Newsweek: Anti-Meghan trolls are monetizing hate through YouTube as well


Bot Sentinel released their report this week into their investigation into the targeted and coordinated hate campaign against the Duchess of Sussex. Bot Sentinel’s investigation was purely for Twitter, and the 80-plus Twitter accounts which are responsible for the bulk of the hate campaign. But Twitter isn’t the only social media company, and it’s not the only way hateful trolls can organize and monetize their hatred, racism, sexism and lies. Many of the bigger hate accounts also have Instagram accounts and YouTube channels. Newsweek points out that YouTube is a major way these anti-Meghan trolls are monetizing their hate:

Meghan Markle trolls are making money for YouTube by spreading hatred of her through their videos, Newsweek can reveal. One account, Murky Meg, has 85,400 subscribers. When viewed by Newsweek, a video with more than 62,000 views carried an advert for human rights charity Amnesty International.

The YouTube account has produced more than 300 videos criticizing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and also carries adverts for Murky Meg merchandise, including branded cups, T-shirts and bags for between £10 and £15 ($13.75 and $20.63).

Amnesty told Newsweek it advertised through YouTube using a package that applied the company’s strictest controls on hateful content—but its ad was placed on Murky Meg’s channel all the same. In a statement, it said: “As is common practice, Amnesty International UK advertises on YouTube using their strictest safety settings which should automatically prevent ad placement alongside content that has been classified as hateful or sensational. Amnesty campaigns against online abuse and urges social media companies to step up in their efforts to tackle and remove any harmful content.”

Another account, HG Tudor, has 79,600 subscribers and when viewed by Newsweek carried adverts from a law firm and a text-to-speech company. The owner also monetizes through a blog that offers audio consultations at $150 for a one-hour session and suggests customers from across different time zones. An example of just one of numerous videos is titled, “Harry´s Wife Part 78.10 : The Case of the Stolen Balls (Meghan Markle).”

The revelations come after data analysis agency Bot Sentinel identified a network of 83 accounts the company said were part of a coordinated hate campaign against Meghan. Founder Christopher Bouzy referred Newsweek to the HG Tudor YouTube channel and added: “It’s being monetized. I would be shocked if the core accounts were not being monetized in some way, whether they’re being paid by someone to do this, whether there is some other financial motive behind this. I just cannot see these accounts spending so much time each day and there is not something else behind it. Is it just hate driving them?”

He added that Twitter would also be making money out of the hate accounts: “If they’re tweeting 300 or 400 times in a day then that’s pretty substantial. The tools that we’re using indicate there’s a potential reach of 17 million-plus users and that’s pretty significant. Twitter is in the business of monetizing users, views and interactions. They’re not in the business of shutting down accounts, that’s going to hurt their bottom line.”

[From Newsweek]

I would assume that YouTube advertising operates much like blog advertising, in that companies hire a third party to simply place their ads across a spectrum of YouTube channels. It’s not like Amnesty International is aware of all of the individual channels on which their ads appear. It doesn’t work that way. So this is a failure of YouTube, similar to Twitter’s failures in shutting down hate accounts. It’s up to companies like YT, Instagram and Twitter to deplatform hate using their own tools to do so! Also: my feeling is that it’s probably easier to make money off hate on YouTube as opposed to Twitter. But I seriously doubt the “ringleader” hate accounts are only being paid through social media and YT.

BAFTA Los Angeles Tea Party

Photos courtesy of YouTube, Archewell.

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

145 Responses to “Newsweek: Anti-Meghan trolls are monetizing hate through YouTube as well”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Merricat says:

    The Cambridges have a Youtube account, don’t they? We thought it was weird at the time, but now, perhaps, it begins to make sense.

    • Oh_Hey says:

      Listen – who else has the money and motive to pay for a coordinated and sustained attack? Could it be the same people buying bot followers to “stay ahead” on instagram?

      Either way its both shocking and not, gross and totally expected from you know who.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The hate is just as bad on Quora.

      • Misskitten says:

        You’re right. I’ve seen the bile on Quora and unfortunately there’s quite a bit of it…

      • NiqGee says:

        @BTB, Quora is like a dumpster fire. The people there are certifiable and there are so many hate groups.

      • Isabella says:

        The hate on Quora IS monetized. It is a cesspool, ever since they started the “Partner’s Program. People get paid to post and answer questions. An army of harpies do nothing but post smack about the Sussexes and gush over Kate. They also vote each other’s stuff up, so that more people see it.

        Here is how partner program works.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I really use to like Quora for Royal discussions but as has been said since Quora IS monetized it has become nothing but a dumpster fire of the most vile type.

        However, I must admit there is also quite a bit of vile towards Baldemort & Wiglet om Quora.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And tumblr. And FemaleFirst. And PurseForum. And reddit. And SingleTrack. And lotusforums. And Knowall. And tattle. And mumsnet. And moviechat. And and and. Anywhere you can make a free thread under a fake name, the trolls have invaded and created hate forums.

    • Demi says:

      There’s another channel called Kate Middelton& the queen with the same hateful content as Murky Meg and others the Cambridge& KP are stupid enough they don’t even attempt to hide their tracks.. I keep reporting this channel but it keeps popping up again & again with the same title& format. It’s definitely someone’s job to keep creating this content only KP has the money to pay round the clock trolls

      • Isabella says:

        Creepy anti-Meghan videos also appear on Facebook. This is a well coordinated attack.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Well coordinated and paid attack.

      • ennie says:

        I googled something about Meghan on YT and the same video or very similar length with the same title appeared 6 different times. I reported them all and their channels.

  2. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Can’t these sewers be charged and tried under the Malicious Communications Act?

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      I had to look that up.

      Don’t know if it would apply in the US. If certain postings were done while they were in the UK on their SM accounts possibly? The level of the awful is insane. I would love it if somehow Piers & “royal experts” could be found out to be any of the faces behind a hate account and not just a follower.

      Would like to know if Christopher Bouzy actually spoke to Newsweek or if they are just implying that. They’ve done that before. Along with participating in negative stories about the Sussexes.

      • Cessily says:

        Newsweek was bought for the name and reputation but it is no longer the Newsweek that earned those.. I no longer trust or read it. (They are a zombie magazine)

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        I agree Cessily. I’ve ranted/posted quite a bit about my distrust/disbelief of Newsweek. I couldn’t help but feel that this article was almost an advertisement for the negative accounts out there.

        On a different note, when I was looking something else up about all this..this twitter thread came up and I have to say some of the comments are gold and made me laugh. Shot JR and She murdered an avocado.

        A different post of his.

        Bob Morgan #BLM Blue heartSmall orange diamond
        Kate closes own car door it’s showing spirit and modern. Meghan Markle closes own car door and it could have killed children and puppies!

        A Halloween decoration I saw today made wonder if the paid troll accounts and royal rotas (and other nefarious ones) are having a Resting Witch Face contest this weekend.

  3. Jais says:

    “The ringleader” hate accounts are being paid through YT, Twitter, and….
    What terrible people.

    • Nina says:

      I’m in online advertising and yes, Youtube and blog advertising works in a similar way. It’s down to YouTube and Twitter to control the content on the platform.

      They are all reluctant to do it and would only do it when pressured. Big companies could do a lot there. If, for example, Nestle said we will pull our ads if you don’t control your content, YouTube would do it. But otherwise, they won’t care

      If I were H&M I would sue them all and fight for better anti-online laws

      • The only way they will do something is if it hits their bottom line as they make SO much money off these sites, same with Qanon. The best thing IS to shame them and draw attention to advertisers who WILL complain to youtube, so bravo to the articles pointing all this out and bravo to Bot Sentinel for starting this all!

  4. Name keeps changing cos I delete my cookies says:

    This was great work, and it came about because the anti-Meghan accounts effed around and found out with the wrong one. Bouzy retweeted a positive story about the Sussexes from the NYC visit I think, and the trolls went off on him. That made him decide to investigate them. And they’re still going after him now that Twitter and the media are paying attention. Someone is gonna get tracked and traced… curious where the trail will end.

    Anyway! Bouzy tweeted last week that he thinks the hate campaign was to make Meghan harm herself and/or end her marriage to Harry. But in his press he says doesn’t know the motive. Is that for legal reasons?

    • Rapunzel says:

      I see it as Bouzy knows the goal was destroy Meg and make her leave, through suicide or divorce. But that’s just the goal, not the motive. Was the motive racism? Anti-Americanism? Money and clicks? Pure hatred/jealousy? Some Putinesque plot to hurt the monarchy?

      Why were/are these folks attacking Meg? Why were they driving her away? Can’t really say until we know who is behind it.

      • Kfg says:

        @PAGANTRELAWNEY in her Twitter feed said some of the trolls are just yt supremacists who want Meghan, Archie, Lillibet dead and removed from all royal documents bc they’re a “blemish” on the royal family and destroying the class system.

    • Becks1 says:

      i think the goal is just his speculation, its not clear from the posts. Like these posts/tweets/videos are driven by hate and racism, obviously (and $$), but there’s not a clear endgoal. The only underlying theme seems to be hate. He contrasted it with other things he’s studied on twitter, like the Stop the Steal hashtag/accounts – they had a clear end goal, they thought the 2020 election had been stolen and wanted that “stopped” and wanted Trump installed as the rightful president.

      these people just seem to want Meghan….gone? dead? divorced from Harry? some combination thereof? But they don’t really come out and say it and there isn’t a unifying goal besides just hating her.

      but even with the stop the steal – they were driven and motivated by Trump himself, there was someone leading them and saying “this happened, we have to stop it.” With this….who is leading them? Like Bouzy said, its too automatic in terms of responses and following of hashtags etc for it to be organic (just a bunch of people who hate Meghan) and not coordinated. So who is coordinating? That’s the big question.

      (I mean we all have a very good guess, but that’s still the point that needs to be confirmed.)

      • Becks1 says:

        To clarify – some of the accounts DO come out and say that they want her dead, which is horrible, but the movement itself is kind of vague. They just jump on #HarryandMeghan posts and spew their filth.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I think the motive for a lot of these trolls is for Meghan to fail badly and recieve “her comeuppance” for daring to marry their white prince. For a lot of the female haters they seem to tick all the same boxes, white, middle age, conservative, miserable, insecure….A lot of these women are very insecure in themselves, there are probably past the point where they no longer attract male attention and feel sexually invisible . they can’t bare to see an attractive woman who is smart, charismatic and ambitious win the guy.

      Kate on the other hand is a reflection of them, she’s dull bland and boring. She has no desire to actually achieve anything beyond being williams wife and she doesn’t threaten these women at all. They can probably sense williams indifference to her, because they probably go through the same things with their husbands.

      Most films and tv shows push this narrative. It’s always the plain boring girl who gets the guy everyone wants (twilight, 50 shades etc), whilst the pretty, confident girl is villainized, and eventually gets her comeuppance.

      Whenever you see a male celebrity with a not as attractive women, it makes you think “if she can get him, then maybe I could get him”. Harry however set the bar too high with Meghan, meaning if you think you have a shot with him, you would have to be hella smart, ridiculous beautiful and have charisma like no other.

      At the end of the day, the attractive biracial woman can’t win, because that will threaten their existence somehow. Kate is their saviour because she is no threat to women whatsoever.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Yes, I think it’s a mix of racism and jealousy. They were probably jealous of Kate, too, in the beginning, but as you say William doesn’t seem to like Kate so it doesn’t hurt as much. Plus, Kate is white so “losing” to her is more acceptable. But Meghan has a prince who truly loves her, and is more poised, accomplished, intelligent, fashionable, and influential. It really burns the jealous racists that a biracial woman could outshine them and get what they themselves dream of.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I also think Meghan trolls who are made up of conservative white women (who are supported by their husbands), tend to support misogyny. They don’t want to see women thrive (especially women of colour) because the status quo has served them well. They don’t like seeing anyone rise outside of their ranks because again they see it as a threat to their existence. Women like Kate have aligned themselves with misogynistic white men who believe women should know their place, because she herself is anti-women. Kate is the embodiment of a woman knowing her place and staying there, therefore Meghan trolls and misogynistic white men will place her on a pedestal, for doing her job of inspiring women to not do anything other than serve their husbands.

      • Otaku fairy says:

        @ February- Pisces: Yep, nailed it. Unfortunately, some of them aren’t really even conservative (it’s messed up how some of them seem so proud of their ability to treat Meghan Markle the same way the right treats her, while not actually being conservatives themselves). But most of them are. Almost all of them are those other things you described too.

      • Jules says:

        I would agree this is true for the most part. But I see alot of Asian women being Anti Meghan harbouring all the same horrible desires as their white counterparts. Not all of them are middle aged either a large chunk are in their 20s or 30s.

  5. Sofia says:

    I cannot imagine hating someone so much to the point you’re able to profit and make a career out of it. Yes I know I criticise W&K everyday here but I’m not going to monetise a YouTube channel to hate on them nor am I going to sell merchandise that’s dedicated to hating them. I honestly wouldn’t even *watch* a YouTube channel that’s dedicated to criticising them.

    I’ll say my comments and I leave it at that.

    • Cate says:

      I agree, it’s unbelievable. I like to snark a bit on sites like this (obviously) but dropping a few comments with my random hot takes as part of my morning coffee routine is totally different from making a career out of it.

    • Becks1 says:

      YES. I agree. I don’t even spend that much time on twitter criticizing them. Yes I might make fun of an outfit here or here, or respond when someone is accusing H&M of something the Cambridges do as well (cough private jet cough), but my twitter account is not devoted to hating the Cambridges. And I can’t imagine setting up a youtube channell or Instagram devoted to hating on them. I don’t have the time or desire to do that for someone I like, like the Sussexes, lol.

    • Nina says:

      As someone here said, that level of dedication is not free. If I don’t like someone I will occasionally comment and maybe enter a fight here and there.

      But if I’m making good money off of hating someone, and some of these accounts do, I’ll take my time and put out daily content just to earn more.

      We can safely say, these people are getting good money for this. So who has that money?

      My guess is Carol(E) with the backing and approval of William. Or it could be more of them. That racist Lady with a broch, Piers Morgan, the Middletons, members of the court who all got together and hired a PR company to do this

    • Kviby says:

      I mean me neither. I post my opinion about important and unimportant things in comments on sites like here, Reddit and YouTube from time to time but don’t go any further. One reason is that I don’t know how to make a video and I have a job and responsibilities meaning I don’t have a lot of time and energy to learn to make a YT quality video. I don’t know how many followers and views mean how much money but I would assume many YouTube creators may start doing it during a period of unemployment or under-employment (indeed, some creators are sahm.) anyways if you have a certain opinion that is not out there yet, I see the appeal of making videos especially if your alternative is a low paid job which hurts your body or is in customer service (unless you thrive in customer service). You can set your own schedule and be comfy, work out on your own time, sleep well, and be as creative and ambitious as you want. However In this situation with Meghan I feel the most popular ones mentioned and described don’t even have as many followers and views as the random channels which I watch, which are always begging people to go to xyz other website to donate/support them. It would be great if someone could clarify what it means income wise when your views and followers are between 50k – 100K. Is this an income that can support a liveable salary? For how many people?

    • Misskitten says:

      I agree. I have to think that these are, quite simply, miserably unhappy people, likely closet racists (when they’re online is when they’re out of the closet) and likely right-leaning. There seems to be a LOT of overlap between tRumpers and anti-H&M
      I believe there are very few ABSOLUTE truths, but one of them is that happy people want other people to be happy, too. Hurt people hurt people. There’s NO way these anti-H&M people are happy in their lives.

    • Lucy says:

      Now I’m wondering if I should do a youtube channel where I discuss celebitchy’s coverage of the Lamebridges. Might as well monetize the phd in BRF I didn’t realize I was getting over the past 5 years, LOL.

    • Emma says:

      “Harry’s Wife, Part 78.10” — meaning they put up 77+ additional videos on the topic?! Who has the time? Seriously.

  6. Lorelei says:

    Can someone give me a quick Cliff’s Notes type explanation of who this Murky Meg freak is? When she was mentioned here a few days ago, many of the commenters seemed to know who she was, but I have no idea.

    I sincerely hope that Bouzy will uncover who’s been funding this and be able to back it up with incontrovertible evidence. The speculation about who could be behind it reminded me of that expression: “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras” or something like that. Basically Occam’s Razor.
    Who has the motive to have done this? And who benefited? It’s pretty freaking clear imo. I don’t necessarily think that KP was behind ALL of it, but they sure were the ones who benefited the most, and they had the means and resources to make it happen.

    • Chica says:

      Honestly Lorelei, before Murky, there was Samantha née Markle, the jealous harpy step-sister. I believe her social media hate campaign started the trend and was coopted by anyone interested in hating and exploiting Meghan for their personal grievances, including KP and the royal rats.

      And now it’s become a lucrative cottage industry, so anyone, even those not truly in favor of the royals or with a true sense of feeling either way have hopped on a bandwagon to sell hate bc it’s profitable. the need to survive and/or make money will push people to do the most destructive inhuman things. Even if it’s just extra pocket cash they’re after. If it’s easy and relatively inexpensive to do, and emotionally easy to separate yourself from the harm it does, while putting easy money in your pockets. The allure makes sense. People don’t care.

    • Becks1 says:

      She is/was a HUGE anti-Meghan troll on Twitter. I think I blocked her ages ago but at some point along the way she got a blue check, which is HUGELY problematic in my opinion and I want that point pressed more – you’re giving a hate account, who doesn’t have a real name and whose sole purpose is harassing the Duchess of sussex, a blue check that gives her a veneer of legitimacy? WTF?

      She definitely is one of the ringleaders of the anti H&M brigade on twitter.

      • L84Tea says:

        I would LOVE to see her get outed with her face shown everywhere. She is a sick, miserable person.

    • February-Pisces says:

      Her blue tick on twitter puzzles me, because she would have to confirm her identity, plus it’s a troll account. Blue ticks are for those who are in the public eye or have a recognisable brand name or profile. She definitely has power behind her. She may have started out as a regular troll, but she’s definitely on the KP payroll now.

      • L84Tea says:

        I’m telling you, every breadcrumb leads back to KP. We’ve all known it for a while now, but it’s nice to see everyone else finally catching on. This is actually so much bigger and scarier than people realized.

      • Ginger says:

        Her growth is only thru bots so it’s weird that she got a blue check. Royal Suitor actually has a job and is a freelance journalist.
        Murky bought bots to up her numbers and is a troll. I will always side eye twitter for verifying her.

      • Nina says:

        I wish someone would press Twitter on that and make them show her identity

      • Jais says:

        Wasn’t her account deactivated fairly soon after the blue check was given? Why was it deactivated? Giving her a blue check is horrifying.

      • February-Pisces says:

        It’s crazy, because she’s not a brand, celebrity or even an influencer. She’s an anonymous troll who happens to be very loud. Twitter basically verified a burner hate account, so why did they do it? KP clearly hooked her up.

      • Lexistential says:

        I have always been puzzled by how Murky got a blue tick. My understanding of those is that one needed to actually have an open identity, and while she is clearly an alias (and clearly, Twitter does not require an identity). This has got to be KP organizing this for her, while Twitter seems indifferent to requiring an identity.

      • Nic919 says:

        The blue tick was ultimately her downfall though because it got her Twitter account more scrutinized and she eventually got suspended along with her kate rangers account. At the time I didn’t realize they were run by the same person because the tone was not as vicious on the second account.

      • February-Pisces says:

        She also got IP banned meaning she can’t just reopen more twitter accounts.
        I know it’s almost impossible for public figures to go after haters and online trolls, but I do think the law should be changed if that hater has monetized their platforms, and thus profiting from hate. If murky and YouTube are making money from her YouTube channel by trying to destroy a woman’s life, then surly there must be a some grounds for a lawsuit here? Or atleast there should be.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She can get a VPN and likely get around an IP ban. It has to be a ban and tracking of her real ID to have any impact.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @February-Pisces, I did some research on this blue checking thing. One of things I came across was a piece tiltled “How to get verified on Twitter (If I can do it, you can too!!”). It’s from, I’m not cleared my security but…not sure. From what I discerned, if there were enough blue checked people following an account(royal rota), enough DM’s between blue checked and applicants(royal rotal), a hashtag that showed public interest and collected followers because of said followers, ability to show links to ownership of other sites of interest operated by the applicant. Twitter has demonstrated that engagement is more important to them than accounts whose sole purpose is to hate. It’s not even a slippery slope. It’s business and $$$$$$$$ to them. Twittter is exposing themselves as being socially irresponsible for greed. Jack Dorsey kind of showed his leanings allowing the Orange Toxic Man to tweet for as long as he did/does?. I’ve seen where people want to shade Serena WIilliams husband and owning Reddit. Alexis Ohanian sold Reddit in 2006. If you look at Reddit’s history, Ohanian came back to help them out and stepped down/resigned from the board in June 2020. It’s mind boggling how misinformation is parsed out through different platforms.

    • Monica says:

      —- Who has the motive to have done this? And who benefited? It’s pretty freaking clear imo. I don’t necessarily think that KP was behind ALL of it, but they sure were the ones who benefited the most, and they had the means and resources to make it happen. —-

      The British monarchy has done worse. Ask the colonies. Driving out a biracial woman would be SOP.

      • Nic919 says:

        Knauf had easy access to hire people to do hate accounts because he has worked with Tories who did the same thing with the Brexit campaign. Or Simon Case. The dots are pretty easy to connect to KP.

  7. Nanea says:

    Misogynoir hatred seems to be quite lucrative.

    I saw photos being shared elsewhere of that murky person’s new house, together with screenshots of either her Twitter or blog where she was boasting about appliances and such.

    These things were being shared by Squad-adjacent people who were appalled that spreading rumors, hatred and lies was paying so well.

    Time for YouTube to admit that their inactions/algorithms played a part in this, block and de-platform the worst offenders.

    Stop funding hate!

    (Goes for antivaxxers and fascists too.)

    • Spittair says:

      Yup, these people are literally buying homes and getting rich off of peddling and perpetuating hate against Meghan. I read on Twitter that this Murky Meg terd just bought a second home from all the money she made off of YouTube. The journalist on Inside Edition asked the CEO of Bot Sentinel how someone has time to hate tweet 300-400 times a day about MM, but you certainly can if this is her “9-5”. This is literally how she makes a living.

    • MsIam says:

      Something is not tight. With under 100k subscribers Murky is still considered a small YouTube channel. No way way she can be buying multiple homes just from that. And I heard initially that she worked in a hospital in the UK. She’s getting money from somewhere and its not just from selling mugs and t-shirts. But I think Meghan and Harry will have to after YouTube and Twitter. These companies have made tons of money with no accountability. They need to pay.

    • Edith says:

      Nanea,,you are right, Don’t forget Eliot “royal reporter”the one that pretended to like meghan, his youtube channel was reporting about the royals in a good way including meghan, until meghan left, he was vicious, owful and disgausting about meghan. Now, he has gone from 10t subscribers to nearly 200t.he has to quit his job along with his husband to do full time hate on meghan and also bought a new home. Really disgausting that a white gay man who in one of his videos was complaining of how he was bullied all his Life, turned to be a disgausting bully.

      • Demi says:

        don’t be surprised even some gay white men can be closet racists and even misogynists isn’t Jason Knauf gay yet he made Meghan’s life hell in KP and lied about the bullying allegation

      • Nic919 says:

        Gary Janetti is also a gay white male. Misogynoir isn’t limited only to heterosexual men. Many white gay men fall in line with white supremacy and misogyny and you see many on Fox News.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Demi, good point. Let’s not forget, one of the big, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex incendiary vitriolic diatribers, love letter to Will Wootton. He, along with quite a few of the members of the royal rota & writers who have written negatively about Meghan, is a gay white male. I don’t think it’s a secret that a number of male courtiers or other higher positions within the BRF are held held by gay white men. Christian Jones, paid by Wootton, for info is another one.

        @Nic919, Janetti’s IG, from what I’ve read and and could see, was awful. I will say that I watched 6? episodes of his The Prince. Meghan really wasn’t portrayed badly. A few moments. Otherwise, her character was shown as someone who was reasonable, remembered staff names and acknowledged they existed. In comparison, members of the born in and Kate, were mocked more.imo Which is why the DM and derangers were so angry with it and famous UK actors being a part of it. Allan Cummings didn’t have a problem playing a role that mocked the BRF.

        This whole campaign involving British & American negative tabloid stories & paid trolls (I laugh anytime -Newsweek/Murdoch owned/DMGT/Dylan Howard affiliated, etc,-that implies it’s mainstream media-it’s not) is dark. I’m tempted to join Twitter to support Botsentinels effort/work. Currently not on social media platforms except for here. It’s quite horrendous when you think about Meghan having been investigated & vetted when they started dating. Yea, as Celebitchy said in previous posts, WE SEE YOU MOTHERF*CKERS. If I quoted that wrong, I apologize.

  8. Noki says:

    Who is this Murky Meg ? Someone needs to dig deeper into he/shes ? Connection. I keep seeing this name,seems too invested without being given direct orders and a nice compensation.

    • Vivica says:

      Y’all correct me if I am wrong, but I think most of the Sussex Squad thinks it may be Jason Knauf. If I am remembering correctly, a WSJ writer linked him to a bunch of other hate accounts.

      • Amy Bee says:

        No it’s a woman from the UK. She used to show her face when she first started her campaign against Meghan.

      • Noki says:

        @ Amy Bee oh wow so its one female,i went to google but a few images come up,so no idea which one it is. Its funny she probably stopped showing her face when she started getting some blowback and yet dedicates her time to bullying another woman.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Technically, the Murky woman creature could just be the face of the account with someone else behind it.

      • Ginger says:

        Jason’s account was Cait Fortier ( I think that’s the correct spelling)

      • Becks1 says:

        @Ginger WHAAAAAAT……I didn’t realize that was him. oh lord. I interacted with that account a lot before I think I blocked it.

      • Ginger says:

        @Becks, yup. That journalist outed him for running the Cait account and it’s gone. I don’t know if he deactivated it or it was suspended because it was vile. I also think it’s funny that the name is Cait……

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Ginger, so he had a female nom de plume that has a version of Kate as a first name and surname that means an occupational name for someone employed at a fortress or castle? Guessing that would be easy for him to remember.

      • Jais says:

        Which journalist outed him as this Craig account? I never knew it was confirmed? Dang.

      • Nic919 says:

        Heidi Moore outed Knauf as cate fortier. And that hrhcate account was always trying to get the more popular Sussex squad accounts suspended.

  9. Ginger says:

    People wonder how these hate accounts have so many subscribers and so many views. It’s more bot buying. You can buy subscribers and views as well as dislikes. The hate accounts are losing it right now. They have been exposed on a big scale and their money is on the line.

  10. BABSORIG says:

    There was some eeport a while back, I thing it was daily beast, that stated that 90% of commentaries on the BTaoids were bots and tabloid stuff and that of the humans on there 90% were Ameticsns blah blah blah. I’m beginning to suspect that this reporting was a red herring, an attempt to throw people off the scent. What’s beginning to take shape here is that the BRF are coordinating with the BM and the 80 account holders (that I honestly believe are mostly British folks) to operate a calculated coordinated campaign to destroy Meghan. I’m strongly convinced that Harry knew his family was trying to kill his wife and child, that’s for sure. ” If only you knew what I know”…..

    • Ginger says:

      I think Harry knew as well. It’s why they wanted to get out of the UK. It wasn’t safe there. I’m sure Harry had a lot of proof of what his family did. Harry did say that when he first said he and Meghan wanted to leave he was told ‘ you can’t do that’ He must have presented proof of what they did and gave them an ultimatum.

      • Becks1 says:

        I agree with you Ginger and with Babs. I am convinced that Harry showed “something” to his grandmother during the Sandringham summit that made her understand why he had to leave and that made her pissed off at William. At the time I Just thought it was evidence of William leaking to the press against H&M, but now I wonder if it was more than that, evidence of paid bots and trolls aimed to destroy Meghan. IDK.

        I know, I KNOW its a Lifetime movie, but if you watch Escaping the Palace, the Sandringham Summit includes a bit where the Queen is dressing down William pretty harshly, basically being like “you’re incompetent” or something, I can’t remember, but it stuck in my head. Its fiction, but the movie did get a LOT of the details right, which we know bc we saw it happen in real time, but if we figure that Robert Lacey knows a lot more than he was able to say in his book….what if there was a bad moment between the Queen and William and people know about it?

      • Rapunzel says:

        I totally think Harry gave some justification/evidence to TQ when he and Meg left. Harry seems to care about GanGan and duty to the crown, so I can see him wanting Betty to know this move was last resort necessary.

        Was the evidence about Will leaking things? Probably. Maybe evidence of Will being behind the smear campaign? Possibly. But there’s part of me that thinks if Harry knew Will was behind the campaign that he would not have said “space” was what they needed for their relationship. I think he’d be madder.

        The trapped comments Harry made make me feel that Will is not the driving force of the campaign, but a pawn. I suspect it’s the courtiers using Wills’ jealousy to hide their machinations. They’re the ones who wanted Meg gone, and Will is their pawn.

        And nobody’s considered this, but Harry might also have shown TQ proof of Meg’s mental health issues. If TQ got word from Harry just how suicidal Meg was and how Sussexit was necessary to save her life, I can see TQ being concerned for her grandson and Meg, who I am certain she likes. If anything, TQ would not want another tragedy like Diana on her hands.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ‘space’ was the nicest thing he could say, meaning the door is closed. He said he was opening to repairing the relationship with Charles. IMO that means a relationship with William is out permanently.

      • Sid says:

        Becks, I think you are right and I absolutely believe Lacey gave his daughter some info that she put into the Lifetime movie.

      • Nic919 says:

        Outside of comments here on CB, there would have been few places that blamed William for causing the rift and ultimate departure to the US. It certainly didn’t come from any mainstream sources. So for the Lifetime movie, written by Robert Lacey’s daughter, to include so many shots against William, and predict their social media campaign before it even happened, there had to be some kind of clues or information provided by Lacey that he was ultimately never allowed to put in his own book.

        Lacey did say that the lawyers took out a lot of the original version. So I suspect the lifetime scenes critical of William were the “fictionalized” things removed by the lawyers to protect William’s image.

    • Lorelei says:

      @BabsOrig, ITA. I think most people saw right through that; the only ones pushing it were Camb stans, as usual.

      This targeted campaign against Meghan really seems to have been planned out so meticulously, well-organized and supervised. They covered all the bases. The fact that such a small number of people with $$ and determination to assassinate someone’s character can do such widespread damage is very scary. And the public should know who was behind it.

  11. Amy Bee says:

    As some people have asked, what’s the end game for these haters?

    • SunRae says:

      Saw this earlier. Genuinely had not considered this sinister of an end game

      • Ginger says:

        This is when you know that some ( or most) of the haters are the British media. Once it was known that Harry and Meghan were dating they had articles that Meghan’s exotic DNA was going to taint the royal bloodline.

      • Rapunzel says:

        I think that tweet is spot on. The hate campaign didn’t really kick into serious gear until she got pregnant. That’s when we really started hearing about the rift between Harry and Will too.

        It’s always been my theory that Will said something abhorrent racist about Archie when Meg got pregnant. That he couldn’t stand the idea of a half black nephew/niece.

        It was always Meg getting pregnant which was the real issue.

      • MsIam says:

        I agree @Rapunzel I always thought the pregnancy was the issue. I think the plan was to quickly break up the marriage before she had a chance to get pregnant. The assumed that since she was 36 it would take longer for her to conceive or maybe she would be infertile. I know Harry said that things changed after the Oceana tour but I think that just pumped up the fire that had already started.

      • Becks1 says:

        It was always hard to piece out bc the pregnancy announcement and the hugely successful Oceania tour were basically simultaneous. I think both were proof though that Meghan wasn’t going anywhere – even if she did divorce Harry, she would be like Diana, still very much an international presence, and the pregnancy assured that she would be always a part of the royal family.

        Also, different members of the family may have been triggered by different things, and that could explain why in the beginning, the smear campaign seemed to be coming from different sides. Like I bet Charles did not like seeing how hugely popular they were, and he wanted to take her and Harry down a few pegs. So that’s why Harry made the comment in The Interview about the tour “bringing back memories” or whatever. But that was just at the beginning, then William/KP was the one who laser focused on her and kept the smear campaign going for years, especially to distract from William’s own affairs.

        I have always thought that William was the one who made the comment about the color of the baby’s skin and this just solidifies that for me.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        That’s really malevolent. Wonder if there is a tie in with Melissa Toubati. H & M announce pregnancy mid October 2018 and end of Nobember 2018 the DM put out the story that Toubati quit because, of course, smear campaign against Meghan. We find out later she was fired for gross misconduct and then gets a job nannying for a British billionaire.

        Harry probably had quite a few receipts to show his grandmother. It’s why there seemed to be so much interference with him being able to see her.

      • Chica says:

        @Sunrae how have you NOT considered this sinister end game give the history of the monarchy, and the way in which Meghan and her children have been treated? Seriously, what planet are you living on that you’ve had the privilege of obscuring your understanding of how deep the hatred for Meghan and her heritage’s impact on the pinnacle institution of white supremacy?

        I’m baffled you hadn’t considered it. How? How is it not clear to anyone , especially those who frequent here since she joined that family and after all she’s shared?

      • Nic919 says:

        There is no question that Toubati is involved in how a lot of this played out. She is friends with Knauf and it is likely all the bullying nonsense he pushed came from her, even though she was terminated and for reasons considered very serious, as stated by Janina Gavankar, who as Meghan’s friend would know a lot of what happened.

      • SunRae says:

        @Chica I’m not available to be your energy supply at this time. When we get this triggered about a benign series of words that were typed hastily and without malicious intention it’s often because we’ve projected our own meaning, which is why you are unravelling to a complete stranger online.

        Seek help. You don’t know me like that or at all. Wait for me to send for you next time.

  12. Bettyrose says:

    When this story appeared on Buzzfeed yesterday I was stunned by the responses. Like “If Meghan wants privacy she shouldn’t post so much.” Even ignoring the straw man here, where does Meghan post? She’s not even on social media.

    • Spittair says:

      Right? She’s not on social media and we only see her when she makes an announcement for a project/initiative, or when her legal team put out a statement. But that line has been so rampantly peddled that anytime she appears the immediately response is that she’s an attention seeking hypocrite.

      • Edith says:

        Spittair, they want her dead, they want her to disapear from the surface of the earth. Do you know that some people comitted suicide for much more less.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        So much of that was evident when she wasn’t seen or spoke publicly for months and the BM was writing non stop articles about her giving hate accounts the opportunity to throw out the dumb@ss attention seeking comments. Collusion between the paid for sick & twisted.

  13. girl_ninja says:

    Expose them all. Trash people. “Sure we hate Meghan and want to see her suffer but we’ll sure use her image and name to make a profit!” To hell with these people.

  14. Edith says:

    What type of human beings are these people,?who raised them?how can you make money from a person you hate?this is a collective society failure, the fact that this type of behaviour is allowed until now, 5years of coordinated attack on a single woman is dishuman.

  15. Alexandria says:

    The haters are already claiming the Sussex squad is being paid. The squad is rolling their eyes and asking for their cheques 😌.

    I’ve donated to Bot Sentinel because I’m tired of the misinformation and disinformation battle. People have been harassed and killed or driven to suicide. Social media needs to step up.

    • February-Pisces says:

      Haters love to self project, I mean Willie and keen literally do it all the time via their mouth pieces. So if their fans are claiming that Sussex squad are being paid, then that kinda tells us more about them, because I would have never even thought to say that about them, until they just said that.

  16. molly says:

    Yeah, a handful of British tabloids calling her “Waity Katie” 15 years ago ain’t the same thing as all of this.

  17. Natters says:

    It’s an industry to spread hate and misinformation on Meghan and Harry from her dad to these hateful social media and YouTube accounts who all profit from hate. I looked at a YouTube account who advertised himself as someone who could read body language. He had very little views in his posts before he featured Meghan, then he got thousands of views and figured she was his cash cow now and keeps on making negative videos of her while making more money than he ever did in his previous videos. Unfortunately it seems to be working as I just got back from London and some of my friends wanted to speak negatively about her to me. “Oh excuse me, do you actually know her?” I would say but their answer was it most be true with so much negative press out there. But even they admitted all these people out there were profiting from spreading hate.

    • Nick G says:

      Oh my god I hate that guy! As far as I’m concerned that’s even worse, to wrap the hate and bias in “science”. I tried to email his Twitter account to Bouzy last week but it didn’t work. He isn’t the worst, but he’s the first I thought of when the focus was put on YouTube. As far as I’m concerned I’m straight up praying for these guys to get their commuppance.

  18. Azblue says:

    Online advertising person here. From the YouTube perspective, Murky Meg does not have enough views to buy a house. YT stars generally need more than 10s of thousands of views to make a good living, unless they have an affiliate program tied to their site. You can essentially get a cut out of every visit to your site that then goes on to buy something.

    • February-Pisces says:

      She doesn’t have enough to buy a house, but she could make a few thousand a month and live comfortably. I looked on social blade and she has around half a million views a month, which could be the equivalent to a full time salary, but not enough for a house. I think she is probably On the KP payroll.

      • MsIam says:

        See that is what doesn’t add up to me. How is she getting that many views out of 87k subscribers? I follow some bigger youtubers who have a million or more subscribers. For them it makes sense to have a big income because they average 30-50k views per video but not to a small channel like Murkys. So if she is buying views then doesn’t that eat into her profits? So either she’s rich enough to fund this out of her other income, or someone else is paying for this. Now who else do we know that has been accused of buying followers?

      • Ginger says:

        I bet someone else is paying. Someone with big pockets.

  19. Mich says:

    From what Bouzy posted on Twitter yesterday, one of these people called a journalist to try to smear him. They apparently used a fake name and presumably said they had some kind of fake connection to him. That moves this mess into an entirely different realm. The move from online into the real world is dangerous. These people are dangerous. I can only imagine what they have tried to do to Meghan and Harry in the real world. Absolutely appalling. I hope some of the ring leaders are outed and, where necessary, prosecuted.

    • notasugarhere says:

      At least one of them followed her to NYC for the baby shower. Threatened online to grab her, stab her stomach repeatedly , and prove it was a pillow not a pregnancy. Positioned herself outside the hotel exit and screamed obscenities at Meghan as she left. Was photographed outside the hotel wearing a kerchief over her face to disguise herself.

      She actively spelled out her plans on tumblr with encouragement from dozens of haters. She also showed up the day Archie was born, taking pictures showing how close she could get to Frogmore Cottage.

      Absolutely nothing was done to her by tumblr or authorities.

    • Becks1 says:

      That’s insane and to me its just further proof that these people are being paid well by someone “important” so they feel protected, they feel like they have the right to act this way.

      @nota I remember that and it was crazy, and all I could think at the time was, “no wonder she holds her belly all the time.”

  20. Emily says:

    I’m honestly OBSESSED with this whole story and I can’t wait to see where it goes. I always felt like a crazy conspiracy theorist when I tried to explain this stuff to people so I’m thrilled to have confirmation from an expert.

    • Sofia says:

      I remember when Sussex fans were saying the palace was leaking against Meghan as early as early 2019 and it was dismissed by other royal watchers as “dumb fan conspiracy” yet now, it’s openly admitted by even the rota.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think they started leaking against her in Sept/Oct 2016. That’s when Harry told them to prepare, she was The One.

      • Sofia says:

        @nota: I should have made myself clearer. I meant fans were speaking about the palace leaking against Meghan in early 2019 (although some were sounding the alarm before that but most in early 2019/late 2018). Not the leaks itself. Which probably did start as soon as their relationship become public (wasn’t their relationship leaked to the press to begin with?)

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Sofia, Tominey leaked their relationship to the press. Harry, as he has said, released three different statements on the media abuses against Meghan. Once as a boyfriend, once as a husband and then as a father. I wonder what Harry had to say/do to get KP to release the statements. And the BM still would not stop. We know Meghan wasn’t being protected by KP/palaces. Harry has also said he saw behind the curtain, the business model and how the operation runs and how it works. Followed by saying, “I don’t want to be a part of this.”.

        Came across this CNN story from January 10, 2020. More than a year before the Oprah interview. It serves as a good reminder.

        I remeber Wootton’s hit piece on Tom Bradby. Trying to discredit him by saying he was no longer trusted by William or the RF because of his friendship with Harry after the SA interview. More like due to Bradby not toeing the line and blindly following the narrative the BM/BRF wanted out there.imo

  21. aquarius64 says:

    All roads go to KP.

    • notasugarhere says:

      And Berkshire.

      • Ginger says:

        Definitely Carol, no doubt. Kate has received the best press of her life since her wedding. Before Meghan, Kate was dragged for being lazy and dull. Now, she is seen as a saint who never puts a foot wrong.

      • Nic919 says:

        The crying story could only come from kate. Few others would have been present for the fitting.

      • Tessa says:

        Kate just sat back and never denied it. She could have “saved face” and said it did not happen. Then it would not have reached the point that Meghan reported it was just the opposite, Kate made her cry.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate can’t deny a story she put out herself. Camilla tominey got the story from Carole and Kate. Three years and counting and she remains silent on correcting the slanderous lie.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @aquarius 64, yes, all roads go back to KP. Whether it’s William/Kate/Carole/courtiers/knauf-KP has been the source of many things and the manipulation of stories. Meghan & Harry have receipts of malfeasance.

  22. diana says:

    Yeah I saw that she was getting all these downvotes for reading her book. I mean Jesus Christ people it’s just a children’s book. Get a life.

    • Sid says:

      Someone proved that the social media crew that likes to attack Meghan were actually buying dislikes on that video. Lunatics paying money to add fake dislikes to a video of a person reading a children’s book. SMH.

  23. Pat Gaddess says:

    Would someone explain the relationship between Camilla Tominey and Carole Middleton? Why is Carole treated like a royal?

    • Becks1 says:

      That is an excellent question. My guess is that Carole leaks a lot to camilla. this is why Camilla cannot criticize Kate – that is her access. And Carole leaking gives Kate a layer of plausible deniability. Its obvious to me that Carole is the one who leaked the bridesmaids tears story – she would have heard the story from Kate, and probably wanted to put the false story out there so the real story would never be believed.

      • Jais says:

        IIRC the same week the crying story came out in the Telegraph, Carole did her first newspaper interview with them. If it wasn’t her first, it was the first in a very long while. I’m not sure but it might have been the same one where she shaded Meghan by saying being a royal isn’t all about making speeches.
        Also, Camilla attended Pippa’s wedding. Was she just a regular guest or there as a journalist? I actually don’t know.

      • Ginger says:

        A Meghan hate account even tagged Camilla, Rebecca English and a few others in a tweet and wanted them to defend them with this report that Christopher put out. This person said that Camilla T owed them a lot.

  24. Robin Samuels says:

    Murky Meg receiving a blue check confirmed the social media industry is involved in the troll traffic. After it was brought to Twitter’s attention about an account without a real name and engaged in trolling, Twitter feigned surprise and suspended the account.
    I believe Murky Meg and Thomas Markle receive their payment from the same source.
    Thomas Markle stated in a television interview that the RF owes him.
    Something will eventually come of this. How soon is unknown. If enough pressure is applied, the unpaid will start to moan, groan and spill the beans. Stay tuned.

    • Southern Fried says:

      Agree. It’s going to uuugly- er.

    • Becks1 says:

      Honestly, I think Thomas Markle could bring down the house of cards – he’s come close enough already. People think he just keeps popping up to embarrass Meghan/force her to give in, and I’m sure that’s a HUGE motivational factor for him. But, now I’m also wondering if he’s demanding more money from KP and KP won’t pay unless he talks – basically he has an agreement with KP to get paid in exchange for interviews but KP thought it would just happen a few times around the wedding and now here they are, 3 and a half years later, and when he’s short on cash he calls up and say “hey I want to do another interview” which is code for “pay me my money.”

      so under this theory maybe one day he’ll get annoyed enough and just blow the lid off the whole thing and admit who has been paying him this whole time.

      • Nic919 says:

        Thomas Markle brought things to one step away from the palace but he’s certainly brought in the media and shown they have colluded with him. It won’t take much to make that extra connection.

  25. nxox says:

    There’s also one called according to taz on youtube. She makes videos that are usually 18 20 minutes weekly criticising Meghan and Harry and has over 60,000 subscribers. She has mostly likes on her videos and gets over 1200 comments per video and people even donate on Paypal and stuff for the hate she spews out. All that engagement, I’m pretty sure she makes like a good 1000 pounds at least per video. For a while, I believed all the stuff I was saying but thank god I stopped because it’s literally such a good set of misinformation, many people coming across her channel first time would believe her content even if they aren’t into royal news, it’s crazy. I wish YouTube would ban her.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      ‘a good set of misinformation’ is an oxymoron. Misinformation is rarely good. Maybe at home and a bathroom scale that’s showing less numbers or that delicious piece of dessert has zero calories. Even those things can be bad for someone.

    • Tessa says:

      There are some stories that are off the wall and some
      people believe, like the fictional “extra” husband of Meghan’s and so on. No biography even those by people who don’t like Meghan had this misinformation.

  26. Meh says:

    I watch a body language expert on Youtube. It seems like he suddenly realized he’d get way more hits if he talked about Meghan Markle. Either way, positively or negatively, people are trading on the interest in her (as all celebs). I doubt most of those earning money are truly emotionally invested one way or the other.

    • Sid says:

      They are crossing a line and creating a dangerously false narrative around Meghan. I don’t care how much money they earn from that. Anyone who participates to that level is a trash human being.

  27. Cece says:

    Since they have monetized hate toward Meghan she should get a hefty percentage.Her name is being used to fund a media storm and that name belongs to her.Madame Duchess getting a hefty cut could either change the incentive equation or help Meghan fund causes not based on personal greed in the sale of hate.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That’s what she requested in her Fail payout. To get every bit they made off clicks to the hate articles. Don’t know where that case stands currently.

      • Tessa says:

        I wonder how much Tom Markle got from the media. He said something about $30,000 the first time out…

  28. blunt talker says:

    I truly hope the government in this country put some laws into effect-to use some’s likeness with a story whether it is true or not -that person should be paid half your proceeds-they are doing this with Harry and Meghan’s permission without paying for this use. God bless the Sussex family to thrive and live peacefully.

  29. blunt talker says:

    PS-A meeting with the owners of all online platforms for Harry and Meghan to discuss solving this issue either with protections put place or monetary compensation.

  30. ChattyCath says:

    It was always the. Pregnancy. She ruined Eugenie’s wedding (the RF knew already) . I live in a Retirement Community and ‘Kate has never put a foot wrong’ was repeated ad nauseum. I feel the plan was to make the Sussex’s life so unbearable that they would divorce and that Harry ‘would be back’ and find an English blonde girl. ‘the Degree Wife’ KP called Meghan and resented serving a ‘Cable TV actress’. European Protestant Princesses are thin on the ground now. That is what the Palace wanted despite possible and horrible genetic consequences. And there are many Recessive genes lurking in the Royal Family Tree

    • Tessa says:

      That’s a big reason I don’t care for Kate. She did not life a finger to help out and deny the stories of the wedding preparations and the crying, etc. I think she suits William and I don’t mean that in a good way, but she has put plenty of feet wrong. And she may not realize it or want to but she is not set for life. Diana was an aristo and still was cut loose. William has changed so much or maybe he always was that way but put up an act.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate treated Meghan poorly from day one. The blind about not giving her a ride to go shopping together was evidence that from the beginning kate was going to exclude Meghan and treat her like an other. Meghan was smarter, more charismatic and sexier and kate was always going to be jealous of her sister in law who would take over her spotlight in the media. The only thing kate had was rank and that’s when we started hearing more about the FFQC stuff when Meghan showed up and did engagements like a pro and better than the rest of the family. Meghan has Diana’s charisma that kate will never have. And if she was a decent woman she would have shut down the false crying story once she knew that Meghan was suicidal and asking for help. But she still to this day has done nothing. That’s pretty evil to do that to your own sister in law