Low: Why did it take two years for the ‘courtiers’ to deal with the Sussex problem?

Valentine Low’s Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown continues to be excerpted in the Times. Unlike the excerpts we’ve gotten from Katie Nicholl’s book and Angela Levin’s book, Low seems to be breaking some news here and there, whereas Nicholl and Levin are merely recycling old stories in really stupid ways. This one excerpt about the final negotiations for the Sussexit was particularly interesting, because Low editorializes into his summary, basically saying that all of his sources – the courtiers – did an exceptionally bad job managing two stars of the royal family, then the courtiers compounded all of their own errors by f–king up the exit negotiations. Some highlights:

Different exit scenarios: The people sitting around the table went through five different scenarios, which ranged from Harry and Meghan spending most of their time being working members of the royal family, but having a month a year to do their own thing, to them spending most of their time privately, but doing a select number of royal activities. There was, according to more than one source, a positive atmosphere in the room: they wanted to find a solution. At one stage, Alderton made the point that if they could get this right, they would be solving a problem for future generations of the royal family who were not in the direct line of succession.

The palace still wanted to control the Sussexes no matter what: By the end of the week, the five scenarios had been worked through. The view from the palace establishment was that, however much time Harry and Meghan spent away from royal duties, anything they did would reflect on the institution. That meant that the normal rules about royal behaviour would apply. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. But the Sussexes wanted their freedom: freedom to make money, freedom to dip their toes into American politics. There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point.

They blame it all on QEII: Crucially, it was the Queen who took the view that unless the couple were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the royal family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties. One source said: “There was a very clear view: you can’t be in and out. And if you’ve got such clarity of view, it’s very difficult to say, ‘Why don’t we go 10 per cent this way instead of 20 per cent?’ ” Compromise was off the table, removed by the Queen.

The incompetent courtiers: One former palace insider believes the way the developing crisis was handled was “incompetent beyond belief”. They said: “I think Meghan thought she was going to be the Beyoncé of the UK. Being part of the royal family would give her that kudos. Whereas what she discovered was that there were so many rules that were so ridiculous that she couldn’t even do the things that she could do as a private individual, which is tough . . . It just required the decision-makers to sit around a table and say, ‘OK, what are we going to do about this? What do you need to feel better? And what can we give?’ ”

Collective failure: There was a collective failure on the part of those who work for the royal family to recognise that there was a serious problem, to flag it up, and to try to do something about it. There were no high-level discussions any time in the first eight months of 2019 — when Meghan was later to say that she had suicidal thoughts and the first clues were emerging that the Sussexes were plotting an escape — about the nature of their unhappiness and what could be done about it.

Finding freedom: There is one final thought on this, and it comes from a surprising source, someone who knows Harry well but remains upset about what Harry and Meghan did. Their view is that perhaps the Sussexes’ departure was not the untrammelled disaster that so many think it was. “There is a part of me that thinks Meghan did Harry the greatest kindness anyone could do to him, which was to take him out of the royal family, because he was just desperately unhappy in the last couple of years in his working life. We knew he was unhappy, but we didn’t really know what the solution would be. She came along and found the solution.”

[From The Times]

“I think Meghan thought she was going to be the Beyoncé of the UK” tells me all I need to know about what Meghan was up against with these crusty old men. But Low actually underlined the point which should haunt the courtiers who are still smearing Meghan as a narcissistic bully and sociopath: if all of that was actually the case, why didn’t any of them actually do anything about it for two years? If Meghan and Harry were such a huge problem, why weren’t the courtiers in problem-solving mode long before the Sandringham Summit? Did they honestly think – as Meghan wondered in the Oprah interview – that Harry and Meghan were just going to sit back and take the endless smears and abuse in silence forever? Did they think Harry was just going to sit back and watch as the same people destroyed another woman he loved? The courtiers and the Windsors want to say that the family is “The Firm” and it’s run like a business – okay, then be a f–king a manager and manage the crisis. The courtiers and the family failed to do that.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

97 Responses to “Low: Why did it take two years for the ‘courtiers’ to deal with the Sussex problem?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. usavgjoe says:

    There is nothing pure about the BRF… even QE2 was a gansta. They are the same descendants from ancient tyrants demanding respect from the people, without giving respect. It’s all about them damn the rest.

  2. Chic says:

    There seems to be an clear attempt to blame QEII and courtiers, where is KCIII and Peggy. Weren’t they claiming that it was their ideas and skillful manoeuvering that for Sussex out. I take the Beyonce analogy as a positive, she is hardworking and just drops her albums without lots of preamble. It’s a compliment

    • Couch potato says:

      That was my first reaction to this too. The queen is dead, lets blame her. She already had several family members making their own money while still representing the crown.

  3. girl_ninja says:

    Meghan saved Harry’s life and he saved Meghan’s. What a treacherous island.

    • Nancy says:

      That is exactly right–they saved each other. That is the bottom line, and all of the rest is just color commentary, if you know what I mean.

  4. Lizzie Bathory says:

    I think we know now that “compromise” was likely removed by Charles & William, not the Queen. Both were threatened by their popularity & both knew William wasn’t cut out to be a monarch on his own.

    The “plotting their escape” is interesting because they really did slip the trap even with security pulled, which I’m sure infuriated Charles. I bet the sinks were flying the day he realized what happened!

    • MeganC says:

      Charles and William expected to control Harry by the purse strings for his entire life. The half in/ half out would have let Harry become financially independent and control his own royal career and that threatened all of them.

    • Mjane says:

      If they wanted to take political positions, there was no compromise to be had.

  5. Sue E Generis says:

    I still don’t understand what it is Meghan and Harry did? Clearly there was a serious problem for years (even pre-Meghan). The courtiers were well aware for all that time and were obviously incapable or unwilling to come with a solution. Then Dan Wooton and William forced everyone’s hand. How is any of this Harry & Meghan’s fault?

    • MsIam says:

      It’s just like Meghan said in The Cut, they upset the hierarchy by just existing. They didn’t have to “do” anything. They wanted Harry to be like Princess Margaret, smoking and drinking himself to death or like Andrew, constantly lurching from one scandal to another until he lost all credibility. Sober, intelligent, vital, involved Harry was not in the plan.

      • Soapboxpudding says:

        @MsIam You’re spot on here. The system they create chews up the spares and in turn creates a distraction for the heir who then ‘can do no wrong’. I always feel bad for Margaret. I’m glad Harry found a way out.

  6. Becks1 says:

    Well, I like that someone is admitting that Harry was unhappy BEFORE Meghan came along. This narrative that meghan brainwashed Harry is just so played out and so demonstrably false based on things harry said before he ever met Meghan, so its “nice” that someone (even an anonymous someone) is finally admitting it.

    Question – why were the courtiers spending all this time discussing options for a part-in, part-out scenario if the queen said “no” to it? That seems inefficient and incompetent. Why not ask her first and THEN try to hash something out? It also makes zero sense considering H&M were asking for something similar to Prince Michael and his wife or even Beatrice and Eugenie, who make occasional royal appearances (garden parties etc) but still make their own money (supposedly.)

    • Rapunzel says:

      Becks- “why were the courtiers spending all this time discussing options for a part-in, part-out scenario if the queen said “no” to it? ”

      This just proves TQ probably approved it only to have Chuck and Will pitch a fit, causing her to cave to the heirs.

      • Becks1 says:

        It really is what makes the most sense. The Sussexes being financially independent wasn’t a threat to the Queen, what the eff did she care, but it was a threat to Charles and William. So it was all being discussed because the Queen was like “well show me some scenarios” and then someone else nixed it.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Becks1, and how convenient to throw QEII under their bus of convenience as she cannot tell her side now that she has passed. We all know it was Bullyiam as well as Charles that both quashed the half in/out scenario.

        QEII would have been pleased to still have Harry and Meghan present to fulfill duties that she bestowed upon them as they were brilliant in all of their royal duties.

        It’s perfectly clear who axed these negotiations. And it wasn’t QEII.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I was just going to bring up the Beatrice and Eugenie situation. Both work (well, I know Eugenie has been steadily working in her career for years) and have outside projects/charities. They appear for Ascot, garden parties, and Trooping of the Color.

    • Emmi says:

      On your last point, this didn’t strike me as unusual. Inefficient, sure. But not unusual. This is how I sometimes spend my day. My boss has a fuzzy idea of something (an event maybe) and wants me to work out options. I have to coordinate with other people and it takes time, it goes back and forth. I know her and I know what she possibly wants but she’s busy and wants almost-finished suggestions and options. The back-and-forth is to be handled by me, not her. That’s what I’m here for. When I lay out the plans, she sometimes asks if this or that is possible and most of the time I know the answer. To me it sounds like these people simply didn’t know their boss well enough. I’ve never spent days working on something that my boss rejects completely. I have MANY colleagues whose bosses are unpredictable though and often don’t communicate well. So there is that.

      • Becks1 says:

        But you just said you have never spent days working on something that your boss rejects completely, which happened here. And it would make sense that someone from BP (if not the queen herself) would be part of these negotiations, so the fact that these negotiations went on and then were shut down because “oh the queen says no to the whole idea” just don’t make that much sense.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If QEII actually said “NO” to the half-in half-out option then she could not be surprised one iota when Sussexit happened. QEII was many things but she was not stupid when it came to her family. I do not believe that QEII was 100% to blame for this mess with Harry & Meghan.

        Therefore, I believe there were others, i.e. the courtiers, who were very much involved with the “NO” issued in the name of QEII and more so involved in the initial thought process than Chucky III Baldy Wales. I think Baldy and Wiglet Wales waned the Sussexes gone at all cost and were willing to let the courtiers be the executioner. I do not think Chucky III really wanted Harry to leave but he was NOT going to fight Baldy as Baldy’s feelings on the matter were more important as heir to the throne.

      • kirk says:

        Sounds like you have a decent relationship with your boss. Now imagine being in a matrix with 3 different bosses with their own centers of power and you always have to go through the staff of the 3 bosses in order to communicate with 3 bosses. And there’s treacherous conflict between the staffs at each palace.

        Blaming it all on the dead queen makes so much sense for these goons and their media lackeys.

      • Emmi says:

        @Becks1: I haven’t but like I also said, colleagues have. They still do all the time. They’re either new or decidedly not new and have just stopped caring. Or their bosses are just unpredictable. I personally think the fish starts rotting from the head.

    • Nic919 says:

      It is interesting that Alderton realized they could be a blueprint for the other royals not directly in the line of succession. He will be the new Edward Young and I suspect the other non Wales royals are going to be in for a ride, except perhaps Anne.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nic, we were all saying here at the time that it could be a blueprint for Charlotte, Louis, etc. — so I still believe it was Charles & William who were really calling the shots here— the dead LAST thing they wanted was the outcome they got. Now they have the “slimmed down” monarchy that Chuck wanted, but on steroids, without nearly enough manpower to carry out the work. The Queen likely just wanted a resolution that everyone would be reasonably happy with, but nothing other than full subservience would be enough for William and Charles. They demand full control over the “lesser” royals; they want them to have to ass-kiss and be completely dependent on them for £, like the Wessexes. JMO

    • CourtneyB says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie aren’t working royals. Their appearances at garden parties aren’t official and they draw no money. I think the Michaels and Andrew (and Edward and Sophie earlier) probably ruined a chance for the Sussexes actually. Harry and Meghan wanted a bigger platform than those groups, and were already much more visible and higher ranking, but the former had already screwed the pooch so badly that it would be untenable. If less covered, lower ranking royals couldn’t handle private money making without scandal, how could such a high viz couple closer to the throne? It would be nonstop.

  7. Eurydice says:

    Well, it makes sense to blame it all on TQ because she was in charge then and is dead now. The part about dipping their toes in American politics is stupid – why would a woman who married a British prince and planned to apply for British citizenship and was pregnant and suicidal be thinking about American politics? But I believe the part about finances – was Charles prepared to keep supporting H&M and their growing family? Or were they going to accept as “royal behavior” Meghan continuing to be an actress, as some of them suggested? And I totally believe the last paragraph.

    • PunkPrincessPhD says:

      Re: “American Politics” – literally anything that could be considered political is therefore “politics” in this world. Have an option on reproductive rights for women? Political. Anti-war and want to support refugees? Political. Stand up against gun violence in schools by delivering water to volunteers? Political. Agree that BLM? Way too political 🙄

      • HeatherC says:

        Apparently urging people to vote is political too

      • Lorelei says:

        @PunkPrincess and @HeatherC, exactly what I was about to say. Claiming they wanted to “dip their toes” into American politics comes across as floating that they were considering running for office, which I find laughable.

        For the Sussexes, the most “political” they’ve been, IIRC, was urging people to vote (how is that even controversial? They didn’t back a particular candidate*) and supporting vaccine equity, which is a public health issue, ffs, not a political one. Oh, and Meghan showed her support for paid maternity leave—which, again, decent people would consider a basic human right, not a political issue.

        But in the US, EVERYTHING ends up being political— things that should be decided/governed based on pure common sense and basic human rights— because half our population is brainwashed and unhinged. Meghan’s visit to Uvalde was probably considered “political” even though she didn’t utter one word about gun control. I mean, I think all of us here can guess what her stance on it is, but she’s never made it public. (I swear to god, she does EVERYTHING these goddamn people wanted of her, and it’s still never enough.)

        *obviously when M said to “vote against hate speech,” we all knew who she was talking about — but that is not a Meghan problem. She named no names. When the Sussexes urged people to vote, their remarks were, on their face, totally neutral. When people immediately took it as an attack on 45, that was a reflection of his own behavior, ffs.

        ETA: @Kirk, 👏👏

    • cws says:

      The Firm was going to use Harry and Meghan and refused security protection for the children.
      And refused Harry the option to earn money to provide the protection they will both need throughout their lives

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Or were they going to accept as “royal behavior” Meghan continuing to be an actress, as some of them suggested?”

      This was never going to be accepted as Meghan would have tp have every role approved by the palace and the palace knew she would never accept this.

      IMAO, the statement that she “needed to work” as “there was no money for her” was just an attempt by the palace courtiers to bully her into submission then accepting whatever they choose to dish out to her.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That’s another thing that makes no sense–they told Meghan there wouldn’t be enough money for her so suggested she continue to work–well, then, isn’t that being a part-time royal? Or at least part-time actor? And haven’t they been saying working ‘outside the royal home’ is a reflection on TQ? But suggesting she continue acting is OK? My head is spinning.

  8. ThatsNotOkay says:

    The Royal Family is toxic for women. And Meghan is making that plain by her strategic decision to make Archetypes about women and their struggles. No self-respecting woman should ever willingly join that institution, and any woman born into it should get TF out.

    And, yes, the courtiers blew with the negotiations and any planning and literally anything they were tasked to do. They’re the Keystone Courtiers and something out of a British sitcom. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea for a show…

  9. Amy Bee says:

    The Palace just misjudged the whole thing. They devised a plan that would lead to Meghan leaving but they never thought that Harry would leave as well. The thing that broke the deal was that Harry and Meghan wanted to be financially independent. If they had allowed that it would have given rise to questions from the public about the Royal Family’s finances and why they continue to be funded by taxpayers. Low had a really good chance to write a critical and balanced book about the Palace’s inner workings but he choose to do the Royal Family’s bidding and do hit job on Harry and Meghan instead.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Low wrote as much as he could write and still have access to people he needed to have access to in order to continue his career as a Royal journalist, commentator and TV/podcast guest.

  10. Vanessa says:

    Meghan is the Beyoncé of the Royal Family the British media and the courtiers are constantly talking about her . Meghan been gone from the Royal Family for Three Years now and yet the British media the courtiers can’t let her go her name is constantly in their mouths and Meghan lives in Rent free in these people mind they are so ridiculously obsessed with her . The fact that average every day people who didn’t care about the royals or pay them any attention we’re calling out the royal family and their lackeys for their treatment of Meghan and Harry during the queens funeral have these courtiers and the British media shook their smeared campaign is being called out and in turn people were questioning Charles and William behavior.

    • W says:

      They literally treat her like she runs the UK and that the survival of the monarchy depends on what her and Harry share about their experiences. They know how much influence her and Harry have over the image of the monarchy. Were there ever tense meetings and discussions over Andrew’s titles and money when he stepped down as a working royal in 2019 or the Duke of Kent when he stepped down this year? No because they know their dependence on the firm for money and protection will ensure they won’t ever step out of line.

  11. MsIam says:

    This such b.s. Especially the part about how “ they should not act or take decisions to gain financial or other material benefits”. Meanwhile Charles is accepting cash “donations”, Andrew is accepting wedding “donations “ and that’s just the stuff we know about. Harry and Meghan meanwhile had to be hamstrung from even putting in an honest day’s work for pay. It’s shocking but not shocking because there is so much corruption among the wealthy whether it’s business, government or even “royalty”.

    • equality says:

      Anne leases out her farm for events and her children do endorsements. Edward has leased out parts of Bagshot Park before. The whole family accepts gifts.

    • SarahCS says:

      ALL the royals make money one way or another (Sandringham gin anyone?), I’m yet to hear a valid argument about why it’s so unacceptable for H&M to do this.

      • ABritGuest says:

        I mean the queen had recently opened a pub near sandringham & launched a sandringham ketchup line. Anne has ticketed festivals on her estate. Charles has launched a highgrove perfume line with only a minor percentage going to charity so he/his estate is obviously pocketing rest of the pockets.

        I think they said no to half in/half out because they didn’t want to be flexible & agree a situation where Meghan might stay as a working royal at all. They wanted her out & thought with Charles’ funding & security gone, Harry would ‘come to his senses’, return to the uk without Meghan & Archie & return to duties. Also Harry & Meghan didn’t want to be publicly funded to remove the public interest argument that the press was using to justify things like publishing Meghan’s letter. H&M didn’t want to work with the royal rota anymore but there was no way the press was going to allow that & palace would have been too cowered by then to allow it

      • cws says:

        I think the elephant in the room is Meghan and Harry’s refusal to allow the royal rota at their events

      • equality says:

        @cws I think Anne gets away with snubbing the RR. Of course, they likely don’t have that much interest in her any longer.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      It’s especially BS considering that Edward ran a freaking production company. Other’s who ‘work’ part time for the RF also pursue business interests. It’s a bogus rule that was put in place as an attempt to keep H&M in their place.

  12. Snuffles says:

    Well, first of all, they should have been THRILLED they had a Beyonce on the team. They should have been smart enough to figure out a way to make that work for them, but they didn’t.

    ““There is a part of me that thinks Meghan did Harry the greatest kindness anyone could do to him, which was to take him out of the royal family, because he was just desperately unhappy in the last couple of years in his working life. We knew he was unhappy, but we didn’t really know what the solution would be. She came along and found the solution.”

    And that’s why they will remain salty until their dying day. Harry has ALWAYS wanted to leave but wasn’t sure how he could go about doing it and was getting gaslighted out of it 24/7. Then Meghan came along and was like “We can do this! Here are some ideas.” They wanted Harry feeling helpless forever.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Harry had to leave the army where he was thriving because Will Not and Katie Keen were too lazy to do any work. I’m sure he was desperately unhappy having to cover up for their lack of work ethic, and that BM made finding a life partner hard. I’m sure he also didn’t like being the third wheel to William & Kate and having her fawn all over him at engagements.

      • susan says:

        He had to leave the Army because the Queen demanded that he refuse promotion to Major, so that he would not outrank his brother. In the Army, it’s “up or out”-get promoted or leave. so he had no choice but to leave.

        Not too dissimilar from Meghan’s assertion that she had to make herself “less” so as not to overshadow her sister in law, the white princess.

      • Lady D says:

        It was reported in around late spring of 2018 that Harry had obtained the rank of major. He was given the promotion after he left the army, so he does outrank William.

    • Duchess of Hazard says:

      @snuffles Same! Meghan was Harry’s door marked exit. You always had the feeling he’d wanted to leave the BRF. So in retrospect, him marrying a foreigner was always on the cards. Marrying a fellow aristo would never have worked.

  13. Lili says:

    This whole story smells Andrew was free to whatever he wanted to the point no one knows what exactly he was doing and he must have had some private stuff going on that enabled him to be buying villas and spending time with his mate Jeffery

    • Elizabeth says:

      Andrew was hanging out with Epstein precisely because he wasn’t allowed to make his own money. Don’t forget that Epstein gave Fergie money to pay off her debts. I’m sure that Epstein introduced Andrew to billionaire oligarch Timur Kulibayev, son-in-law of Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, who bought his former home for 15 million pounds. Also, I remember when Andrew and Fergie did an interview and pictorial for HELLO magazine. I’m sure they didn’t do that for free.

  14. W says:

    Low and his sources are contradicting each other. In one excerpt he says the courtiers helped Meghan but felt they were being “played” bc Meghan was planting evidence that showed they didn’t support her. Now his sources are saying they knew Harry was unhappy & struggling but didn’t know how to help him. So we’re supposed to believe that ppl who didn’t know how to support Harry when he was struggling with depression SUDDENLY ran to to assist Meghan when she had suicidal thoughts?

  15. girl_ninja says:

    All of this plotting and mudslinging at the Sussex’s over Will and Charles in Charge’s jealous and the Sussex’s still outshine them.

  16. Plums says:

    All of this nonsense is just rewriting the narrative to erase the failure of what they clearly all intended, which is the delusional belief that the Sussexes needed the Firm in any way, shape, or form to succeed, and being 100% cut off was meant to scare them into crawling back with their tails between their legs. They absolutely did not expect Meghan and Harry to rely on outside connections to help them land on their feet and figure out what to do next. Leaking their location at the same time they pulled their security was the most evil shit and utterly intentional, and they’re so angry it totally backfired on them.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      Charles stipping their security and announcing their location sums up how much he “loves” his son and DIL. As long as they are helpless and placed in harms way, he isn’t fit to be given any love nor attention from his son and his family. Charles certainly showed the world how petty, vile and his willingness to put them at harm. All of his words since then are empty and pathetic as well.

  17. Soapboxpudding says:

    “ They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.”

    So what about The Kents, Gloucesters, Tindalls, and Yorks? All of them make money on the side via their Royal connections? They’re all half in and at times officially represented the Queen. Seems like a bit of a double standard.

    • SarahCS says:

      Even the Queen was doing it, on reflection I think the only ones who don’t are Willnot and Kannot. Funny that.

    • HeatherC says:

      Princess Michael of Kent publishes books with her HRH emblazened on the cover. Not only that, but she doesn’t go by her own name, instead is Princess Michael to further capitalize on her royal connections.

      But she’s racist and classist AF so it’s okay.

  18. GuestWho says:

    They waited two years to act because the plan was to drive Meghan and whatever children she had, out of the firm alone. The reality set in when they realized they were losing Harry too.

    • Snuffles says:



      They did nothing and when they realized Harry was gonna bounce with her, they fumbled everything because that was never the plan.

      • sunny says:

        Exactly that. And they were so so dumb because their attempts to push Meghan out and destroy her only strengthened that marriage and Harry’s resolve.

        I would love a whole book dissecting the ways the courtiers are terrible at their jobs. They are so so so incompetent.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Sunny, I hope that someone does write a book about the courtiers that is actually factual and honest. Who they are, how they got their positions, how much power they truly wield, etc. They might burn their sources, but so what? They’d make a boatload of $ from the book sales.

        And since H&M are gone and the Queen has passed, how much value can their “insider palace sources” even provide anymore? Everyone left is as bland as oatmeal. Unless they’re going to start telling some truths about William, having palace sources doesn’t seem like that much of a coup (or even a necessity) anymore. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  19. molly says:

    The Dynasty by Vanity Fair podcast is overall good and interesting, but Katie Nicholls is a cohost and occasionally lets her anti-Meghan dog whistle get a little too loud. Especially in the most recent bonus episode about King Charles.

    She said that if Meghan would have “stuck it out” within the royal family, she could have eventually gotten what she wanted. I basically shrieked in my car when I heard that. Nopity nope nope. There was no sticking it out. Nothing was ever going to get better. Their royal lives were untenable, professionally AND personally.

    • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

      “Stuck it out”? Nicholl is clearly comparing Meghan to Khate. Meghan had no need to ‘stick it out’ what ever that means. Meghan wanted to help her charities and organizations and use her wealth and position to help people–continue the work she was doing before she married Harry. And the Firm was preventing her from doing that. “Stuck it out”? It doesn’t even make sense. They can’t comprehend a woman marrying a wealthy man but still wanting to work.

    • MsIam says:

      That’s a bald face lie because Willy and Katy are two of the most insecure famewhores in recent memory. They didn’t want Harry and Meghan to exist in any other sphere except under their thumbs. So it never would have gotten “better”. Meghan probably would have left Harry and Harry would have gone back to drink and drugs which most likely was the original plan.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ MsIam, no Harry would have followed Meghan. That I can be certain. Harry would have been packed and gone before anyone knew of it.

        Agree with your points of Willy and Kate though!!

    • Lorelei says:

      Meghan “sticking it out” would have most likely resulted in her death. And I’m being completely serious here.

    • TallulahB says:

      Katie N is truly eating crayons if she thinks anyone is supposed to tolerate racism and harassment and call it living.

      One of the biggest issues with British royal journalists, pundits and experts is how none of them (excepting Omid Scobie) are brave enough to address how misogyny, racism and white supremacy informs the royal family, royal institution and British media response to Harry’s marriage.

      That is the missing piece to all the articles, books, podcasts: how these privileged white people chose to CULTIVATE their bias as a standard instead of a CANCER.
      To me, the hyper focus on the couple is meant to obscure how various people and institutions let bias rule and contribute to institutional rot.

  20. M says:

    The Firm has proven they can’t go a day without flapping their gums about two people who are minding their own business in the US. All this does is illustrate why they left in the first place. Harry needs to tell them to kiss his backside and never support them ever again.

    • Lorelei says:

      The Queen’s body is barely cold and they’re already back on their bullshit!! (Actually, they were never off it, even on the literal day she died.)
      Unreal. So much for all the respect they claim to have for “Her Majesty.”

  21. Veda says:

    Archewell productions should make a series out of this. It’s a thrilling story with a happy ending. Meghan- the princess who saved me.

  22. Dimbulb says:

    I love the red long dress with the red shoes! Lovely.

  23. Over it says:

    These palace stooges are exhausting.

  24. susan says:

    The real story here is that W & C were plotting to send them abroad permanently, probably to Africa, because they thought that would keep them out of the public eye. Meantime, H & M were planning their escape-the Queen knew from the beginning, she even said so “They took their dogs with them” to Canada.” THIS is why the RF is so exercised. H&M are more powerful, more telegenic and more savvy than the whole lot of the rest of them, and it’s eating them alive.

  25. Isabella says:

    The Beyonce thing really bothers me. Really? Because both women are black? It makes Meghan sound like a wanna-be singer, song writer.

    • Truthiness says:

      You’re not alone. Wtf.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Exactly what I thought, too: WTF? But then Beyonce is probably the only other Black woman they could name.

    • SomeChick says:

      it’s such a witless comment, because she *is* the Beyonce of the BRF – like it or not. she’s a gorgeous megastar. people love her (except for the ones who resent her). she shines so brightly compared to the rest of them. and she was willing to do the work!

      they coulda had a bad b. and they blew it.

  26. Concern Fae says:

    One thing that always bothered me was that the RF never found an official married name for the women who married in. It was always just HRH The Duchess of Cambridge/Sussex or Princess William/Harry. Neither of these was going to pass modern style guides, so the media just refers to both women by their maiden names. It’s not a new problem, Diana and Fergie had the same problem. The RF had a full generation to come up with more modern versions of women’s titles and they just didn’t. It’s indicative of just ignoring problems and pretending that they will be solved if the rest of the world would just see things your way.

    It’s also clear reading this why the RF is always lurching into financial scandals. They set very strict rules, but then someone needs money, so everyone just looks the other way. The royals get used to it, and suddenly you’ve got Epstein there handing out money and gathering blackmail fodder.

    Another part of the issue is that the whole non profit world has become big business with hidden donors, money laundering, reputation washing, and organizations founded just to buy property and offer huge salaries being paid for no actual work.

    Meghan and Harry wanting to use this system to do actual good must have really freaked them out. But this all just reads as so much family disfunction.

  27. Jen says:

    Does anyone have deep knowledge of Edward and Sophie’s work life from early on in their marriage? I didn’t pay much attention to the royals in those days, but I recall hearing that his entertainment production business and her PR business inappropriately benefited from their HRH status leading to them ceasing those business activities. I wonder how much that experience coloured the Queen and Charles against any kind of half in half out model, possibly causing any proposals that would safeguard against the pitfalls of the Wessexes to fall on deaf ears.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Jen, the only thing I remember about Edward’s production company is that it was the *only one* who broke the agreement that the palace had hammered out with the press when William was starting college. I believe that just before classes started, William gave a short official interview and some photo ops at St. Andrews. That was the deal the palace had made, apparently— they’d give the press that bit of access, and then he was to be left alone for the rest of his time there.

      But one lone van remained for like a week or so (surveilling William, I guess?) after the rest of the news crews had left, and when it was discovered to be Edward’s, Charles allegedly hit the roof.

      The palace was reportedly mortified that the rest of the press honored the agreement — EXCEPT for the Queen’s freaking son. It was a humiliating incident that angered Charles immensely.

      I can’t remember if that was the end of Edward’s production company, but it seems likely that it might have been. It was *almost* as embarrassing to the BRF as Sophie’s famous gaffe.

      Other than that, I have no idea what Edward’s company ever actually did, and if it has any legitimate credits to its name or anything like that. But that St. Andrews incident alone probably gave Charles what he felt was enough reason to shut it down.

  28. Jeanette Crompton says:

    Never a truer word spoken it was the men in dark suit and jealous people all the way.

  29. Lizzie says:

    To be fair if I was going to marry Prince Harry I would be confident I’d be pretty famous. So what.
    No one tried to do anything except cover up the problem. William sold out Meghan to coverup his affair with Rose. Kkkate sold out Meghan to get the press to stop pointing out she is dumb and lazy. Chuck sold out Meghan to get the press off Camila’s back and more recently cash for honors program. The queen sold them both out because NO one out shines the queen. She pledged after Diana – never again would the family have someone as charismatic as Diana. They were blind Meghan’s star power because they mostly saw her skin.
    And I just have no idea where Beyoncé comes in.

    • Laura D says:

      Agree with all of this except I would say TQ sold out H&M to cover for Andrew. Every time an article came up about her son three or four hit pieces would appear about Harry, Meghan or both. When H&M announced they were leaving the RF and she let Andrew accompany her to church on the Sunday, convinced me that she thought the media had done their job in manipulating the public into believing H&M were more of a problem than her son.

      • ML says:

        @Laura D and Blunt Talker, I absolutely agree with your takes on Paedrew. The amount of protection this scum bucket has gotten and continues to receive at H&M’s expense is mind blowing.

    • ML says:

      @Lizzie, I mostly agree, except for Meghan’s star power. I believe they were blinded by it and couldn’t help but notice her shine and it caused them to try to put out her light.

  30. blunt talker says:

    I agree about Prince Andy’s problems-anytime something negative was in the press about him-three or four hit pieces were placed in the press against Harry and Meghan-go look at the negative press on Andrew that day-then look on down and see hit pieces on Meghan and Harry-this was the queen’s doing with her courtiers

  31. ML says:

    Until the Epstein interview blew apart Paedrew’s public support for ventures like Pitch@Palace, one of the Queen’s sons was absolutely allowed to make money within the RF. I believe all of the members, in or out, capitalize on this connection because it’s so lucrative. Remember Peter Phillips’ tacky Chinese milk commercial as H&M were leaving? Prince Michael having to backpedal his Russian connections after Putin invaded Ukraine? Any time the RF argues you cannot be half in or argues that you cannot trade off the RF name, this is not true. They just don’t want H&M doing it.

  32. Over it says:

    These vile racist assholes knew exactly what they were doing with saying Meghan thought she was the Beyoncé of the uk, Beyoncé supported Meghan after the Oprah interview, she also publicly supported her when she won the Brit award, so now because they know that Beyoncé has a massive following, they want to target and encourage these people to start hating on Meghan, because having an entire country media, it’s monarchy and a lot of its people hating her is not enough, now they want the beehive to join in. Low is as low as it goes. These palaces courtiers are bottom barrel trailer trash.

  33. Well Wisher says:

    One cannot overlook the deliberate use of the word “problem” in describing the Sussexes ordeal.
    Their concerns were based in part by bullying and abusive behaviours from the press and a toxic work environment. They requested local coverage with help from streaming services where available to bypass the rota, the taxpayers £ reason made it a non starter.

    Next, a written proposal that included earning monies to pay staff salaries, was briefly considered with five varying scenarios.
    All were rejected because any of the five will mean no controlling influences from the then heirs.

    By now the commercial viability of the couple was through the roof, bots and flag shagging aside.

  34. Well Wisher says:

    Did the media called in favours during the ‘negotiations’? They seemed to be ever present, cheering when they thought that the gravy boat remained in tact.

    That stopped when it was clear that Harry chose to leave with Meghan, a decision that they are still paying for to present day.

    Looking through the auspices of opportunity, creativity and the vast distance from gaslighters it was the only viable way out.

    In the meantime Harry has healed his traumatised twelve-year-old inner child and matured into a loving husband and father.

    Just as his grandparents envisioned.

    Would there be another rewrite? explanation? the Queen’s role exaggerated via blame assignment??

    Stay tuned.