Queen Elizabeth’s Sussex statement had an ‘underlying jab’ at the couple, surprise

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II speaks with staff during a visit to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) at Porton Down science park near Salisbury, southern England, on October 15, 2020. - The Queen and the Duke of Cambridge visited the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) where they were to view displays of weaponry and tactics used in counter intelligence, a demonstration of a Forensic Explosives Investigation and meet staff who were involved in the Salisbury Novichok incident. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness also formally opened the new Energetics Analysis Centre.

Two days after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview aired on CBS, Buckingham Palace released a four-sentence statement. The background of how the statement came to exist and the very precise wording of it will probably make for an interesting season of The Crown. Apparently, Prince Charles was losing his mind over the interview he wanted to do a larger rebuttal. Meanwhile, William was rage-screaming at the top of his lungs while he punched walls. So it was left to the Queen to officially release this:

“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

As we spoke about at the time, “some recollections may vary” is doing a lot of work. Buckingham Palace’s official position was that Harry & Meghan are much loved and the palace is officially concerned, but the palace still had to give some red meat to racists who wanted to cling to any excuse to continue to abuse Meghan and Harry, this time for “lying about racism.” The Queen did that on purpose, big surprise.

Queen Elizabeth’s statement in response to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey contained a line that stood out. Buckingham Palace released a short, 61-word statement on behalf of the monarch, 94, two days after the interview aired in the U.S. While the Queen said the family was “saddened” to hear of Meghan and Harry’s challenges and stated “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members,” she also remarked that “some recollections may vary” when it comes to the issues and concerns raised in their interview.

The comment was an “underlying jab” and indicates dissent among the family at some of the claims made in the interview, a royal insider tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story.

[From People]

Of course it was an “underlying jab.” I mean, no sh-t Sherlock/“royal insider.” The whole reason the Queen’s statement couldn’t include an explicit jab at her grandson and his wife is because Meghan and Harry had made it clear that they have receipts. By saying “some recollections may vary,” the palace gave itself some wiggle room because they don’t know all of the cards (receipts) Harry and Meghan are holding. The palace does know that it could have been a lot worse though, because while recollections may vary, every one of those a–holes remembers what they did to Harry and Meghan.

The Museum Gala - Arrivals

Photos courtesy of CBS, Avalon Red.

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

54 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth’s Sussex statement had an ‘underlying jab’ at the couple, surprise”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lowrider says:

    American People mag is working OT to protect the British institution…🤔

    • Faye says:

      Their editor, I believe, is British, so there you go.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        And since their new editor entered People mag is releasing a quarterly Royals Edition where the mag just focuses the big articles on kissing the BRFs arse.

    • Merricat says:

      Yes, there’s a reason there’s no immediate route of communication to People Magazine. It’s trash, and if they actually allowed complaints, they’d be doing nothing but responding to those complaints. But the more the editor tries to privilege the institutional racism of the monarchy over our Black American, the fewer magazines will be purchased. Write to the Meredith Corporation. Let them know how you feel.

      • Babz says:

        I have been taking People since it debuted in the 70s. My subscription expires in June. There’s not much to it anymore, even before the advent of the British editor. This looks like the year that I won’t be renewing. Not interested in their polishing of the RF image.

      • Chris. says:

        People Mag is; struggling. Nobody buy this crap anymore. It used to be big up to the 2010. Finish the day when everybody was waiting for the People Most Beautiful list, ha ha ha Celebrities have their own IG now and can do their own promotion, with their own pictures. People Mag has lost its impact on the American Population. The fact that they seem to be focusing on rebooting the image of the RF, is a big mistake. American support the Sussexes, and do not car about the rest of the RF.

      • Lorelei says:

        It’s sad to see what’s happened to People magazine. I don’t know exactly when the decline began, but when I was growing up, it was in a *totally* different category than the truly trashy US tabloids. I read it regularly. As I grew older, I came to understand that it was used as a mouthpiece for celebrities, but it was still regarded as “respectable.”

        The last time I remember actively going out of my way to buy a physical copy was when Brad & Angelina released the first photo of Shiloh and all three of them were on the cover, so…2007? I hadn’t bought it in years, but I remember all the women in my office crowding around to look at it since we all wanted to see the photos.

        Now it’s no better than InTouch or Life & Style, but they are not taken seriously at all, by anyone. People still has a lot more credibility in the US, imo, so if they’re going to constantly be pushing a pro-BRF narrative, it will make it even more difficult than it already is for me to explain to friends & family that the Sussexes are being gaslit and it’s the BRF who’s in the wrong.

        Anyway, it’s just sad — People was able to be 95% about celebrity gossip, but presented it in a way that didn’t automatically cause eyerolls, like the National Enquirer. Now they’re just as bad as all of the others, but they’ll be able to coast on their reputation as “decent” for a long time, I think, which makes them more dangerous because so many Americans don’t know about the BTS drama and still view it as trustworthy.

  2. Elizabeth Regina says:

    Of course she’s not going to say “well, Harry, you are absolutely right we were racist’ is she?

  3. Mac says:

    The statement was just more abuse and gaslighting. The BRF keep showing their a$$es and proving Harry and Meghan right.

  4. Phoenix says:

    So…they aren’t going to resolve their problems privately?
    Surprise 🤣

  5. (The OG) Jan90067 says:

    Do we really think ER crafted that herself? After all we’re finding out about that Borgia Family over there, don’t you think Chuckie and/or The Incandescent PwBT had their fingers in that?

    • Couch potato says:

      Apparently it’s her private secretary sir Edward Young who’s penned the statement. Apparently it’s “widely seen as a master stroke in Britain”. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-men-in-grey-the-true-powers-behind-the-palace-20210310-p579ml.html

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        Interesting article; thanks for the link, Couch Potato. Stands to reason, of course, and I’m sure they shove a lot of papers in front of her to sign and I doubt she vets every single page. That is partly whyI’m saying that Charles and William could’ve had “a word” with him and helped the narrative. Who knows, maybe not ¯_(ツ)_/¯ But I wouldn’t have been surprised that a conference call went on before this was typed up.

      • Jumpingthesnark says:

        Hehe!! “Master strokes” are what the BRF PR is allllll about!!!

      • Lorelei says:

        Thank you; that was an interesting article.

        What I can’t wrap my head around is all of this reverence for the Queen, outrage when the Queen is perceived as insulted or disrespected, “God Save The Queen,” etc., if EVERYONE KNOWS that it’s actually random non-royal employees who truly call the shots and make the decisions? What is there to admire in a leader who doesn’t actually lead??

    • Bex says:

      She signed her name to it. She’s the boss, and is leading everyone to believe she’s the boss.

  6. Boyd says:

    The Queen’ is stalling for time. After yesterday’s reveal from a Private Detective in USA that the Sun Tabloid asked him to investigate Meghan and her family while Harry was dating in 2016.
    This likely will go uncovered in the UK. It actually says a lot because Meghan’s friends had no idea who Meg was dating until the Public announcement. Who in the UK knew to tell the Sun tabloid? Was SUN paid by someone to investigate?

    • Jais says:

      Hmm could that actually be uncovered though? I would love it. How could it be proven if a royal family member actually first leaked to sun about meghan’s existence, just thinking in terms of receipts.

  7. Merricat says:

    If this is how they treat family members, imagine how those in the Commonwealth feel. If the kkkrown refuses to recognize its built-in racism, it won’t change. Why should any poc feel welcome, after this? Why should any poc in the Commonwealth feel the kkkrown does anything for them at all?

  8. Myra says:

    Are they trying to remind us that she, too, is an awful person? Because we’re already sold.

  9. LadyE says:

    I don’t really agree with this take. I think that the Queen included this very soft language in order to try to prevent Charles and William from separately releasing much more explicit “they are lying” claims. And I think the “Royal insider” quoted by People magazine knows FUCK ALL about what the Queen thinks, wants, or intended. Look, this seems a bit like making contradictory arguments. Either, first, Charles and William have been able to run roughshod with their press shit and these “palace sources” are THEIR sources- the conclusion from this is that the Queen is negligent, unaware, or weak, but not that she is participating or approves of any of it. Or, second, the Queen is super petty and is directing this. I see very little support for the second view. Frankly, what I would really like to see is that all this “disrespecting the Queen!” BS get blasted at these “sources”- the Queen made very clear she does not want this discussed in the media. That’s not a “rumor”, that’s from her statement. So, any royal “source” or “insider” revealing anything the Queen thinks is disrespecting the Queen. Not the monarchy, not the institution, Queen Elizabeth herself. Which to me is actually the only thing that can really hurt these people. It’s one thing to be catty about Harry, but also Kate, William and Charles. It is quite another to gossip about the Queen herself. Even the tabloids know better than to do that.

    • Boyd says:

      Bravo. I agree 100%

      • LadyE says:

        I am anti-monarchy in principle, but having lived for decades in a European country with a Royal family who no one pays attention to at all and are really not problematic, I am more opposed to the British version in practice than as a principled issue. I am also extremely anti-UK tabloid media for reasons that pre-date and extend well beyond H&M (Millie Dowler as just one). As individuals, I am very anti-William, compassionately disapproving of Kate, and was not entirely sure on Charles until recently. But, all that said, I am very pro-H&M AND QE and unless I hear otherwise from Harry and Meghan think that is what they truly feel as well.

    • Erni says:

      Very interesting take. Can we start to campaign to blast these palace sources disrespecting the Queen?

      Hey, your queen said she’ll handle it privately. Why keep leaking?

      • LadyE says:

        From a strategic standpoint, this is absolutely what I would do. Making up stuff about any member of the Royal family really does not bother the British public- it’s expected and basically the RF function at this point- to be a distraction that gives fodder for catty gossiping and speculation. This doesn’t apply to the Queen herself at all though. I think the British public would turn on the UK press in a heartbeat if they started doing anything close to what they do to anyone else to the Queen herself. HELL NO! You would never see that. They. would. not. dare. Because the public would not stand for it.

        But, that’s kind of what is happening here.

        So, making this about people within the Firm and the UK press dragging the Queen herself into this- writing stories about her inserting “jabs” into press releases, her being mad/sad/whatever, gossiping about her- that’s exactly what I would attack them for. They are bringing the Queen herself down to a ‘common’ level (haha!), which is incredibly damaging to her image and I think that the public would see it as deeply disrespectful to her. She’s the only one that they revere and respect, truly. Use it, I say.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Well we don’t know either really, do we. She is 94 but she also believes she’s divinely anointed to rule until she drops dead. It may be Charles is a de facto regent but from everything we’ve seen of the queen, how she treated Margaret and Diana, it’s tough to see how she is not obviously cruel and petty. I’m sure she doesn’t think of herself that way but this is not a warm, generous person. She’s reserved and arrogant and everyone around her has encouraged that. Except with her dogs and horses I’m sure.

      • LadyE says:

        Like I responded to Boyd, I know what H and M said about the Queen and I am not about to start thinking that they were lying. And, no, I actually haven’t “seen” how the Queen treated Margaret (? I don’t think you have either, frankly, how old are you and where do you live?) or Diana. I’m aware of what Diana said about the Firm and about Charles, absolutely. Not the Queen though.

    • Lorelei says:

      @LadyE I agree with your comment about how the British public seems to only fully respect Queen Elizabeth; they use “the Queen” any time they’re defending the BRF from any perceived disrespect or criticism.

      But this only makes me wonder even more what will happen when Charles ascends the throne. He does *not* inspire the same feelings his mother does. We know too much about him, and a lot of it isn’t good. I understand he’s done a lot for people via The Prince’s Trust, but that won’t be enough to overcome overwhelming public apathy, imo. And whether one thinks this is ridiculous or not, there is still a large number of people worldwide who will never be able to forgive him for what he did to Diana, never accept Camilla, and continue to adore Diana until their dying day. The Queen didn’t have anything like that to contend with; no negative opinions she had to overcome starting from day one. Her situation was so different, and she had nothing but goodwill.

      I just wonder how the narrative will change— will the people now bleating about “disrespecting the Queen!!” switch out “Queen” for “monarchy?” Time will tell but it will be so interesting to witness the first five or so years of Charles’s reign.

      • Lorelei says:

        @ETA LadyE: I agree with your assessment that the Queen is now being dragged into “common” gossip, but I also think it’s couched in a way that not everyone will see it. It’s not blunt, outright criticism of her, and I think some people need it to be much more obvious before they realize what’s really being said.

        Those of us here who follow the family and have been following this saga closely all along absolutely knew the significance of that one phrase and what it was insinuating about the Sussexes, but imo it’s still too subtle for many of her supporters to have caught, and even this article isn’t overtly critical. Those who support the Queen and dislike the Sussexes will only think this makes her seem “clever” or something and make them love her more.

      • LadyE says:

        @Lorelei – I am going to copy and paste an edited version of what I wrote on a different article here about the monarchy:

        “I am anti-monarchy on principle, but I recognize the real deal when I see it. Queen Elizabeth herself is the only authentic Royalty, and the last. Charles, William, all of them are too modern. This is not a defence or a view that I personally agree with, but I think that Queen Elizabeth truly, genuinely believes that her role is a duty and that Royalty itself is a form of national service. All the rest view it transactionally, it’s a trade off and about maintaining their class and economic privilege. I’m not saying that QE is not the epitome of privilege, she is. But, I don’t think she sees it that way because she is for lack of a better way of saying it really from a different time and she was raised and indoctrinated in the real “annointed by God to rule his dominion” philosophy of monarchal governance. Of course, the UK was not a monarchy in the real, real sense even in her youth, but the concept itself was much more widely held.

        I think that there’s a grudging respect for the Queen because of this within the Commonwealth and even in the US, even while simultaneously knowing all the problematic aspects to inherited rule and supremacy. But, I think that feeling ends with her.”

        Re: Charles as King, I think that the monarchy will continue past QE in the UK itself, no question. But, I think that he will never be seen as true royalty, never inspire the type of reverence and awe that the Queen has. And, because of that, I think the tabloids will become much more vicious, but he will no longer be exempt, even as King. This is ultimately unsustainable for a constitutional monarchy. You can’t have a “head of state” and a whole industry that treats that person and their immediate family as a soap opera/gossip fodder. It makes the crown function in terms of diplomacy, the soft power foreign relations, all the things that the Queen currently does for the UK government way more difficult and maybe not even possible. I think it’ll either end or take on a very different form by the time of William.

        Re: your question on the narrative, I don’t know! That’s such a fascinating question. I just can’t see “disrespecting King Charles” having any social shaming effect, for him as King or more troubling for the monarchy for the position of King. So, does “respect the monarchy” still carry much punch after QE? I really, really don’t know. Will be fascinating to see, though!

      • Lorelei says:

        @LadyE thank you for the response. I think a Charles is in for a bumpy ride, and after the way he’s behaved toward Harry & Meghan, I’ll enjoy watching him suffer, to be completely honest.

        Re: the narrative— it occurred to me last night that many people are either so disingenuous or so desperate to hang on to their prior belief system that they might be able to easily make that mental switch. Remember how many Kate superfans emerged as soon as Meghan came on the scene? People who had never cared about Kate at best and thought she was lazy at worst were, all of a sudden, going on nonstop about how regal their FFQC was, so elegant, the perfect English Rose who never put a foot wrong. And became Cambridge stans overnight. So I can see how some of the hardcore monarchists, while devastated that Elizabeth is gone, will be able to make the switch to “monarchy” in their heads, to be able to continue to justify their reverence to themselves.

        On some podcast I was listening to last night, the “royal expert” asserted that the Queen would have been in crisis talks all week. If true, what I would give to be a fly on the wall.

      • LadyE says:


        I don’t know if you’ll see this, I hope so! Really enjoying this exchange : )
        On the off chance that you do, here’s what I really think, with much speculation and tea leaf reading as proof I admit haha!

        I actually don’t think that QE wants the monarchy to continue. I think she knows and has known for quite some time that society has changed too much for this to continue in a non-toxic, way and that it’s continuation will ultimately destroy her family/descendants. I think that she would like the monarchy to end, or the House of Windsor’s reign, in a dignified manner. And, hoo boy, will it not. They’ll have to eventually pry with a hammer the crown from Charles or William. But, I also think that she has tremendous compassion for Charles because she raised him to be a king, nothing else. I think that he would never ever accept the monarchy ending. Dude WANTS to be the king. And, I suspect that she probably faults herself to some degree for his entitlement and belief that it is his born right.

        I also think that it is such a big business now, there are sooo many people invested financially and socially in this continuing. They even more than Charles would never ever allow her to say “it ends here”.

        Did you know that one of the “reforms” of the constitutional monarchy is that the reigning monarch CANNOT change the line of succession? I find that so interesting. The ONLY thing that QE can do to prevent Charles from becoming King is not abdicate. She is 94 years old! And. she. won’t. do. it. I don’t believe that’s arrogance or belief in duty or anything. I think it is because she wants it to end with her.

        That’s why I think so many of Harry’s comments in the interview were actually so much more interesting and dangerous in many ways. I think he was hinting at a lot of this AND I think that the one of the unavoidable facts for royalists is that the Queen clearly adores Harry and continued to adore him after the Sussexit. It always makes me laugh how they try to dance around this.

        It may sound strange, but echoing Harry, I have tremendous compassion for the Queen, and even Charles and William to some degree, in that they are all trapped. I think the Queen is completely stuck. And this is not to exonerate her! She created an entitled son whose whole self-identity is defined by becoming King and a rage monster heir in waiting. But, I also think that, besides not abdicating, there is really nothing that she can do about it and I don’t think that her “staff” would let her do it if she tried. I don’t think that she can stop Charles and the courtiers from attacking Meghan and Harry. I really, really don’t believe that she can. I think she genuinely wants them to, but I don’t think it is in her power.

  10. Yoyo says:

    How many days they needed to tumble together this statement, and that was the best they could come up with.
    Funny they want things to remain private from Harry and Meghan, but not from the three leaking royal residences, days of not correcting BS are over.

  11. BearcatLawyer says:

    No one is talking about the more obvious jab: she referred to them as “Harry and Meghan” instead of the “Duke and Duchess of Sussex.” Since when has any official palace statement failed to include their correct titles?

    • Boyd says:

      it has a better sound I think.

      • Merricat says:

        What does that even mean? Sounds better to whom?

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        It is a more “familial” wording, implying a closer relationship, not formal, which would be pushing them away. Saying they are “much loved members of my family” goes with using first names of her grandson/grand-daughter-in-law.

    • Desert Lizard says:

      I think that was her attempt to reinforce this as a private, family issue rather than a public one. Of course it won’t work bc the Palaces keep leaking hateful things about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the Commonwealth is watching how the RF treats their family members of color. Betty was okay with Meghan and Harry being vilified daily even after they left and she chatted with Harry to keep the relationship open while not bothering to shut down the sewer press. And Harry says he is close to her. Makes me sad bc I think he had no clue about good family relationships until he met Meghan.

      • Boyd says:

        Maybe, but Harry and Meghan is far more affectionate than Duke and Duchess too,

      • Lorelei says:

        I feel so sorry for Harry; how is he able to reconcile the fact that his grandmother, who he truly loves, is at the root of a lot of this? She could have shut down so much of the viciousness and she chose not to.

        I understand how difficult it would be for Harry to have to completely sever all ties with nearly every close family at once, but I wonder if he’s in denial, or if he knows that behind the scenes, she’s not running things at all and hasn’t been for a long time.

        However, nothing changes the fact that we know she’s seen the press around Meghan, knows what the issues are, and failed to act. Yes, she may be surrounded by assertive advisers, but at the end of the day, she’s the Queen and she makes the ultimate decision. And she chose to stay silent for years while Harry and his family were absolutely tortured.

        Maybe Harry knows she won’t be around too much longer and wants to make sure they were on good terms when she passed, for his own peace of mind. But he must know deep down that so much of this is her fault, due to her inaction??

    • Sofia says:

      It’s to make it sound more personal and a family issue rather than a monarchy one. They also used their names instead of titles last year when HM released a longer statement about Sussexit

  12. Amy Bee says:

    If the Palace leaks any information to the press this weekend, I believe Harry and Meghan will respond.

    • Bren says:

      I think responding to palace sources is Harry and Meghan’s strategy going forward. It prevents royal reporters from creating false narratives that get reprinted as truth. A direct response from H&M via their rep holds more validity than palace sources.

  13. Cecilia says:

    Well the statement wasn’t a denial either. The windsors being… well… the windsors would have done a point by point rebuttal if they could. The fact is that they can’t. They know what they did to meg&haz. They know that they have receipts. And i hope that meg&haz stop being the bigger person and start some counter briefing stateside.

  14. Talie says:

    I’m surprised the royal family isn’t doing more to end all this and make peace with them – I mean, Harry *knows* a lot. He spent 35 years in the inner workings of the family. Meghan also spent enough time to know quite a bit as well. If they cut them loose completely, all bets are off. A full-on tell-all memoir by Harry would break publishing records.

  15. LaurieLee says:

    I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this whole situation, way more than is probably reasonable haha, and to me it really comes down to the “protection” of the monarchy thing. One only says they have to protect something when they feel that it is in danger. In the US we never talked about protecting democracy until it looked threatened by Trump. I guess I find it strange that the royal family thinks they need to protect the monarchy, because that implies that there is a threat to its existence. What might be that threat? Republican sentiments? From everything I’ve seen, there isn’t a strong movement to abolish the monarchy, so why do they seem to feel constantly under threat? My thought is that it is because they are afraid of people finding out exactly how much money they have, how much they actually take from taxpayers, and how little they have to show for their work. Alternatively, maybe they’re just trying to protect their image as people to be respected and looked up to, and when someone in the family does something embarrassing, they have to distract attention from that.

    Either way, it seems like a more proactive strategy for them would be to simply do good things for the country, show that you care, be honest and transparent in your use of taxpayer money, and to be moral and use good sense in your personal lives. This seems to be entirely under their control, but instead of just being good people, they go to all these crazy lengths to hide things and the consequence is that some members of the family get thrown to the media wolves to protect others. I think most of this “threat” could be removed if they simply were good people, right?

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      100% this. They’ve been robbing us all blind for centuries, and are afraid of payback time.

    • Lorelei says:

      @LaurieLee how true! I don’t think they have it in them, though— the family seems to produce and attract mostly horrible people, and when it’s lucked out by having a good person who wants to work come along, well, we’ve seen what they do. Diana first but then Meghan, and it was much worse with Meghan imo because she was 100% FAULTLESS and a lot of the vitriol was due to her race.

      Anyway I agree with you and although I don’t follow any other European royal families, it seems as though they’re all a lot less problematic and dramatic, so it CAN be done. But the BRF is so entrenched in their dysfunctional relationship with the press…I don’t know if it will ever change. But this was a great comment!

      (I also spend way too much time thinking about this family, lol. Definitely more time than I do thinking about my own, which is far less interesting!)

  16. Coco says:

    Has this royal insider been out fox hunting for a week? Newsflash: as ‘underlying jabs’ go, this one wasn’t exactly a master class of subtlety. Tons of people were pointing it out from the moment the royal statement was released.

  17. Margot says:

    Liz intends to be the last monarch . She wants it to crash . She could have stepped down decades ago .

  18. blunt talker says:

    John Oliver stated-the royal family is emotionally stunted-Well said.