Rule-breaker Duchess Meghan wants to sit next to Harry during formal dinner parties

The Duke And Duchess Of Sussex Attend A Commonwealth Day Youth Event At Canada House

I am deeply uncouth. I am but a mere peasant. I was quite far into adulthood before I realized that the “traditional” dinner party rule was that married couples should not be seated together. I think I learned that in an article about state dinner etiquette – traditionally, at black-tie gatherings and really formal dinners, you won’t even put a husband and wife at the same table, or if you do, they should not be seated side-by-side. When the Obamas were in the White House, they changed that – for all of their formal and informal dinners, they allowed married peeps to sit together and it was a BIG deal in etiquette circles. Well, it seems that the Duchess of Sussex doesn’t see the point in all of those seat-placement rules either. If she’s going to a dinner party with Harry, she wants to be seated with Harry. So of course this little item made it into the Daily Mail’s gossip column, Talk of the Town.

She’s certainly nobody’s fool but I hear the Duchess of Sussex has found it hard to get her head around society seating plans. There are three rules about what is known as placement. The first is one must always pronounce it in the French way, emphasising all three syllables to avoid sounding ‘common’ or, God forbid, American. Secondly, couples should never be put together to avoid a public display of affection putting guests off their food. And finally, so as not to disrupt the intricate social balancing act that is placement, one must always sit where placed. The clue, after all, is in the name.

So imagine the horror when Meghan first burst into Prince Harry’s dinner party circuit and dismissed the etiquette as ‘exclusive’ and ‘traditional’ (terms that it should be noted are rarely used disparagingly in Royal circles). The Duchess has been insisting on sitting next to her Prize Prince ever since, rejoicing in those affectionate dinner-table PDAs. Kinder members of society roll their eyes and whisper that the poor lamb can’t help being Américaine. The less forgiving have just stopped inviting her to dinner.

[From The Daily Mail]

Thus, the “Meghan doesn’t know her ‘place’” headlines. Because the Brits really can’t quit with those language choices and racist dog-whistles. Yes, of course the biracial duchess doesn’t “know her place.” Either that or she thinks the stuffy aristocracy and back-stabbing royal family are all just completely bonkers and she wants to be able to pinch Harry under the table whenever one of them says something stupid. Also: at this point, does Harry even enjoy those kinds of formal dinners? Pre-Meghan, he always complained about having to attend that sh-t. I imagine it comes up during their diplomatic international tours though – embassies hosting dinners for the Sussexes are probably asked to seat Harry and Meghan together. And I bet it’s done. Anyway, this was just another story to otherize Meghan and distract from the fact that the Duke of York was tight with Jeffrey Epstein, who just died under mysterious circumstances.

Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Morocco - Day Three

Fiftieth anniversary of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid and Avalon Red.

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

246 Responses to “Rule-breaker Duchess Meghan wants to sit next to Harry during formal dinner parties”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. CindyP says:

    I love her but this is absurd. She can’t just suck it up for a few hours? Just like couples on a plane who want me to take their middle seat & give them my aisle so they can sit together. Unless they’re elderly or small children, I say no.

    • Eleonor says:

      LOL but I agree. Even if i can understand maybe she doesn’t want to be sourrounded by all those snobs aristocrats.

      • OuiOkay says:

        Isn’t this a big part of the job? And you’d get to talk to someone new. I don’t get why she, or anyone who marries a royal, would push on THIS of all things. And I love Obama but why did he also request that? Someone enlighten me please

      • Nahema says:

        I always thought the whole point of seating couples apart was so that they wouldn’t spend the majority of their time talking to one another. If you’re a bit socially awkward and sat at a stuffy table, not knowing anyone but your spouse, you’re probably not going to engage in much talk beyond an initial greeting but if you and everyone else is separated, so you’re all in the same boat, it makes for easier conversation.

        This all sounds a bit childish and insecure, although I understand why she might feel the need for security given the culture shock and treatment by the press.

        The apparent disliking of her being American is more troubling. “The poor lamb can’t help being Américaine”. I always see Americans on here saying about this is all racism, to me this is xenophobia. Sure there’s probably some racism but I think the British press have a much harder time with the fact she’s American. I don’t understand why this isn’t more of a big deal? Why are we so hateful towards other countries? “Because the Brits really can’t quit with those language choices and racist dog-whistles”. Even this article carries a strong tinge of anti-British sentiment.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ OuiOkay : I always thought the “rule” was about getting to talk to people you wouldn’t usually talk to and being entertained/ entertaining the other guests. If a married couple sits beside each other, I would assume they would just speak to each other and not really interact with the other guests. Or they would be an add on to their spouse’s conversation because they would be listening to what the spouse was saying. You can talk to your spouse or partner anytime – I would relish the chance to get to know someone new in this setting. And if you get seated next to someone boring, well, work on those listening skills, darling, and better luck next time.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Agreed, the rule isn’t to avoid PDA (the fact that it’s the reason given makes me believe the story is BS), it’s to make sure that people actually talk to each other and not only to the persons they are acquainted to. As part of the BRF, it’s pretty much their job to entertain the people the family is hosting…

    • Lanne says:

      Is it even true though? There have been so many attempts to otherize her and say she doesn’t know her place. It’s an easy speculation to present as fact, just as the tabs did with “she won’t let Harry hunt” or “she wants to raise her kid vegan”. Anyway, maybe it’s Harry who wants them to sit together! The British tabs never consider that.

      • Amy Too says:

        I have a feeling that Harry might be behind this and other things that come up that are considered rule breaking or against protocol or whatever. I think in an attempt to make things more comfortable for Meghan and to protect her, he asks for special favors or asks for rules to be bent, like maybe this seating arrangement thing. I think he feels like she’s more fragile than she actually is and I bet he’s also really upset about the treatment she’s subjected to, so he wants to stay close to her and make everything really easy. Maybe he’s the one initiating PDA, maybe he’s the one asking for more privacy, maybe he’s the one who wants to be sat next to her at dinner. He’s doing all these things to protect her but they end up backfiring and she ends up getting blamed for everything. I think Harry expects people to accommodate him, probably because people were fine with him bending the rules or asking for special treatment in the past and it never came back to bite him. But now he’s using that royal privilege to ask for favors for Meghan, rather than just himself, when she probably doesn’t even need it—like at a dinner party I bet she’d be totally comfortable sitting next to new people and chatting. And the more he tries to protect her, the more the press writes these kind of articles that attack her for breaking rules, and then he feels like he has to protect her even more. I wonder what their conversations are like. I wonder if she just goes along with the things he asks for because she doesn’t know if his requests or abnormal or not, or does she try to talk him out of stuff like this because she knows it will probably backfire? Does she humor the guilt he feels at how she’s being treated and allow him to implement these protective schemes so he can feel like he’s doing something? Or does she try to convince him that she’s fine and she doesn’t really need him to be her protective knight in armor? I have a hard time figuring out who is more “in charge” in this relationship and making the decisions. Sometimes it seems like Meghan is, she’s shaking things up and making him a better man, she’s leading the charge with their Instagram and charity stuff. But other times it seems like Harry is the one making decisions. Especially about privacy and press access and how they interact with the family. I see her look at him with true adoration like she would follow him anywhere. I bet they really do have a true partnership with him leading in certain situations and her leading in others.

      • theotherViv says:

        You and @AmyToo have brought up such good points. I actually think that Meghan is not as tough as we think she is or would like her to be. She may be putting up an amazing front being a professional actress, but falling apart at home while in hiding. Quite understandably, especially being a new mom. My feelings would be all over the place reading all this crap about them. She apparently reads the press, they both seem to be aware of what is written about them according to Harry’s statements especially in Vogue. I wonder whether she is not truly struggling and Harry is trying to protect her. I think he is in charge in this relationship, no matter how actively involved she is in all her projects or how confident she appears to be. Can’t wait to see how protective of Archie he will be.

      • Eloise says:

        Some here acting like Meghan is from the stone age. People, can’t y’all see that this is another angle the British media is using to tell you Meg is straight outta Compton? She not one of us? She black and ghetto? Meghan has dined with high profile people before, she was a UN ambassador for crying out loud, why wouldn’t she need to be told and taught any of this etiquette? Jeez!!!

    • Lucy says:

      I agree. She needs to pick her fights, so to speak.

      • Bettyrose says:

        No way this story is true. Meghan clearly loves socializing and meeting new people. Why would she rock the boat on this of all things?

    • Pinkberry says:

      You believe the story?

      • Kittycat says:

        People believe every negative story like it was written in the Mueller report.

      • Betsy says:

        I mean, of all the horrible Meghan stories, this actually sounds plausible. Many people don’t like that old rule.

        As Miss Manners said about it: it’s a great policy. Twice as much to talk about when you get home!

      • Becks1 says:

        She may not like the old rule, but do people actually believe Meghan is waltzing into dinner parties and demanding the seating arrangements be changed?

      • Mego says:

        oh Pinkberry, come on, it’s THE DAILY MAIL, of course this story isn’t completely made up 🙄

        Come on people, the Daily Mail is the UK National Enquirer. The only thing we need take from this fiction is that it’s yet another attempt to other and attack Meghan for being too “uppity.”

      • LadyT says:

        Of course it’s BS! I’m just amazed at the posters that summarily dismiss this nonsense, yet repeat every word written in The Sun or the Daily Mail as gospel when it’s about someone they DON’T like.

      • Megan says:

        I actually laughed out loud. The DM used up all of their BS stories about Meghan and now, when they need to distract from Pedo Andy, all they have left is seating charts. Next they will be b*tching that she puts her socks on one at a time.

      • Yami says:

        People WANT and NEED to believe the story. They believe with the same fervor that they defend Andrew as innocent until proven guilty but Meghan’s is always, always guilty one way or another.

    • Al says:

      But if you’re on the aisle, why would moving to the middle allow them to sit together? Your logic is as preposterous as your dismissal of a duchesses seating preferences (ie wherever she wants, like anyone else).

      • Ali says:

        The hypothetical couple on the plane are in two different rows, both in middle seats, and need either an aisle or window seated passenger to move so they can sit next to each other.

      • laura-j says:

        I’ve had couples want me to move from my aisle so they can both sit on the aisle and hold hands across the aisle. I know how to choose my seats in advance, if you don’t not my problem. :)

        Yeah no, sorry.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      If this story is true then Meghan is WRONG IMHO for two reasons:

      1. At formal state dinners, it is my conjecture, everyone one wants to sit next to a Royal so if a Royal does NOT sit beside their spouse then the wishes/choices/excitement/correct precedent of more guest may be accommodated.

      2. If it is a private dinner or semi-private dinner then you sit your ass down where your host or hostess asks (tells) you to sit your ass down, At many dinner parties not everyone gets along or is on speaking terms so the host/hostess has to perform a delicate balancing act which a guest has no right to throw money wrench at.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        I agree TampaBay,if this story is even true??And not just a way to distract us from the shenanigans of Andy and Epstein.
        Plenty of racism in the aristocracy/royal circles,but I would be willing to bet many people would love to sit near Meghan and many other royalty as well.
        So IF there is any truth in this story, I think Meghan should go along with her given seating arrangement,and I see how in love she and Harry look,and I see their usually sweet and minimal PDA,and that’s just them I guess ,but she does come off a bit clingy,and I think that’s just her-my husband and I are very not PDA people,but we love each other fiercely and comfortably);but Harry and Meghan can and should choose when and what protocol is worth fighting,and I believe given time these stories will lessen and Meghan and Harry can get out and DO GOOD.
        As an aside I would love a great dinner with many people and my husband and I sit separate ,we could learn, enjoy ourselves,open our mind a bit,AND COME home to tell each other what we said/heard.😏

      • MsIam says:

        Do H&M have any friends that give formal dinners like this? Seriously, I can’t imagine anyone in their 30s throwing “dinner parties” where they have assigned seating! You know it’s funny, at first the stories were all “Meghan doesn’t want Harry to associate with the horsey set!”. Now, it’s “the horsey set doesn’t invite H&M to their parties anymore!”. It sounds like a load of crap to me. And as far as state dinners, I hardly see Meghan objecting to being seated somewhere else, she’s a grown woman and would hardly cause a scene. If she did, we would have heard about it long before this.

      • Gottasayit. says:

        Oh my nerves. This ! There is sooo much taken into account. You cant have the gentleman eho flirts and tell tasteless jokes next to the wife of a husband who tends towards jealousy. Hostess needs to be nearest kitchen to either give directions or run back and forth. Someone has asked as favor to not be seated near so and so because they know they will be haraased to do business or some such that they are completely not intetested in or the guest who asks as a favor to sit next to someone so they can approach them with advice etc. And I know this sort of thing doesnt happen in their circles. But if you have really big people they cant sit on the dainty chairs that u bring up from the basement as extras coz u know they will break them and on and on so when someone switches the cards or just plops down and wont move. It makes me nuts !! Sit where u r put !!!! Unless there is a darn good reason and I mean really really good reason !

    • A random commenter says:

      It’s basic good manners to sit where your host puts you. None of these “special seating requests” unless you have a real issue that necessitates it—and wanting to sit next to your spouse doesn’t qualify. Add to that, if any of these parties are in support of the BRF (as opposed to private parties with friends) she needs to suck it up. Those dinners aren’t for her to sit where she likes and socialize just with who she wants, they are for her to represent and promote the BRF.

      • Redgrl says:

        @btb & @random – agreed. If true, she needs to grin & bear it for a few hours. It’s part of the “duty “ of representing the BRF and not just an opportunity to get dressed up and hang out with your hubby. But since she seems so at ease and personable I have a hard time believing this.

      • MsIam says:

        Meghan has not been at a state dinner where she is “representing the BRF” since Morocco. If this was an issue then, we would have heard about it by then. Plus the story is private dinners with friends, so they are not representing the BRF they are dining with “friends”. But if my friends are that nitpicky about seating then they would be kicked to the curb asap. Especially if they would tattle to the media about it.

    • Himmiefan says:

      I call BS on the whole story and said so in the Daily Mail comments. Both H&M are very polite and would not do this.

    • Betsy says:

      Agreed! Also this is in place so people INTERACT with the table and dont just talk among themselves. Heck we do this with family dinners. Suck it up, its a few hours or dont go.

    • Penny says:

      It’s not absurd, I don’t want to sit amongst strangers when my spouse is at the same dinner party…no thanks!! I have social anxiety and I couldn’t think of a worse time than making small talk over dinner

      • A random commenter says:

        Sorry but I gotta say it: a dinner party isn’t for your sole enjoyment. Your desire to stick to your husband shouldn’t rule the night and could make others feel left out or unwanted.

        Also: from a party enjoyment standpoint, what do you get if you put couples and friends always together? They end up talking about the same stuff and the same tired old perspectives. Mixing it up enlivens things and helps others feel included.

      • Redgrl says:

        @penny – it’s her job to do that. It’s like a trial lawyer saying I’m not doing closing arguments because I don’t like speaking in public. It’s her job to go to these functions. That said – she seems such a sociable & outgoing person so I doubt this is true.

      • justwastingime says:

        If the host or hostess wants “boy-girl” seating and no spouses next to each other (which happened to us on a fun 12 person dinner party last Saturday night) that is her prerogative. Unless you have crippling social anxiety, in which case you probably aren’t going to dinner parties, you just smile and make conversation. There is usually someone to your right or to your left or across that you can find some enjoyment in. And, if not, it’s just a couple of hours of your life and no-one is forcing you to go.

      • Rose says:

        I’m the same way. No way will I be separated from my spouse at the dinner table bc of my serious anxiety issues. Believe me, if I could stay home I would but then all the busybodies who tell you to “grin and bear it or don’t go” will jump all over you for sending your spouse alone to the dinner party (Quelle horreur!!!)

    • Sunnee says:

      I don’t get it, CindyP. IF you take the middle seat that separates the couple doesn’t it? Firstly, Meg doesn’t seem to be one who would insist on breaking these rules, I don’t believe the story. Also, I may be hopelessly gauche, but I’ve never attended a dinner party where my husband and I have been separated. At his work functions and mine, married couples are placed together. At dinner parties with friends, they’ve let us choose our seats. My husband is shy and always sits by my side. I don’t understand the reason for plass-eh-mohn rules either. I know it’s traditional but why should we stick with it just to satisfy an old shibboleth? Mingle during cocktails and sit next to someone who can comfortably tell you there’s kale stuck in your teeth

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      They sit according to their order of precedence. Lower or unranked people would probably welcome the change; higher-ranking aristos, not so much. I wonder if she was treated badly at a formal dinner, or observed someone else being – it would explain wanting a change.

    • Lwt00 says:

      Agreed. Also… she married into an institution. She knew this. There are traditions and customs and it’s very rude/childish/immature to insist that all those things be changed for you. Imagine having a new in-law coming to your house for a holiday and insisting the family meal tradition be changed for her. Absurd and rude.

    • Mary says:

      @CindyP: Ha! And, you believe this?!! It may have a germ of truth to it (Harry and Meghan invited to a dinner party. . . ) but I for one think Meghan is smart enough to know by now how formal seating arrangements work. It did not strike you as an odd story? Amidst all other odd, trivial stories slamming Meghan? Shheeesh…..

      • Yami says:

        People have a lot invested on Duchess Meghan being wrong as they do defending pedo Andy and workshy Wills and Future Queen Consort. It’s super transparent.

    • CairinaCat says:

      I very much doubt this is true

    • PrincessK says:

      Oh my gosh! So evidence that you believe everything that is written in DM? It is yet again, another stupid article with no evidence or basis. It even ended saying that some people no longer invite them to dinner parties….LMAO!

      This is a non story and not worth discussing because it’s just another grubby journalist looking to jump on Meghan bandwagon for crumbs to pay bills and adding up one plus one and coming up with six.

      • Ravine says:

        Yeah, the ending is just absurd. Like any aristo would stop inviting the DUKE & DUCHESS OF SUSSEX to their parties because of some seating preference. Lol. That would be like snubbing George and Amal because they eat their entrées with their salad forks.

    • MariaS says:

      Interesting that you’re all assuming this story is true. And by interesting I mean predictable and disappointing.

    • Godwina says:

      Yeah, this is a bit much. IF TRUE..If the Obamas as hosts made different choices about arranging their guests, that’s one thing (and I would hope their guests adhered). But as a guest? I can’t imagine frinstance going to a wedding and ignoring my seat assignment. Rude. Babyish.

      As for flouting tradition: if one marries INTO ROYALTY, the most ritualistic organizational type on the planet, expect to follow lots of little stupid rules as part of your exceedingly cushy job. There are more important battles if one takes on an Update the BRF mission. Choose well.

      PS placement in French has only one stressed syllable, not 3, just like English. But it’s the last syllable, not the first. Silly Anglo writer.

  2. runcmc says:

    If it makes you feel any better, I was TODAY years old when I found out that dinner party rule. That’s a thing?! I had no idea!!

    • Eliza says:

      I doubt they would go to any fancy dinner parties that would follow this rule other than state banquets. But you’re assigned seating, you’re not going to ask a foreign diplomat/ royal to move to sit next to your husband. The whole point of royalty at these dinners is to smooze the guy on the left during one course, then the guy on the right the next course. And they’ve probably been to these only on their tours and sat appropriately without complaint.

    • AG-UK says:

      It is a thing but from my experience m/f seat pattern and usually spouses tend not to sit next to each other not a written rule but tends to work out that way. Like someone said enable to interact with others.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Co-sign above. This is formal dinner party etiquette, nothing more. I’ve been seated away from my husband at business dinners, charity banquets, even weddings and I don’t live in Britain.

    • Mo says:

      What’s crazy about this is that if you are being really traditional, newly married couples are seated next to each other until their first anniversary. Apparently, the assumption was that they would want to sit together, but after a year, would be glad to be around other people. Also, this gave everyone else a chance to gawk at and gossip about the new couple.

      • Eliza says:

        I thought the rule was engaged sit together, once married you are not. As the swedish nobel dinners are pretty openly recorded, you could see that arrangement with their royals. Engaged Sophia sat next to Carl Philip, after married they sat apart.

    • theotherViv says:

      yep, that’s a thing. Happens at all our weddings and formal bday parties. For my Hubs big bday dinner party (the big 5-0) we seated only two couples (aged 80+) together, because they had kindly asked for the four of them to sit together if possible. And yes, it makes for better conversation. Those few who were not used to it later emailed to say they had never before met so many new people in one night. After dinner, everyone still gets to dance and sit with their spouse. We have teen twins and even though they know they will likely be seated at the “teen” table with other kids, they never expect sitting next to each other either.
      Plus I have gotten to sit next to a lot of hot guys at weddings – straight, gay, married, single – and always had a ball- even though I love my husband to bits. I became fast friends with a woman I met at a conference when I found out I had previously sat next to her husband at a wedding- he convinced me to try Yoga for my back pain.

    • Tigerlily says:

      I’ve known of the “rule” for some time but (thank God) I don’t run in that type of social circle. Not sure if this story is true or not, I would think Meg would suck it up for however long a dinner party might run. It does kind of make me laugh, my house is so small not everyone can sit at the table so there are people in the kitchen & living room perched. This story smacks of Ingrid Sewer(typo and it stays) “concerned” that Meg didn’t know how to handle cutlery “properly” #richpeopleproblems

  3. aquarius64 says:

    British press doesn’t want to touch Andrew for now. I saw the comments on the Fail for the church pap roll. One thousand comments and the bulk were anti Andrew. As this case goes on watch for more Bad Andy stories.

    • Jenns says:

      As soon as I saw a negative Meghan story, I immediately thought of Andrew. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see quite a bit if bad press surrounding Meghan, Harry ,and maybe even William and Kate, this week.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The fact that the UK press are not touching the Andrew story shows that The Queen DOES have power of the media and she is using it to protect her favourite son. Plus I have a feeling they are also protecting themselves from potential law suits from Andy, if concrete evidence comes out proving he did have sex with an underage girl they will bury him and the Royal Family.

      Andrew is not off the hook not by a long shot, the Feds got so much evidence from the raid a few months ago PLUS the judge hasn’t released ALL the documents relating to the Guiffre/Maxwell lawsuit. The drop on Friday was the first tranche. I believe there is more to come.

      • Margareth says:

        I must admit that I’m disgusted by the Queen now.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        Exactly DU, she should be hanging her head in shame, not protecting the feckless and vile Andrew. People see the Queen as some nice, old Grandma type, all cream cakes and frothy hats but the reality is she is the figure head of a very corrupt system that she will protect at all costs.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The UK press may not be touching this story but the comment sections at The Daily Fail are loaded with anit-Andrew posts which I did not expect.

        So are the comment sections of The Guardian littered with anti-Andrew posts but this is expected at the Guardian as it tends to lean small “r” republican in it’s stance on the UK Monarchy.

      • Seraphina says:

        From what I’ve heard if Meghan I can’t believe this to be true. I see her as welcoming the idea of being seated next to others and speaking on various topics they like to talk about. I just don’t buy it.

        Plus, this is insignificant in the big picture of battles to fight. And Meghan seems astute enough to recognize this.

      • Pineapple says:

        Oh Digital Unicorn this is such a good point. You are so right, the Royal Family could protect Meghan more if they wanted to. I am so, so, so disappointed. After all that cute, little Harry has done for the likeability of that family. Such a shame.

      • OuiOkay says:

        Digital unicorn what do you mean , am I correctly understanding that you think Andrew could sue his mother the queen? For what? I’m so lost

      • Spicecake38 says:

        Queen supposedly does not like confrontation but she’s not minding the media pile on Meghan and Kate,for basically simple things-just wants to keep Andrew out of spotlight as much as possible.Lets guess-baby pics out soon,or even a pregnancy announcement from Eugenia or an engagement story about Beatrice and what’s his name?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @OuiOkay, I think DU meant to say “due to Prince Andrew” not “from Andy” in and of himself as I have followed DU on CB for over a year.

        However, I do not want to nor do I speak for DU.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @OuiOkay: I was referring to the media, as I was previously talking about TQ’s influence over the media. If the UK media printed anything remotely negative about Andrew and Epstein he (Andrew) would sue them into oblivion. The only way the UK press will cover this story is if there is actual evidence supporting the young lady’s claim (other than the photograph that proves they met and he has copped to that – I believe he said he met her briefly and then they posed for the photo).

      • liriel says:

        I lost all respect for the queen.

    • Eliza says:

      The DailyMail has been adding to the Epstein/Andrew connections. And added a second girl’s story this weekend. The DM has a lot of American readers and likes those clicks. Haven’t seen any other Brit outlet go after Andrew though.

      • Vv says:

        I was surprised to know that the other girl
        spoke to the daily mail in 2007,because I was sure his connection to Epstein became public in 2011.
        The unsealed files were headlines on every broadsheets (The Guardian has still Andrew on their frontpage) and I’m sure on the other tabloids too,in addition to the DM. They were also all over the lawsuit filed by Roberts against Maxwell in 2015.
        Honestly,I don’t get this “nobody is touching Andrew” in the UK press. Maybe I’m misinterpreting what some posters mean.
        I don’t think I’ve read opinion pieces about the Queen showing up publicly with him yesterday,but the stories related to Epstein are being reported.

    • noway says:

      In fairness about the Andrew stories there’s nothing new on Andrew at least, just conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death and they’d rather make up stories about Meghan and dinners. Seriously, no way Meghan is doing this at those kind of dinners. Maybe she asked at a less formal affair and someone raised a cow, but I can’t see her doing it at the formal affairs.

      All the stuff about Andrew is the same ole info that has been public for a while. Hopefully, Epstein’s death won’t derail any investigations into people who helped him or did it with him, but I think it might. As far as conspiracy theories go, I can’t believe Trump tweeted about the Clintons. First off it’s not the Clintons plural, it would just be Bill. Because Hillary decided to stay with Bill all these years we are supposed to blame her for all of Bill’s doing. Sexist, much? Second, doesn’t it seem like the person with the power to pull this off would be the current President, not the guy who hasn’t been in office for over 20 years. Finally, Trump has a way of deflecting everything he does on someone else, and yes Bill is gross and a womanizing scumbag, and I wouldn’t be 100% surprised if he was implicated with evidence too, but he just seems more like a hound dog, and there really is no proof Bill was into underage girls. On the other hand the Miss USA teen pageant many participants said how creepy Trump was and uncomfortable they were with him. Plus his comments about Ivanka are just gross. Epstein was in federal prison, and Trump hired the guy who gave him that light sentence years ago. This just smells like something Trump would do more than Bill, plus he has more power to pull it all off.

    • Jaded says:

      Andrew has always been in their sights – from the Randy Andy days when he was involved with Koo Stark, a porn star, to Airmiles Andy faffing around the world on the tax-payers dime as a so-called “business ambassador” he’s been pushing the envelope big time. I think even the Queen is going to have a hard time keeping his shady behaviour under wraps as the Epstein saga unfolds.

  4. Sierra says:

    Sorry but she cannot simple change everything she wants to.

    As someone mentioned above, she can easily manage a few hours without sitting next to Harry.

    • Kittycat says:

      Again you are taking the daily fails words as truth and who says shes changing anything.

    • Darla says:

      Who cares? There’s a photo making the round of Prince Andrew with his arm around an underage sex trafficking victim who says he raped her.

    • Yami says:

      Sorry, but I can’t believe a made up story in a trash rag, made up by institutions trying to protect a corrupt prince.

    • Penn says:

      I’m tired of every criticism of Meghan being called racist. She’s a human being, and when she does or says something that results in disagreement or complaint, that’s just part of being alive. This has no racist undertone, and simply criticising a biracial woman about something completely like social protocol (unrelated to her heritage) isn’t grounds to yell RACISM every time.

      • Mignionette says:

        Except half the crap leveled at her is NOT true, like the recent story about her and Harry allegedly asking neighbors not to speak to them.

        Also sometimes she will do things in concert with Harry but the blame will squarely be laid at her door.

        Finally the narrative used is often racist and divisive using all the code word critiques often labelled at black / bi-racial women i.e. know your place.

        This is another made up ‘know your place’ and ‘you don’t fit in article’, that is why IT IS racist.

  5. Kittycat says:

    The daily fail are really digging deep with this story.

    I’m sure they will be knocking on other doors for anti-Meghan stories.

    The South African tour is going to be interesting.

  6. chunkyla says:

    Generally speaking If the hosts/hostesses want people to sit in a certain seating arrangement at THEIR dinner party then that should be respected by anyone who attends. Don’t like it? then don’t go, host your own dinner party then you can sit where you like.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @chunkla, you are so correct! As I said above:

      If it is a private dinner or semi-private dinner then you sit your ass down where your host or hostess asks (tells) you to sit your ass down.

      • Lady D says:

        Do you really believe what the DM writes? Do either of you honestly believe what they print?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Lady D, I think the Daily Fail is like the National Enquirer: 50% of what they print is 25% true due to containing a grain of truth.

        I think the Daily Fail took a simple story where Meghan ask to sit by her hubby at a private social gathering and turned it into a full blown-out-of-proportion story. I am willing to bet this story was SOLD to the Daily Fail by a member of the staff of her host or hostess.

        Yes, I believe there is some truth the size of a grain of salt in this story.

  7. Julie says:

    When the royals go to these things the point is to be a sort of ambassador. It’s not meant to be a fun dinner party they enjoy as a couple, it’s meant to be work, and part of that work is talking to as many people as possible. If they split up then the royal presence at the event is more spread out.

    Also who cares if Harry likes these events or not? It’s his job. If going to a few formal events each year is too much for him, he can give up all the perks of being royal and go live that normal life he’s always saying he wants.

    • duchess of hazard says:

      When the royals go to these things the point is to be a sort of ambassador. It’s not meant to be a fun dinner party they enjoy as a couple, it’s meant to be work, and part of that work is talking to as many people as possible. If they split up then the royal presence at the event is more spread out.

      Yeah, for real. The dinner party is a work do, and you’re pressing the flesh for various causes (least of all being good well).

      Also who cares if Harry likes these events or not? It’s his job. If going to a few formal events each year is too much for him, he can give up all the perks of being royal and go live that normal life he’s always saying he wants.

      This is a word.

      IF this is true, Meghan is tone deaf AF. I would hope she isn’t, because the lass seems to know how to read a room, more or less.

      • ADS says:

        Yup I agree that she is too smart to do what the DM claims. However, I can imagine a less dramatic version of the story, perhaps involving a particular group of Harry’s acquaintances/friends that is consistently frosty to her. She might have asked to sit next to Harry at their dinner parties. I’m projecting a bit here but I’ve been in that situation a couple of times myself where everyone is being a dick in that typically English totally polite but dismissive way.

  8. Lisa says:

    Not sure I believe this but all these pointless rules would aggravate me.

    • Sofia says:

      Seriously, people are really incensed that THEY wanted to sit together? Is this really where we’re at with M and H, talking about their seating arrangements at a PRIVATE dinner? May it was Harry who made the request. Also, these people attending a private gathering, really leaked shit to the media…Harry’s “dinner circuit” friends? Jesus. Just say no to unseasoned food and eat at home.

    • Starkiller says:

      They would aggravate me as well, but I didn’t marry into the BRF (and I assume you didn’t either). I’ve been a pretty fierce defender of Meghan, but id this is true (and granted, that’s a big if) she is really not helping herself. She surely knew that she was entering a universe of arcane rules and bizarre protocol.

    • Otaku fairy... says:

      Me too. This probably isn’t even true, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if she did actually give some kind of negative opinion about pointless little rules like this that come with the royal life.

  9. Gingerbee says:

    I cannot believe all these daily fail’s commenters believe this nonsense.

    • Himmiefan says:

      Most are paid trolls.

    • Olenna says:

      Well, look at this thread. It’s not just the DF commenters acting like lemmings and going over the cliff with every negative story written about Meghan. It’s only 10:00 and there over a 100 comments, probably half bemoaning Meghan’s recalcitrant behavior and the other half feeling compelled to call the story for what it is, complete BS. Meanwhile, the Andrew and Keen stories get about half the attention. That’s why the tabloids keep generating these made-up Meghan stories–they’re getting clicks ($$$) from actual readers and, as Himmiefan noted, the large number of troll comments draws more interest.

      • himmiefan says:

        I’m kind of surprised at the number of people here falling for this story. Are these frequent commenters or trolls going after Meghan?

      • Becks1 says:

        Most of them are frequent commenters, which is surprising to me.

      • Olenna says:

        Some of them are known for their back-handed compliments or veiled, negative comments. No surprise there. What’s kinda crazy is some are struggling to recognize the difference between a dinner party and a formal dinner event, as well as the difference between etiquette and protocol.

  10. SimKin says:

    I mean obviously she can stand to be away from her husband for a few hours but if she is at dinner, why in the world would she want to be away from him? What exactly is the point of this rule again? So that they don’t show PDA and put people off their food?!?! Seems ridiculous, a better excuse would be that couples are forced to mingle and not be in their own little bubble but that’s not what the article is claiming.

    I have no clue if any of this is true or not, but if I’m going to a dinner party I’m not sitting with a bunch of people I may not know who say things like “not know her place” they can keep that mess.

    • Betsy says:

      The actual point of it, for Royals anyway, is to spread around the Royal presence.

    • A random commenter says:

      The thought is that by mixing the seating and keeping couples separate, you promote conversation and getting to know one another. It also keeps folks seated around the couple from feeling left out should the couple decide to treat the party like a date night and become engrossed in one another. It’s a standard, basic etiquette practice. I learned it growing up in the US, definitely not a just-British thing.

      • SimKin says:

        Which would be fine if that is what the actual article claimed was the reason. My problem with this article and many others is that people impart reasoning that the article itself does not put forward. If that is what the article claimed the point of the rule was, then cool beans, but in their rush to whine about PDA they lost the thread on why the “rule” is actually important and that has nothing to do with PDA as I doubt they are making out at the dinner table.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @A random commenter,

        I thought this was the “rule” in the USA too!

      • A random commenter says:


        I don’t think Harry and Meghan would make out at a dinner party, but they are always very hands on even when working—arms around each other, holding hands, loving gazes. It wouldn’t necessarily put me off my food to sit across from a loved-up couple at a dinner party, but it might be uncomfortable for those sitting around them. Separating couples is supposed to remove this barrier and promote mingling! It’s one of the reasons I find this story way easier to believe than, say, Meghan yelling at someone over eggs.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LOL, random. Not only for you believing this BS, but insisting that their friends would be upset if they were happy and lovey-dovey during dinner? Oh the horror, oh it would be so upsetting. Clutch those pearls.

    • Lightpurple says:

      I have NEVER heard the PDA reason given. The practice of placement is to stimulate dinner conversation among guests who don’t necessarily know one another. It forces guests to mingle.

      • OuiOkay says:

        Light purple that makes a lot of sense as I believe this custom is older than whenever PDAs became as common as they are now

  11. Purplehazeforever says:

    I read this yesterday but it was slightly different than the way it’s being presented here…both the Duke & Duchess want to be seated next to each other at dinners. They pack on the PDA that Harry’s friends apparently can’t enjoy their meals so now it’s either they don’t invite them at all or they just invite Harry. We’re not talking state dinners or royal family dinners, these are friends parties & dinners. This is a nothing burger. I don’t give a sh*t if they annoy these stiff, irritating & cold people.

    • Loretta says:

      The story has changed several times during the day. In the beginning it was “Meghan doesn’t know her place and she wants to sit next to Harry”, then it became “Harry and Meghan want to be sitting close togethe” to end up with “Harry and Meghan want to be sitting close together to do PDA”. Tabloids are a complete joke.

    • Coz' says:

      Anyway you’re turning this story it’s just bullsh!t invented by the DM.
      But (!) couple who can not keep their hands of each other while sharing their time with their friends annoy the sh!t out of me. It’s super disrespectfull. And I am neither stiff or cold (I might be a tad irritating :-) )

  12. Taryn says:

    I have to laugh. I don’t believe half of these stories. Sorry but I don’t think she’s sitting up in the palace saying and doing these things that would put a huge target on her back. Do I think she’s asking if they can sit together and being told “no thats not the way we do things around here” sure. Whose not to say it’s Harry whose requesting that he be placed next to his wife? Just like all the other times she “demanded” something and was denied and then accused of being too American.

    • OuiOkay says:

      I tend to agree. I feel like Megan’s MO is to do the job well, effectively, making things happen quickly. She’s got lots of time to talk to her husband and cuddle at home since neither of them go to work 9-5. She’s not some insecure clinger who doesn’t see the bigger picture. I didn’t realize it at first but this must be BS. Probably BS that Andrew is spreading.

      • Taryn says:

        @OuiOkay totally. As an American living in England, you learn very quickly how to speak, act, and present yourself to be accepted in certain places just from mimicking those around you. If I can do it, I’m sure Meghan (whose literal job pre-Harry required her to do the same) knows exactly how to act on her own and the press is scrapping the barrel for scraps.

  13. Lanne says:

    This is a dumb story but it follows a familiar pattern: media says Meghan breaks some rule. (Whether it’s speculation or not). This allows all the haters to come out of the woodworks and yammer about Meghan being wrong, which is really about hating the fact that she is a duchess. Rinse and repeat. Easy clickbait. Let’s say it is true, that they insist they sit together (remember Harry has a voice too). Maybe he knows his racist friends will spend the night trying to cut her down or make snide remarks about her to make sure she knows she isn’t welcome. Anyone ever been to a party like that? They happen, especially when a newcomer is deemed to be “above their station.” Heck, even Kate dealt with Wills friends treating her like a servant! Maybe Harry sitting with her is a signal to his friends to back the eff off. In a movie, a scene like that would be played as sweet and romantic. Hmm—I wonder why it doesn’t play like that in this case???

  14. Loretta says:

    This story sounds like BS. By the way, I’m here for anything that makes racists and classists uncomfortable.
    And all that “Meghan doesn’t know her ‘place’” articles and headlines are disgusting,racists and repulsive.

  15. Jumpingthesnark says:

    Maybe she just likes her husband more than she likes a bunch of fusty pointless rules? Maybe the story isn’t true at all and it is bring used to try and distract us peasants from Epstein’s death?

    • A random commenter says:

      But…that’s kind of the point. I’m sure most of us would like to sit next to our spouse and friends. But when that happens, inevitably people are left out. Mixed seating is designed to promote conversation and new friendships.

      I would also like to firmly reject that these are just “fussy rules.” They are designed with the comfort of a host’s guests in mind. No one wants to be sitting on the edge of a friend-bubble (or worse, couple bubble) being left out all night.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, the horror that their close friends would be upset at them being happy and affectionate at dinner. This tale is such BS. The tabloids are bored.

      • A random commenter says:

        YOU may not see anything wrong with being left out by a couple who only has eyes for one another, but it’s considered rude in civilized circles.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Random

        I’m just surprised that you believe this BS story (#567,432 garbage H/M story by the Daily Fail). I would expect most commenters on this site to be more savvy than that by now.

      • Your Cousin Vinny says:

        Maybe you accidentally posted this reply in the wrong place. I don’t think this comment suggested there was any horror – just that seating couples or close friends together can lead to people feeling excluded which is absolutely true.

        Ironically, I for one always want to sit next to my spouse purely because I hate small talk and have had the misfortune of being next to a couple or friend bubble before. It can be a very long and lonely night when that happens so the more you can mix up the group, the better (even if it initially terrifies us introverts).

      • A random commenter says:

        Point me to where I said I fully believe it….What I actually wrote was that I found this more believable than the egg tantrum story, partially because of Meghan and Harry’s own behavior. Apologies but I don’t find it too implausible that a couple that shows up for every work engagement holding hands and rubbing each other’s backs would ask for this kind of accommodation.

        Also…this is a gossip site. We talk about stories that are unlikely to be true all the time. Didn’t realize I needed a disclaimer on every comment.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ random

        You wrote:

        “she needs to suck it up. Those dinners aren’t for her to sit where she likes and socialize just with who she wants, they are for her to represent and promote the BRF.”

        Apologies. I assumed your judgmental tone signaled your belief in the story. Kind of like some of the rather unhinged commenters at Royal Dish who accept that a story might not be real and then still condemn her to hell in the next sentence for it.

        Finally, in case you haven’t noticed, *being a family* is a big part of the job description of the BRF. Holding hands in public is perfectly fine.

      • Eloise says:

        Hahaha, when the tabloids even make a simple reference to Rose and William affair, then Cambridge stans get very upset at and attack anyone that dares say William is a cheater. Even with the precedent times when William cheated with and cheated on Kate, just the mention of William pruning the Rose bush provokes such ire in the Cambs stans and the tabloids and then deemed liars snd are called every name in the book etc. But the same tabloid print anything negative about Meghan then suddenly it’s all truth and gospel, why isn’t Meghan sucking it up blah blah blah. Even with the evidence that shows that before she met Harry, Meghan was already associated with people like the UN Secretary general, the Canadian prime minister, the Rwanda minister for community development etc, all that is thrown out the window and the Cambs stans, together with the British media, gleefully continue pushing the racist, xenophobic, classist tropes about Meghan. Implicit bias and racism at its best…..

  16. Lara says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I hope it’s worth marrying into a family who throw you under the bus for a paedophile.

  17. Tai says:

    I think the rules of “Placement” go back hundreds of years, way b4 PDA would be a thing. I believe seating is that way for general dinner conversation. If couples are next to each other they tend to only talk to each other. It’s nice to chat with different people for a few hours over dinner. What I don’t like is how it’s all blaming Meghan. Harry might be the driver behind this. Also saying “have stopped inviting her for dinner” so they are inviting Harry on his own? That’s ridiculous. Obviously they wouldn’t be inviting either of them but they seem to want to just point out Meg so they can blame her.

  18. Tai says:

    I think the rules of “Placement” go back hundreds of years, way b4 PDA would be a thing. I believe seating is that way for general dinner conversation. If couples are next to each other they tend to only talk to each other. It’s nice to chat with different people for a few hours over dinner. What I don’t like is how it’s all blaming Meghan. Harry might be the driver behind this. Also saying “have stopped inviting her for dinner” so they are inviting Harry on his own? That’s ridiculous. Obviously they wouldn’t be inviting either of them but they seem to want to just point out Meg so they can blame her.

    • Lizzieb says:

      Meghan was planning on being a diplomat. She would have been aware of the tradition of placement. I doubt she would move cards around. It’s possible that Harry asked for an exception to make her more comfortable but not don’t imagine it happens all the time. What made me giggle was the journalist instructing the peasantry in how to say placement in the correct French or non common way. Except that isn’t how it is pronounced in french. Meghan would also know this as she is conversant in French. Did anyone at the Fail study journalism at a real college or university?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Per The Prime Minister of the UK, Lord Salisbury, “The Daily Mail is a newspaper written by office boys for office boys”.

        Receipt: Wikipedia-The Daily Mail

    • Bella DuPont says:

      “Have stopped inviting her for dinner….”


      This story is such bullshit on every level, it’s actually funny. Meghan and Harry are such hotcakes right now from a gossip/entertainment perspective, they could shag on someone’s dinner table and not lose a single invitation for it.

  19. Wadsworth the Butler says:

    So, did she force him to drop all his friends because she’s a controlling bitch, or does she ruin all his friends’ dinner parties by sitting next to her husband? It can’t be both.

    • Rogue says:

      Exactly this. I thought the press said she didn’t have any friends and she had forced him to drop his friends. So who’s dinner parties are they going to?! They can’t keep track of their own narratives it’s laughable..

      The Fail originally had headline for this piece online that “she struggles to know her place”. Says it all really.

      Anyway usual Meghan doesn’t fit in/is ruining the monarchy story to pull focus from someone else. As I said yesterday they are barely touching the allegations that came out in the court files release on Friday around Andrew. Boris Johnson was even defending his work as a trade ambassador and Nigel Farage is trending for insulting Harry, Meghan and the Queen Mother. Establishment closing ranks.

  20. Stephanie says:

    But are there really people here who believe this Daily Fail story? LOL

    • Becks1 says:

      Apparently a good deal of them, considering half the responses are basically calling Meghan a brat.

    • swirlmamad says:

      Kind of surprising that so many people are seeming to take this as gospel. I’d take this with a huge grain of salt — Meghan seems like the type that understands the concept of WHY this type of seating protocol is necessary, and by all accounts is enough of a people person that she’d be fine socializing separate from Harry if that’s what is expected. Secondly, this reeks of classism and making sure that she is well aware of how UNwelcome she is. Gross.

      • Taryn says:

        She’s either a social climber who knew exactly how to act and what to do to land a prince or she’s an uneducated outsider who doesn’t know anything about manners and her place. The press can’t seem to make up their minds about who exactly she is so she just gets labeled accordingly to fit their narrative of the day.

    • Maria says:

      A bunch of people saying she needs to “suck it up.” The same ones who scream about Meghan and OPTICS OMGGG
      Guess what guys, Prince Andrew is a rapist. Direct your hatred towards him instead.

    • Coz' says:

      Total BS. But why focus on important things happening in the RF when you can roll the Meghan wheel of made up stories.

  21. Smices says:

    I don’t believe this story. Meghan has been pregnant or post partym for most of the past year. How many dinner parties is she attending? Also she’s thrown dinner parties herself so I’m sure she knows how seating plans go. This whole thing reads as a lie. There were a ton of anti Meghan articles out yesterday, clearly meant to distract from the Andrew story. But fewer people are buying it.

  22. Betsy says:

    I wonder what level of Prince Andrew’s involvement it’ll take in order to actually get covered over there. Giuffre named him, for Pete’s sake.

  23. Dirtyvern says:

    Just because things have always been done a certain way does not mean it’s the best or right way. The British media needs to give Meghan a break and focus on the real issue at hand: Prince Andrew’s sketchy life. Also can someone tell me WHY he is the Queen’s favourite when by all accounts he sounds like a complete twat??

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Andrew was her “band-aid/make up baby”, coming long after Anne, after a rough patch with ol’ Philandering Phil. There were also rumors about TQ at the time, having an affair with her racing manager Lord “Porchie” Porchester. Some said Pedo Andy looks a lot like HIM, not Phil.

      • OuiOkay says:

        It Would certainly explain why one brother is quite bald. I was thinking when I saw these pics, it’s a pity that the son with bald genes had the two sons closest to the crown! I mean I guess it doesn’t matter and I’m being superficial. But note that Andrew has more hair than harry! Maybe it’s because William and Harry got the balding from Diana’s side ? I don’t know how it’s passed down. But Charles and Anne look a lot alike. Andrew looks different. Maybe the queen protects him AND VICE VERSA?!?!?!?

  24. Margareth says:

    Oh, another false story to prove that Meghan is out of place in the Royal Family.

  25. Digital Unicorn says:

    The story is utter BS, its to take focus away from Randy Andy and his pedo/rapist behaviour. No matter how many denials he makes, being tarred as a man who likes to have sex with teenage girls will never ever go away. I believe her, I believe he had sex with her but did he know she was being forced into it? I dunno, but any adult who attends parties with teenage boys/girls who are not related to the hosts should ask themselves questions about why those young girls/boys are there partying with older men/women. That should be a red flag on its own.

    Also I think Andrew is also potentially tied to any dodgy financial dealings via Epstein and his contacts. Fergie got money from Epstein and am sure Andy and Epstein shared business contacts/deals during his time as UK trade ambassador. Andrew is in deep.

    Ghislaine Maxwell not only procured girls and ferried them around but she also took part in the abuse. She took part in the ‘parties’.

    • Wadsworth the Butler says:

      And Maxwell is reportedly now cooperating with prosecutors. Epstein’s prosecution represented far less of a potential threat to the British Establishment (apart from Andrew and Fergie) than Maxwell does.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Ah, I hadn’t realised she was cooperating with the Feds. Interesting and given that it was her the introduced Andrew and Epstein, Andrew and the RF should be worried. As I said this is not over for Andy.

    • Redgrl says:

      @DU- agree totally with the $$ connections between Andrew & Epstein.

  26. Becks1 says:

    I’m LOLing at everyone accepting this story as fact.

    First – I highly doubt Meghan is dictating seating arrangements at formal events. All the ones she has attended have been hosted by other countries, right? so while she may have some say I doubt she’s insisting on all etiquette rules going out the window.

    Second – do people really think she and Harry are spending formal dinners kissing all night long? I don’t think placing your hand on your husbands arm or whatever is the type of PDA that would be “off putting” for someone.

    Third – if this is just about dinners at Harry’s friends houses, then maybe there’s a reason Harry doesn’t like those friends anymore. Meghan and Harry sitting next to each other at a friends house for dinner isn’t going to upend the entire social order and is prob more about Meghan feeling comfortable in new settings with people she doesn’t know, who all know each other very well. Or is ensuring a guest is comfortable bad etiquette?

    Anyway – like I said I doubt this story is true at all. But I’m surprised so many are accepting it as fact.

    • Peg says:

      They want to accept it as fact any excuse to believe these dog whistles, they’re really reaching.
      They can’t have it both ways, Harry dropped all his friends and on the hand they’re inviting him to dinner parties, where Meghan has her tongue down his throat.

  27. Mignionette says:

    I cannot believe how many people have been taken in by this story. It is of course utter TRASH, just like the Harry’s friends have stopped inviting Meg to events story because of her PDA’s.

    As usual the RR’s have taken a trait H&M are often vilified for and spun it into a story at precisely the time their hands are tied to talk about Andrew.

    If you believe the Fail and the 10+ hit pieces on these two this weekend, they are the biggest villains who ever lived, whilst poor Andrew is in ‘anguish’ as he beams from Ma’s Bentley before Sunday Church service…. *rolls eyes*

  28. Arnk says:

    Don’t know if this is true but if so she might want to tone it down. Where I’m from couples are even separated at weddings so they socialize with people they usually wouldn’t socialize with.

    Anyways I wonder how it feels to have given up your entire life to marry into a family that has no qualms using you as a human PR shield to protect a pedophile rapist.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Arnk, ME TOO!

      “Where I’m from couples are even separated at weddings “, I think the purpose of this is to prevent people from gathering “clicks” or “sets” and to prevent 10 people from fighting over chairs at a table that only seats 8.

    • Peg says:

      Why should she tone it down, aren’t you assuming a lot.

      • Arnk says:

        I literally said if it’s true… You can’t change all the things in a new society that you dislike. Formal dinner parties are what they are, it’s in the name. It’s also common practice in Western Europe. But that wasn’t even the point of my comment. All of this is irrelevant while the queen (the rest of them too) that so many of you revere on here is protecting her disgusting son.

  29. paddingtonjr says:

    Well now she’s gone too far, LOL. Seriously, was the Daily Fail taken off-guard by Epstein’s suicide and had to quickly print something about Meghan to deflect attention?

  30. Harla says:

    I call BS on this entire story.

  31. Basi says:

    The daily fail is in the pocket of the queen. On a recent negative Megan story, the comments claimed to be “not moderated.” I took the opportunity to write a couple of times in various ways that Andrew is the real story. I got notification that my comments were offensive and were taken down. Meanwhile other comments were slamming Megan left and right in ugly, degrading ways. My comments simply stated that Andrew was the real story.

  32. Sofia says:

    But I thought that bitch Meghan FORCED Harry to cut off all his friends and now he’s got no friends?


  33. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    I completely doubt this story. It’s a smoke-screen for Pedo Andy, pure and simple. Even if there *was* an issue, people tend to forget, as an actress for all those years, Meghan was required to do meet-n-greets, talk shows, etc. and had to mix and mingle, making small talk. She also was giving speeches (*a* speech at least) for the UN. I’m quite sure she’s adept at it. She certainly doesn’t strike me as a shy shrinking violet.

    While this “royal world” is new to her, I’m sure she’s able to make small talk at a dinner/cocktail/lawn party; she seemed to do quite well at Charles’ lawn party, a few days after the wedding. I don’t recall hearing any criticism (other than about the shade of her pantyhose).

  34. 10KTurtle says:

    Most importantly: what is the third syllable in the word “placement” supposed to be?

    • raser1 says:

      Seriously, is it “play-see-ment”? French so, “plah-see-mon”? The English pronounce valet “Val-et” not like the French “Val-ay” so why would this one particular word require French pronunciation?

    • DS9 says:

      Thank you! That was my first question

  35. Lala11_7 says:

    The Queen caping for her trifling ass child rapist son…has disgusted me to no end…seriously….She could have just stayed in Balmoral and walked among the Wuthering Heights and let this disgusting crap ONCE AGAIN…slither away….but to do a PAP STROLL…TO CHURCH?!?!

    I can no longer…..

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Lala it’s all optics! That enraged me too. Andy should have walked his a$$ in quietly through the back door rather than riding pompously next to her Maj.

  36. Donn says:

    About 20 years ago, the company I had just started working for was having its Christmas party and the regional partner’s wife decided to do this. It is a law office. My husband and I were planning to attend. He works construction and felt completely uncomfortable about sitting with people he didn’t know so we decided not to attend. I found out later that one of the other partners in the firm also objected and it wasn’t done. I could completely understand my husband’s feelings. I’ve been to gatherings with attorneys and all they want to talk about how brilliant they are and their cases.

  37. Himmiefan says:

    This is just like Doria being invited to Sandringham for Christmas. Remember how many in the press fell for that story? It was BS just like this one.

  38. RoyalBlue says:

    Ah another fabrication. They will soon say Meghan is the reason the pound is so low. It’s since she met Harry that things have gone sour. She must be a witch. Burn her at the stake.

    Sigh The more things change, the more they remain the same.

  39. kerwood says:

    I love all the ‘I don’t know if this is true, BUT…’ from all the people perfectly willing to believe any bullshit story about the Duchess of Sussex. It’s interesting how many are concerned about where she sits as opposed to the fact that she might be sitting at a table with a man who rapes children. THAT’S not a concern at all.

    • Erinn says:

      But that’s the thing. Most people commenting back Meghan up the vast majority of the time. I’m not sure what you’re expecting?

      I find it hilarious how people bring “why are we believing this is even true” when every single article about ANY celeb involves a lot of anonymous sources and speculation that they HAPPILY feed into when it is someone they don’t like.

      I doubt this is true. But I also find it ridiculous how everyone is so quick to turn on posters who almost always jump to Meghan’s defenses when they are just speculating about etiquette rules IN GENERAL because the article brought them up.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        No. It’s safe to say that ANYTHING the DM says about H&M is a fabrication.

        Around the time of their wedding, Sussex released news about the cake, the location, who were invited etc. Ever since the media started the racist smear campaign with the assistance of the markles, Sussex shut down communication. So much so, they are furious they don’t have full disclosure on Archie’s birth or christening. As a result all these negative stories are coming out. First Meghan and now they are bashing Harry. The only positive news will be reporting on a SussexRoyal IG post.

      • kerwood says:

        @Erinn ‘Etiquette rules’? What would the Daily Mail or it’s readers know about etiquette? Last time I checked it was against ‘etiquette rules’ to attack a pregnant woman. Or to be openly, blatantly racist’. But those Emily Posts don’t have a problem with that.

        I’m not ‘turning’ on any posters. But I WILL turn on racist bullshit, all day every day.

      • MsIam says:

        Actually, they don’t “back up Meghan” . They say “I like Meghan BUT if this is true…”, when they know damn well it’s bs. Why is this tidbit just now coming out when they have been married a year? What, are they making out on the dining tables? This story is foolishness and I agree, it probably is to distract from the Andrew mess.

    • Gingerbee says:

      @Kerwood , so true. It seemed ad though quite a few daily fail’s posters are commenting on this bs story. They are quick to pounce when ever there is a negative Meghan’s narrative.

      • kerwood says:

        Because they’re the last word on etiquette. Please.

      • Lady D says:

        The DM can literally print her name and nothing else in the headline, and the trolls and the uneducated will leap on the non-story and start bashing her. They will spit nails trying their fastest to demean her. No story, derivative commentary and there will be 5.4K comments.

  40. Mego says:

    The tabloids also love to push the narrative that Harry is “beguiled” and under Meghan’s thumb etc. Or that she is too needy and clingy.

  41. DS9 says:

    If this story is true, why are we hearing it now, at the tail end of her maternity leave and not before, when she was actively attending social/state dinners?

  42. Alexandria says:

    I understand this rule.

    But I don’t believe the story. Why would you believe it? This is disgusting.

    • Becks1 says:

      This is why I’m scratching my head at so many of these comments.

      I can understand the social rule itself (I have never been to any kind of social event with assigned seating lol but I have heard of this etiquette rule before).

      What I don’t get is why so many people think that Meghan would be so rude and ignorant as to demand special seating arrangements for her because she has to be next to Harry at all times. What about Meghan’s behavior suggests she would do such a thing? By all accounts people who meet her love her, she certainly has a good relationship with people like Jacinda Arden, there is just nothing in her behavior or the reports of her behavior that indicate she would be so rude and demanding here.

      • kerwood says:

        They believe it because they bought the ‘straight out of compton’ storyline that was sold the second Meghan appeared on the scene. The irony is that I’ve seen better manners and more class in the heart of south central than I’ve seen in many ‘high class’ places. What really makes me sneer is that no one seems to slam commoner Kate Middleton whose family puts the COMMON in commoner on a regular basis.

  43. PrincessPistol says:

    I’m bemused that the article portends that the so called rule exists to eliminate PDA. HOGWASH. I have attended ritzy dinner parties ( not state dinners) and yes seating placement often separates spouses. The purpose as explained to me YEARS ago was to introduce new people to each other, and encourage fresh conversation. In less formal occasions but still at upper echelon society, I’ve also seen tables “shift” between courses to maximize social interaction with new dining partners.

    Re this story. If she’s in any way bucking her hosts social construct for the evening …well that’s just rude.

    • Lady D says:

      Gotta admit, table shifting is a new one for me. That actually sounds like it would be a lot of fun. You’d get new dining partners with each course.

    • Nadira says:

      I don’t know if the story is true but it is definitely true that separating spouses is a strategy at formal dinners which helps strangers to get acquainted – because you have to talk to the people next to you.
      So the Royals should just bend to this rule as it is the British taxpayer who pays for the formal dinner and can expect them to work aka network and get acquainted to new people for the money.

      • Peg says:

        When did Harry’s friends started giving State Dinners? Give it a rest about about British taxpayers, of which you know nothing.

  44. TheOriginalMia says:

    They will never give this woman a moment’s peace. Meghan has been on tour. She’s been to formal dinners. And if they have sat together at friends’ dinner parties, who cares? They aren’t supposed to be formal events. They are supposed to be fun times with so-called friends!! All of this is to say…this story is probably bs. Just more otherizing/lessening of this black woman.

  45. Myra says:

    One word…..ANDREW

  46. Algernon says:

    This sounds a lot like the Windsor neighborhood story, like something that got completely blown out of proportion. I wonder if she just asked about the purpose of the rule, and that has now been blown up to make her seem like the diva duchess. I only knew about the seating placement rule because of historical romance novels and the first time I went to an event that enforced it, I was surprised it was still a thing.

  47. Karmak says:

    This story is unbelievable. Meghan has given speeches in front of large audiences many times. She has participated in live panel discussions multiple times. Meghan is not shy. I see Meghan networking a dinner party just find. Meghan was surround by the top business women at the reception on their Morocco tour. You can bet Meghan has some good contacts in that country now. New Zealand Prime Minister seems to really like Meghan as well after that tour (Now on the cover of Vogue). Meghan is highly educated and well traveled. Her main interest right now is her family and charities. So the seating arrangement at fancy dinner parties wouldn’t seem like a issue for Meghan. If there are social aristocrats who don’t like her. I’m sure she knows how to handle herself. This is the woman who just got 3 department stores to help donate clothes to her Smart Works charity. I sure having polite conversation with people is how she is getting things done behind scenes.

    • Peg says:

      Was she shy in asking the Editor of Vogue to edit the magazine, instead of being on the cover?
      Did they, not complain that she was stepping in front of Harry to shake hands.
      I’m surprise that they have not written that Meghan urinates standing up and the folks on here that start their post with, I like Meghan, ‘but’ she is breaking protocol, and should squat like her ancestors.

  48. Aurora says:

    This is rubbish. The press has no clue about any dinner party attended by the Sussexes. George Clooney indicated that he and Amal dine with the Sussexes all the time yet the press was none the wiser.

    In keeping with the British reporters tendency to re-con past event for current Sussex fake news, I guarantee this latest speculation is based on the old paparazzi pics of pre-marriage Harry and Meghan at his friends wedding . Harry & Meghan were seated together and at one point we’re caught kissing.

  49. Nicegirl says:

    They are right about one thing. Duchess Meghan is certainly nobody’s fool.

    My crass ass just learned this rule today as well. Thanks to you!

  50. Sid says:

    Folks here really believe this story? Meghan has shown herself to be a straight-up social butterfly who seems to be all about meeting new people and networking. You really think someone like that is going to whine about not being able to sit with her husband for a few hours at a dinner party? LOL.

    • Tina says:

      Not that I believed this story anyway, but this is a very good, specific reason why it is BS.

    • Brandy Alexander says:

      This was the first thing I thought of when I read it. She seems to a very extroverted person who has no problem talking to people she’s never met before.

  51. liriel says:

    I honestly don’t know if it’s true and if it’s what to think of Meghan (I still do like her, whatever).
    TQ knows how to kill the story, she let Meghan, everyone be destroyed, she’s planting stupid stories yet she commands the british press when it matters the most. We all thought palace pr was the worst. Turns out not.
    Why am I reading about etiquettes rules even on serious websites when I want to see EPSTEIN story.
    Sorry for the caps lock I knew there was no justice but it’s another level. Anyone understand how I feel?

    • Lady D says:

      I’m done with the Queen, too. That smile on her face on the way to church was too galling to ever be tolerated again.

      • Lady D says:

        Okay apparently my comment is a two-parter:
        I’m done with the Queen, too. That smile on her face on the way to church was too galling to ever tolerate her again. Her lack of support for Meghan while supporting the pedophile, even back when said support allowed more young girls to be molested is too much for me. I know it doesn’t sound like much but I have been a devoted supporter of Queen Liz my whole life. I had the upmost respect for her and held her and her jewel collection in awe always. She was a symbol of propriety and correct behaviour and kept alive traditions almost 1000 years old. Now? The monarch that has been part of the fabric of our country forever, her picture always at the front of our armed forces offices, in every school in the country, all govt offices from local to federal, the post offices of Canada, constant singing of God Save the Queen, and of course she’s always been on all our money, and she’s now protecting a pedophile. I have been blind.

  52. lanne says:

    Preach the word. This is the same-old same-old. No one needs to worship the ground Meghan walks on, but I do side-eye the folks who are so quick to jump on this story and call her out on it without giving any thought to the timing. Esp. since so many of the people who do so chime in about the “optics” of what she does all the time. No benefit of the doubt extended, even though so many of these “uppity Meghan” stories have proven to be false.

  53. A says:

    There’s a reason why married couples aren’t generally seated beside each other, and it’s to ensure that all the guests intermingle properly and no one gets snubbed by mistake. The idea is to talk to people you don’t already see every single day. If you chose your own seats or just sat beside your spouse all the time, you’d probably only stick to the people you knew out of familiarity. I bet this is even more important for state dinners and such, because the whole point of royalty at these events is to mingle with the guests and chat with them.

    That being said, the tone of this article. PHEW. So good to know what the Daily Mail’s priorities are. Pedo Andy and Epstein are nothingburgers, but Meghan will bring down the UK with her seating charts.

    • liriel says:

      So the Palace can shut the TRUTH down and is not co incompetent at everything which makes me angry. They agree to articles about who sits with whom, what clothes they wear but they support Andrew and suddenly Sarah F.

  54. MangoAngelesque says:

    Bitch be eatin’ crackers. Bitch be eatin’ crackers in the wrong. damn. chair.

  55. Savannah says:

    This is SO BRITISH!
    “Lets love each other but from a DISTANT, No one shall ever see we are i love”.

    All the British people storming in to talk about how weird Meghan is for not conforming, don’t you see how incredibly weird you are yourself with all of these rules for behaving a certain way.
    You’re born and bred on the notion that you must be upper class or else.
    Come on people, you are hilarious and super annoying! Haha, do you just go to dinner parties to judge each others manners?

    I’m so glad I’m not British and stuck up..

    • KatV says:

      I’m not even British but I actually find your comment quite rude towards British people. Like they’re all the same, just due to nationality.

      • leena says:

        @ KatV – not only rude but also totally ignorant. Equating what she reads in the press with what the British people really think is as ignorant as believing everyone in the US voted for Trump!

        I’m glad she isn’t British too.

  56. blue36 says:

    This story has more comments than the Prince Andrew/Epstein scandal. How sad.

    • Yami says:

      The trolls are out in force. It happens here when there’s a narrative to push, like today in light of Andrews pedophilia.

  57. Myra says:

    BBC, uk Times every single publication has a negative article on Harry and Meghan today…ZERO on Andrew and ZERO on TQ placating her son. Brits are more concerned about seating arrangements.

  58. CairinaCat says:

    I frankly can’t believe how many regular posters are acting like this story is in any way true. It’s the daily fail!
    The only true part is she eats dinner.

    • Some chick says:

      But but but… she eats it all WRONG!!!

      I bet she has dessert first, and steals food off Harry’s plate when she thinks no one is looking! And uses the wrong fork!

      It’s enough to bring down the monarchy.

  59. Jessica says:

    Wow. That is a normal dinner party convention. I can talk to my husband ad nauseum whenever I want. We enjoy meeting new people at dinner parties and regular parties. She is in her 30s and a well educated actress. I doubt that this bothers her at all.

  60. Oliviajoy1995 says:

    I don’t believe half the stories that are written about Meghan. She knows she’s under an intense microscope and I doubt she commits half the atrocities that she is blamed for. If she does want to sit by Harry its probably because she is constantly ridiculed and feels some comfort being by him. Or maybe Harry is protective and wants her close. Or maybe none of its true and its just another stupid story to make Meghan look like a fool.

  61. Le4Frimaire says:

    First time commenting because utterly fed up. This article is utterly ridiculous and can’t believe anyone is taking it seriously, other than a nasty side swipe at Meghan meant to distract from the fact that Andrew’s pedo friend Epstein was found dead in his cell. There were 6 stories on Meghan in DM to distract from him. The woman had a lifestyle blog and was a big time foodie, knows chefs like Daniel Boulud. She’s been to tons of dinner parties with very distinguished people, and has been to the White House when Obama was in office. She knows the rules about seating and, whether formal or informal, and definitely knows her way around a dinner party, even with insufferable people. Whatever, Andrew attended dinners with sex traffickers and arms dealers. Wonder what the seating chart was like there.

  62. Ravine says:

    That DM piece is incredibly juvenile. It might as well be a crayon drawing of Meghan with stink lines and flies. But I guess it’s not surprising considering their target audience. Anyway, I doubt any of it is true.

  63. blunt talker says:

    Total smokescreen and I am not buying it. If there is any truth to this it is Harry looking out for Meg while sitting with these vultures of which he knows all too well. I also believe Harry doesn’t want them telling Meg old war stories about him. If true, this is Harry’s doing not Meg. He knows these people better than Meg. How they gossip and say things they shouldn’t. He is protecting Meg and they run to the media and says its her. No wonder he cut down his social circle. This maybe the way they get back at him for cutting them out with a vicious lie against his wife. Also the tabs in Britian are trying to deflect the story about Andrew and Eptein. In America there’s something said about Andrew on one or two newscast each night for the past two or three weeks. They call themselves journalist-funky donkeys!

  64. Sarabe says:

    I don’t understand all the people commenting and insisting that the UK press is not covering Prince Andrew’s connection to Epstein. They are. And all the bazillion nonsense articles about Meghan? Maybe stop reading the Daily Mail? You all do realise you’re literally paying for said articles with your clicks?

  65. Yes, there are very emotional people who stop noticing everything around, except for their problem. It is difficult for them to control themselves, to think coldly, when feelings are haunting, and in any way it is simply impossible to “score”. If you are one of them, then in addition to analyzing the situation, I can advise you to engage in cognitive or spiritual development activities: reading, drawing, playing music, sports, learning languages, embroidery … In general, it’s something fascinating, and it’s better to combine several similar activities. This will help, firstly, because our brain is not multitasking, it is impossible to think about everything at once. If a person is very busy with one or the other, he simply does not have time to think about problems. Secondly, it just calms, and when we are calm, we see more around us and understand more.

  66. Jenn says:

    I get it. I’m deeply socially anxious, and my spouse is 100% my “safe person.” Keeping Harry within earshot is likely a defensive measure — no one will attack her where her spouse can overhear. I wouldn’t want to be left alone at a dining table full of wolves, either.

  67. MsIam says:

    Wow, how many back handed compliments can you pack in one comment?

  68. Yami says:

    Right, she’s trying to be slick, but we see her.

  69. Myra says:

    Tina: please stop justifying the British people daily assault on Meghan/Harry but silence on Andrew and TQ. How sad that we read headlines from your country daily about TQ having to correct Meghan on everything and the only headlines on Andrew was a smiling Queen taking Andrew to church. Andrew should go to jail for what he did. TQ should be ashamed not smiling as if what he did was ok.

  70. Myra says:

    Tina: Americans are fed up with the negativity about Meghan, yet you Brits placate Andrew. Maybe you should read BBC and uk Times today…ZERO on Andrew but this silly article on Meghan and Harry. Your country should be embarrassed

  71. Tina says:

    The Times, Guardian, Express and Mirror all have articles about Andrew and the Queen, all critical of Andrew.

  72. leena says:

    This was for Myra whose post seems to have disappeared.

    PLEASE stop saying “you Brits” . There is a big difference between us Brits and what the papers print. AND we aren’t all alike any more than all Americans voted for Trump.

    Many of we Brits don’t think very highly at all about Andrew for other reasons as well as this, but we have to be careful because rumour (however strong) is not the same as legal proof. I’m not saying he is innocent but I don’t know all the facts.

    Have you followed the case of the British government ministers who were accused of paedophilia and murder? Well it turn out that the accuser was telling lies all along, and was a paedophile himself and has just been sentenced to 18 years in jail.

    And before you throw stones at all 63 million of us – remember Chapaquidick!!!

    This might interest you and show all the press is not the same:

  73. Molly says:

    Tina I find it disgusting that the British Media is covering seating at a dinner party and Prince Andrew’s involvement with Epstein as if the two are equivalent. If it’s true that QEII has been photographed with PA and she’s smiling that would be troubling as well.

  74. Tina says:

    Molly: they’re not. The tabloids are covering this Meghan nonsense and the broadsheets (and also, to be fair to them, the tabloids) are covering Andrew. If Myra read anything other than the Daily Mail she would know that. And yes, the Queen and Andrew smiled at each other on their way to church. I don’t deny that it’s troubling.

  75. leena says:

    @ Molly See the link in my post 69 above.