Duchess Meghan was a ‘nightmare’ at Wimbledon, except she really wasn’t

BRITAIN LONDON TENNIS WIMBLEDON DAY 4

It’s been days since the Jeffrey Epstein news broke, and many commenters claimed that now that people had a renewed interest in Epstein and his associates – associates including Prince Andrew – that the royal courtiers and communications offices would be pushing a lot of OTHER royal stories. Which… I didn’t really believe. I don’t think the British press needs an excuse to throw the Duchess of Sussex under the bus, since they’ve been smearing her for a solid year now. That being said, the way this “Meghan at Wimbledon” story has unfolded is quite suspicious.

As we discussed last week, Meghan and two of her friends attended ONE match during Wimbledon’s first week – they went to see Serena Williams play on Court 1, which is the second-biggest court after Center Court. Center Court has a Royal Box for VIPs. Court 1 does not. Only the Royal Box has a dress code. None of the other seating has a dress code. Meghan wore jeans and a blazer, she watched Serena play, she cheered for her friend and then she presumably went home. Days later, a woman claimed that Diva Meghan was so privacy obsessed that… her royal protection officers asked the woman to stop taking photos of Meghan. Which… RPOs tell people that all the time, but because it’s Meghan, well, you get the picture. Now they’re trying to make the whole “she wore jeans!” into a thing, and also trying to make Meghan’s trip to Wimbledon sound like she was some kind of hellish diva… for wanting to attend one match on Court 1.

Meghan Markle has been described as a “nightmare” over her surprise visit to Wimbledon last week. The Duchess of Sussex, 37, sat on Court One last Thursday as she appeared at the famous tennis championship to watch her friend Serena Williams compete. An official organising Meghan’s visit admitted it had been difficult, saying to The Times: “It was a nightmare, she was a nightmare.”

An All England Club source explained that Meghan had wanted to watch the tennis “incognito, but there were problems.” They said: “They couldn’t invite her into the Royal Box because she was wearing jeans but that didn’t really matter because all she wanted to do was come and watch Serena.” A palace source told the publication that Meghan had wanted to watch pal Serena play on Court One, and had no intention of going to the Royal Box on Centre Court.

A spokesperson for Wimbledon told Fabulous Digital: “The All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) was delighted to welcome HRH The Duchess of Sussex in a private capacity to The Championships to watch her friend Serena Williams compete on No.1 Court. The Duchess was greeted by AELTC Chairman Philip Brook at the Players’ Reception on arrival before making her way to No.1 Court, and it was always the intention that the visit would be only for the one match. Any suggestion that The Duchess’s visit was anything other than a privilege is categorically not the view of the AELTC and she is always welcome to attend The Championships.”

Typically the wearing of denim is frowned upon in the members’ area at Wimbledon, with one person who had been a member for 30 years saying that Meghan is “not allowed” to wear them.

[From The Sun]

This is the biggest non-story – she was wearing jeans because her intention was always to attend Serena’s match on Court 1. The court assignments for players had come out the previous day, so Meghan knew ahead of time that she wasn’t going anywhere near Center Court or the Royal Box. She wasn’t trying to roll up on the Royal Box in jeans. She did not punch Boris Becker in the face while shouting “Black Lives Matter!” or whatever else they want to accuse her of. What was so nightmarish about Meghan attending her friend’s match on a secondary court again? Jesus Christ. Maybe the palace really IS worried about the Duke of York.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Getty.

Related stories

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

238 Responses to “Duchess Meghan was a ‘nightmare’ at Wimbledon, except she really wasn’t”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hotsauceinmybag says:

    This poor woman… SHEESH. She can’t even blink w/o pissing off some loon!

    • Lurker says:

      Agreed, I absolutely hate the comments on the daily mail, it’ll be horribly nasty comments which will get THOUSANDS of likes. It’s like a sport to hate her.

    • Sally says:

      I so agree. I wish they would leave this woman alone. In my opinion, all she has done was fall in love with Harry. They now have a happy marriage and a beautiful new baby. The press are trying to take the heat off of Andrew and give the public something else to talk about. If I were H and M I would leave and move far far away. W and K are jealous of how happy this couple is and would do anything possible to take their place.

      • Kebbie says:

        It’s not just that she fell in love with Harry, it’s that he’s so obviously crazy about her. They can’t stand that he adores her. And the fact that she doesn’t seem to let their attacks bother her. Her happiness just drives them crazy. They shouldn’t move far away, they should just keep living their best life, IMO.

    • ByTheSea says:

      It’s so over the top and bizarre to anyone with common sense, but cue the “it’s not racist to not like Meghan Markle.” I’m awaiting an article complaining about the way she breathes.

      • Harla says:

        Because her breathing and her breathing alone is causing dangerous levels of carbon dioxide worldwide.

      • bobslaw says:

        Honestly. British media, stop trying to make “Meghan Markle is a DIVAAAAA” happen. It’s not going to happen. Now, if you want to cover in depth the connections between the Duke of York and Epstein, be my guest. Let’s get elbow deep in that hideous story of abuse and air the dirty laundry of pervert men in power.

    • Kebbie says:

      Only because she has such a self-righteous blink! Lol she seriously can’t do anything right. They just nitpick beyond belief, it’s insane.

  2. Seraphina says:

    OMG, I choked on my coffee picturing Meghan screaming: Duchesses lives matter!!! And punching tennis star in the face.

    It must be difficult for her when she sees the hate aimed towards her when she has done nothing wrong. And my heart feels for her. I hope she remains strong and continues to understand she is doing great work and the more she continues to shine, the more the haters will throw shade because there are people in the world that are so unhappy they want to make everyone else miserable.

    • Prairiegirl says:

      100% would watch Meghan do that on pay-per-view.

    • Some chick says:

      BUT THE AVOCADOS, YOU GUYS!!!!!

      • JBooJohn says:

        And don’t get me wrong, Some chick, I really like Meghan. I think she’s *adorable* it’s just that… well she *will* insist on that Snowflake Toast and it really isn’t helpful that she’s so inconsistent. Global warming one day, avo-needy the next. *smh*

  3. cannibell says:

    Almost every news piece I’ve seen about Epstein references Prince Andrew, so I guess BP is now going to use the Duchess of Sussex as some sort of twisted beard.

    We see you, BP.

    • Diplomanatee says:

      There was a very weird story yesterday about how Prince Andrew is so innocent and good that he could HELP the investigation. The same article goes on to say that the Firm will probably ask him to stay far away from this as possible which… yeah, that’s not the reason why he’ll stay away, lol.

  4. Mignionette says:

    There are many angles to this (1) the press want access (2) the press are making it clear that until she grants that access they will interfere in ALL her personal relationships to the point it will be impossible to maintain them…

    Meg literally sells more copy than any other atm and they all want their pound of flesh…

    • Harla says:

      Yes, Meghan and her nearest and dearest will need to be very strong for years to come. I hope her friends are up for the task.

    • PrincessK says:

      You are exactly right, she is the goose that lays the golden egg. Most of these media houses are struggling. The Daily Mail has had to lower itself into the gutter to survive the competition.

  5. Kittycat says:

    The palace is worried about the Duke of York.

    But sure make a non-story a huge story since it involves Duchess Meghan.

    • Oh No says:

      I want to see that man draaaaaaggged. And Everytime they post nonsense like this and allow Meghan to just be slandered, I hope the fallout is severe for every family member sitting quietly and letting her take the hits.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Sure, but it’s not like Andrew did something truly awful like wear jeans to Wimbledon.

      • Hotsauceinmybag says:

        Ikr. Let him burn

        @Bettyrose I spit out my iced coffee lol

      • Kebbie says:

        @BettyRose 😆 only a true monster would do something like that

      • Harla says:

        As I’ve said before the silence from the Queen and Charles has provided me with the opportunity to view them in a different way, and frankly I’m not liking what I’m seeing. To be fair, they might be very supportive behind the scenes but I find their public silence to be bordering on approval for this behavior.

      • Redgrl says:

        @harla – this. The whole “never complain never explain” (such as it ever was..) bit needs to be set aside when bullying and racism and sexism reaches these levels, in my view.

    • PrincessK says:

      The Daily Mail article on the story is now no longer taking comments. Everyone gets protected except Meghan.

  6. 10KTurtle says:

    These people must be living extremely charmed lives if someone wearing denim and declining to be photographed is a “nightmare” to them.

    • ByTheSea says:

      Right??

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Lol….exactly

    • I find it absolutely fantastic she was in denim. I find British event style to be SO FUSSY – I cannot stomach all the fascinators and tacky, appalling hats and weird little shrug-cardigans that would fit a toddler and matchy-matchy shoes……ugh. She looks casual and appropriate. thanksfully up here in Scotland they’re not quite as mad about silly hats.

  7. Loretta says:

    Even film critics are defending Meghan now ( I was surprise to read Guy Lodge and Kayleigh Donaldson tweets today).

  8. tempest prognosticator says:

    Hopefully she doesn’t read any of the rags. I like to think she is blissfully unaware of the trolls. I think that would bother them more than anything.

  9. Cidy says:

    She literally went no where near the royal box and clearly had no intentions to, she wanted to watch her friend play.. and she did. And btw her Jean outfit was super cute so if she stepped foot in that royal box it would have been better off for it. Let her live.

  10. Alexandria says:

    This type of stupidity is why I’ve asserted Archie should not have HRH. The York girls are already criticised from young and they are white. Forget optics about a mixed royal not being a HRH, his sanity is more important!

    • Britt says:

      And they’re mad because he’s not a HRH because they can’t demand access. That’s why they’re trying to change that around and say that he is a prince. Archie not having a title makes it harder for them to make money because he is a private citizen.

      • Moose says:

        @Britt, you are soooo right, and I love that it sticks 2 fingers up to the racist RRs! Love H&M for doing it to protect their precious son as much as possible (and all future children too…).

      • Kendra says:

        You nailed it, Britt.

    • ADS says:

      I used to disagree but I am now 100% of the same view. Can you imagine the absolute carnage that would be ensuing right now if he were HRH?

  11. Becks1 says:

    OMFG.

    I’m glad both “a palace source” and Wimbledon “itself” came out and said everything was fine. I would have expected that from Wimbledon, but the RRs could have very easily had “my palace source” saying something different.

    Everyone knows Meghan and Serena are good friends. OF COURSE Meghan was going to watch her if possible. Meghan saw her in the finals last year, in the royal box, where she was dressed in a very nice outfit, debate over the pants length aside. She clearly knows the “protocol” and dress code and had she gone to the royal box, I’m sure she would have worn something different.

    Do people really think that Meghan is just running wild over at the palace, ignoring advice and customs and screeching “I DO WHAT I WANT!!!!!!!!” as she flees Frogmore for Wimbledon in her jeans, and then knocks down anyone who stands in her way as she fights her way to a seat?

    Also, these stories are just inconsistent. She wanted to watch tennis “incognito” but couldn’t be invited into the royal box because she was wearing jeans? the royal box isn’t really incognito. And she wouldn’t have wanted the royal box anyway because she wanted to watch Serena.

    Sheesh.

    And I’m one who kind of believes that Meghan gets thrown under the bus to protect other royals, but I also think the RRs just have decided to attack her constantly just because, so they don’t really need an excuse. But a week after she attended Wimbledon, we’re getting these stories? Right as Epstein gets arrested, and at least one story specifically highlighted Prince Andrew? Yeah, something is up.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That was the weirdest thing–why bring up the whole jeans/royal box thing if Serena’s not playing on Center Court? She’s there to watch a friend play. These RRs are stupid as well as ruthless racists.

  12. Rapunzel says:

    ” An official organising Meghan’s visit admitted it had been difficult, saying to The Times: ‘It was a nightmare, she was a nightmare’ ”

    Yes, a nightmare who wanted to watch her friend play in comfortable clothes without flash bulbs in her face. How dare she be such a monster?

    • Kebbie says:

      I still don’t get how exactly it was a nightmare. Do they mean logistically? Security wise? Or her personally? It’s so unfair to characterize her that way without explanation.

      • Diplomanatee says:

        I took the comment to be a reference to the whole “tell people not to take pictures of me” thing. The pants thing is too harmless to provoke such a comment. But, I’ll say this and be done for the week, but that story seems consistent with what an old friend of hers once revealed (not Priddy), that they used to go to restaurants and she asked about their celebrity policies (if they had a special table she could be placed at), and then she asked waiters to intervene if people tried to approach her. Also the story about her being invited to a wedding and her staying in a corner, in sunglasses, not talking to anyone and ignoring anyone who tried to say hi. This was when Suits was renewed for a Season 2, which… I mean kudos to her, Law of Attraction and stuff obviously worked in her favor.

      • Mae says:

        @diplomanatee
        Can you please link the source to where you read this from? No offence but I’d rather read for myself and see how reliable the information is. Like who is the source and how reliable or biased they are. If it’s an “anonymous” source then I don’t believe it because there are actual people who went on record to say that she isn’t a diva at all. Actual people with names and not just “I read somewhere from an anonymous source”

      • Otaku fairy... says:

        The lady complaining about the picture sounds entitled.
        Meghan’s outfit looks fine. Throwing around the term nightmare is just a dramatic way of making it look like she was being a tyrant or a nasty diva when she wasn’t, without having convincing evidence to back it up the tyrant diva claim.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ dilomantee

        I would love to see a source, or even just a link to where you saw this story, cause for some reason my “utter bullshit”, “made up lies” antenae are vibrating like mad on this….

      • Olenna says:

        @Otaku fairy
        “Nightmare” is, sadly, just another dog whistle in these RRs’ handbook of slights and insults.

    • Tami says:

      And of course there is no explanation of WHAT exactly was the nightmare. Arranging seating? Dealing with the distraction her presence causes? Security detail’s demands? People’s complaints about not getting selfies and dealing with the negative attention?

      Simply saying it was a nightmare doesn’t implicate Meghan at all. I am sure it is a logistical nightmare when other Royals show up as well, but no, MM is THE nightmare. And the British press is all too happy to run with this statement without any explanation to back it up.

  13. AprilMay says:

    The woman who claims Meghan was getting in a tizzy over her privacy has changed her story multiple times since it came out the other night. She was now no longer in the same row but a number of rows back and a number of seats over. At first she had no idea Meghan was there and now its changed to say she did see her come in.
    Theres plenty of pictures of people at Wimbledon in the nice fancy boxes wearing jeans. Its such a non story, clearly just wanting to attack her with click baitey stories.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the story is a good example of how RRs aren’t really prepared for reporting in the new age of social media and camera phones – and I mean, its not really “new,” this has been the status quo for a while now. But I imagine before, they could have had this woman’s story, it would have been out there, and accepted by many as true, etc. And now, they post it and there are dozens/hundreds of responses asking for receipts, and there aren’t any, or the “receipts” don’t show what the story said happened, and the RRs have egg on their collective face. They aren’t prepared for that.

      Chris ship yesterday was like, so now we have two versions, which is true??? Um, the one the pictures back up?

      • Britt says:

        Chris ship is a phony. The only persons I look to for information are Omid Scobie and Victoria Murphy.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Britt – yeah, I wish he was more like Richard Palmer sometimes. Or Andrews – we know they don’t like Meghan or her supporters. They don’t try to hide it behind “we have to find out the real story!!!!!”

        ETA and to clarify I wish Palmer et al weren’t such hateful asses when it came to Meghan. But at least their bias is clear.

    • PrincessK says:

      Today on Centre Court at Wimbledon there were as usual pockets of empty seats….obviously people were barred from sitting in them because Meghan was today watching her husband play polo.

      Nasty Meghan stories make money.

  14. Iknow says:

    I’m one of the people who believe that Epstein’s arrest would lead to more Meghan stories. Meghan went to Wimbledon last week. One week later, after Epstein is arrested, all of a sudden we get this woman complaining about Diva Meghan and now, because she is such a diva, hundreds of people had to wait in a queue. This is classic PR: distract from the bigger story by giving the press what they want. They’re more interested in tearing Meghan apart than fishing out a possible child sex offender.

    • Becks1 says:

      My question in general is, when we say that Meghan is being used as a distraction, by whom? Like, do we think the press is being told to leave Andrew alone, and instead they can go after Meghan? Or do we think the press doesn’t want to “deal” with the Andrew story (worried about possible legal threats from BP), and so they’re going after Meghan as a distraction so that people don’t ask too much about Andrew and Epstein?

      • Iknow says:

        I think the people behind this are those courtiers, who’ve committed their lives, to the Crown and want to see its continuity. I think, at this point, even Prince Charles would do what he feels is in the best interest of the Crown. The Queen’s son possibly being exposed of being a child rapist is a big deal! The Daily Mail has nothing about Andrew’s connections to Epstein. But you know what’s there, Tatum O’Neal sounding like Samantha Markle and a big picture of Doria Raglan’s custom Oscar De La Renta Christening and wedding outfit.

      • Melissa says:

        I believe the press is being told to specifically target Meghan. Have you noticed how all the reporters aggressively spread and amplify negative stories about Meghan? With all that’s going on in the world, Meghan at Wimbledon should not even be mentioned. There is clearly a campaign to ruin her reputation, and it’s a joint effort by the media and some people in the Palace.

      • Becks1 says:

        Okay that makes sense to me. Press has been given the go-ahead by “someone” to target Meghan aggressively. And yeah, the stories have really amped up the past month.

        And also, I’m with others who have said to expect more Cambridge pics over the next few months.

      • Himmiefan says:

        They’re being told.

      • Tami says:

        @becks1 The source of the distraction changes, I believe. I have no doubt that PW was behind the onslaught of stories about MM in the Fall/Winter, when the Rose Hanbury story started to gain traction. The affair story was completely squashed in the UK media, probably due to threats of lawsuits or a retraction of access to the Cambridge’s. As for the other stories, I don’t know, but I have no doubt that in addition to the stuffy courtiers and Royal-adjacent individuals with a dog in the fight, some of this is coming directly from the RF.

    • Himmiefan says:

      As much as I want Meghan’s maternity leave to end really soon, for her own sanity, she needs to lay really low to frustrate the reporters trying to distract from the Andrew story. If Andrew is not there, she and Archie and Harry can go up to Balmoral or the Castle of May and get away from the craziness.

    • Hope says:

      Charles was also great friends with Jimmy Saville and I find it very unlikely that he didn’t know seeing as it was pretty much an open secret. If the press goes after Andrew, they might also mention Charles’ friendship. Diana, btw, didn’t have any time for Saville.

  15. Mab's A'Mabbin says:

    I’m surprised Wimbeldon peeps can still breathe. Players are supposed to wear ONLY whites, and that notion was challenged, wadded up and thrown back courtside some time ago. I’m surprised Meghan’s jeans outside center court made a headline

  16. lily says:

    Meghan was trending number 1 this morning because of that horrible telegraph opinion piece. People see right through this so why carry on with this – because of Epstein?

    • Britt says:

      I don’t know why they think people are stupid. I saw many defending her and clearly seeing the pile on and the foolishness. The press never learn. They did this when William was trending for his supposed transgressions and many called out the media for throwing Meghan under the bus. I don’t think they realize that always targeting and throwing the only WOC and American under the bus is making the media and BRF look bad.

  17. Anna nuttall says:

    What has the Duke of York done?

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      He is big pals with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein ran a sex trafficking operation involving underage girls, there are photos of Andrew with one of the girls and some of him with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. Stories are swirling about what Randy Andy has been up to, and the ages of those involved. The last time the story surfaced it was shut down in the press by the Queen. Epstein has been arrested again this week for more of the same.

      • Surly Gale says:

        Girls AND BOYS! We’re talking CHILDREN….for SEX. Remember, dear celebitches, that Kevin Spacey is one of Epstein’s ‘friends’. And KS is not interested in females.

      • Maria says:

        Is there proof that Andy was involved in the sex-trafic activities or was he just chummy with the guy? Even if there are photos of him with the girls, it doesn’t mean he was involved in the criminal acts.
        Can’t stand the guy but not sure they have enough on him yet.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Maria – that’s why I said “allegedly.” I don’t want BP lawyers coming for me, ha. But, I think there has been one woman (then girl) in particular who has consistently accused Andrew. She said that Epstein “gave” her to Andrew.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Maria, the underaged girl pictured with Pedo Andy and Epstein has come out and said she was forced to have sex with Pedo Andy three times.

        From “The Cut” article: “16 phone numbers for Britain’s Prince Andrew (Queen Elizabeth’s third child, and Prince Charles’s younger brother). Prince Andrew and Epstein have been friends for a while, and, according to court documents, Epstein allegedly forced a teenage girl to have sex with him on three separate occasions, including during what she described as an orgy with other underage girls.”

        Here’s the whole article: https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew-relationship-royal-family.html

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Another alleged aspect of this sad sorry tale is that Epstein loaned or gave money to Prince Andrew to bail out Fergie the last time she got deep into debt many years ago. This whole sub-plot with Epstein-Andrew may be false but I distinctly remember reading this tale somewhere about 10 years ago.

    • Becks1 says:

      Allegedly he’s had some involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and underage girls. Kaiser has another story about Beatrice with some more details.

    • Mego says:

      Statutory rape.

      • Tami says:

        Statutory rape, but it could also verge into conspiracy to traffic minors, if they were being brought to him and he was aware of that.

    • Some chick says:

      I heard there was something about unnecessary marching.

      Oh yeah, and sex trafficking of minors.

  18. Lara says:

    I wonder how it feels when you’ve always championed woman being thrown to the press by the family that you chose to marry into to protect an abuser of women.

    • Surly Gale says:

      @Lara….not an abuser of women…..an abuser of CHILDREN…we must not lose sight of the true stories, or allow media language to slowly erode the true horror of the crimes committed. These are not women, these are not ‘underage women’ these are little boys and little girls. These are CHILDREN who’s lives will be forever affected by the abuse of these men.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Middle school aged girls were discussed this morning on “Morning Edition” radio show on NPR in regards to Epstein.

        Andrew was not mentioned, only Slick Willy and Chump.

      • Lara says:

        Surly Gale you are completely right. I get so angry when I see it in the press and yet there I go myself. I was wrong

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Some of these girls were 12, 13, 14, 15 yrs. old, still in braces! Those ARE children! Not “young women”. CHILDREN!

  19. Stephanie says:

    I can’t with that official who said Meghan was a nightmare. It seems that Kate is the right patron for this kind of people. Mess.

  20. Britt says:

    Apart of me is angry for Meghan but the other half is happy that she and Harry are not caving into their tantrums and lies. These people are angry and clearly need money because this all comes down to access. Suspiciously, Jeremy Vine and others are blaming her PR and it seems like this is a tactic to get rid of Sara Latham because they don’t like her. Piers wants access just like he had with Diana and is using the same tactics to get it. I realized that this is about breaking Meghan because they want her. Harry and Meghan’s lack of access must be really hurting them financially. They clearly hav end self awareness because they just ensured again that it won’t happen. It makes no sense at all. Why double down on insults and mockery and expect the person you’re essentially stalking and harassing to let you in? Keep ignoring them Sussexes because they are out of their minds.

    • Tami says:

      @Britt, when I was in my doctoral program, one of the most profound lessons we learned was the adage, “You don’t have to react.” It centers around the idea that reacting to someone else takes away from your own power, gives power to the person wanting a reaction. MM is a master at not reacting. She didn’t react to her dad, and she is not reacting to the press. In doing so, she holds the power. And THAT drives them mad.

  21. mk says:

    Meghan Markle has been described as a “nightmare” over her surprise visit to Wimbledon last week.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~ With nightmares like these, who needs dreams?…

  22. PrincessK says:

    Did Wimbledon tell you that they blocked off a whole section of seating for her? There were other sections of seating in other parts of the court that were also empty….were they blocked off because of Meghan? She could have sat in Serena’s box but that would have drawn criticism.

  23. another kate says:

    Did you guys see Lainey’s story on this yesterday? It wasn’t a slam piece or anything, but she’s usually so very pro-Meghan that her article made me think Meghan really was being a bit of a diva about the pics?

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t pop over there all that much, but I don’t find her to be all that pro-Meghan at this point. I think she’s very “I like Meghan, but…..”

      There are pictures of people taking pics of Meghan (our own PrincessK said she took some), Meghan had a cute interaction with a little boy, etc. I really think this is something where a mountain is being made of a molehill.

    • Lainey quoted the same story that had been in the newspaper. I’m surprised that she swallowed the story whole like that. She’s usually more skeptical about the way the Royals are reported. And I don’t think that Meghan was a diva. It’s clear from the photos that one guy got in her face, and her PPO told the guy to move off, the guy claimed he was just taking a selfie. The only person to claim that Meghan was asking for no photos was this one lady.

    • Mego says:

      I was very confused by that article actually.

      • LadyT says:

        Me too. She actually strongly criticized her behavior. I thought surely I couldn’t read.

      • another kate says:

        Same, that’s why I was hoping people on here might have some insight. I mean she actually told her to “sit down” which is pretty harsh for Lainey regarding Meghan.

    • Rojas says:

      I dont think Lainey liked her much. She is all over the place when it comes to Meghan.

      • Lady D says:

        I’m pretty sure she doesn’t like her either. Admittedly, I’ve only ever read one article from her on Meghan, but I got the impression she has no use for Meghan and thinks she’s phony.

      • another kate says:

        I’m def not the biggest Lainey fan in the world either, but unless I’ve missed a previous more negative Megan article (which is possible) I feel like this one was a major departure in the way she normally writes about Meghan. She has defended her many times about racism, court rules, etc. and she was definitely very on Meghan’s side against the drama with her dad, sister, etc. (as any normal person would be I feel).

      • LadyT says:

        I do read Lainey everyday. Her normal stance has been to defend and support her as staunchly as on here. This was a definite departure of her coverage.

    • Nic919 says:

      I almost feel like it was a counterbalance to the article the day before saying that William looked cranky in the christening photo. She was more negative there too.

    • Himmiefan says:

      It all looked bad for Meghan until someone on here pointed out photos where many of the seats around Meghan were actually filled.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        They were. And let’s not forget, if someone leaves their seat, they are not allowed back in while a game is in motion; they’d have to wait for a break.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Lainey likes to play both “sides” when it comes to gossip about the Sussexes. I’d ignore her royal family posts in general.

    • Piptopher says:

      I felt the same when I read her take: come again? This is your take away? That the biracial woman who is receiving death threats has protective security is that scandalous? I can’t and I won’t deal with this.

    • lobbit says:

      I think Lainey is just very much into unpacking “the game” (public and media relations) and assessing how Meghan and other public figures play it. I don’t think she was saying Meghan was being a diva – rather, she was saying that this was a poor play. It’s just goofy to go to a public event where a million cameras are trained on you and then say “no pictures – I’m trying to engage the public right now.” IDK what Buck Palace was thinking with that statement…

      That said, she was going to be lambasted no matter what. The British tabloids are absolutely determined to bury her – they’ve put out like 20 articles and shitty opinion pieces on just this one appearance.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The Daily Mail even has a Piers Morgan story-interview with Tatum O’Neal discussing Meghan and Meghan’s “supposed” behavior at Wimbledon Court One.

        IMPO, it very desperate on Piers Morgan’s part to act this way so me be very desperate.

      • Kebbie says:

        I agree, Lobbit.

        It reminded me of her take on actresses who refuse to discuss who they’re wearing on red carpets. Like they want it both ways, to wear free clothes but then front like they’re above discussing fashion. She was just saying Meghan can’t go to a televised public event and then not want to be photographed. She’d have said the same thing about Kate, but if we’re being honest, the British press wouldn’t have run a story about Kate like that in the first place.

      • LadyT says:

        Right Lobbit. She thought it was a misstep on Meghan’s part and called it. Ordinarily she’s extremely supportive of her PR game and independence.

      • Vv says:

        Yeah,that “she wanted to interact with people and not with cameras” spokesperson’s statement was quite dumb,because not only she and her friends seemed quite isolated,but it looked like a confirmation of her request of not wanting pics.
        In any case,this whole story is being blowed out of proportion more as a reaction to the christening than as a distraction for Andrew.
        RRs have already tweeted about Epstein,and the British press covered Andrew’s relationship with him a lot four years ago,I think. If something new comes out,there’s no way it will not blows up all over the press once again. No new pic or royal controversy is going to stop it.

  24. Melissa says:

    The only nightmare I’ve seen over the past 3 years is the orchestrated attack on Meghan. This is a disgusting and disturbing smear campaign. I know that Meghan is trying to ignore the headlines, but I think it’s time for her to release a statement.

  25. marjorie says:

    Even Tatum O’Neal had something to say about it, apparently. Didn’t read the article but she was interviewed by esteemed journalist Piers a-hole Morgan. Guy really has it in for Meghan.

    • Britt says:

      Tatum is a clout chaser and the only “celeb” the press has to attack Meghan. She’s irrelevant and Piers needs a restraining order against him. His rants are getting more and more deranged.

      • marjorie says:

        What has she done lately to make her interview-worthy anyway? Other than the movies she made in her youth, her main claim to fame is being McEnroe’s ex and her past addiction issues.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Tatum had a re-occurring role on Sex and the City.

    • Tourmaline says:

      I almost fell about laughing when I saw that legendary mess TATUM was chipping in with her two cents on Meghan at Wimbledon! The last time I remember Tatum in the news was when she was dating Rosie O’Donnell.

  26. Jonni says:

    Sorry but taking up 40 seats and getting your security to harass attendees who aren’t even bothering with her is ridiculous. She needs to chill out. Kate and Diana sat with everyone else. Who is she?

    • Iknow says:

      She gets death threats. If you look at the pictures, people were around her. Just not next to her.

    • Britt says:

      Serena had those seats reserved for them😂 y’all are making a big deal out of seating arrangements. We saw Meghan at the baseball game sitting with everyone else and you expect me to believe that she suddenly asked for seats alone. This faux outrage and story just reeks of desperation.

    • Melissa says:

      You are believing tabloid lies. Did Wimbledon officials say she took seats? Did any real ticketholders say that Meghan took their seats? The answer is No. This pile of negative stories about Meghan is meant to harm her reputation and to take the heat off of other royal family members.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      You’re only repeating the lies made up by ‘reporters’ whose job it is to write tabloid fiction. It’s inconsistent with the facts, facts that have been made clear in the articles and comments on what happened. You can read through yesterday’s post and today’s as well to get the full story.

      Royal Protection Officers are trained to keep people from getting too close or too forward with the people they guard. They follow instructions from their superiors, not from the royals themselves.

    • Himmiefan says:

      Uh, look at other photos. Most of those seats were filled.

    • lobbit says:

      Kate and Diana didn’t “sit with everyone else” – they sat in the Royal Box. Meghan brought civilian friends with her, which means she had to be in general seating and the space around her needed to be cleared for her security. You can’t have unvetted strangers sitting next to her or any other royal – it’s just not safe. And btw: Meghan isn’t the one who comes up with these security protocols – the Royal Protection Officers do.

  27. TheOriginalMia says:

    A nightmare? Really? Handling royals who pop up at Wimbledon is a nightmare. Really? All she did was attend a match outside of Centre Court. All she did was wear comfortable clothes and sit with her friends. All her RPO did was tell people not to get too close and allow her and others to enjoy the match without impeding their view or safety. But yes, this one woman and her two friends were a nightmare. Wonder what today’s visit by 5 royals, including Camilla & Sophie, would be described as.

    • Moose says:

      The Daily Fail is calling it “these royals show Meghan how to behave at Wimbledon and are happy for photos to be taken”… Complete nastiness!

  28. Enn says:

    My only comment is that I would not wear jeans to Wimbledon, and I wear jeans (nicer brands like Hudson and Joe’s) just about everywhere. Meghan pulls off a skinny cropped trouser so well, or she could have done breezy linen trousers without the blazer.

    I’ve been to a few country clubs – always as a guest – and smart casual included no denim.

  29. Sassy says:

    This is a cover for Andrew story because a week after the fact you suddenly remember how terrible Meghan was and the lady lying about being seated near her which is enough proof from the many photos of her being seated around her friends and staff only discredit anything she says but the press have been given their marching orders.

  30. marjorie says:

    Even though her friends were wearing dresses, I don’t see anything wrong with Meghan’s jeans. As has been pointed out, she wasn’t in the royal box. Besides, the jeans paired with the blazer look way more respectable (and less distracting!) than wearing skin tight jeggings. This was a private outing and she wasn’t carrying out any official royal duties.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Thank you. Kate wears her “jeans”/jeggings whatever whatever to all kinds of official royal engagements including some where they are of dubious appropriateness.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      If you are an HRH there is no such thing as a private outing in public.

      The situation is sad but it is what it is.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Why should women wear dresses to sporting events anyway? They may have to walk around outdoors when it’s windy, walk up and down bleacher steps, etc. I really hoped society had gotten beyond the “women have to wear dresses and exist for no other reason than to be decorative,” but I guess not.

  31. launicaangelina says:

    I dread almost every Meghan post because I know it’s going to be filled so much insane BS abuse. The British media is so horrible and cruel and I wonder what their endgame is. Divorce? Mental health destruction? Death?

    • Kebbie says:

      Failed marriage and to chase her back to Los Angeles is my guess. Death would make people feel sympathy and they can’t have that.

  32. MA says:

    Even for people who believe this whole story, don’t you at the very least think it’s BIZARRE, even for their standards, how the UK media are absolutely fixated on a Wimbledon visit? Each publication churning out dozens of articles about something like this, simultaneously a week after said event took place? Outrage like this should be for actual royal scandals but it’s been really disproportionately over the top and very fishy. This is not a scandal, it’s either retaliation for the christening or something big is coming:..

    • lobbit says:

      I think it’s retaliation for the Christening and for a perceived lack of access, in general. Britain’s trash media has declared war on the Sussexes and Meghan is bearing the brunt of it. On the one hand, I applaud Meghan and Harry for setting boundaries, but I also think this situation is untenable. There is just no way to win a war with the media.

      • Lady D says:

        They’re just trying to live their life on their terms, like you, me and everybody else. The media is the only one engaged in a losing battle for dominance.

      • lobbit says:

        Yes, obviously. It’s not so easy to do that, though. And I don’t see the media losing, unfortunately.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        I’m hoping that Piers Morgan keeps acting so unhinged that he gets placed/threatened to be placed on a government watchlist, like that vile half sister. How far would a RR have to go for that to happen? Piers seems the likeliest candidate.

    • Erinn says:

      Moooneeeyyy.
      It’s the same reason that we see so many posts about popular celebs here – it’s a guaranteed attention grabbing story regardless of whether it’s anything new or interesting. They know people love her or hate her and both reactions means more comments and traffic.

  33. Ams says:

    I thought she looked nice. Plenty of other spectators had jeans on and even more casual clothes. Legit saw people on tv who looked like they had just come from the gym or gotten out of bed.

  34. MA says:

    https://twitter.com/SunApology/status/1148903073038917632?s=20

    The Sun Apologies on Twitter: “The Sun is churning out its anti-Meghan Markle content at a rate of knots today.

    A deliberate and coordinated campaign.”

  35. Coffeespotnyc says:

    Meghan WAS out of line to stop people
    From taking pictures. There were so many lenses aimed at her so this really shouldve been a non-issue but it was made an issue. As for the guy who was ‘in her space’, except he really wasnt. If you look at the actual pictures, hes sitting below her and got up to take a selfie. You cant be in a public space and cry about privacy . Not happening.
    She had 40 seats around her which was likely for security reasons, but the optics are bad? There are options to sit with ur back against the wall so others can occupy the seats.
    Sources said she wanted to interact with people and not cameras… i LOLed. One, she was NOT interacting with anyone and nor would anyone really be allowed to. Thats just how the BRF works so that was a nice try for a cover up.

    I can understand not wanting to be photographed while shopping or out of leisurely walks or what have you, but Stopping people from taking pics of u at a public event is plain silly.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yes, it was made an issue by the tabloids and that lying woman who’s changed her story several times (and now gullible people like you I guess). As others said, people *were* occupying the seats around her. Just admit that you like to believe every bad story about Meghan (while crying about people being unfair to Kate, I’m sure).

    • Becks1 says:

      We have a poster ON THIS SITE who was there and said that SHE took pictures of Meghan. She said everyone was. So far the only person we know who was told not to was the person who was very close to her when doing so. And yeah, I saw where he was sitting so I honestly believe that he just stood up to get a selfie, I don’t think he was trying to invade Meghan’s space or anything, but the RPO clearly felt a little differently. And, for the record, he was not the one who went to the media about it.

    • MsIam says:

      So Meghan is now in charge of seating at Wimbledon? Not the officials or her security force? Only Meghan? She comes in and starts pointing out which seats should be occupied and which should be vacant? Sigh….. But fortunately for Meghan, she is not bothered by any of this ridiculousness being thrown around by the trolls.

  36. KG says:

    On one hand, yes, jeans at any big tennis event are a… uhh… unexpected and not totally kosher choice. On the other, she wasn’t breaking any actual rules and the woman just gave birth, let her wear whatever is comfortable for her.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      You clearly don’t watch big tennis events on a regular basis then, because that’s what most people wear at them. The royal box at Wimbledon is an exception, and Serena’s match wasn’t on Centre Court to begin with.

  37. TeamAwesome says:

    As an Alabamian, the thought of wearing a blazer and jeans outside right now has me sweating.

  38. Tallia says:

    I seriously do not understand this. My hubby is British and when we go over or speak to his family there everyone we chat with adores MM and Harry. Where does this vitriol come from?

  39. kerwood says:

    The only positive in this whole mess, as far as I’m concerned, is that every time I read a Duchess of Sussex post, I feel better about myself. I can safely say, ‘at least I’m not one of THOSE people’. A lot of people have let their inner ugliness shine through and I’m happy not to be one of them.

    This constant attack on a woman that they all claim is completely INSIGNIFICANT reveals a true sickness. The worst part is that not only are these people willing to go after the Duchess of Sussex; they have no problems attacking her child as well.

    The irony is that most of these folks are ride or die for people who would consider them lower than dirt. Their favourites have spent their lives making sure they NEVER come into contact with the Daily Mail type unless they’re accompanied by well-armed security.

    So keep it up folks. It’s good to know who is who.

  40. hrhlol says:

    I’ve lurked here for many years and love the site. My mom is British and reads Hello religiously. I subscribe to the Times of London though I live in America.. This is a way of describing my bona fides, so to speak.
    I really like Meghan–always have. Watched her on Suits, cheered for her romance and marriage to Harry. However, she is being led astray as far as BRF and press relations go. I don’t know if it Harry , her or “friends.” You can’t claim “privacy” and live in what is essentially public housing. As a commoner you can wear jeans to Wimbledon and sit in paid for by you, seats. But as a royal–and she is a Duchess (she accepted the title)– common sense says wear nicer slacks or a dress. Her friends did.
    No doubt she is a victim of racism by the British press. For sure. They wanted pictures of Archie to see if he was black. They must be so disappointed. He’s an incredibly gorgeous “ginger” with possibly some Meghan in there.
    But by not allowing arrival pictures of guests at the christening, or naming god parents publicly, Meghan and Harry effectively stuck their third finger up at the press and world.
    Ill advised. No one’s godparents are hounded. The story is for a day. The association with mom or dad is noted, and then fades away.
    Meghan & Harry are goading the press at this point. Not a good look.

    • kerwood says:

      As a self-confessed royal watcher, I need to ask a question. Could you name the godparents of ANY royal child? Who are Louis godparents? Who are William or Harry’s godparents? It’s a non-issue, blown into a huge scandal because the British media HAVE NOTHING else.

      As for wearing jeans to Wimbledon, I’m frankly embarrassed by the fuss over this. It’s a crucial time in British history and the papers are full with stories about an item of clothing a woman wore a WEEK ago. Pitiful.

      And all the people who have issues with those empty seats should direct their anger at the RPO and Wimbledon. A MINOR royal like the Duchess of Sussex doesn’t set the security rules.

      It’s so petty and sad. It makes me wonder what besides malignant racism is behind it all.

      • Maria says:

        I know one of Prince William’s godparents was Laurens Vander Post, a poet. Also ex-king Constantine of Greece. On Harry’ s side Sarah Chatto was one.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Normally, a comment like yours with so many inaccuracies/and false criticisms/exaggerations would have quite a few responses…..my guess is that the sheer volume of things to address is what’s deterring other posters!

      Not to be rude, but I would suggest going through some of the other comments on this post and the 2 others posted to day to get a better sense of the relationship between the Sussexes and the press.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @hrhlol,

      “You can’t claim “privacy” and live in what is essentially public housing. As a commoner you can wear jeans to Wimbledon and sit in paid for by you, seats. But as a royal–and she is a Duchess (she accepted the title)– common sense says wear nicer slacks or a dress. Her friends did.”

      Regarding the above statement (and the above statement only from your post), I must say that I agree with you to some extent.

      • Becks1 says:

        But they’re not claiming privacy, that’s what’s so bizarre about that argument (and btw, is one that RRs like Palmer and Andrews like to go on about on twitter.) They’re saying the British media does not have free access to their son. The Cambridges do not allow free access to their children. I surely hope people are not saying bc the Sussexes live in Frogmore the public have the right to every detail of their lives, which is really where that argument starts to go.

        I know we are discussing it tomorrow, but I mean hell, Meghan goes to a polo match with Archie and twitter is full of comments about how he is a doll (like, not in a cute way) and how she is trying to one-up Kate etc. Even when they let in the press in such a way, she still gets ripped to shreds.

        And as was pointed out yesterday, Diana let the press in.

      • Becks1 says:

        And to be clear, I do think when you are a working royal the public is entitled to “some” access. Which they got when she went to Wimbledon, they got today when she went to the polo match. They are not entitled to complete and full access. And I would say the same for the Cambridges, who have been notoriously private over the past 6 years and in control of their kids images. Its only been very recent that we have seen so many (relatively) pictures of the Cam kids.

    • Hope says:

      When it comes to Meghan, you can’t use the other royals as precedent for not being hounded.

      I wish people could come to terms with this. You can’t offer advice until there’s an acceptance that the reporting and the reception is based in racism and a nitpicking that is not extended to the other royals. And it’s not that the other royals did it better but that they were given more of a pass.

      The press or rather the RitaSkeeters who cover the royals used Meghan’s father to harrass her for months while leaving out that Thomas and Samanta were estranged from the rest of their family. There has been a collective amnesia amongst all the commenters offering advice to the Sussexes on playing nice with the tabloid press. It only stopped because Thomas outed his own craven interest in a photo op with his daughter and the People magazine that led to this was soundly criticized by the same people who think she should have kept quiet and never complained, never explained.

      But the inappropriateness of the tabloid press and Piers Morgan was horrendously out of bounds. The rules are different for Meghan.

      Every royal takes a heavy hand with the press. Meghan setting boundaries is treated differently than the other royals. The sympathy and the benefit of the doubt extended to the other royals is not there for her.

      There is no playing nice with abusive tactics. Instead, people are finally seeing that the faux scandals around Meghan are about racism and covering up for other royals. Tom and Lorenzo posted about it. People don’t like bullies.

      • Becks1 says:

        This needs to be C&Ped into every post about Meghan.

      • Hope says:

        Thank you for saying that.

        Also, I’m starting to think “public housing” is a dogwhistle.

      • kerwood says:

        Very well said. Comments like this are the reason why so many are angry about the coverage of the Duchess of Sussex on this site. We’re not going for the okey doke anymore and we’re speaking up and fighting back. And they CAN’T STAND IT!

      • Becks1 says:

        @hope – AGREED. I don’t think I have ever seen the term “public housing” used to discuss the other royals, at least not to this extent.

      • windyriver says:

        It’s also important to reiterate that regardless of what people feel Meghan and Harry “owe” the public who help finance their lifestyle, their friends and others they come in contact with are not obligated in the same way. And some of M&H’s actions – e.g., with respect to birth plans, and godparents – also have the purpose of protecting those people from the potential collateral damage of being associated with the couple.

        In the best of all possible worlds, I’m sure M&H would have had no problem releasing the name of the hospital where she planned to give birth, or the names of the godparents. (I doubt they’d do the photo op on the hospital steps, because that’s just too disruptive for a new mother and baby). But this isn’t that world, which has been clear from the moment their relationship was made public. The 24-hour news cycle, the internet, racism – whatever the causes, it’s clear anyone connected with them would almost certainly be hounded.

        And yet, the public (and I mean the public as opposed to the RR or the media), were treated to an almost immediate and very charming interview with Harry by the stables after Archie’s birth. Two days later he and Meghan did the usual new public baby photo op. Pictures for the public from the christening came out almost immediately afterwards, with the added bit of info that Diana’s sisters were present. M&H routinely thank the public for their congratulations, good wishes, contributions, etc.

        The press meanwhile act like spoiled two year olds throwing a tantrum, because they can’t have things their way, can’t call the shots, can’t set the agenda. They had a choice in the beginning, and probably at several points along the way, to behave differently (like say, Omid), but this is what it is now. They have the usual access at public events, like Wimbledon (confirmed earlier by the commenter on this site), or the polo match, but they (not necessarily the public) will get shut out of some other events. No one to blame but themselves.

        As far as the “you can’t claim privacy and live in what is essentially public housing”, on the face of it alone that’s just a ridiculous statement, but I’ll leave it to others to unpack.

      • Olenna says:

        +100, Hope and windyriver.

    • Kebbie says:

      Do you honestly think that the Daily Mail and other tabloids wouldn’t be picking apart their choice of godparents right now if their names had been made public?

      • Olenna says:

        Roya Nikk hah proclaimed on Twitter that she had an exclusive scoop on the name of one of the godparents and Meg fans blasted her a$$ into next week with their contempt. I hope this issue dies, but the RRs will need all the lie material they can get while Meghan is on maternity leave, so I doubt it will go away.

    • Kendra says:

      “But by not allowing arrival pictures of guests at the christening, or naming god parents publicly, Meghan and Harry effectively stuck their third finger up at the press and world.”

      Yeah … and?

      You know what else isn’t a good look? Being 12 years old and having to walk behind your mother’s casket because photographers literally chased her to her death.

    • Vv says:

      I agree that they could have handled the PR around the christening better. The preemptive statements about privacy aren’t doing them any favor. It’s just a way to cause other speculation and instigate the press much more. Meghan also brought two friends at Wimbledon,who have also appeared with her in other occasions (like other friends). I don’t really know how much it’s a problem for them to get public attention.
      I believe tabloids have run more stories about these godparents and the privacy drama than they would have had if they had released the names. But they could have really just kept everything private and released the pics a day later.

  41. Ader says:

    If Meghan single-handedly rescued the queen and all her corgis from a blazing fire, the headline would read:

    DUCHESS DIFFICULT BROKE ROYAL PROTOCOL BY TOUCHING THE QUEEN!

    • MeghanNotMarkle says:

      Wouldn’t they, though? Everything Meghan does is wrong, as far as they’re concerned.

  42. Myra says:

    The British Press is just desperate! They want to break Meghan. It angers them every time they think they have her and instead she rises up and comes out more popular. It’s sad to see the media miss use it’s power of influence. All out attack on a Duchess because she dared to have an opinion, a Princes’s unwavering love and WOC/American/Divorcée/Actress!

  43. Lisa says:

    They are so transparent and shameless.

  44. himmiefan says:

    Oh no! Both Meghan and Kate and have arrived to watch Will and Harry play polo. Que the Daily Mail: Duchesses in Fist Fight! Archie gets Louis in a Headlock! Kate is a Stunning English Rose, Meghan Barges onto the Field and Demands All Attention on Her.

    Unmentioned: Queen’s son in cahoots with pedophile.

  45. Jb says:

    No comment on the article but I really hate the hat look on her in these photos. Meghan usually has pretty chic fashion sense but I can’t with this look.

  46. sparker says:

    such a relief to read these comments and to see folks beginning to understand to discuss the mini-aggressions and inconsistencies aimed at keeping women of colour in their box. I thought it would never happen and now I worry that this little revolution won’t stick.

    • kerwood says:

      I think that’s one of the reasons why the Duchess of Sussex is driving some people literally stark raving mad, foaming at the mouth mad. Her mere presence is exposing the lies and racism that has been propping up the whole system.

      The Duchess of Sussex is an educated, intelligent, accomplished woman who is eager to work for the royal family AND the British people. You’d think she’d be welcome with open arms . It’s in the systems best interest to embrace this woman, to show that the monarchy has a place in the future.

      But they can’t help themselves. They can’t stand the idea that a Black woman could join the firm. They’re terrified that other Black women will be inspired by the Duchess. So they have to do everything they can to tear her down, even if it’s against their own self-interest.

      I had a conversation with a friend who asked me, ‘do you think she’s fed up yet?’ I thought for a second and said, I know I would be. But I think she loves the guy.

  47. Jumpingthesnark says:

    I wonder how far BP will go with this covering for Andy nonsense. I think they have all the details of the Rose – Wills thing, the question is are they desparate enough to shift focus off Andy that they would release more details of that affair. That would be crossing the heir to the heir, but Andy IS Lizs fave. I wouldn’t be shocked at all if more details came out from “unnamed sources” or similar, esp with how much Andy is being publucally linked to Epstein.

  48. MamaT says:

    I don’t often post, but I have to say that the sheer number of crazy, anti-Megan posts have had quite an uptick lately and I don’t understand why. Years of mostly fun gossip is being trashed for a bunch of bitter, crazy wack-a-dos.

  49. Lainey F says:

    Yeah, Kaiser three or four posts? I say give me 12. A day. I mean, I guess we could negotiate it down to eight since you’re probably busy running a successful site, but personally, I want more. I’d also like the post police to take a seat. Take several.

  50. kerwood says:

    How deep did ol Piers have to dig to get TATUM ONEAL as a guest. Her connection to Wimbledon (or anything relevant) is tenuous at best.

    Clearly the A list is either on the Sussex side or don’t want to deal with a lunatic.

    • Moose says:

      I’m going to come out and say I HATE PIERS MORGAN! There said it, it might be harsh but I feel a lot better for getting it off my chest! LOL

      Lets not forget that Piers is a criminal, as a tabloid editor he personally authorised the illegal hacking of lots pf personal phones to get juicy gossip. Most significantly he authorised the hacking of the phone of a victim of a brutal rape and murder during the police investigation and caused her family huge distress in the process as the hacking indicated that she may have still been alive (completely untrue and misleading). Sadly he was never convicted for his crimes, but some of us are old enough to remember his despicable deeds will never forgive or forget.

      He may have tried to reinvent himself after being a criminal tabloid editor, failed US TV presenter, failed Britain’s Got Talent presenter, and hopefully soon-to-be failed GMB presenter, but he will always be a chancer, trying to make himself more important than he has ever been. He sold his soul to the devil and I hope he rots in hell.

      • Tina says:

        PIers Morgan is an utter scumbag, but he didn’t hack or authorise the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone. The News of the World did that (Morgan was at the Mirror at the time).

  51. Ref7 says:

    Take a hot 13 seconds out of your day to google “Wimbledon crowd” and count how many people are there not only in jeans, but cutoffs, baseball hats, and (worst of all) flip flops!!! Hilarious to me that anyone would say denim is “frowned upon” at Wimbledon.

    • Kendra says:

      Nobody can work themselves into quite such a fashion “scandal” tizzy as the prigs at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club. ** haughty sniff **

  52. Aenna says:

    Hyacinth Bucket all up in there. Richard do watch the balls.

  53. Kendra says:

    Those who have made it their singular joy and preoccupation in life to drag this poor woman on the daily are awful people who have fetid, rotting holes where their humanity is supposed to be.

  54. Vv says:

    IMO she was dressed appropriately for the venue (not central court and royal box). But I don’t think her clothes are the point of these official’s complaints. He’s saying that her privacy was a problem because she wanted to see a match where she couldn’t sit in the royal box (and if she had wanted to see other matches,the dress code would have also been a problem).

  55. barbwire says:

    just read an article where Piers attacks Meghan again on this issue but goes on to say that if she wants privacy, she should return to America. Why does this turd patty hate this woman so much? it’s mindboggling the depths of his malice and poison

  56. laetster says:

    Exactly !!! Enough! I used to love Celebitchy but this Royal fever must end.Stop posting several times a day to explain how people are obsessed by Meghan…I really liked her at start but the constant attention on her make me dislike her ( I know it is not fair but it is what it is, + the constant Kate versus Meghan is not helping…sexism is strong here)

  57. bonobochick says:

    🤷🏼‍♀️

    You are free to not click on the posts about Duchess Meghan as I do when there are posts about folks I don’t care about, like the Kardashian-Jenner clan.

    You are not being forced to read every article with a quiz later.

  58. ByTheSea says:

    Don’t click, read or comment. Quite easy, actually.

  59. Surly Gale says:

    @Laprincesita Darling, your princess pushy is showing. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to scroll on by. Yet, here you are wishful princess, wishing we’d stomp on our discussion for…YOU! You Diva You. You’re the nightmare.
    For many of us, the articles all discussing a different aspect of RR abuse, is an education. So back off, my dear, because you’re messing with this woman’s education, and I won’t have it. The many comments here have opened my world to the subtleties of racism, and I’m grateful. I thought I was an ally before, but have learnt I have much woke work to do.
    @Laprincesita You do you. And we’ll happily do us, thanks very much. Cheers..and best wishes.

  60. Margaritas For Breakfast says:

    Yes! It’s necessary. Any other questions?

  61. Margaritas For Breakfast says:

    I skip the Angelina Jolie posts. Maybe you can skip the Meghan oats which will be hot as long as Our Biracial American Duchess is controversial.

  62. CairinaCat says:

    There is a verrrry easy fix for this, don’t f.ing click on the articles about her.

    I don’t care about the cartrashians and you know what I do to keep from being butthurt about there being articles about them?? I scroll on by.
    It’s really very easy.

    Others of us are interested in the royal reporting , so scram.
    Let us enjoy our things. 👑

  63. Anance says:

    @Laprincesita

    I agree with you re the quantity of Meghan stories. However, these slanders against Meghan must be confronted and set right. Completely false stories take wing, fly round the globe and become the established truth.

    Kaiser is doing important work by confronting lies that have always been racially tinged, either to distract from other BRF scandals or to rile up the old bigots who buy papers

    Anance

  64. Leriel says:

    News about her gain tons of attention, articles are most commented and shared, it brings a lot of traffic, so it’s not really personal but pragmatic too.

  65. TheOriginalMia says:

    Easy fix. Scroll by the articles. Don’t read them if they upset you this much. Kaiser & CB post articles for clicks. There are other posts to read. If you still can’t find something of interest, go to another site, but stop telling these women what to post on their site.

  66. laetster says:

    Well dear if you have the right to tell me what to comment I have the right to push a lttle critism… You are all very intense here, but you are right I will stop reading this blog , I used to laugh a lot reading it now I feel embarrassed. Thanks for your advice I didn’t knowicould not read the articles,.

  67. Himmiefan says:

    They post about the Kardashians, so I just scroll on by those and only click on what I’m interested in (Meghan).

  68. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    Very easy to see which trolls came over from RD when they shut down the H&M pages, which I have to say, after one look, I RAN away and never looked back! These bitter biddies are looking for another place to spew their hatred and bigotry.

    As always, the answer is very simple: You don’t LIKE reading about Meghan, Kate, or anyone for that matter, JUST DON’T CLICK ON THE ARTICLE AND DON’T READ IT! Celebitchy isn’t your personally curated blog. Find one that is, and leave those of us who love it like it is, in peace!

  69. BayTampaBay says:

    @laetster,

    We are all guest here at this wonderful daily party.

    Kaiser & Celebitchy can serve whatever they want, whenever they want and in what quantities they choose. If you do not like what is on the menu, go to another party.

  70. Bella DuPont says:

    @Laetser

    I know right? It’s really frustrating that Celebitchy doesn’t do unhinged, unfair, irrational criticism of Meghan. (Boo!)

    Kinda takes all the fun out of the racist, sexist bullying.

  71. kerwood says:

    I know. It must be torture being FORCED to click, read AND comment about something you dislike so much.

    Bad Kaiser. BAAAAAAAAD!!!!

  72. ProfPlum says:

    You could just keep scrolling.

  73. Becks1 says:

    Right? I don’t get that. I don’t care about the Kardashians, so I only read about 1/4 of the Kardashian articles posted (usually if something has a ton of comments I’ll check it out.) One of the things I like best about Celebitchy is that I find it easy to navigate and easy to avoid the stories that you don’t want to read.

  74. Abby says:

    Exactly. I scroll by 90% of the Kardashian posts. Easy. I like reading about the royals.

  75. Gingerbee says:

    @Bonobochick, I was thinking the same. They can scroll past the Meghan posts.
    I also believed that all these Meghan bashing from the press, is to throw the scent off Randy Andy.

  76. BayTampaBay says:

    Surly Gale, Perfect comment.

    You are not the only student attending classes at this online university.

    Like you, I have learned so much.

  77. Bella DuPont says:

    @ Surly Gale

    Comment of the day for me. Muuaaah! ;-)

  78. Abby says:

    here here. I have learned so much from the comments on celebitchy articles, particularly about the royals. I’m thankful!

  79. Tami says:

    @surly gale 100% this. I will add, that there are very few websites that provide a pro-Meg perspective. I know that most British tabloids won’t, and if people in the UK read only those websites, they might not get a balanced perspective. I remember when the Rose/Will story first emerged, the UK tabs didn’t address the affair, because they knew they would be sued into oblivion. The casting out was portrayed as squabbling between women, and not what was really going on. We got more coverage of alternative theories (like the affair) because the RF (William particular) doesn’t have that same power over our media.

    Like anything, It’s important that we get multiple sources of information, just like we would in articles addressing politics, world events, or or or. One can’t watch only Fox News (or only CNN, BBC, etc) and expect that you are getting 100% truth from that one source. This site takes each Meg story and responds to it, and given that there are 8 stories everyday criticizing MM in the DM, it’s important to counter the major stories, even if it means more coverage than a reader might like. This may be one of the only sites that counters the anti-MM rhetoric so openly and provides the sub-context behind the criticism (racism, distraction from other RF stories that are more damning, etc).

  80. Nic919 says:

    Tami that is exactly why they criticize articles about Meghan here. They don’t want a site that skews more positive to her because then it makes their racist opinions look even worse. Stay mad people. You can go to tumblr or post your hate on RD.

  81. Lady D says:

    “The many comments here have opened my world to the subtleties of racism, and I’m grateful. I thought I was an ally before, but have learnt I have much woke work to do.”
    Thank you for this. It’s how I feel too.

  82. Kendra says:

    I wanna be Surly Gale when I grow up.

  83. Olenna says:

    @Surly Gale,
    +100! This (I quote) “caustic” “bitch” approves of your comment!

    And, yeah, I can see those name-calling, anti-Meg stalkers with their multi-color, tear-stained cheeks frothing at the mouth over this comment, and I’m here for it. LOL!

  84. BayTampaBay says:

    @Anance, THANK YOU! US Vanity Fair has already picked up the Wimbledon “scrum” story. The Vanity Fair take on the “scrum” was in my mailbox this am!