Duchess Meghan was ‘horrified’ by Prince Andrew’s rancid BBC interview

(L-R) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds attend the annual Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall on November 09, 2019 in London, England.

There were so many moments in the Duke of York’s BBC interview which made my skin crawl. There were the blatant lies about his sweat glands and taking his daughter for pizza on the night Virginia Roberts Giuffre said she was trafficked to him. There were the lies about public displays of affection and the creepy way he tried to justify his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. But one of the most horrific moments was when Andrew tried to mansplain sex as such: “if you’re a man it is a positive act to have sex with somebody. You have to take some sort of positive action and so therefore if you try to forget it’s very difficult to try and forget a positive action and I do not remember anything.” That’s how he knows he didn’t rape a 17 year old who was trafficked to him by Epstein & Maxwell: he would remember it because men always remember the “positive act” of sex.

Well, the Telegraph had a lengthy piece about how Andrew’s life, office and patronages have all fallen apart in the last week, and buried in that story was this part about how the Duchess of Sussex reacted with horror to Andrew’s interview, specifically that line:

In a further humiliation, the Duke has also been ordered to move his private office out of Buckingham Palace. It comes as friends of the Duchess of Sussex were said to be horrified by the manner in which the Duke of York dismissed allegations that he had sex with a teenager. The Duke denied Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s claims that they had a number of sexual encounters, telling the BBC that he would have recalled it if they had, because sex for a man was a “positive act”.

The Duke’s explanation is understood to have left friends of the Duchess, who has championed the cause of female victims of violence, feeling uncomfortable.

[From The Telegraph]

I think it’s interesting that the Telegraph – not one of the tabloids hellbent on smearing Meghan regularly – would make that aside in the middle of a story about Andrew. It’s almost as if someone in Meghan’s office wanted it to be known as soon as possible, that Meghan won’t play the Queen’s “protect Andrew at all costs” game. Granted, Prince Charles has zero interest in protecting Andrew either, but this was chronologically the first time anyone reported on any other royal’s negative thoughts on Andrew (after this, William’s office let it be known that he wasn’t a fan). The Duchess of Cornwall is a patron of some domestic violence and rape-survivor-advocacy groups and we’re not hearing about how she was “horrified,” you know? Same with the Countess of Wessex. Now, that being said, the Telegraph included these comments from prominent women too, all regarding that “positive act” quote:

Harriet Wistrich, a lawyer at the Centre for Women’s Justice, said yesterday: “This clearly suggests a very sexist stereotypical view of sex as something men do to women. It also makes no sense as to why it would be more likely you would remember it. The whole sentence – and interview – has no authenticity about it.”

Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat leader, has complained that aspects of the Duke’s language were “very difficult” to hear. “It would suggest for a woman it is not a positive act,” she said. “Actually, it’s a positive act for anybody, man or woman to have sex, because if it’s not a positive act, then there is not that consent, and that’s rape.”

[From The Telegraph]

Yep. Beyond the offensiveness of the casual sexism, there’s the actual rape culture of it all. Lord, that interview was a mess.

What else? Yeah, Andrew had to move his office out of Buckingham Palace on Friday. And his stupid Pitch@Palace thing is being rebranded because he can’t use “@palace” anymore. And Andrew has lost more patronages and basically, he’s toxic at every level. But he still goes riding with the Queen.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and HRH The Countess of Wessex attends the National Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph on Sunday 10 November 2019

Meghan Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry Duke of Sussex pictured at Field of Remembrance in London

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid and Avalon Red.

Related stories

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

88 Responses to “Duchess Meghan was ‘horrified’ by Prince Andrew’s rancid BBC interview”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. pearlime says:

    Well, she and the rest of the world.

    • Mico says:

      It doesn’t say she was horrified, it says “Friends of the Duchess were said to be horrified.”

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Mico, Agree, this is quote is all over the internet and being wrongly attributed to Meghan.

      • Iris's Grandaughter says:

        I think if Duchess Meghan had a response it would be in support of the victims of child sex trafficking but that would make too much sense and be too positive for the British Media.

      • carmen says:

        The article was written by 3 people and looks like a dog’s breakfast the way it was put together.

      • I think the Duchess probably is horrified, but I do not believe she has authorized this statement. I actually think this is someone throwing Meghan into the fire to stir things up and use her name for clicks. The quotes above clearly state TWICE that it is the friends who are horrified:

        “….comes as friends of the Duchess of Sussex were said to be horrified by the…….explanation is understood to have left friends of the Duchess,…”

        So, here’s my thinking…. I don’t think this is Meghan getting her opinion out; otherwise it would say….friends of Meghan say SHE was horrified. I think — because of Sussex ongoing lawsuits — this is someone, be it KP, men in grey, or RR, trying to light a fire that Meghan has once again broken royal ranks and is inserting herself while rest of family — even Harry — stay silent. I think whomever the FRIENDS are they knew the general public would read it as … the Duchess is horrified… Someone is very carefully trying to drag Meghan into this mess.

      • Wow2 says:

        Yea well megan cant be seen as ‘stepping out of line’ now can she…

  2. Seraphina says:

    Well we all know she has common sense, intelligence and also has Emotional intelligence.

    • Pineapple says:

      Yes Seraphina, everything the Royal Family seems to be lacking in these proceedings. XO The Royal Family must get tired of being schooled by Meghan.

  3. Erinn says:

    “The Duke’s explanation is understood to have left friends of the Duchess, who has championed the cause of female victims of violence, feeling uncomfortable.”

    That was a super strange line. I don’t really understand why that would be included. Why would it matter what friends of Meghan think about Andrew’s interview? Of COURSE they’re horrified, the world SHOULD be horrified. But it just seems really strange to comment specifically on “friends of the Duchess”. And I don’t mean this as a rip on Meghan whatsoever. But who the hell is writing articles and giving consideration to what her friends are feeling. I assume it’s another attempt to make Meghan look bad, because it almost always is.

    • Livvers says:

      If there is anything factual about that sentence, I think it’s journalist code for “I was staking out a restaurant that Meghan’s friends are known to frequent and I overheard snippets of a conversation.”

      • Erinn says:

        Yeah, I’m leaning to it being either completely pulled out of their behinds, or some very vague level of truth-ish.

    • Sof says:

      Perhaps one of Meghan’s “friends” talked to the press. And I say “friends” because that woman who used to work with her was labeled as her friend when she obviously wasn’t.

  4. Becks1 says:

    Well, it says “friends of the duchess” but I think its clear that’s supposed to be code for “the Duchess herself was horrified” which seems reasonable…since most people were horrified by the interview, especially that part.

    • Leah says:

      It could be a weird, convoluted way of referencing Harry, but that probably would have read more like “those close to the Dutchess…” Strange wording for sure.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah it is really strange wording. Like, if it means just what it says – that friends of the duchess are horrified – why do we care? We are all horrified. I don’t think this is just about bringing the Duchess of Sussex into this because her being horrified makes her look better, IMO, since the coverage over the past week has been about how awful the interview went.

    • BellaBella says:

      I read “friends of the Duchess” as meaning FRIENDS OF THE DUCHESS. It doesn’t say *she* was horrified. I know the game is to look at every little nitpick where her name is mentioned, and to perceive it as a slam, but c’mon.

    • PrincessK says:

      No, this little story of no substance is just another way for the media to keep the spotlight on Meghan, they are in agony over her absence for six weeks, how will they attract readers, and get juicy headlines, even the Andrew scandal isn’t enough for them….they just want Meghan, Meghan, Meghan…anyway and anyhow.

  5. Mignionette says:

    “The Duke’s explanation is understood to have left friends of the Duchess, who has championed the cause of female victims of violence, feeling uncomfortable.”

    The above could literally be a stretch by the ToryGraph to describe anyone who has ever met Meghan. It is a very clever play on words which actually amounts to nothing. Problem is once it has made it into the Telegraph, the story can then be sold onto the likes of the Fail and cue the glorious comments section about how uppity and above herself Meghan is.

    FYI ‘Uppity’ has been banned in editorials to do with Meghan in the UK press this week finally.

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      They were actually using it?? And so much that it had to be banned?!?

      • Mignionette says:

        YEP. And If I’m honest I think they always knew and did it as a provocation for race outrage ratings. Controversy sells and generates clicks.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        And I thought they were garbage human beings before! Not that anything is morally shocking about them- it’s only shocking due to a failure of imagination. That ban should’ve been enacted three years ago.

  6. Wilady says:

    What did I just read?! Like you only remember things if they were positive? You can’t forget positive things? You don’t remember negative experiences?!

    That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Rape survivors everywhere wish they could forget the “negative act”, you dimwit. I can’t even with him.

    • marlasay says:

      I’m not sure why people don’t understand what he was saying. It’s really dumb but it’s easy to understand – his stupid point was that there is a necessary action involved, not a passive one, so a man would remember. He’s not saying positive as in good, he means positive as in proactive.

      It’s ridiculous and idiotic but that’s what he’s saying. I guess he thinks women forget all sex they have because they are the passive partner.

      • C-Shell says:

        Yep. When you watch him saying this drivel, you can tell from his facial expression that he’s using “positive action” as a euphemism (i.e., for achieving an erection), and maybe that’s a bit of a problem for him and so when it *does* happen, it’s memorable. 😉 Doesn’t undercut the fact that he’s lying.

      • Amy Too says:

        Well you know, sometimes the woman might be asleep, or drunk, or drugged, or passed out, or in a state of psychosis or having a panic attack and sex is just something that is being done to her. The man is taking the positive action of inserting his d*ck into her, but she could be literally dead while it’s happening, that’s how passive the can be during sex.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Yeah he meant an active physical action…but still…when one asks if you’ve raped a teenager, the best answer is never “I don’t recall” followed by a bizarre description of male anatomy.

      • marlasays says:

        It’s like Trump saying certain women are too ugly for him to sexually assault. Like a normal guy would just say “No, I would never do that, and I haven’t done that” but these dudes are like “Let me tell a weird rambling story that makes me look 100 times more guilty, aaand checkmate, totally innocent”.

      • Wilady says:

        Ok that clarifies it a bit. Regardless, he was neither clear not concise and his rationale is bizarre. Done with this gross man.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        What it means he really only gets an erection when he’s raping girls.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Marlasays- that’s exactly what I thought of too. Non rapists don’t qualify rape conditions.

      • ADS says:

        That’s what I understood him to mean too.

    • A says:

      No, you see, if you’re a man, sex is always a positive act. So by that logic, the other implication that Andrew is making here is that men can’t be raped.

      Yes, he really is that disgusting isn’t he.

    • BeanieBean says:

      What I thought was weird of his talking about ‘trying to forget’ having sex with someone. And why might that be? Maybe if you forced yourself on a trafficked girl?

  7. Sarah says:

    You and me both, Meg, you and me both.
    But that’s the truly awful thing about that mess of an itw, right? It was layers upon layers of sh*t. Indeed, Andrew’s statement about sex being a positive act for the man was atrocious but compared to the sweaty gland defense, the “unbecoming” behavior on Epstein’s part and the Pizza Express alibi, it almost flew under the radar. That itw was white male privilege and rape culture on steroids, honestly.

  8. S808 says:

    It goes without saying that Meghan would be horrified, why the random blurb in this story? Also, “were said to be”, “is understood” are not declarative statements so it seems like the author is making assumptions, again why? I wouldn’t insert myself into this mess if I were her. No one doubts she’s disgusted.

    • Chisey says:

      I wonder if by positive act he meant, like, an act that requires direct action, since the man is penetrating. As opposed to women, who presumably lie back and think of England and then totally forget it happened, in Andrew’s mind. This is offensive for a whole host of reasons, but it makes more sense to me than ‘sex is always positive for men so they remember it but it’s negative for women so they don’t’. But it’s all so idiotic I can’t even.

      ETA: uh sorry I didn’t mean to respond to s808 particularly, just to the story

      • Can’tbe says:

        I don’t know why we are analyzing his comment. Among the many terrible things Andrew is first and foremost he’s an idiot.

    • WingKingdom says:

      Ooh, this drives me nuts!!! “Were said to be” is sooo passive. It implies that someone with insider knowledge said it, but when questioned they can say, “Well my neighbor said it so it’s not a lie.”

    • Catherine says:

      I agree with you. I have my doubts that MM or PW want their names attached to this. I don’t buy it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I thought the same thing as you. Neither Meghan nor William want their names attached to any of this. I do not buy it either.

      • Babs says:

        @Catherine, I not sure why William wouldn’t want to be associated with this Andrew story. William is all about looking good even if it’s at the expense of others (that cheap flight with photo op is good example). William is all about flexing his future future king muscle, he’s all about reminding everyone of his status as future future king, he’s all about convincing everyone that he’s one of the influencers, shakers and movers. Associating inserting and associating himself in this Andrew story achieves all this. How is that a bad thing for William? There’s a reason KO is leaking like a sieve in regards to William making all these decisions together with PoW.

    • Chelle says:

      I was thinking that too. If this is truly Meghan speaking or through her friends, IMO she shouldn’t insert herself in this. As Anne likes to say “has nothing to do with me.” She should let it be assumed that she’s horrified but not voice it.

  9. Kittycat says:

    This story, I hear, is a total lie.

    • Guest2.0 says:

      It’s just fan fiction on the media’s part to link and drag Meghan into this mess. They seem to be doing their best to include their cash cows, the Sussexes, into whatever stories they cook up.

    • ADS says:

      And it is said that the writer’s trousers are currently ablaze.

  10. Sassy says:

    Her name sells, her name gets clicks. People latched on to the article because her name is mentioned. Regardless if they weren’t apart of the smear they aren’t above using her name for clicks.
    That’s why you have one of her biggest haters in Richard Palmer hoping on Twitter the Sussexes don’t decide to leave.

    • frank says:

      Yeah, he is anxious for them not to leave. He simply exudes that fear. The thought of going back to covering K and W is making them manic. Nothing could be more boring

  11. SJR says:

    Everybody was. Everybody.

  12. kerwood says:

    Damn. It looks like the royal family doesn’t exist unless the Duchess of Sussex is involved. You’d think they’d be nicer to someone that they need so much.

    What did they do before she joined that horrible family? Oh, that right. NOTHING.

  13. Rapunzel says:

    This was a horrid attempt to inspire nasty comments of the “look at that uppity feminist, how dare she get upset over Andrew saying sex is positive” variety. Hence why Harry is not mentioned. And they carefully worded it so as to have deniability if accused of making it up.

    • frank says:

      This. The article was removed without fanfare. It just disappeared.
      That was simply a nasty Telegraph attempt to couple the criminally black DoS with the pedophile. The Telegraph is the devil in hell. I don’t understand how anyone could say the Telegraph is not out to smear her when it has been doing it for 3 years. White Supremacist Camilla Tominey works there and her hate has been relentless, even insane.

      • ADS says:

        Agreed! The telegraph is just a broadsheet sized tabloid. In my opinion it has no credibility whatsoever.

  14. Sofia says:

    This is just an attempt to drag Meghan into this.

    And it puts the Sussex press team in a difficult spot. If they deny this the press will twist it as Meghan approving Andrew or they’ll go “So the feminist royal doesn’t have an opinion HMMMMMM?” and if they don’t then it just spreads like wildfire as we’ve seen

  15. Catherine says:

    By dragging the Sussex and the Cambridges into this mess, they sell papers. By creating “cat fights”, they sell papers. By pushing a feud between brothers, they sell papers. By smearing MM they sell papers. This is the tabloid game in UK. It’s gross but not changing.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Even with all that Andrew has done, he really does not sell papers. The public is totally disgusted with Andrew and get sick reading about him. I thoroughly the believe the “public” just want Andrew removed and place somewhere that he can longer hurt anyone. If he ends up going to jail for his vile behavior, then so much the better but no one wants to constantly read about criminal behavior running rampant on the streets.

      Tabloid readers want to read the made up stuff about the Cambridge kids, little Archie, got a fresh blowout Kate, custom couture shopaholic Meghan, poor Harry and lazy Normal Bill not the truth about sexual abuser Andy. The tabloids know their paying audience and what they want to read about.

      • Sarah says:

        Poor Andrew. His entire life, he’s wanted to be the biggest shot in the BRF and even now, as he is at the heart of the biggest scandal the family has faced in decade, he’s still not selling papers. Poor Pedo Prince.

  16. amanda says:

    This wouldnt have come for Meghan’s office. It is just the media trying to link Meghan in every scandal yet again.

    Avocado gate anyone ?

    It is obvious Meghan is disgusted wherever she is but who wouldn’t be? I bet even Eugenie is disgusted by her father. But I still don’t believe Meghan’s office leaked this. It is just an obvious plog to drag Meghan into another smear campaign as per usual. The Telegraph even changed their headline and a few paragraphs where they specifically mentioned Meghan being the one who was horrified and disgusted now the quote is “the friends of The Duchess are horrified”.

    • Lady D says:

      I noticed the change in wording too.

    • Babs says:

      Yeah, the Sussexes are putting all this miserable reporters on notice. They now know they can Bolinger write and attribute any of their lies to Meghan with no consequences. The Sussex people probably called the paper and warned them against writing lies about Meghan and thus the changes being made.

  17. Well-Wisher says:

    The play on words from the Telegraph does not in any way indicate what the Duchess thought of the interview. It may mirror a feminist stance but it is making an assumption . Prince William on the other hand is taking credit for some one else’s action while using the press as he would the royal courtiers.

  18. Mignionette says:

    I was trying to work out what this article was about and why Meghan was quoted by proxy again (aside from the generating clicks) issue. And it suddenly dawned on me….. the whole point of this article is to create a nexus between Meghan and her friends and in doing so infer what they believe is Meghan’s opinion by using .likely fake quotes from friends. Notice the William / Chuck articles are framed in the context of their power in the family and Royal duties.

    Meghan on the other hand is known to speak through her friends (the basis of the copyright letter dispute) so now the press are trying to establish to the public that we can assume that when they mention her friends they are really letting us know what Meghan thinks….

    Secondly it also get’s them out of dodge to be sued for misquoting Meghan in future, especially on such a sensitive issue like Epstein. So in future expect to see a lot more Meghan’s friends think articles. As friends is not quantifiable they can pretty much slander her circle in the third person to infinity with no fear of reprisals….

    Thirdly it’s also about messing with Meghan’s brain so she questions who is speaking to the press. A nasty game the press like to play to alienate people before they go in for the kill. Classic divide and rule as we saw with Papa Smurf.

    • A says:

      I agree with most of this, but Meghan is not the only royal who “speaks” to the press via her friends. Every time someone quotes “sources close to x” in the RF, it’s rest assured that it’s a trusted friend or courtier who has been authorized to speak on their behalf to the press. This is also how they work with certain authors on biographies and things. The Queen does it, Charles does it, everyone does it this way, so she’s just following their lead here.

      • Mignionette says:

        A I think you missed the point of my post. The point being that the press are trying to establish to the fail readership that whenever they quote an unnamed friend of Meghan’s, we can safely assume the comment can be directly attributed to Meghan.

  19. CatWomen says:

    He should just admit it and say he was told she was eighteen.

  20. Rogue says:

    Excellent point @Mignionette.

    The Telegraph’s original article on Friday said that Meghan and her team were said to be horrified by Andrew’s description of sex and by Saturday this was changed to ‘friends of the Duchess of Sussex’ and ‘a friend of the Duchess of Sussex’ was said to be horrified and the source for the quote about curling under the table was changed but of course not before other publications picked up their original story – this is what Harry referred to about not being able to keep up with corrections.

    This was just a way to bring Meghan into Andrew’s mess. Not only because of clickbait but also to make her appear as the outlier again. I don’t doubt that she was horrified by his interview like most sane people but I don’t think this came from her team. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘friend’ they were quoting was somebody like Piers Morgan who has been vocal about the interview.

    And the Telegraph has driven a lot of the smears against Meghan. Off the top of my head they had that article which used sources from a white supremacist that linked the Together cookbook to terrorism, article about Meghan making Kate cry which later on when the Rose Hanbury rumours were out, suggested Kate’s tears were because of Rose, article about her Vogue not having enough white women or men, article from Piers Morgan’s wife Celia saying Harry and Meghan should leave the UK and then after the lawsuits were announced, an article saying Meghan shouldn’t make Harry choose between her and us (I’m guessing ‘us’ means white people).

    • Lady D says:

      The us meant the press believe it or not. They actually think they can force a decision on Harry as if he’d choose the press over his wife.

      • Rogue says:

        @ladyd you are probably right. How delusional! But guess that’s why some like Arthur Edwards are so mad at Meghan- they shade Meghan but don’t understand why her husband might take that personally so blame her for why Harry doesn’t talk to them anymore

      • Mignionette says:

        @Lady D @Rogue I don’t find that surprising at all. I’ve personally noticed that where biracial couples are concerned, the friends of the white spouse will often assume that they can pull rank on their relatives/ friends partner. It goes to the heart of their privilege and lack of acceptance of the union as genuine or valid.

        It reminds me of the way gay people were treated before they were allowed the right to marry i.e. tolerated as an after thought and not a real life partner.

  21. Le4Frimaire says:

    This makes no sense. No way would they insert themselves in the Andrew mess. They changed the headline mentioning her and a lot on twitter saw it as a way to get more clicks. Anyway, it was there, then it wasn’t.

  22. Miriam says:

    This is utter fanfiction! They’re DESPERATE to link the Sussex into this for£££
    Bill got word it’d make him as sympathetic to Andy so requested his own anti-Andy piece but to emphasize his future role after reading that piece about Charles being most popular and people positivity of him as king

  23. Charfromdarock says:

    They can’t resist dragging her into everything can they?

    Of course Megan is horrified. Her friends are horrified. Most normal rational feeling people are horrified by trafficking especially of minors. It’s sick and depraved.

    Watching an abuser attempt to squirm his way out and rationalize abuse is horrifying.

    Apparently everyone but the Queen and Fergie are horrified.

  24. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Of course this is the way men think. Know this, I’m certainly not saying all men, but anyone would be hard-pressed to guesstimate how many millions of men degrade women every second of every day. In my own half a century of existence I couldn’t possibly quantify how many sleezy, skeevy ass male turds I’ve encountered. It’s across cultures. It’s all ages. It spans across economic strati. Stereotyping this abhorrent behavior isn’t rude, it’s a moral imperative.

  25. Jas says:

    “Rancid” really is the best word to describe anything Andrew-related.

  26. duchesschicana says:

    Meghan, William, Charles, Beatrice, Eugenie, etc. They all have an opinion on this probably, but I doubt the media knows about thier actual opinion, clickbaits nothing less. Though a rather close to the truth clickbait for Meghan I would think.

    • Can’tbe says:

      Agree. Plus I wouldn’t be surprised if some Royals think Andrew is innocent of the harder crimes. Seems incredulous, but we don’t know him or his real relationships with them. Also they may know what it’s like to train wreck an interview and they have had lies written about them too so to them it may seem plausible. We have not lived in that fishbowl so we don’t know if we would think it’s possible. Just seems like with their reality it’s plausible you might think that way.

      • duchesschicana says:

        Yes ,especially close relative might be indenial like his mom or daughts no one wants to be related to a creep even if evidence would stare them down in the face such a confusing situation to be in

  27. Can’tbe says:

    I don’t think any of the royals released or said to staff any of these kind of comments, even William. Cause all it does is emphasize what a terrible thing a member of the monarchy did, and if you release it for personal pr, ie William, so you look better than your rapist uncle. Wow what an accomplishment. It bugs me that Meghan gets thrown in this. Of course she thought it was a train wreck, along with almost everybody but she’s away and would definitely not say anything either way for public consumption. Cause from a family point and public point there’s no joy in this, even if she doesn’t like him or any of them she has shown no signs she’d go after any of them even passive aggressively. She seems only to defend herself, and I don’t think the Sussexes have decided what they want their royal role to be. Now I do think Charles camp is commenting on this in the realm of Charles has more power and is concerned about the future of the monarchy, which is what I think Williams camp may have been trying too. William seems too eager though and it doesn’t quite look the same.

  28. Dottie says:

    Princess Eugenie is part of the Anti Slavery Collective and was going to speak at the UN about slavery and sex trafficking. That would be a very awkward meeting.

  29. Alexandra says:

    I think the Duchess of Sussex should keep her mouth shut and her friends too for that matter. It does not help her cause or endear her to the British public that opinions and supposed quotes keep coming out in the news. This horrid affair regarding Prince Andrew is being dealt with the way it should be: by the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.

    • aquarius64 says:

      Meghan should not keep quiet to look like she endorses Andrew’s mess. This is not the Borg collective.

    • Maria says:

      Since when has William ever lifted a finger to do anything except make himself look good? Your comment is ridiculous. Apparently now even saying a sex offender is bad isn’t enough to “endear her to the British public” if she even said anything.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Meghan is not required to keep her mouth shut, nor are her friends. That point seems moot as the article has been removed, meaning Harry and Meghan likely went after Tominey because the whole thing was another pack of lies.

      The Queen failed to deal with this issue until PR gave her no other choice, so I wouldn’t put her out there as a shining example. Charles should have worked harder to make the Queen listen to reason years ago before this whole thing got this far. William trying to claim credit for doing *anything* is an obvious PR game to anyone who looks rationally at this.

      • yinyang says:

        This is all Press bullshit used to manipulate and make Wilaim APPEAR more kingly, as if William has the balls to voice his disapproval of Queens favorite son before her. And they have to drag Meghan, the sacrificial lamb into this. For once can we publish what Kate’s friends opinions are about this (if she has any) or they a mute like her.

  30. UCLA Girl says:

    I am horrified at Meghan scratching her pubic region in public at least twice. Does she and Harry have crabs?