Prince Harry used ‘offensive language’ about Angela Kelly, the Queen told him off

Royal wedding

One of People Magazine’s Finding Freedom excerpts was about the oft-told story of the Duchess of Sussex’s “wedding tiara drama.” Meghan ended up wearing Queen Mary’s bandeau tiara, a beautiful, delicate-looking tiara which suited Meghan perfectly. When the “tiara drama” stories first cropped up, the original gossip was that Meghan “demanded” a certain tiara, one with emeralds, and the Queen “put Meghan in her place” and said that no biracial American woman gets to ride into Buckingham Palace and demand a tiara. That story was so obviously fake, I was shocked that people even played around with the idea that some or all of it could be true.

Finding Freedom’s version of events was that Meghan merely requested – from Angela Kelly, the Queen’s dresser – a chance to have access to the Queen Mary bandeau tiara a few weeks before her wedding day so that she and her hairstylist could work out her wedding-day hairstyle. Angela Kelly apparently blocked Meghan from having access, which is when Prince Harry tried to act as a go-between, and he went to Angela Kelly and was like “this is what Meghan needs, please make it happen.” Now, big surprise, *someone* ran to the Mail on Sunday to change her story. That someone has a name which rhymes with Cangela Belly.

The Queen gave Prince Harry a dressing down for using offensive language about her closest aide, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The scolding came after Harry, 35, flew into a rage when the Queen’s dresser and confidante Angela Kelly was unable to meet Meghan’s sudden demand to visit Buckingham Palace with her hairdresser to try on a tiara that the couple had chosen for their wedding. When it was pointed out that protocol dictates an appointment must be made to access the Queen’s jewels, Harry is understood to have used offensive language about Ms Kelly as he heaped pressure on courtiers to persuade her to travel to London and unlock the cupboard where the tiara is kept.

Ms Kelly learned of the outburst and alerted the Queen to his bad language, prompting the monarch to summon her grandson to a private meeting. ‘He was put firmly in his place,’ said a Royal source. ‘He had been downright rude.’

A new biography of Duke and Duchess of Sussex accuses Ms Kelly of ‘deliberately dragging her feet’ when Meghan asked for access to the tiara before the couple’s wedding in May 2018. Last night a Royal source pointedly said: ‘The book’s version of what happened would not be everyone else’s recollection of events and certainly not those who were close to it.’

The ‘tiara row’ symbolised the frustration of the Sussexes with the so-called ‘vipers’ at the Palace. Harry saw it as a ‘huge snub’ that Ms Kelly did not organise for Meghan and her American hairdresser Serge Normant to get access to the glittering Queen Mary bandeau headpiece when they wished. A friend said: ‘Meg had flown her hairdresser over from Paris for a hair practice and they needed the tiara. Angela Kelly said she couldn’t come to London and Harry went ballistic. He was furious at the treatment of his then fiancee. Such a snub.’ But others insist the couple misinterpreted Ms Kelly’s reply.

A source said: ‘Meghan demanded access to the tiara. She didn’t make an appointment with Angela, but said, ‘We’re at Buckingham Palace, we want the tiara. Can we have it now please? Angela essentially said, ‘I’m very sorry, that’s not how it works.’ There’s protocol in place over these jewels. They’re kept under very tight lock and key. You can’t turn up and demand to have the tiara just because your hairdresser happens to be in town.’

Contrary to previous reports, Harry’s fury was not about which tiara Meghan was allowed to wear – but about access to it. ‘Harry was very quick to let everybody know of his anger and frustration,’ said another Royal source. ‘He let lots of people know that he was unhappy. He tried to get what Meghan wanted by ringing others to put pressure on Angela to bend the rules. He was insistent on getting his own way. There was never an appointment that Angela didn’t turn up to. Harry and Meghan may have wrongly interpreted being told she couldn’t have immediate access to the tiara as a snub, but Angela was following Palace protocol. It wasn’t a snub, it’s just the way the institution works.’

[From The Daily Mail]

First of all, if this was the real issue, why wasn’t *this* the story in 2018, when the “Meghan demanded emeralds directly from the Queen” story was being widely circulated? Strange, huh. It’s almost as if the point of the stories was never to provide an accurate, contextual account of why Meghan did this or that. The point was always to just abuse and smear Meghan. As for the new version coming from (what I can only assume) Angela Kelly, it sounds like Meghan and Harry both requested an appointment ahead of time and they were brushed off (or even lied to). When the wedding was getting closer, Meghan was just like “well, let’s try one more time” and Angela Kelly was still a mega-bitch to her, so Harry tried to intervene. And I have no doubt that Harry did call Angela Kelly a name. It sounds like he was merely properly identifying her as a C-U-Next-Tuesday. And she ran her ass to the Queen to “tell” on Harry, because of course she did. This whole thing is so juvenile.


Royal wedding

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

181 Responses to “Prince Harry used ‘offensive language’ about Angela Kelly, the Queen told him off”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eleonor says:

    Sooo….on one side there are documents about Pedo Andrew fetish habitudes told by a minor who was raped by him, but the BIG news is an old story about a tiara? Let me see: the pr strategy is to throw Harry and Meghan under the bus. Again.

    • LahdidahBaby says:


    • VS says:

      yep……….articles about Meghan are open for comments; the ones about Andrew are closed! amazing really!
      Meghan is home and safe; that’s all I care about

      • Priscila says:

        No coincidence they are getting very heavy handed with Harry after the documents were unsealed on Friday,

    • Kitten says:

      The timing of this book release is suspect to me. But I digress. As promised, is Andrew cooperating with the FBI on those pesky under-age sex-trafficking charges yet? Didn’t think so.

      • Priscila says:

        The book release? Why? it has been announced months ago- unless you are suggesting Omid had a time machine, is working for the Palace, and saw to release the book in the coming days to distract people?

      • Kitten says:

        I’m not “suggesting” anything, I’m outright saying it: Is Andrew cooperating with the FBI on those under-age sex-trafficking inquiries yet? No, he is not.

        Why is that, and when is THAT going to happen? Because this has been ongoing — and it’s been years in the making. The book was announced long after Epstein kicked it and the heat went high, and the timing is suspect in that regard.

        I don’t believe in coincidences.

        It’s as if it’s somehow another welcome distraction. This does not negate any value of the book or detract from that racist/sexist shit-show, it merely gives it context: manufactured hatred and faux outrage being used to obscure the truly horrific bigger picture.

      • A says:

        @Kitten, in order for this to be a coincidence, the authors of the book, the publishers, the editors over at the Times etc., would all have to have advanced knowledge of the fact that there would be an unsealing of the court documents pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell’s defamation case.

        Furthermore, given that this is not the only book that has been released this summer about Harry and Meghan, or even the only book that has been released this week about H&M (there is another), the publishers of all those other books, and the journalists who covered those books, would all have to have had advance knowledge that they were engaging in a concerted effort to skew the narrative.

        As someone who has followed both of these stories for as long as they’ve been going on, I feel like it’s worth pointing out that “coincidences” of this variety are rarely purposefully manufactured endeavours. And characterizing them as such is not very useful.

        But is the media purposefully seizing on these stories about Meghan and Harry for the express purpose of helping Prince Andrew? Yeah, I do think that’s a stretch. I think they like to cover it because it sells their papers, and it’s a happy bonus for them that it happens to knock out Andrew’s issues from the front page. But I don’t think they’re seeking out this coverage on purpose either, and they’re not being directed to. If the intention is to distract the public, wouldn’t it be a better bet for the press and the royals to just stay silent and not say anything, and hope that it all blows away? Because this is a really bad media strategy in general, and it’s clearly not working for them.

        I think the bigger issue at hand isn’t coincidences or conspiracies. I think the bigger issue is the state of a media like the tabloids in Britain, which seem to think that bullying and savaging an innocent woman in their pages with such gossip is much more important and worthwhile. The fact that people are saying that the tabloid media’s abhorrent racism is nothing but a strategy intended to distract from other stories doesn’t sit well with me, I’m sorry. I think we should all be careful about how we speak about these things and what we insinuate in the process. This racism is not a strategy. It’s what the press does, and it has always done this. If it distracts from Andrew, that’s a happy coincidence for everyone, but nothing else.

      • Billie says:

        Book releases are planned way too far in advance for that to be purposeful.

  2. Carol says:

    You know what? Even with the jewelry, this family is the WORST! Can’t blame Harry for leaving and putting up boundaries.

    • Angel says:

      Right ? this has to be one to be one of the most toxic family . They don’t deserve all their privilege and I can’t believe British people are letting them go away with everything they are doing.

    • Anance says:

      In all fairness, the same thing happened to Kate with the Halo tiara on her wedding day.

      There was a strange news item explaining how when the hairdresser could not attach the tiara on Kate hair and her veil on her wedding day. So, the stylists finally sewed the tiara on her hair (assuming massive hairspray, I guess) and veil. Always struck me as strange b/c why didn’t they do practice run? why did they need to run to needle and thread with the wedding hours away?

      Now we know. Kate most probably didn’t access the tiara until the wedding day itself, which may also explain why the veil seemed awkwardly placed and the tiara appeared lost in hair and tulle. (At the beginning, when she had her veil over her face.)

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It wouldn’t surprise me if AK thew her power around even then (I suspect that the staff look down on Kate as well, though they are perhaps not blatant about it because she’s white) – the difference is that William didn’t stand up for Kate like Harry did for Meghan.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No, we don’t know that at all. What we have here is proof, from both sides, that Kelly denied Meghan access to her wedding tiara for a trial run.

        If Kelly had dared do that to Kate? William would have gone incandescent with rage and we’d have heard of it long ago. Kelly knew she would be supported in being awful to Meghan. She also knew she’d be fired if she played those games with the heir to the heir’s future future queen consort.

      • A says:

        @nota, let’s be honest. If Kelly HAD done that to Kate, would William have gone to bat for her? Does he care about Kate that much to do that? I doubt it. I think William cares about William. If he went to the mats with AK, it would be only because he perceived this as a slight towards him personally, not if it was just something directed at Kate. And you just know for a fact that AK is perfectly nice and friendly to William at all times.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        William couldn’t be bothered to show up to his wedding rehearsal and seemed rather blasé in the wedding clips that I’ve seen (I never saw their wedding in its entirety), so I think it’s possible that AK pulled some tricks with Kate too. I’m guessing William didn’t care, or Kate accepted whatever BS Angela told her without telling/asking William about it, etc..

        There is NO way that they should’ve been scrambling last minute to keep the tiara attached to her hair and veil; either Kate didn’t get to have the tiara until the last minute, or she and her people were ridiculously lax about making sure everything was in order. It seems that a lot of last minute messiness happened with her wedding look. Remember she also wiped off the makeup done by an MUA and replaced it with her usual panda eye nightmare look because she wanted to “look like herself” for William?

        Thinking of that anecdote combined with this one about the tiara and hair dilemma now, it’s entirely possible that Kate was a bit of a bridezilla…that’s the only other reason I could think that they were struggling to get the tiara-hair-veil look in order on the day of the damn wedding. Maybe earlier there was a different hairstyle they tried with the tiara and Kate decided on the final style the day before/the morning of the wedding. If not, then Angela definitely kept her from doing a practice run.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        Over at the royal site I visit, it was posted that Kate didn’t have the Halo for hair test. (That was a “slam” against Meghan.) Supposedly a fake tiara was used for her hair test, which begs several questions. Did AK deny her access to the tiara or did the Middletons use a Party Piece tiara for the hair test or…was a hair test even done?

      • Anon says:

        Kate would have never made a fuss regardless of the tiara situation (remember she WAITED for that ring, and was not married yet) and in IMO there was no way Carole was going to let her make a fuss at that time. Whatever AK and the Queen said……..that’s what happened.

  3. Hope says:

    I bet what he said alluded to her racism and belligerence and Angela cried her white woman tears about it.

    Also, the Times reporter back in 2018 stood firmly by his story because a highly placed royal had confirmed it, right? Look at that, the story has changed. Not a word about an emerald tiara.

    The Yorks are being scapegoated (only in this one particular case). This is William using the emerald tiara to deflect to Eugenie..

  4. Mtec says:

    I highly doubt Meghan would have flown her hairdresser in from another country had she thought a hair test with the tiara was not at all possible. Harry probably got mad when they told them it would be accommodated but then Kelly for whatever reason pulled some “protocol” bs and refused, and by doing that wasted their time and money.

    I also find it really suspect not one of these now sources went to deny the story when it was Meghan who was being blamed. And by “suspect” i mean i’m not at all surprised that they wanted her image smeared.

    • VS says:

      why did it work? it is because some people were way too happy to confirm their hate with BS stories like that! The hate always comes from first, the reasons to validate such hate after!

      All these smear campaigns work because people are too happy to justify their inadequacies on others; they can finally say: I didn’t get too far because I am not awful; that other person most likely did succeed because they are terrible, too ambitious, mean, etc….. it is so much better than the alternative, don’t you agree? when it is a WOC or POC, it is even easier; all the narratives can be played like the angry black woman one

    • whatever says:

      I mean you’d think they’d have an appointment already to make sure the tiara sets properly and to check how the veil would be attached. I think it’d be fairly standard procedure. Of course she’d want to try it out before the big day.

    • Amy Too says:

      I’m thinking that Meghan’s appointment must have been cancelled once or twice already before this incident happened. Or she kept trying to make an appointment and AK kept brushing her off or said something like “Sure, just let me know when your hairdresser will be in town and we’ll set something up.” Or Meghan has been emailing and/or phoning AK, or AK’s assistant (bc I’m sure there are a thousand different layers of assistants between everyone) letting her know that on this day her hairdresser would be in town, would it be convenient for AK to let her borrow the tiara and AK was obfuscating, saying “well maybe, I don’t know what my schedule will be like, you can drop by and see if I’m available…” and then AK purposely went out of town or worked from home that day. So all of this could’ve been the backstory to what the palace is claiming happened on that day. They’re just conveniently leaving out all the context.

      I can’t imagine Meghan, who is so organized and known for planning things well, would not have asked very specific questions about when/how she could access the tiara for a trial when she originally met with AK to pick out her tiara. She doesn’t seem like the type of person who would just show up at BP and go “um, is this a good time?” without any prior conversation. It doesn’t sound like Meghan.

  5. Priscila says:

    Andi,the dear boy who allowed Mrs Kelly to destroy a dress and give it to his daughter, must be protected at all costs!

    Behold the birth of Incandescent withRage Harry!

    • Hope says:

      Only William and Charles are allowed to be “incandescent with rage” They clearly think it’s a positive description Harry is only allowed to “throw tantrums.”

      • Priscila says:

        I think they are evolving the narrative…it is gradually getting worse as more FF excerpts make the lights. For every mild description of a RF member in the book, doing or saying thing less savoury- and so far, basically no names are being named- we are seeing RF going full on petty mode by leaking the most absurd stories ever.

        The thing is, now it gotten to Harry, personally. This is sickening. They are literally smearing Harry to defend an employee now. What more can they do?How lower can they sink?

        The answer: you would be surprised. Andy prince might be a rapist, but has impeccable manners- he would never call Mrs Kelly names! He is a dear, dear boy.

      • Hope says:

        Andrew just shoves people when he can’t get a meeting room in Buckingham Palace.

        The Queen really DGAF as long as she likes the person Terrible leadership.

    • Mumbles says:

      Amazing that the Queen looked so happy in those wedding photos, given what Andrew and Angela Kelly did to that dress.

      Seriously, he’s a monster enough in real life that he doesn’t need made-up stories to make him worse.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I was just thinking how amazing it was that Meghan & Harry looked so happy in their photos considering what they’d been put through.

  6. Danielle says:

    Fake story is fake, obviously, but I do have to laugh at how the press tie themselves into knots trying to report these made-up stories. Harry’s whole life has been governed by the “rules” of the royal family. Of course he knows the correct way to go about all of their requests. And I’m sure by 2018 Meghan could see the writing on the wall about how the family were out to get her, and she also knew she had the eyes of the world on her in the lead-up to the wedding, of course she wasn’t going to ride into the palace and demand things. Who does that anyway? No one.

    • Ginger says:

      It’s awful that they act like Harry doesn’t know the rules or protocol on this stuff. I’m sure him and Meghan were super stressed with the wedding. Everyone was working against them. If he did curse this awful women out, then good for him. From what I have read she sounds like a horrible awful women and needed to be put in her place. Good for Harry for having Meghan’s back.

      I knew this tiara story wasn’t true.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        She was the one reported to have been rolling around the floor like some second-rate wwf champion with a younger rival, fighting over a married chef. Apparently, it took the Police to separate them. Think about that….this woman is so determined and vicious that the civilians in close proximity were unable to dislodge her from her prey. They had to get in the professionals to get the job done.

        Frankly, if Harry had heard this story before hand, then he was very stupid to confront her. You don’t persuade a crazed rottweiler to come round by tackling it. Or a spitting viper for that matter.

        Instead, I would try some tranquilizer in raw meat, i.e, quietly and respectfully escalate the issue to the queen. If nothing changed afterwards, at least, you know that the pet isn’t the problem. It’s the owner (aka the queen) who’s the actual issue.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Did she actually physically assault another person at work? Or did this very personal brawl take place somewhere else? If it was the first, then she should have been fired immediately – and would have been anywhere else.

      • Ennie says: Link to picture of the arrtcle about wrestling Ange

      • Olenna says:

        @AH, from the NY Post:
        “Queen Elizabeth’s longtime dresser got into a wild, scratch-and-claw cat fight with a young maid at Buckingham Palace because the dresser thought the servant was secretly seeing her boyfriend. Royal security officers had to pull the pair apart as they grappled on the floor of the servants’ entrance to the palace, London’s Sunday Mirror reported.” Needless to say, the word “grappled” had me LOL.

        The Telegraph rehashed the story in 2019 in an article about why Kelly was allowed to write a book about the royals. The funny part is this: “After being put through to her office via the Buckingham Palace switchboard, Her Majesty’s Personal Advisor and Curator (The Queen’s Jewellery, Insignias and Wardrobe) came on the line in coquettish mood.”

      • GuestWho says:

        @ArtHistorian – she SHOULD have been fired, but the only admonition she received from the queen (reportedly) was that she shouldn’t mix with the kitchen staff.

      • StartupSpouse says:

        Angela Kelly was busted for sleeping around at the palace, and then she was busted for brawling AT THE PALACE over the married dude she was sleeping with?!


      • Ginger says:

        @Bella AK is also the Queens personal assistant. She would have made that impossible. He probably had no choice but to take his issues with AK. Harry couldn’t get a meeting with the Queen when he wanted to leave.

      • Bella DuPont says:


        I’m starting to think this woman MUST have something on the Queen and is blackmailing her. To be allowed to get away with such a long list of extreme transgressions…..

        Perhaps she has detailed knowledge of Philip’s sordid affairs….and maybe she’s even gone as far as to let the queen know that she wouldn’t hesitate to sell her stories under the right circumstances.

        Otherwise, I can’t see how the queen, who is supposedly in a constant state of horror over Meghan’s nail polish and general etiquette would be able to stomach Angela’s incredibly uncouth behaviour.

      • ArtHistorian says:


        I think this woman is pure trash but the fact that she gets away with such behaviour tells me that QEII doesn’t care how she acts because she’s a favorite of hers. If the Queen feels she’s indispensable the it doesn’t matter how she behaves because I get the feeling that Betty doesn’t really care that much about other people. Now, if AK had kicked a dog, then I’m sure she’d been out.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Most of QEIIs close friends have passed away in the last five years. Her most frequent daily interaction is with Angela Kelly, giving Kelly plenty of opportunity to manipulate.

      • Harper says:

        Margaret’s dead and the Queen Mother is dead and Philip is half-dead. So many of the Queen’s friends are dead, and the rest of the family is BUSY. This leaves an enormous hole for companionship, which Angela Kelly is manipulating. And, also, the Queen is not logging on to the Daily Mail or reading Wooten and Piers’ rants or the rest of the garbage that’s online. She probably has the paper copies of the most respectable papers laid out on her desk every morning where she at most glances at the headlines. There is no way she is aware of the depth of the malevolence that is online or the stories emanating from her own household. Everyone around her knows this and runs wild because of it. She will truly have to pop off for this to change.

      • Nic919 says:

        She’s prepared to overlook her son raping underaged girls so really a brawl at BP over a married man is really quite minor.

        There is no way AK47 got offended by Harry using strong language. There is no class in brawling over a married man at work.

      • Couch potato says:

        Is that the same episode where the queen vent to sleep on a sofa in the servants quarters, because Angela Kelly and some other woman was arguing so loud, Lizzy couldn’t sleep in the adjacend bedroom?

      • Mustlovedogs says:

        Makes me think of that film, “The Favourite”. So much seething, backstabbing writhing to be close to the source of power, who remains blithely, and conveniently, clueless.

  7. Lisa says:

    It is funny the scrambling they have to do when the real story comes out in order to not make them look bad. It is doubtful that Meghan or Harry were not aware an appointment was needed but Meghan was most likely given the run around and with her wedding getting near would be upset about it and Harry would definitely step in.

  8. Islandgirl says:

    I know that there are people saying that both sides don’t come out looking good in this book but that is not true.
    We all agree that the stories which really increased from October 2018 were leaked by the courtiers and members of the family.
    How then is it that they are now giving a slightly different version of the tiara story from the one outlined in the book….which is significantly different from the original tabloid story.
    This would suggest…no confirm that they have spent two years making up/embellishing/twisting events about Meghan to spin a particular narrative. This then confirms that they really are “vipers” and I am including the family here…not only the courtiers.

    • Lemons says:

      And this right after they claimed that they couldn’t refute the tabloid stories because they were true…They have no shame.

    • Sid says:

      IslandGirl, ITA and I am kind of suprised at the whole “both sides don’t come out looking good” narrative. I am seeing so many neutral observers on SM who are saying they are really surprised at how ridiculous the BRF is and how badly they treated Meghan. There are also so many twitter “blue-check” types who are commenting on this and supporting her.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        It’s not too surprising when you look at *who* is pushing that narrative. It’s basically Cambridge fans/Meghan haters, royalists who never liked Meghan “for reasons”, and the royal rota of course. Everyone else clearly sees that it’s only the royal family that looks awful.

  9. Mary says:

    “Angela . . . said, ‘I’m very sorry, that’s not how it works.’ There’s protocol in place over these jewels. They’re kept under very tight lock and key. You can’t turn up and demand to have the tiara just because your hairdresser happens to be in town.”

    Notice how in this story Kelly doesn’t say that she can’t go to Buckingham Palace but rather that she won’t.

    Even when BP and KP are defending the Royals and courtiers they still end up looking bad. The good thing is that they don’t realize that or that the more they talk, the more elements of the truth come out.

    • Becks1 says:

      YES. Even if we take this new version as truth – it doesn’t make angela Kelly look good. It looks like she was on a power trip.

      • Olenna says:

        Agree, Kelly is trippin’ on power. If this story is even true, this tattle-telling viper must have extreme influence with TQ if she can run to her with a second-hand story of PH speaking harshly about her, and TQ reacts by dressing down her own grandson for it. SMDH, TQ sounds like a common fool.

    • MsIam says:

      Presumably this appointment took place near the wedding, that’s when most brides do the hair appointment, after the dress is done and they want to get an idea of what the final look will be. So it’s not like Angela Kelly didn’t know there was a wedding planned, that it would be televised around the world and it was the queen’s grandson and son of the future king. She should have been asking how high she could jump to pull this off. But you know, anything to humiliate the biracial future duchess. She’s scum. And then you read all of these stories of how Kate cozies up to her so she can get the best jewels…. well birds of a feather I guess.

  10. ABritGuest says:

    Don’t these people get tired? So two of the big stories making Meghan out as a diva or bully (tiara& making Kate cry) now have multiple versions. Safe to say a lot of lying/spinning going on. And we know from the court docs that the stories about Meghan not helping her father pre wedding were false too. But KP wouldn’t allow these stories to be corrected even though they recently said they couldn’t deny stories which were true.

    What’s bad is the Times is meant to be a respectable broadsheet and they ran the emerald tiara story even though it’s sequence didn’t really make sense& edited it when it made the palace look incompetent.

    AK47 has been shown to be a press source. Wonder what other stories came from her. It’s funny as in her book she talks about standing her ground and ensuring her voice was heard in the palace’s male dominated environment. Yet seems like she treated someone who she might have had empathy for, the same.

    • GuestWho says:

      The Times is owned by Murdoch, yes? No respectability there. If it makes the bi-racial American feminist look bad – that’s all good for them and journalistic integrity/professionalism is not going to stand in their way.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Yet TQ will do nothing – AK47 can leak all she wants, she even wrote a book cashing in on her position.

      I think what happened was that everything had been previously agreed and arranged for the trial and Kelly at the last moment decided to pull access.

      Also keeping priceless tiara’s in a cupboard with only one person having a key is just terrible security. I recall reading somewhere that they are held in a secure vault somewhere by one of the big jewel companies.

      Kelly is a bish who clearly uses her position as a weapon because she can.

      • A says:

        @Digital Unicorn, she wrote two books, both with the blessing and awareness of the Queen. That’s really quite different. The intention of both books is to make the Queen (and the royal family) look good. I imagine that she asked the Queen permission first, and it was granted, and the contents were thoroughly vetted by the palace and its staffers to ensure that nothing untoward made its way into the pages.

        Also, I don’t think that the security or access to the royal jewelry is solely on Angela Kelly either. Most royal (and noble) families keep their jewelry in bank vaults, not lying around in a safe at home or anything. So you’d have to go to the bank branch, at a specific time, with your key + identification stating that you’re someone who is allowed to have access to this vault. They let you in, have someone unlock the little box for you, and let you take it into a secure room in the bank. So there’s security at all points in the bank, + whatever personal security that AK or whoever is bringing along with them as they truck these items to the palace and bank.

    • windyriver says:

      @ABritGuest – remember, too, it wasn’t just about it being a male dominated environment. Kelly also said in the book she was told she wasn’t allowed to have an opinion until she’d been there for 10 years. So, as a new member of the family, this is the environment Meghan walked into. Clearly Angela has now ascended the staff hierarchy herself and enjoys throwing her weight around in the way for which she once criticized others.

      • A says:

        @windyriver, and let’s not forget the more recent staff shake-ups with the Queen either. I keep harping on and on about Christopher Geidt, but I feel like it really needs to be said, that he was a good private secretary to the Queen. Even the Guardian had an article at one point, talking about how his departure was a shame, because he had “the measure of [the Queen]” and was capable of advising her and telling her things she might not have liked to hear.

        He was “asked” to step down in 2017, allegedly as a result of Charles and Andrew joining forces. Charles because he wanted to increase his influence as PoW, and Andrew because he’d had it in for Geidt ever since Geidt had cost him his trade envoy position in 2011, after the first set of allegations about Jeffrey Epstein.

        I’m pretty sure that Christopher Geidt ran a tight ship, and he cleaned up the messes that the royal family didn’t want leaking out everywhere. There were also rumours that he was asked to step down because he wanted to centralize the planning and co-ordination between BP, Clarence House, and Kensington Palace, which all of the households were flat out against, even though it was intended to allow for more seamless planning and coverage of events and such.

        Ever since Geidt left, it’s been bad form for the royals. The stuff with Meghan and Harry would have been handled much better if he’d been around, I imagine, because the BP staffers would have never been able to leak stories to the press in the way they have so far. I don’t know how he would have treated Meghan though, and whether it would be better or worse than how she’s been treated thus far by the current staffers. IIRC, he still has his job as the Chairman of the Commonwealth trust, so I imagine he has some contact with Meghan and Harry in that respect, which is promising. But y’know.

    • Sunday says:

      We all agree it’s obvious that this was leaked by AK, but I think it’s important to consider the larger implications. AK wields an enormous amount of power due to her position and relationship with the queen, and so when she (or other courtiers) plants a story with the press, it’s given a certain heft because of who’s telling it. The fact that she’s disclosing it to the press (whether on or off the record) IS the story, even if the story itself isn’t true.

      We have the same issue with Trump – most reporters just parrot his every tweet or rant verbatim because the fact that he said it or tweeted it is news, even if the actual substance he said is an outright lie. In the case of Trump, most press fail miserably at fact-checking his every tweet or lie, so instead they just focus on the “here, he said something” of it all and leave the actual analysis up for interpretation.

      Neither unverifiable royal gossip nor nonstop presidential-tweets-as-a-distraction-method are news – the real story is that the queen’s closest confidante was leaking (impossible to independently verify) stories to the press about her new granddaughter-in-law, and that the “president” uses his twitter account to drum up reactionary press coverage as a distraction technique while his administration actually carries out real-life abuses that largely go under the radar. But that’s too difficult so why do real journalism when clickbait and obfuscation are so fun?!?!

      • ABritGuest says:

        Exactly Sunday- I don’t think much of anything connected to Murdoch but the Times is meant to be a quality paper& they said they had verified story and now it may be complete BS. Journalists are meant to verify sources including a source’s motives but royal reporters were happy to sacrifice basic principles to join in the great smear campaign without question- I guess it worked for them to try and force access.

        AK47 sounds like a trash person but their relationship might make an interesting drama one day like The Favourite. I wonder if she was on hand around during the parliament prorogue mess. She went from housekeeper in German ambassador household where she met the Queen& Philip, to being the Queen’s dresser despite not seemingly having that experience but being noted for her discretion. Makes me wonder what she knows.

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree. What kind of influence does this trashy woman have on an elderly head of state? If she can do that to the Queen’s grandson, just what else does she do? She’s a dresser ffs. It’s not like she is the curator of the royal collection, who would also be able to lend out the tiara.

  11. Nancy says:

    Does anyone really think that Meghan would have shown up announced at Buckingham Palace, asking to see the tiara?? Honestly, this is so ridiculous.

    • VS says:

      yes some people really think that! Meghan is a WOC with a black mother..of course she can only be angry and rude! you won’t believe the narrative some idiots believe to make themselves feel better!
      Life is so short; H&M made the right decisions; the Queen as the ceo of the RF is incompetent! she would have been fired a long time had the RF be a Fortune 100 or even Fortune 500 company!

    • Priscila says:

      Yes, they think. they are openly telling us the problem is that Meghan did not know her place. We heard that Cate put her in her place in regards to tights, now is this Kelly person who show Meghan who is the boss.

      Of course, it never occurred to them this is ridiculous because they truly, firmly believe they NEED to put a biracial woman in her place- and that is the problem.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        There has been plenty of stories about how royal staff resented having to serve an American actress – conveniently forgetting that the actress in question is not white! And that is the crux, these people felt demeaned having to serve a non-white woman.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Arthistorian


        And this is also where I think Meghan’s family also did a tremendous amount of damage. Their behaviour is not even worthy of working class standards, so i can imagine their disdain would have been compounded significantly.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think that these types of stories and made-up BS is nothing but the courtiers trying to discredit the book which the tabloids are happy to obliged because it generates revenue producing clicks.

    • Sid says:

      And the funny thing is, I have always had the impression that Meghan has almost impeccable manners. Not to say that she is perfect, but she really comes across as caring and wanting to make people feel welcome and comfortable. I still recall those photos of her at Royal Ascot stopping to help that older gentleman who had gotten tangled up in what looked like his camera strap. It just struck me as a really kind gesture. I have a hard time believing she would just show up out of the blue at the palace and expect someone to oblige her.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think they all, even Kevin and Karen, have impeccable manners. This is all made-up BS. The stories in The Daily Fail today are so unhinged that no one in their right mind could believe any of this. I personally do not think Tiaragate or Tightgate ever happened. These stories were just made-up to discredit the Sussexes and are now being recycled and used to discredit Scobie.

  12. Nikki says:

    You can always spot the liar; their story always changes.

    • Lisa says:

      Exactly. But at least now we have names for the sources of the stories about Meghan. The more they protest their innocence the worse they end up looking.

    • February-Pisces says:

      Yep just like ‘tightsgate’. They keep trying to rehash it and change the angle everytime it fails to get the reaction they want. They have run themselves dry cos no one really reacts to negative stories on Meghan anymore because most decent people can see through the BS.

  13. Alexandria says:

    White woman tears indeed.

  14. ArtHistorian says:

    I see the “protocol” argument is used once again. So many stories that bash Meghan use this idea of her breaking an unwritten protocol – it is very convenient that this protocol is unwritten because that means that you can always throw a lot of BS at the woman in question. It is also a subtle way to say that Meghan doesn’t know her place, which takes on extra and toxic connotations by the very fact that she is a WoC.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Also interesting that AK47 managed to get around ‘protocol’ when Beatrice made her last minute request to use the Queen’s tiara for her wedding which was apparently put together in two weeks..

      • Elizabeth says:

        Exactly — very interesting Beatrice got last minute special treatment. So clearly, they can accommodate needs or desires and they just didn’t choose to help Meghan.

        This woman’s nickname is AK-47… that really says a lot.

    • Belli says:

      Exactly. It emphasises the idea they’re trying to push that she doesn’t belong, that she’s getting ideas above her station, that she doesn’t know how to behave, that she lacks class, that she’s rude and arrogant… It’s a very convenient way to make up things against her character and be covertly racist at the same time.

      • MsIam says:

        Getting ideas above her station regarding a tiara that they told her she could wear? Didn’t Kate’s parents make her earrings to match her tiara? Wouldn’t that have required some type of early access to coordinate with the jeweler? These people are acting like some type of sick sorority. No wonder there were stories about Meghan having panic attacks. I don’t think it was just about dealing with the media either.

    • Priscila says:

      This idea of protocol is historically born out of the need to keep unwanted people out. They keep telling us about Meghan not adhering to protocol and openly using the term ” putting her in her place” because they do think this makes absolutely sense for them and makes her look bad. What they do not understand is that, for us, the need to put a biracial woman in her place IS THE PROBLEM.

      You are not speaking about a new employee making a mistake here and there and being corrected. You are speaking about a woman entering on a family and being constantly told she is wrong for doing what she is doing and to please, go f**+ yourself. Note there is never, ever in these stories anyone explaining to Meghan how she is supposed to do things. It is just telling her no, and please, get the f*** out of my sight.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It is more than that – we are speaking of a woman entering a family where the staff of said family is supposed to serve her (that is their job) – however said staff does not want to serve her because they feel superior to her simply because she isn’t white. This is a woman of colour entering a traditionally white space and even those of a much lower rank than her balk at this (and this in an environment where rank is everything!).

        It is the staff of the family trying to put one of their superiors in her “place” because according to their racist worldview, a PoC cannot be above a white person, even if the PoC in question is the royal and some of the white people are the staff of the royals.

      • Bella DuPont says:


        It’ll be interesting to see if they have the same attitude and hostility towards Archie over the years, given he *looks* white.

  15. taylor says:

    So much for ‘we couldn’t defend Meghan from the press because the stories were true.’ If that were the case, the courtiers wouldn’t have a different, more flattering account of events for every story debunked by FF.

    This would be embarrassing if shame or accountability were possible at all for anyone working for the Firm.

  16. Cava24 says:

    Harry and Meghan’s wedding was the biggest event of 2018 for the royal family. All these actions by the courtiers aren’t just snubs, they are evidence of the courtiers actively undermining them. The dresser acting like the hair trial for the wedding is no big deal and should not necessitate any extra effort on her part is bizarre. She would not have pulled that with Kate, even for a much lesser event, that’s what Harry would have been reacting to.

  17. February-Pisces says:

    Once the queen is dead Angela kelly is going to get the Abdul treatment and get turfed out. Courtiers generally hate anyone who has any influence on the royals especially the monarch. Enjoy your time Angela while it lasts.

    Also I’m sick of the word ‘protocol’. They keep using some imaginary rule book to use against Meghan whilst making them up as they go along. Anyway Meghan was new and any person who starts a new job is allowed to make mistakes as they learn the ropes. It’s funny how she was never given any time to learn the job. Right up until Meghan arrived they were using the term ‘we’re easing her into the role’ everytime they mentioned Kate and why she was so crap at the job. Literally 5 years into the job and 10 years as a royal GF, makes a total of 15years that Kate was in duchess training. Meghan not even 5 minutes.

    Also I looked at Kate’s Waterstones pap stroll pics and one of the captions she is being praised for opening the car door herself without the aid of her security. Remember when meghan was breaking protocol for closing her car door? Ridiculous

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I’m starting to think that the stories about Kate making friends with Angela Kelly and Angela conspiring with William to keep Meghan from wearing jewels from the Royal Collection is actually about Angela starting to suck up to William and Kate, just like Sophie Wessex is starting to suck up to Kate. William and Kate may be the Future Future but these people probably know that they don’t stand a chance with Charles and that his reign is probably be a short one.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sophie has been sucking up to William for years. See Wimbledon transit strike ‘joke’ from William in 2015, and Sophie laughing uproariously. She knew Charles was trying to get her and Edward removed as working royals in his reign.

        The Queen’s private secretary, Geidt, was gotten rid of after he advocated for them staying too. Sophie figures if she shows enough deference to W&K? They’ll advocate with Charles to keep her in Bagshot with the expenses paid by taxpayers.

      • February-Pisces says:

        You might be onto something. Generally when the monarch dies all there staff will either leave or have new positions in the firm. Angela is the queens dresser. She’s only useful to female royals. She could be trying to extend her position. I think a lot of them are trying to show their loyalty to William by doing his dirty work, so he’ll keep them around. William has too much power, it’s scary. I also think those media bigwigs, those who are at the very top of the British media are siding with the palace, to trash Meghan and harry as a way to get knighthoods and honours.

      • GuestWho says:

        I’m just laughing at the fact that, should AK survive Charles’ reign, that Kate is going to settle for a 70+ year old dresser because she’ll be too afraid to get rid of her. She’ll keep her in buttons and grandma dresses forever. Sounds like a solid Cambridge plan.

      • Sunday says:

        Excellent point, ArtHistorian; it makes perfect sense. So all those stories about how ‘Kate knows how to deal with AK to get what she wants’ were all because AK was insinuating that Meghan’s approach was wrong and bad and Kate’s approach was right and good and that AK is perfectly capable of being reasonable if she’s treated with respect, which Kate can do and Meghan can’t. Gee, can’t qwhite put my finger on what the difference would be there…

      • MaryContrary says:

        Angela is no spring chicken. I’m sure she has a very nice retirement house picked out on one of the Queen’s many properties where she will live for free forever. There is no way she hasn’t sewn this up already. No reason to suck up to Kate other than she knows that would make the Queen happy.

  18. TIFFANY says:

    They really were trying their damnest to make sure this wedding didn’t happen. They really thought Meghan was so superficial that she would not have walked down the aisle without a tiara.

    I am currently dealing with a Angela Kelly like person with my M.D. right now. So now I am looking for a new doctor.

  19. TheOriginalMia says:

    Angela Kelly pulled this power trip because she could. I doubt anyone in that family was truly expecting the wedding to take place. Especially with the Thomas Markle stories waiting to become public. AK is a biotch. If Harry said that to her, it’s the truth. 2 weeks to go and she’s playing games with the tiara. It doesn’t make Harry looks bad. It makes AK look bad.

  20. Otaku fairy says:

    I don’t know anything about this Angela person, but it’s very suspicious that they’re not telling us what offensive language is used. If this really happened, they should be able to tell everyone exactly what Harry said. IF he was verbally abusive and misogynistic, he’d deserve to be called out for that and women for sure should not have to put up with it even from royalty. Diva behavior and lesser annoyances wouldn’t be glossed over from a female celebrity of any age, so hopefully it wouldn’t be glossed over from a 30something male prince. Either way, it has nothing to do with Meghan and it’s disgusting that a real or made up moment of assholery on a white man’s part was used to smear his black wife. But I’m calling BS on this whole story. Never happened.

    • Sunday says:

      The offensive language used was 100% Harry saying that Angela was racist in her treatment of Meghan. To buffoons like AK, being accused of being racist is THE WORST thing you can be called (WAY worse than, you know, actual racism).

      If Harry had called her anything misogynistic then that would be emblazoned across every newspaper in the UK, excoriating Harry and declaring he and Meghan hypocrites for preaching their liberal values while secretly being woman-haters!

      No, similar to meghan-made-kate-cry-gate where the more details added the worse the royals looked so they purposefully kept the story as abstract as possible, if there WERE any details they could add to make Harry and Meghan look worse they absolutely would. The fact that they leave it at “offensive language” says to me that Harry accurately called Angela out on her racist behavior and she was merely offended by the truth.

    • Amy Too says:

      It also sounds like Harry, if he was using offensive language and calling her names, wasn’t raging directly at Angela Kelly. It sounds like he was speaking about her and the people who overheard him ran to Angela Kelly to tell her that he was saying things about her and then she ran to the Queen and the press and Tiara Gate story got planted. I’m wondering if Harry was letting off steam in his own house or office, and his courtiers and office people, who are meant to be loyal to him and not gossip about what they hear at work during private moments with their boss, ran off to tell everyone else in the palace. A game of telephone appears to have been played here and by the time the words Harry said left his mouth, went through his people, went through other courtiers, made it to Angela Kelly, made it to the Queen and the press, they could’ve very easily been twisted and embellished and are now just being described as “offensive language” during a “tantrum.”

      • Sunday says:

        No AmyToo, I don’t buy it. If there was ‘offensive language’ that AK or the press could use they absolutely would. “Harry called the Queen’s Confidante a B*tch!” “Hypocrite Harry’s Misogynistic Rant!” It would be Christmas come early for the press!

        They’ve left out what he actually said, just that it was “offensive language.” To me, that screams white woman fragility at being called racist. Harry called out the clearly racist treatment of Meghan by AK and his accusation was slapped down by the queen. Makes perfect sense; to those backward-thinkers, you can’t simply call someone a racist, think of how DAMAGING it can be to call AK racist?!?! Much worse than experiencing actual racism!

      • Amy Too says:

        But that’s what I’m saying. He likely didn’t use any specific offensive language like calling her a B or a C u next Tuesday. He might’ve just been all “this is ridiculous! Why is she making it so hard for you? What is going on here? Is this racism at work?” And then this got twisted and twisted and twisted as people tattled on his “outburst” to “Harry was saying super offensive, misogynistic name calling stuff about Angela Kelly!” And the reason we don’t have any actual quotes or accusations of what exactly he said is because he didn’t call her any horrifically offensive names.

      • Tessa says:

        On blogs and sites, and on DM comments, MEGHAN and HARRY are called bad words constantly. Yet they get to sit there and are not removed for being offensive.

      • Sunday says:

        Ah, sorry for misunderstanding Amy. I see your point now but I still have to disagree. The UK press and those doing the leaking are always very careful – it’s not that they WOULDN’T make something up out of whole cloth, it’s that when they do, they’re very careful that those stories are kept a level or two outside of implicating them. They’ll write an entire article around one word in quotes like some sort of perverse reverse mad libs.

        In this case, they’re clinging to their truthful statement: that Harry used “offensive language”. If they were able to be more specific and say Harry said that Angela Kelly was being “f*cking ridiculous” about the tiara, or even just that Harry “went on a misogynistic tirade against Angela Kelly” they 100% would have.

        To me, this is exactly like the Meghan made Kate cry story – the press clung to the fact that KATE CRIED, NO REALLY KATE CRIED and have tried about a thousand different scenarios to justify the Why. Now, any journalist worth a damn would immediately ask, if Meghan made Kate cry, what could Kate possibly have done to her to warrant a tears-inducing response? If Harry used offensive language about Angela Kelly, what had she done to make Meghan’s life miserable that Harry just couldn’t turn a blind eye to anymore? Both of these stories are clearly two-sided, and yet the press hides behind the one side given to them by their source and sticks to it, the rest of the facts be damned.

    • Lizzie Bathory says:

      I don’t for a second believe that Harry called AK a name, much less used a misogynistic term. These tabloid stories are usually truth-adjacent, as far as I can tell. The original “Meghan demanded a tiara” story was absurd, but it seems to be true that there was tiara drama (lol).

      So now, we have a story about Harry being reprimanded in a private meeting with the Queen about using “offensive language” about AK? I suspect either he said AK was being racist, as Sunday suggested, or (my theory) he said something like the situation was fucking ridiculous, which is pretty clearly was. The meeting with the Queen? I think it happened…so Harry could explain how inappropriate AK’s behavior was. And I bet AK is still salty about it, hence this weird story.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      @Tessa: Exactly.

  21. starryfish29 says:

    It’s abundantly clear that all of the stuck up people in and around the palace simply didn’t like the thought of having to answer to the black lady in any way, there was nothing she could have done in their eyes to belong. Angela Kelly herself was once a housekeeper and part-time seamstress, but now, of course, she fancies herself posh for the American actress.
    If anyone thinks for a second that these people would have had a problem accomodating the same requests from Harry’s fiance were she a white woman I’ve got a lovely piece of swampland to sell you. That’s the thing about whiteness, no matter your station in life you’re still able to feel superior to POC. You see it all the time, it’s basically the entire story of American politics, people will vote against their own economic self-interest because they don’t want black & brown people to benefit from the same thing that would benefit them.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Exactly. I love how you tied this to American politics and the way poor whites who are racist actively vote against their own interest to uphold whiteness. It is just so absolutely pathetic that I’m in awe that so many generations have continued this practice without ever wising up. Damn racism is such a drugs.

  22. Merricat says:

    Grandma’s helper was over-grand for her station. These colonialists can’t accept that that’s over.

  23. S808 says:

    Glad to know Harry cussed SOMEBODY out in that palace. I’m sure it was more than deserved.

  24. Rapunzel says:

    If appointments are protocol, Meg had presumably already made an appointment to pick out the tiara earlier, right?

    And we are expected to believe she didn’t realize she’d need another appointment for a hair trial? That’s just unbelievable.

    And Harry didn’t know how access to the jewels works? Come on. This is a family that makes appointments to see each other. He has to go through staff to sit down with his grandma, and Harry knows better.

    My guess? Meg had an appointment. Kelly didn’t care, and decided to go somewhere else at the time. She had probably already done it more than once. Harry, knowing Meg had flown in her hairdresser for the appointment, was suitably furious. He cursed out Kelly for being awful. She cried and claimed there was no appointment or that she innocently forgot, and the queen took her side.

    Any reasonable person would’ve told Kelly it was her job to keep this kind of thing from happening and fired her, but PettyBetty is unreasonable.

    • Sunday says:

      Harry was born into protocol, he’s not confused about protocol. I’m sure that Meghan and Harry followed whatever instructions they were given. However, I also think that this is not an equation in which Harry & Meghan and Angela Kelly are the only variables – for example, who made the appointment, and with whom did they make it? Meghan isn’t just adding a “Tiara Trial” event to her iCal and inviting AK. My guess is, at first someone on Harry’s staff (at that time it would have been someone at KP, which we know would’ve been a problem) would’ve been asked to make the appointment, and it would’ve been made with someone in the office of Angela Kelly.

      You can see how easy it would be for someone to sabotage that meeting. The assistant from KP could simply never make the call, someone in AK’s office could “forget” to pencil it in… the possibilities are endless. Then when Harry and Meghan follow up, they’re told they’re lying, there is no appointment, etc which just elevates the entire confrontation.

  25. Kate says:

    Here is the best part. When the Queen dies and Charles becomes king, Angela Kelly is out of a job and will no longer have any access. Harry will still be the son of the king. They may create a position for her to manage the Queen’s clothing archives, but that won’t be a job with the access and control she now has.

    I think once the Queen dies and Charles takes over, William will calm down some. He will see how much work is in front of him and realize that he needs Harry. I hope. Because the courtiers will throw you under the bus on any day of the week that ends in a Y. Harry always looked out for Will.

    • GuestWho says:

      Harry’s days of looking out for Will are done. Now he’s going to, rightfully, look out for his own family. Will may realize he needs Harry, but Harry doesn’t need him. He’s not coming back for his back-stabbing bully of a brother.

    • MaryContrary says:

      She will have an extremely cushy retirement package-she doesn’t need power or control then.

    • Tessa says:

      I hope Charles has a long reign. I don’t think William will change. I think he was emotionally abusive to Harry and Meghan. Harry won’t look out for Will he has a family to take care of.

  26. Talie says:

    I was surprised to see Dan Wootton cosign another story about Angela – but he threw William in as her co-conspirator when it came to blocking Meghan from the Crown jewels. I do wonder if all this negative attention is going to push her right out.

    • Ginger says:

      I thought that was interesting that he outed William and AK for not letting Meghan have access to the Queens jewelry. She never did wear any for royal tours. They never wanted this marriage to happen and tried very hard to make that happen.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      The Royal Collection, which includes jewelry, is NOT the Crown Jewels! The Crown Jewels reside in the Tower and are comprised of the official regalia used at coronations, etc. – i.e. actual crowns and scepters. The collection referenced in these articles is the Queen’s private collection of jewelry, which is mostly made up of inherited pieces.

      • Ennie says:

        Maybe you can help me here. I recall reading how many of the jewels Diana wore as Princess of Wales, can only be worn by either Camilla or Keen, Camilla having precedence (I suppose), to wear what she likes.
        From there the other wives married-ins, can only wear so-and-so, other jewels that are not representative of the heir’s wife.
        prohibiting Meghan of wearing jewelry (after the wedding) is relevant, as they are limiting her of wearing the pieces she can borrow as Harry is nit the heir.
        I really don’t mind Meghan not wearing that jewelry at all, but I understand that it is not what a working royal should suffer. They are working on behalf of the crown/queen, then they should have access.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I don’t actually think that there’s a set of rules about who can wear what – other than the unwritten rule that no one else wears the Queen’s favorite tiaras. It is up to the Queen to give permission.

      • Feeshalori says:

        The big question for me is what happen to all the jewelry that Diana privately owned and was not part of the royal collection? We saw some pieces that Meghan wore such as the aquamarine ring and bangle bracelet but how was the rest divvied out? As her heirs, both Harry and William should have gotten her jewelry and I’m just hoping that Harry wasn’t cheated out of his portion because of this ongoing situation. The prime example is that Harry originally owned the engagement ring but gave it to William for his bride. We’ve seen Kate wear some of Diana’s sapphire earrings and a small pearl choker. But I really want to know what happened to the stunning pearl and sapphire choker that we haven’t seen it all. And until it shows up, we won’t ever know whose possession it’s in.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I want to know what happened to Diana’s gorgeous Verdura bracelet, that was one of the best pieces of her collection.

    • February-Pisces says:

      What was the deal with dan putting this out there? Did he think it would work in williams favour (I don’t see how), or did he do it to somehow threaten the Cambridge’s again? “Give me more leaks or I’ll start spilling? “ like he’s collecting a debt.

      • Priscila says:

        I think the spin at that time was that both William and AK felt Meghan was demanding too much and sought to put a stop to it- like they defending the poor jewels from greedy eyes. In his worldview, this- William and AK getting together to bully Meghan- proves that the RF had reason not to like or defend Meghan. It is like ” see? The Queens trusted servant AND the FFK both agree Meghan should not, so they must be right!”

      • February-Pisces says:

        I can see that, but I still find it completely illogical. They tried to create this idea that Meghan isn’t to be ‘trusted’ and that they were fighting against the alleged ‘gold digger’, so Willie and this witch get together to block Meghan. Given after everything they have been through harry and Meghan are still very much together and have been together for a number of years. I think she has proved herself to be a loyal wife. All aristocratic marriages are based on marrying for status and not love, it’s as old as they are. Meghan left all those royal jewels behind, so this doesn’t really swing in willies favour in the long run. He just looks like he was being sly, calculating and nasty. It just makes him look very unwelcoming, which we all know is true.

      • Talie says:

        I was surprised in that way cause it made William look mean and petty. Dan has thrown him and Kate under the bus here and there, and it does make you wonder what the angle is when he does do it.

      • Original Penguin says:

        Am pretty sure the ‘tiara’ story first came out when they were in Australia. It was definitely there to counterbalance the good press they were getting

  27. Lizzie says:

    This story is sounding exactly like the ‘she made Kate cry’ story. No one can back it up and so the details shift. They were both lies to cast Meghan as pushy and demanding.

  28. Jay says:

    It says a lot that the person who leaked this story (Kelly or another courtier, I’m assuming) thinks this that this spin on the story puts them in a positive light!

    “Harry swore so I tattled to his grandmother and she gave him a dressing down” doesn’t really engage my sympathy, especially as it seems like this person was using access to the jewels to exercise pettiness towards Harry’s new bride. I’d wager the phrase “put her in her place” was used about Meghan on this occasion and others.

    Where are the stories about how controlling and incompetent these courtiers are, especially as the Queen gets older? The more gossip about the courtiers I read, the more I wonder about the powerful and potentially corrupt systems they uphold.

    For their own sake, they should maybe talk less!

  29. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Well she sounds like a C-U-Next Tuesday so Harry was accurate in his description.

  30. nicegirl says:

    Some people are C you next Tuesdays, big time. Oooh the upset when one is properly identified tho, only nasty women use that word. My youngest son’s grandmother is self described as ‘always right.’ It’s interesting how in some families being ‘rude’ is a more heinous crime than the actual abuse. I’m so over that crap it’s like I’m continuously flushing it. I’m so happy Meghan is far away from those assfaces. Find your place to make your stand and take it tf easy.

  31. Kate says:

    So is Angela the leaky courtiers? How many courtiers can there possibly be?

  32. Jessica says:

    Look I’m pro-Meghan & Harry but even I think she should’ve scheduled an appointment with the dresser and followed protocol. Especially since she flew her stylist in from Paris. I think it’s presumptuous to assume you can just have an appointment on demand. I also think there’s a lot of little petty things, and big issues, that transpired behind the sciences from both sides and now we are seeing the passive aggressive ways each side is trying to control public narrative to persuade the narrative to be on their side. I don’t think it’s useful to think Meghan and Harry are 100% innocent and The Firm Is 100% bad. It’s rarely that black and white.

    • Lurker says:

      I’m generally a lurker here. There’s been so much mud-slinging in the press that I’m not convinced the claim that Meghan didn’t have an appointment is true. If she laid the groundwork for the hair stylist to fly out, why wouldn’t she have made an appointment with the palace to ensure the tiara was available? Moreover, if there was an appointment fumble and it was Meghan’s fault, why wouldn’t that have been the story circulated in the press in the first place, instead of that bulls*t about an emerald tiara?

      • Mary says:

        @Lurker, Good point, unless it had been up to a KP staff person and they screwed up, purposely or not. If someone at KP was yanking Meghan around (with Angie’s ok?), I think they might make up a story.

        Regardless, the way people are slinging accusations at the Sussexes, and telling on themselves in doing so, I think the truth will eventually come out.

        Love your handle!

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        Exactly, Lurker! Meghan, who has worked and knows about scheduling hair and makeup, would know to make an appointment with the Queen’s personal assistant to see the tiara. She wouldn’t have just popped up at BH. I mean these vipers are the same folks who tried to micromanage the wearing of a necklace during the dating year. She would know what was expected of her. AK was being a witch because she could and she didn’t want to service the black fiancée.

    • Jaded says:

      @Jessica: How did you come by this knowledge? How are you sure Meghan didn’t make an appointment and just showed up? This information comes from a notoriously mendacious tabloid rag only useful to line a cat’s litter pan. The only stuff that transpired behind the scenes was that AK47 and others resented having to “work” with an American actress they considered a bi-racial upstart and parvenu and undermined her at every opportunity.

    • Priscila says:

      I dont think you are pro-Meghan, no. If you were, you would have learned long time ago the name of the game is spin. You would have recognized how this story keeps changing to the point no details are given just vague quotes about how Meghan is doing all wrong, how Harry is in the wring for assuming people are not helping them, how pretty much everybody is oh so happy to help this couple, just to be misundertood, yelled at, made cry etc….

      This kind of sharing the blame narrative would only work if the press was not so overtly ready to attack someone. Meghan IS the victim. and victims CAN be imperfect and still be victims- one thing does not negate the other.

      What you were basically saying is that you believe a woman who has worked for over twenty years on an industry where you have to show up for appointments or get get fired, who is used to deal with hair and make up, suddenly forgets to make appointments with an institution notorious for pagentry and rules.

      What more likely happened, is that AK purposely gave Meghan the roundabout or maybe even gave her incomplete information, then told her ” no, go back to line and get a number”, Meghan told Harry what happened and he KNOWING courtiers dam well, put AK in her place. Ak disliked that, went to TQ_ and now, is allowed to leak-

      So yes, Meghan fan. you are not much of a fan!

      • Olenna says:

        This must be the other Jessica, the one that says she’s not the other one that doesn’t like Meghan. Hard to tell, LOL!

    • Market Street Minifig says:

      “Look I’m pro-Meghan & Harry but even I think she should’ve scheduled an appointment with the dresser and followed protocol. Especially since she flew her stylist in from Paris. I think it’s presumptuous to assume you can just have an appointment on demand.”

      I think it is presumptuous of you to assume Meghan did that. And in what world does it sound like Meghan would count on an off-chance, instead of lining up her ducks properly? She must’ve gotten really lucky then pulling off the cookbook and SmartWorks projects so smoothly.

    • Va Va Kaboom says:

      I genuinely can’t even imagine Meghan just showing up to Buckingham Palace without notice or invitation to try on tiaras. The truth is that courtiers and staff are well known for giving people the runaround when it suits them. The same tactic was used when Harry tried to meet with the Queen and Charles about pulling back from Royal duties. They restrict access or make the person jump through hoops to get what they’re asking for (Harry was bounced back and forth between QE and Charles until he pulled the trigger and released their statement without consent). It sounds like that’s exactly what Angela Kelly was pulling with Meghan before the wedding.

    • Nev says:

      Duchess Meghan is such a big planner of her work. You really think she wouldn’t plan everything to an almost OCD level for her wedding?
      Or at the very least been told beforehand that she had to make an appointment for the tiara. It’s not logical to think otherwise.

    • Nic919 says:

      You did some similar both sides bullshit in an earlier post so no you aren’t pro Meghan if you keep finding ways to blame them.

      I mean if you want to take the word of a woman who brawled at work over a married man then by all means please do so, but that’s not neutral. AK47 is clearly a power tripping old biddy with questionable morals (she also ditched her kids for this job, which I thought most conservative types hated women for doing that but I digress) and she had a problem with Meghan asking to do a test run with the tiara which is a normal request. If Harry had to get involved that’s how much she was stonewalling.

  33. Charfromdarock says:

    “ e on courtiers to persuade her to travel to London and unlock the cupboard where the tiara is kept.”

    Are we really to believe that the tiara’s are in a cupboard with AK having the only key?

    • Sunday says:

      it’s a shady remark meant to be reminiscent of a racist old bag hiding the good silver in the cupboard before the black American arrived. “Lock up the crown jewels, Meghan’s coming!”

      not sure if the fail meant that as a dig to AK’s crotchety behavior or another swipe at their favorite punching bag (Meghan). My guess is both.

  34. Feeshalori says:

    I’m sure there’s absolutely no way Meghan’s hairdresser would have flown in without an appointment. You don’t leave such important matters up to chance that all parties would be available. The hairdresser would have to make sure that he/she didn’t have a commitment on that day as well.

  35. RedWeatherTiger says:

    I was watching the documentary about Princess Diana (spoiler: I cried. I actually sobbed), and while her wedding look was 80s OTT, her tiara was magnificent. Is it any wonder she chose to wear the Spencer tiara, in part because she didn’t need permission from Petty Betty and her Petty Staff to see it prior to the wedding?

    Seeing tiny Harry in the documentary really crushed me. Seeing what they did to his mom and now what they are doing to his wife…it’s beyond appalling.

    • A says:

      I think that the palace wasn’t going to lend her a tiara for the wedding either. The accepted convention when it comes to these things is that the family of the bride will provide her a tiara to wear for her wedding, if they have one. If they don’t, the Queen will over one. Diana came from a very old, very established noble family, so she would have been expected to wear what her family could offer her, rather than borrow from the Queen. It would be a way for the Spencers to show off what they have on their own etc.

  36. Jay says:

    Increasingly, the descriptions of Angela Kelly remind me of the “groom of the stool” position in older royal courts, aka the guy responsible for helping the king go to the bathroom and wash himself (yep). This was actually a coveted job, because of the high level of intimacy and being able to control access and influence the king. There were always lots of stories about corrupt grooms bringing certain people and advice to the king’s ear, even being consulted on policy!

    How much do we think QEII really knows or cares about what goes on in the palace? How much of her news comes through people like Angela?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Spot on. It is an old dynamic – just with new job descriptions (and no longer aristocrats holding those most intimate positions in the royal household).

  37. sarah1 says:

    I just realized that Kate is leaning ever so slightly away from Doria and Meghan.

  38. christina says:

    I can’t believe that the hairstyle she ended up with had a practice session.

  39. LRobb says:

    It is obvious that every rf reaction to FF is going to be stupid. Can’t wait to read the whole book and ignore the rest of the family some more.

  40. Vanessa says:

    Looks like to me this Angela person is get a dose of her own medicine this week and now is rightfully being called out of her actions. She now is trying to justified her behavior by coming up with new story with very little details just like all the another Meghan stories it’s always very cloak and Dagger that’s why don’t believe this stories about Meghan and Harry allegations bad behavior. If Harry cursed this woman out six ways from Sunday you best believe we would have the details about everything about that day it we know what color shirt Harry was wearing the weather whether it was raining or sunny . The press was going wild with the Meghan bashing stories especially during the wedding with the Thomas saga there no way this particular story would not have been leaked . I think the courtiers are the ones who are really scary about finding freedom book because their the ones with the help of the Cambridge’s help the press harass Meghan . A lot of the courtiers names are being released their no longer can hide behind palace sources . This Angela person sounds like a real bitch who thought she could bully Meghan and when Harry called her out she ran to the queen like little baby and is now trying to make herself seem like a victim of Meghan and Harry when in reality they were her boss she didn’t like being told what to do by someone she thought was lower than her in society.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Absolutely, Vanessa, AK is nothing but a tattletale who got rightfully called out by Harry for not doing her job and went running to the Queen to make it all better, if this constantly changing tale is true.

  41. FilmTurtle says:

    They forgot the part where Harry tried to kick a corgi on the way out and Meghan laughed and made him do it again.

  42. ola says:

    The whole “following Palace protocol” was a new thing for Meghan, however Harry should have known better. From the report it seems he behaved like a spoilt brat and then Meghan got blamed.
    Anyway, the tiara looked beautiful and perfectly suitable, delicate and elegant. The only thing I still can’t comprehend is the fact that Meghan actually HAD A HAIRSTYLIST. My hair looks exactly that way every time I leave the gym. She could have had such a gorgeous updo and instead ended up with a post-workout messy bun. It cannot have been intentional.

    • Lizzie Bathory says:

      Lol. Harry isn’t the one who looks bad here. As many posters pointed out, Harry was born into the “protocol.” He knows how it works & clearly would know what to do here. No one believes he or Meghan behaved like “brats” except the folks who buy the (constantly changing) fictions whipped up by courtiers & the RR.

      • GuestWho says:

        Apparently the twitter/tumblr talking points this afternoon are to rag on Harry and talk about M’s hair (which was really intricate actually) not looking the way they wanted it to at the wedding. Subtle they are not. Daily Fail readers.

      • Lizzie Bathory says:

        @GuestWho The talking points are always weird. I thought Meghan’s hair looked lovely. She was never going to have a big updo. The entire look was very “her,” and clearly Harry loved it. We all saw him say, “You look amazing. I’m so lucky.”

  43. Mariane says:

    So they are not even hiding the fact that Angela is practically controlling the monarch!!! How is that not the main story???!!! I guess this proves that lizzy and chuck are so powerless that they have no control over their own household

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Honestly, all of these stories about conniving staff throwing road-blocks against some of the people they are supposed to work for just paints a picture of the Queen as the clueless old biddy who has lost the plot and control with her staff.

      It really doesn’t paint a good picture of her – she’s either perfectly fine with letting her staff run amok or she has no control over her own household.

      • Feeshalori says:

        The tail indeed wags the dog in this toxic environment.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        @AH, I said all this made the Queen look ineffectual and was shouted down that the Queen was respected worldwide. Maybe so, but she’s lost control of her own house and allowed a bunch of employees to harass and abuse her grandson and his wife. They are showing the world she has no control over anything.

      • Couch potato says:

        I don’t think she ever had control. Prince Philip is known to be the head of the family in private settings. He was probably the one who had the real control over the staff, and with him gone, they do what they like/Willys bidding.

    • original penguin says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if AK was manipulating the Queen. After all Philip was off at Sandringham ‘retired’ she had no friends of her generation left and AK filled that void. Controlling what news she gets of her family/who gets to see her and when. Its actually not that surprising – whomever mentioned the Favourite is right – there has been a whole history of Royal Favourites causing the downfall of monarchs.

  44. Mina_Esq says:

    So the Queen is ready to defend her dresser but not her granddaughter-in-law? What a classy lady that knows her priorities *eye-roll*🙄

  45. BlueCrystal says:

    As an American, I don’t understand why the British people are so enamored with the Royal family and allow them to live in castles, and receive salaries for basically doing nothing. A British person told me that the tiaras, crowns, etc. essentially belong to the British people. If that’s the case, why can’t any British person put in a application for a crown and borrow one for their big day? It seems to me that the whole royalty thing is so boring and long past due to be dissolved. Just keep the castles and let people tour them for a small fee. The inhabitants are no longer relevant.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      That is not quite correct. The Crown Jewels belong to the State but the jewels and tiaras that the royal ladies wear belong to the Queen. They belong to the monarch. Most of the royal palaces belong to the State except Balmoral and Sandringham which the monarch own personally.

      • BlueCrystal says:

        Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess my British source had her facts mixed up. It still seems grotesque how the RF uses those jewels and baubles to show favoritism, or as a punishment. Just a few of those crowns could feed thousands of hungry British people. I saw a documentary on hunger in England and it was just heart wrenching to see what people are going through, when they have no support system. I’m not sure if the U.S. is any better. But it’s just ostentatious for the royals to prance around pretending like they’re working their a$$es off, and then go home to their multiple servants and meals, literally fit for a king. I wonder if Elizabeth ever thinks about the fact that if it weren’t for an American divorcee, she wouldn’t even be the Queen. And now they are letting Phillip have his soulmate, Camilla. Why wasn’t it possible for Edward to be with Wallis?

      • Jane's Wasted Talent says:

        Edward and Wallis were Nazis, and Wallis took pride in the fact that her family had owned people (slaves). They were not good people, they were disgusting. But it was Edward’s Nazi leanings that doomed them- it was decided he was unfit, and Wallis was the excuse to abdicate.

  46. Chelsea says:

    I love how this “royal source” says that Meghan DEMANDED the tiara and then in the next sentence says she asked “can we have it now please?”. How tf is that demanding? It’s like they cant help showing 24/7 that they view the coloured girl just asking about stuff as a major inconvenience and violent affront to them. Like how DARE she ask about something that relates to her wedding? They literally cant stop themselves from using racially coded language about her. So glad she got away from that island.

  47. A says:

    “‘We’re at Buckingham Palace, we want the tiara. Can we have it now please?”

    You just know, much like a lot of the other stories regarding Meghan, that this pretty much did not happen. This might be how Angela Kelly chose to understand the request, but that’s on her, not on Meghan or Harry. I think we can all give a good guess as to why and for what reason AK decided she wasn’t going to dignify Meghan’s likely very reasonable request, but I have no doubt in my mind–and I never had, and I never will–that Meghan is anything other than scrupulously polite, kind, and considerate towards everyone. Even people she doesn’t necessarily like.

    And it’s very telling that in all of these stories, what appears to be the crux of the issue is that it wasn’t Meghan throwing her weight around. It’s Harry. And you can tell that the palace aides and staffers were not expecting it to go like this at all. They are, in every sense of the word (with perhaps the exception of Camilla), utterly unused to feeling any sort of pushback from the royal spouses of the women who marry into the family.

    They fully expected to be able to snidely bully and taunt Meghan, and expected her to cow herself down and keep things quiet. And the kicker is that, Meghan, by virtue of who she is, was prepared to stay quiet, actually. She has shown on multiple occasions that, as frustrated as she might be, she’s willing to give the benefit of the doubt, even to people who have gone out of their way to treat her poorly (her father, Kate, the staffers, etc). But Harry is the one who comes through and fights for her corner.

    And it’s the fact that Harry fights for her, defends her needs, and is prepared to go to the mats for his wife, that these people loathe completely. They hate that. They see it as a betrayal of everything they stand for, and care about. How dare Harry concern himself with the way Meghan, his wife, is treated by these people. How dare Harry not be solely preoccupied with himself, and himself alone. How dare Harry care about his wife over an outdated, poorly designed institution that can’t keep in touch with the people.

    What this really speaks to, really, is the utter discrepancy with which William and Harry have been raised by the palace institutions. This is the end result of prioritizing William, and his needs and his needs alone, out of a fear that he will abdicate his responsibilities and leave the family fold. This is also what happens when you teach the heirs that their loyalty is to an institution, and not their family. Perhaps this was something required of them in the years before, when the institution of the monarchy itself had some value and needed to have some respect in the eyes of the people. But those days are past. That’s not how it is anymore. People care less about the institution, and more about the humanity of the people in it. And unless the royals pivot towards that, they’re writing their own obsolescence.

    Dear Angela Kelly–if you’re reading this, and I know you or someone else you work with probably is, just know that people are onto you, you conniving, two-faced, skank. ((: I won’t even refer to you as trailer trash, because even people who qualify as such wouldn’t behave with such a lack of decorum.

  48. blunt talker says:

    If the royal family allows the people who work for them, and pay them their salaries are permitted to run over members of the royal family-this is truly disgusting-rich americans who have people working for them would not sit still for this kind of employees one second-I pay your damn salary do as you are told not the other way around. The royal family are really scared of their long time employees, or the royal family allow this type of behavior because they approve of it. I thought people of royalty ruled over everyone in their households-something is really wrong with this picture-what’s the purpose of having royalty if they cannot reign in their own staff with an iron fist.