tiaras both in use and not

      • Tina says:

        @nic919, I’ve read through that twitter feed, and she doesn’t mention anything that hasn’t been brought up here. She focuses on the “uncertain provenance” part of the story, which doesn’t apply to the Vladimir and was probably fudging on Dan Wooton’s part. This is explicitly acknowledged in Val Low’s story. But the rest of it is in line with the theory. The Queen last wore the Vladimir in 2015, before relations with the Russians plunged to their current icy depths. I doubt she’ll wear it again any time soon.

      • hypocrite says:

        You mean Meghan’s style pre Harry, right? Meghan couldn’t afford diamonds and pearls, and precious stones, otherwise, she would’ve been wearing lovely jewellery pieces which aren’t even that expensive for a supposed millionaire. Her style has changed after Harry, that’s evident when you look back at her previous photos. I don’t recall Meghan wearing couture pre Harry either, or a gorgeous Haute couture gown on the red carpet pre Harry. She now has access to all of the things she didn’t have access to before. She asked for something bigger like the tiara and it was refused, she got annoyed and threw a tantrum.

      • hershey says:

        I agree with @tina. The Queen has has handled tiara situations with her family members and women marrying in several different ways. Short term loans, life time loans, brand new tiaras gifted, ECT.

        She seems to go with her own rules based on the situation.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I can see this tiara being the one in question as its fits with the story in a way but it would not have matched Meghan’s dress plus its said to be one of TQ’s fave tiara’s so she might be picky on who she lets wear it but she has let others wear it.

      As others have said the tiara itself is Russian but the Emeralds once belonged to Indian Royalty and there is still ill feeling over Indian royal jewels owned by the BRF. A few years ago their was a legal challenge by a wealthy Indian businessman who wanted the return of the Kholinoor diamond that he alleges was ‘stolen’ from the last Maharaja.

      http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2011/12/readers-top-15-tiaras-6-grand-duchess.html

  29. Guest says:

    Well after a successful tour where people were literally crying for them and being praised by the Australian media here comes the uk media to start a smear campaign. Megan will be fine. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders and knows what she wants. You know there are some in the media that can’t stand that a biracial woman hooked their precious peoples prince. And she brings her black mother with dreadlocks and a nose ring to some royal functions. That black woman sat in the wedding photos, and she will sit in the christening photos along with their precious royal family.

  30. NewKay says:

    Sometimes the fact that it’s a Black woman (I use that term loosely, given Megan’s I make my own box comments), making demands is the problem.

    • Vanessa says:

      Why is so wrong that meghan said she would want to make her box such a problem and calling meghan a loosely a black woman is wrong on so many levels. She not white enough for the racist white people and she not black enough for some black people no wonder she made that box comment.

      • Patty says:

        It’s not wrong for a biracial person to say they make their own box but it’s a tad silly in my opinion since society will view you and treat as a black person. Also (and I’m not saying this is the case with Meghan) some biracial people seem to be believe having one white parent makes them better than people with two black parents – even though again, society for the most part will view you as black. I don’t think the commentator was being snide – she made the comment loosely because Meghan herself doesn’t identify as black. But as you can see, there’s a lot of people reminding her that they don’t care that her dad is white and they see her as black.

  31. Vanessa says:

    I think the tiara story is false for this story to be true that mean the queen and her aid went to the vault deliberately choose a tiara that knew fully aware that meghan would not be able to use. That just seem out of character for the Queen as for the assistance quitting I think it’s good thing clearly from the complaints about meghan clothing being wrinkles and her having a price tag on her dress her assistant was not up to the task of making sure meghan looked more put together. The price tag on meghan red dress was clearly a rookie mistake made by a assistance who clearly didn’t understand that you can’t have client out there looking like boo boo fool.

  32. Agenbiter says:

    Can someone who’s up on the handling of BRF jewels explain why the ‘possible Russian origin’ would have been problematic in the first place?

    • Lexa says:

      The only reason I think there might be a little truth to that aspect of the story is that the Skripal poisonings happened in March/during the last bit of planning/finalizing and worsened the already tense relationship between Russia and the UK. I could see them setting aside the jewels from Russia so as not to send mixed signals or invite any kind of negative feedback.

      • Agenbiter says:

        At first glance that seems plausible but with a moment’s reflection this part of the story is odd as well. It’s not like a tiara was associated with Putin’s Russia or the USSR – all the BRF needed do is refer to it as ‘Romanov’ rather than ‘Russian’!

      • Tina says:

        That part of the story is a bit odd no matter which tiara it was. It’s not like the Russians had any tiaras that weren’t Romanov, it’s not like the communists were making them.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        There is that plus the RF don’t like to flaunt anything they have that relates to the Romanov’s as it just reminds people that King George V was the one who refused them asylum (he originally agreed to let them come to the UK and then changed his mind) and the part that it played in their eventual murder by the Bolsheviks’. They were after all cousins. It was a decision that would haunt him for the rest of his life as it was said he bitterly regretted it. Saying that the Royal Collection has one of the biggest collection of the Faberge eggs that were made for the Tsarina – there was an exhibition on them a few years ago.

        Can’t remember which royal made a point of buying up all the jewels they could related to the Romanov’s? It may have been Queen Mary.

      • Agenbiter says:

        @DU – So with that, the various elements might come together after all. Here’s my try: HM first included some Romanov pieces thinking the BRF was ready to move on, and Meghan selected a tiara. After that point government forces heard about the selection and pushed back for current political reasons, which Harry didn’t buy until HM intervened. The end

      • Nic919 says:

        Queen Mary was a magpie when it came to jewels. She increased the Royal collection a great deal.

  33. Sway says:

    Meg is SO gorgeous, every time I see her I instantly think how it’s actually Harry who married up…

  34. Henny says:

    Reports are that she’s lost three staff. That’s not ideal. Losing Melissa after six months isn’t good or typical. The staff was instructed to sing her praises on her exit. They didn’t remain silent. That’s significant.

    Personally, I think Meghan has been, in essence, reprimanded. It’s fine. She’ll be fine. She’s not going anywhere, nobody freak out, but the fan fiction that she’s being fast tracked into some special People’s Princess role is silly. Kate had to learn her place too. It’s nature of the Royal Beast.

    Meghan’s makeup is atrocious. She needs to re-employ her wedding makeup artist and learn how to suitably apply her makeup for her new role. It’s far too garish.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      No one knows much about Melissa (even her last name), and yet she was described as being “pivotal” to the wedding’s success (even though she only joined in *April*???). I’m sorry but I find that hard to swallow. She wasn’t even listed among the staff who went on the royal tour. So who is this woman really?

      The nature of this story could be a bit more believable if it wasn’t released with all the other hot takes on Meghan’s “attitude” in such a short span of time.

    • Hashtagwhat says:

      @Henny. Such a sensible comment. Totally agree with every word.

      @Beach Dreams. “Who is this woman really?” Bigger question than we can answer but it’s undeniable that she worked for Meghan at KP because KP issued a statement saying she was integral and that she’ll be missed. She is not fictitious. That they did not deny the story but instead gave her a positive send-off is significant.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        I never said she was fictitious. I’m questioning the significance of the role she had to play as an employee. We’ve heard plenty about Amy Pickerill, Samantha Cohen, and Ed Fox before he left his post. We’ve barely heard anything about Melissa until now. Yet the article would have us believe she was just as close/’important’ as the aforementioned PAs.

    • Yami says:

      It’s good for Melissa to be gone is she can’t be discreet. Meghan is going to need people she can trust, clearly, this girl wasn’t one evidently. It takes time to build relationships in a work context but in this case Meghan’s going to need people firmly on her side, who have her success at heart, those kind of people don’t get assigned to you, you find them and they are a gift. Meghan’s going to need a good team, the fact that she’s done so well without being able to really vet people is great.

      • someone says:

        Umm.. The people were hired NOT JUST for MEghan. Their goal is not the success of the individuals, but that they serve the Royal Family and the Kingdom. It’s a two way street. Harry and Meghan are working.. it’s not their own company. They are employees/members of the royal family.

    • Guest says:

      She couldn’t have been that good of assistant if she couldn’t even make sure the tag was off meghans outfit.

    • Nic919 says:

      Samantha Cohen was always going to be a short term loan as this was announced in the press from the beginning and ELF announced he was leaving months ago as well, even before the wedding. The daily mail is making things up as usual.

  35. Leigh says:

    Not sure if anyone here are fans of Tom and Lorenzo, but on a recent podcast they recommended Megan’s assistant be fired (presumably the woman who just quit) after some repeated f*ck-ups in Megan’s wardrobe, including having a tag sticking out of one of her dresses. This may be as simple as this woman simply wasn’t up to the challenge of this very high pressure, high visibility job.

  36. SamC says:

    Seriously! Is it actually so hard to believe that maybe, just might be a bit difficult and not always Martyr Meghan?

    • Olenna says:

      It’s not hard believe that she’s not perfect but when the British press has absolutely little to no positive press about Meghan, the tabloid “news” easily becomes suspect. And, when people who only comment negatively on Meghan threads in order to disparage her or cheer her detractors on rarely, if ever, show up to comment on Kate threads, then it makes their contributions to the conversation suspect as well.

    • Jeuje says:

      Honestly, that’s BS. No one on this site unfairly attacks Meghan (certainly never seen any hint of racism) and no one and I mean NO ONE here can be accused of being a Kate stan and yet the “cognitive dissonance” and defensiveness when it comes to a normal, cursory criticism of Meghan is puzzling, annoying and very very hypocritical. I have no interest in Kate- she is a fairly mustard and boring person to me- but the way she is slagged here and with such impunity, set up as a foil to Meghan astounds me. Nobody here is like the British press, but the groupthink and intolerance to any objective criticism of Meghan (it is after all a gossip site, a “woke” gossip site but still) is very very strange.

      • gm says:

        I think people here tend to root for underdogs, in general they are supportive of the Eugenie and Beatrice, so they perceive Meghan as one too. When she first became known as Harry’s girlfriend there was a lot of unwarranted criticism ( ghetto, Compton) and other reasons they identify with her. Same goes for other royals or celebs. I don’t take it personally if I like someone others don’t, or vice versa, they have their reasons and I have mine. You don’t have to be the person telling others their baby isn’t cute, their idol may have feet of clay. Let it be, let it go. Unless you enjoy the arguing (some do and that’s ok too).

    • Tina says:

      I mean honestly, I’ve always been very pro-Meghan and I think Kate is very lazy, but I believe reputable reporters in respectable newspapers. The British press is not a monolith.

      • hershey says:

        @tina so agree, stories probably came from reputable palace sources. Question I am wondering about is why?

        And from which team did leaks come from? It’s interesting that the biography Charles cooperated with makes mention of similar or same story

    • Beach Dreams says:

      @Jeuje, that’s patently false. There were plenty of posters who had nothing nice to say about Meghan during the tour (and I’m not talking about the standard outfit critiques) and before it too. Take a look at any Kate post and many of those same posters will give glowing comments about her, proclaiming that even the smallest critiques indicate jealousy.

    • Jeuje says:

      I’m sorry, I regularly follow this site and I havent seen any articles where people are actively maligning Meghan. Do share, if you can, critiques from articles on here that you felt were racist or sexist. I’d like to see them. This very article and the hysterical reaction to Tiaragate and the slightest possibility of a misfire by MM, should be enough to prove my point.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      @Jeuje, first you talked about not seeing any unfair criticisms of Meghan and now you’re moving on to asking about racist/sexist criticisms? You do realize it’s possible to make unwarranted criticisms without having either -ism, correct? Unless you’re moving the goalposts now. In the tour articles alone there have been snide comments about her speeches (“she’s an actress, it’s nothing special”), plenty of unkind remarks that she supposedly covets the spotlight, and claims that she barely achieved anything on the tour. At this point people see what they want to see and it’s clear you’re set on your perspective. Have a nice day.

  37. paddingtonjr says:

    So it’s Diana v. Fergie 2.0!! Meghan is the “breath of fresh air” the press builds up and takes down, rinse and repeat. The public likes H&M, they had a successful tour, are blissfully happy and not afraid to show it, so we must put them in their place. It doesn’t surprise me that her PA quit; even if she wasn’t on the tour, Melissa was probably on-call in case anything went wrong or Meghan needed something. Also, things have moved pretty fast in the last few months and perhaps the work requirements and/or environment changed as well. Perhaps they no longer meshed professionally; it happens all the time. I think Meghan is a bit of a perfectionist and “Type A” personality who is ambitious and goal-oriented, which served her well as she supported herself while pursuing acting jobs, but could be seen as difficult by a PA used to a different work-style.

  38. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    This smacks of Andrew. The emerald tiara is a giveaway. Dollars to donuts Eugenie got first dibs and had that tiara before Meghan was even presented with options. It doesn’t matter who officially announced their engagement first. Eug is HM’s blood granddaughter so I’d see her getting the pick of the litter, so to speak.

    I wouldn’t want to work for the RF. Poor pay and lousy hours. Melissa probably got a better offer elsewhere.

  39. Digital Unicorn says:

    Its a fine line between being a diva and knowing what you want. As for Kate, reports of her ‘diva’ like behaviour date way back to when she was still his waiting by the phone gf. There were several reports of her rude and condescending attitude to shop staff, demanding discounts and freebies for her and her family. She got a nice new Audi by demanding a nice big discount just because she was William’s on/off gf. The story about the housekeeper quitting was verified, apparently they would call the poor woman up at all hours even when it was her day off – the stress of their demands was too much for her in the end so she quit. IIRC she was doing the job of 3 people and on top had to put up with Carole ‘overseeing’ things.

    As for Meghan I’d never heard of her before she got with Harry so I don’t know what she was like beforehand. Were there reports of bad behaviour on Suits? Am genuinely interested as generally bad behaviour of actors finds its way into the gossip blogs and I don’t recall reading anything like that about her.

  40. Cal says:

    Really not bothered about this nonsense, but I AM concerned that people seem to believe that the Times (London) is an honourable newspaper. (Don’t forget who owns it).
    The Mail and The Times aren’t the whole story in the UK…..but between them they muckrake like a dozen titles combined.

    • Tina says:

      The Times is the newspaper of the British establishment. It’s owned by Murdoch, but he doesn’t have editorial control (witness the wildly divergent editorial views of the Times and the Sunday Times). It’s not as good a newspaper as the Financial Times, which is by some way the best newspaper in the country, but it’s perfectly respectable and has good editorial standards.

  41. Bluthfan says:

    There is a long history of the Cambridges being difficult. Until this latest attack on Meghan there have been zero stories of her being difficult on Suits or anywhere else. That matters. It’s more likely William or Andrew got jealous and leaked some untrue gossip.

  42. Vanessa says:

    @ olenna thank you I’m so sick and tired of these Meghan haters coming on to this site and lecture us on how we fawning over Meghan too much and how they know for fact that she a social climber and she not trustworthy. Kate had years and years of woman idolize her still to this very day Kate is put on pedestal as the perfect future queen Meghan is considered to be less than classless ghetto social climber every negative stereotypes of there she gets nothing but negative articles about her for the British press . Now that people are questioning this particular article because to some of us it doesn’t make any sense you guys are getting mad because we have questions. The need to constantly call this site or anyone who dares to like meghan names is ridiculous should we started calling the people who only come on here to insult Meghan names too. Because I’m sure their fews we call you guys to

  43. Really says:

    Re tiara: someone’s trying to put her in her place.

  44. M.A.F. says:

    All of these dissertations over a headband. A HEADBAND!

    Keep it fun ladies (and gentleman). Keep it fun.

  45. Lynne says:

    Perhaps the assistant was Canadian, a trusted confidant and working for 6 months was predetermined to get Meghan through the wedding and first tour and then she went home.
    Tiara…..I keep reading ‘unnamed source’ and that is so shady.

  46. Syd says:

    I get the feeling that Meg is going in to this family like a step mom into a blended family. It will take time for her to adjust and for real relationships to develop. If she is humble enough she’ll learn and be patient. If she’s struggling and impatient for a voice she’s going to be miserable fast. Harry won’t like her misery and will begin to push back but he, too, needs to let the dust settle. As a united team they will eventually get past this stage of forming/ storming.

  47. HEAVE HO says:

    I get a lot of “get rich quick” vibes from stories like this. Meghan appears to be a very intelligent, thoughful, well spoken, well grounded person, and obviously is head over heels in love with Harry. While we have evidence the white side of her family is terrible, she has done nothing to show she’s anything like them. I hate that there’s even a story like this.

  48. Kayzilla says:

    This story simply doesn’t make sense.
    1. Why would QE have set out a selection Meghan couldn’t have chosen? And don’t say it was the one Eugenie eventually wore, if Meghan couldn’t have worn it for “Russian” reasons then the “blood princess” couldn’t, either.
    2. If this story is true, then why would the Queen allow the Sussexes to record the other story about how they chose the tiara she wore and it was the most perfect choice and play it on repeat at the wedding dress exhibit?
    3. I get the impression that Meghan does her homework- I don’t believe she wouldn’t have known the Vladimir would be off limits, or at the very least, Harry or anyone wouldn’t have told her that.
    4. Nobody, NOBODY, in her right mind would throw a fit about which tiara HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN is allowing you to wear. NOBODY.
    5. If the Queen was so unhappy with Meghan’s behavior, then why were they getting along like new best friends before and after the wedding, including the train sleepover?

  49. gm says:

    Who knows the truth behind it all? I wish the best for both women but am realistic they are human with foibles, faults, virtues and merits. This reminds me of Jennifer versus Angelina in the day. I’d bet they both could care less today. I think both women benefit from the other. Kate has a better SIL then Cressida would have been for her ( aristocratic, younger English rose with a sister that William may have been interested in) versus a POC that Kate can been seen as not racist, showing someone the ropes, knowing there are factions who will idolize her now in comparison. As for Meghan she comes across as plucky, intelligent, hard working, doesn’t have to be as traditional and eventually the scrutiny will fade with time ( she and her children will have many advantages without so many drawbacks). I see it as a win win for both women and for gossip fine but some people take this pitting them against each other too seriously. I mean unless you are a close friend why do you care so much either way? Regardless of what we think both these women are leading lives not caring what we think because they are both beautiful, wealthy, worshipped, fertile and so on.

  50. Lea says:

    Being a PA is not a fun job, no matter who your employer is. It is demanding and at some point, you just quit if you want to have a life. That’s not a big deal.
    I don’t know what to think about the tiara story. I think it was probably exaggerated. Meghan wanted something, her request was denied, Harry tried to intervene on her behalf and failed. End of the story.
    I don’t think Meghan is a diva because otherwise the royal family wouldn’t go to such lengths to protect her. The Queen especially. She has no patience for divas.

    My major concern these days is how quickly Harry seems to be getting bald.

  51. Mildred Fierce says:

    The tiara story doesn’t seem implausible to me, although some of the details may have gotten muddled in the reporting process, i.e. the Indian rather than Russian origin of the emeralds in the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara. The way I read it, Meghan and Harry specifically requested a certain tiara, most likely the Grand Duchess Vladimir, either before TQ offered her selections or instead of the official palace selections. The Vladimir is one of the most famous tiaras owned by the crown, and it takes about 20 seconds on Google to find info about it. Also, Harry would certainly be familiar with this tiara since both his mother and stepmother have worn it.

    Also, if there was some kind of tiara tiff, Harry and Meghan would never go public about it It’s not like they’re going to say at the Windsor exhibition “we really wanted a fabulous emerald tiara, but mean old granny made us settle for this hideous bandeau.”

  52. Sid says:

    I find the tiara story bizarre. Not because I think Meghan is a saint incapable of being difficult, but because from everything I have seen and read about her she appears to be very smart when it comes to knowing how to deal with people and how to be diplomatic. This is a woman who worked and networked her way from being a game show host model to appearing on Larry King and giving a speech at a UN Women conference. I have a hard time believing that complaining to the QUEEN about a tiara choice is the sort of hill she would want to die on when it comes to taking a stand within this family.

    • Cocoagirl says:

      You forget that it’s not Meghan that complained, it was Harry who threw the tantrum reportedly. Meghan was only supposedly a little demanding with the staff- but the article even stated that it’s because she is used to a professional atmosphere. Anyway, just because someone is smart, doesnt mean they cant have human moments. But she didnt go crying to the Queen, Harry did.

    • Yami says:

      Seriously, it just bananas to think otherwise. A girl, an American marring into the most visible royal family would not pull that, Harry might because he has the familiarity and rank, Meghan? No way in hell. People want to believe it of course, the cherry on top is that she’s half black and how dare she be so uppidity and “not know her place”. Her place is the wife of a Prince of England, last I heard. Anyway, this idea of having to be twice as good is true and Meg will have to be twice as circumspect too, she knows this I suspect, and has to deal with it her whole life. She’s got some privilege as a light skinned woman, but for some she’ll never be light enough and they’ll keep hating her for that reason above all.

  53. jake says:

    the picture of diana with the vladimir is photoshopped. only the queen wears that tiara. the grenville tiara was gifted to the queen mother when she died it went to the queen. it is not from russia it was made for lady grenville in the style of a russian tiara. the emeralds the queen wears with the vladimir was won in a raffle by queen marys mother not from india. this story is complere bs. as for the assistant it could be any number of reasons when you work for the royal family you give up any vistage of a personal life for very little pay.

  54. SpillDatT says:

    Hmm I’m going believe the story to a degree.

    There are two possibilities.

    Possibility A: There probably is a master list of all the tiaras which may have been looked over by Meghan. I don’t really know the protocol of course, but it is possible that Meghan (as well as Kate, Eugenie) may pick a few that they like, as she would know what sort of theme she wanted for the wedding, to go with the gown etc. which is then narrowed down further by TQ & the bride-to-be choses from those.

    So on her list of potential wants a tiara which hasn’t been worn in a long time, with emeralds. However when her choices are sent to be approved by TQ & QE2 said no based on her own opinions/reasons & most likely because Eugenie had already requested an Emerald-focused tiara for her own wedding to her Grandmother.

    Possibility B: Meghan is given only x number tiaras to pick approved by TQ. One of them may have interchangeable stones as may tiaras do, & Meghan asks if she can pick emeralds. Naturally she is told no, as TQ & others most likely know by this point that Eugenie has already requested the same coloured stone.

    In either case, Meghan expresses her disappointment to Harry and it’s Harry who throws the tantrum as he wants Meghan to have what she wants. The staff then think that Harry’s anger is Meghan’s fault & that she isn’t grateful (I’m speculating here, not saying she wasn’t). And that’s they relay to QE2, who then tells Harry that Meghan needs to tone it down.

    So there’s probably some truth to the story, but just blown out of proportion by the staff who may overreacted because they don’t really know Meghan well enough and blame the newcomer for the “drama” instead of Harry.

    Anyway ppl here are getting so worked up with Meghan vs Kate. To me, I personally think, both women are social climbers and no one is better than the other in that sense. In reality they probably get along fine, it’s ppl on the gossip sites that are pitting them against for no reason that I can see.

  55. K says:

    Maybe the assistant quit for her own reasons? Like something having to do with her own personal life and not Meghan? I’ve quit before rather than accept a nice promotion or keep earning good money at a job that didn’t feel right anymore. Some people might call that crazy, but I simply had other priorities and trust my gut instinct. There’s not always a villain.

    Maybe Meghan is simply a polite, professional, grown woman, doing what she can to fulfill the duties of a tricky position to be in as a foreigner, especially when no matter how she behaves someone is still going to make up shit about her that’s untrue.

  56. Emby says:

    I’m just assuming they asked for the tiara Eugenie wore and the Queen said no because unbeknownst to them, Eugenie had already asked to wear it.

    And that is not a big deal.

  57. HashtagWow says:

    I know it seems like a long time ago, but at the time these tiara selections were going on, Meghan’s family was telling anyone who would listen that Harry shouldn’t marry her. Every other story about her was about her paternal relatives and their anger over not receiving invites to the wedding. I don’t know her at all, but given the the way her own family was behaving; I find it highly unlikely that she would take such a tone with the Queen or any other royal. I do believe though that there are elements in the royal family that want to diminish her.

  58. hypocrite says:

    Take a look at any Meghan post and many of those same posters (attacking Kate) will give glowing comments about Megan, proclaiming that even the smallest critiques indicate jealousy.

    I changed it for you.

  59. SM says:

    Oh the tiara drama… i used to loathe on the monarchy partly because of tiara drama but these days with all that is happening in the world, I’m thinking if there still is place for tiara drama then maybe not all is yet as bad as it feels at times.

  60. Jade says:

    The British press doesn’t like Meghan.

    I’m in London and a paper yesterday still referred to her as Meghan Markle.

  61. Tina says:

    I believe this story, but Meghan is disliked by a lot of the British (tabloid) press. The polling doesn’t show that she is disliked by the British people.

  62. Liniag2 says:

    She walks in front of a man? THE HORROR!!!!!! Jesus from how it sounds Brits are all asshole misogynistic royalists.