Mayer: The Sussexes are central to the fate & future of the British monarchy

Catherine Mayer has emerged as a somewhat interesting “commentator” in the recent royal wars. Mayer’s biography of King Charles came out a few months ago and what was notable about it was how little it was discussed in the British tabloids, probably because Mayer wrote and spoke honestly about how the fate of the monarchy is intertwined with conversations about white privilege, racism and colonialism, all of which ties into what the Duke and Duchess of Sussex experienced and what they’re discussing in their Netflix series. Mayer wrote a piece for the Guardian this weekend – you can read the full piece here. The thesis is basically: what the Sussexes are doing is important and they’re part of a larger conversation about the monarchy and British media. Some highlights:

The royals aren’t some powerless, unimportant fluff: For one thing, disdaining the royals as a branch of light entertainment overlooks their power and influence. In more than a few of the 14 overseas realms, the debate about whether to retain King Charles as head of state is urgent and sophisticated, weighing the monarchy’s problematic history against any value that it adds, and the costs and risks (more acute than ever in a world of surging far-right populism) of change. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, such discussions also bubble up. In Westminster politics, they are relegated to the fringes.

The Sussexes are central to the fate of the monarchy: In England, republican zeal is conspicuous by its absence. So is Prince Harry. The Sussexes’ exit confirmed a widespread misapprehension that the couple are a sideshow to the monarchy, rather than central to its fate and future. The real question, though, isn’t whether Harry or his children are likely one day to reign – he is fifth in line to the throne, with son Archie and daughter Lilibet respectively sixth and seventh. It’s whether and how many future generations of Windsors will follow Charles, and what the failure of the institution to retain its first mixed-race members says about attitudes within its ranks, as well as in the media and wider society.

Younger people like the Sussexes: Polls show that the couple’s departure, and the subsequent explanations for it, have turned some younger and more diverse demographics, briefly won over to the royal family by Harry and Meghan’s union, against the monarchy. The few prominent commentators who have attempted to articulate this effect – or merely voice discomfort with the nasty, polarised debate around the Sussexes – regularly find themselves invited on daytime TV to be shouted down, gaslit or accused of race-baiting in return.

Meghan’s curtsey: It doesn’t help that Meghan is an imperfect victim, not always consistent in her accounts and prone to flourishes. Her re-enactment for Netflix of curtseying to the Queen instantly drew ire, real and confected, for supposed disrespect to the memory of her grandmother-in-law. Nobody curtsies like that, critics harrumphed. They’re wrong. When I was researching my biography of King Charles, I discovered his female staff were running a competition to see who could perform the deepest curtsey without falling over. A former girlfriend of his also confided that protocol demanded she curtsey to him, leading one evening to a clash of heads when he mistimed an attempt to kiss her.

The bullying crap: A far more serious charge against Meghan is that she bullied palace staff, a story deliberately placed with journalists just before the Sussexes’ Winfrey interview. When I heard some of these allegations in the summer of 2018, I hadn’t written about the royals for a couple of years and this wasn’t a strategic leak. Even taking account of mitigating factors – cultural misunderstandings, a barrage of sexist and racist media attacks at exactly the moment that royal convention denied Meghan a voice, the bias that sees women of colour as angrier than their white counterparts – it’s clear there were clashes.

The royal racism was real: Whatever Meghan did or didn’t do, her experience of racism should be believed, not least because it’s always been there in plain sight. The Netflix documentary serves up one example: the decision by Princess Michael of Kent to wear a “blackamoor” brooch to lunch with Harry’s then fiancee and other royals. When I began probing the question of which family member might have made the comment about Archie’s skin, an insider described Charles as “the least racist royal” and meant this as a compliment. The King’s charities and initiatives have brought him into contact with a wider range of people than many of his relatives, but these perspectives have never been embedded in his household, which, like the whole organisation, tends to homogeneity.

The racism against Ngozi Fulani: Mandu and, in particular, Fulani suffered a campaign of abuse stirred up by some of the same outlets that harried Meghan. Sistah Space suspended some operations amid safety fears. Watching this ugly, predictable backlash unfold, I thought how unsurprising it was that the Sussexes should feel the need to tell, and retell, their story, their truth. The wonder isn’t that they’re doing it, but that they held it in for so long.

[From The Guardian]

I agree with most of this, especially the part about why these royal conversations are important and why it was so significant that the Netflix series included academics speaking about the history of British colonialism, the Commonwealth and the monarchy’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. Meghan fell in love with a British prince and she found herself sitting in the center of a raging sharknado of issues involving racism, class, privilege, misogyny and media power.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

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

67 Responses to “Mayer: The Sussexes are central to the fate & future of the British monarchy”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Seraphina says:

    I can hear the wails from the Prince of Wales all the way over here in the US. Bawhahahaha. William is NOTHING without Harry. While Harry is everything w/out him and that must sting.

    • Blue Nails Betty says:

      And THAT is the crux of the matter. Harry is outshining all the royals put together, making a damn fortune without crushing peasants, and living his best, loved up, family and chickens filled life.

      Harry is his own man. The royals are toadies and flunkies controlled by The Firm and the media. And the royals, especially Charles and William, are livid that Harry is a goddamn star and they are just afterthoughts.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Those Wails must be so loud because despite the crushing might of the monarchy, press and establishment the Sussexes are thriving. And despite racist tropes thrown into the mix. It is huge that Harry acknowledged and welcomed his children being mixed race heritage.

    • Liz Version 700k says:

      Seraphina that summarizes the issue perfectly. William was more with Harry and assumed he would always. S there to prop him up. Harry was robbed of the right to be anything in the Royal structure. When Harry and Meghan left they became so SO MUCH MORE. Their more is unlimited, and it laid bare for all to see how very very little William is without him. That is why the Pet of Incandescent can “never forgive” Harry and hates Meghan for rescuing Harry from that life. I mean hostage takers often hate the hostage rescuers …let’s be honest.

      • Seraphina says:

        I think it also stings the FK that Meghan is so much more than he and Kate will ever be or can ever bring to the institution. The institution that rests on their shoulders and they are supposed to carry the torch into the future. She was breadth of fresh air. A woman of mixed race who did her homework, prepared, was professional and polished all while showing compassion/empathy. And so these two bright stars will always outshine Wills and Kate. When you got it, you got it. THAT is what is God given, not the entitlement.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      I still think there is shock that having effectively exiled the Sussexes by removing security via Palace controlled RAVEC – that they have not drifted off into obscurity
      They expected something much lower key than Edward and Wallis – a sad quiet life gazing wistfully at things with crowns on them from Abroad
      How they all laughed at silly brave Harry and his ‘exotic actress’….looks like a hideous miscalculation
      The Sussexes will always outshine them – in every category

  2. girl_ninja says:

    The fact is that the royals, the institution, the British press think that they have the right to look down at black people and POC and treat them shabbily. This mindset led to Meghan being abused and the Sussex’s ultimately leaving that hateful island. Further proof of this was how Ngozi Fulani was treated for sharing her experience with that racist family.

    • SomeChick says:

      the entire concept of “royals” is steeped in (and created by) a racist, “might makes right” worldview. it’s completely indefensible. and it’s about time that it be questioned, examined, and dismantled. I think Diana would be very proud of Harry. he is indeed his mother’s son.

      15 hours until the drop! I am READY.

    • Cessily says:

      They are still attacking her, she had to shut down her charity and I just read that it is now under investigation by the government. All this because she was racially attacked and humiliated at an event she should have been safe at, she was an invited guest but Camilla’s lady in waiting just couldn’t get over her own racism. Now they are destroying this woman. I have zero sympathy for any of these people no matter what their age.

  3. Alexandria says:

    Meg and the children were dehumanized daily when all she did was marry a Prince while being black and American. Serial killers and pedophiles don’t even get 5 percent of the vitriol, hostility and coverage. British media is disgusting and inhumane. It’s ok to dislike someone but how do you wake up actively hating and trying to get someone killed?

    • lanne says:

      Amen to that. The kind of hate that Meghan has received is the kind of hate reserved for mass murderers. There is no way that the vitriol fits the situation, even if Meghan truly was every bad thing they said she was. If everything the royals contended about Meghan was true, and we all know it’s deliberate slander, none of it rises to the occasion of the hatred. Other royals have done orders of magnitudes of worse things than anything Meghan has even been accused of.

  4. Jaded says:

    The whole BRF is nothing without the Sussexes. They’re just beginning to learn that the hard way. It’s an anachronistic, medieval, blood-sucking entity that is starting to crumble from within.

  5. Tessa says:

    I read in several books that Sarah duchess of work early in her marriage to Andrew would say curtsey current curtsey and she received little criticism. And Meghan is trashed for practicing curtsey in the video not the way Sarah walked into a room

    • Tessa says:

      Duchess of York

    • Debbie says:

      I know, and if someone showing their curtsies is what the writer thinks makes someone an “imperfect victim” I’d truly like to introduce to drug addicts who act as witnesses, or prostitutes who are victims of rape. These people with their cries of, “But, your honor, she curtsied.” Are you kidding me?

    • Isabella says:

      Honestly, the curtsey itself is silly and demeaning. I can’t believe it’s still done.

  6. MY3CENTS says:

    Well they could have had a bad bitch, now they are just stuck with Resting Bitch Face and Sir Peggalot.

  7. ThatsNotOkay says:

    “The least racist royal.” I love this, because it’s not saying much. Like saying Tiffany Trump is the least insurrectionist. So she’s still a little insurrectionist? Meaning, she’s still a piece of crap and so is Charles.

  8. Solidgold says:

    The Sussex are a sideshow, sorry they are. The fact that they are used to take heat of Charles and Wills incompetence confirms it. What the institution failed at on a global scale was show their piss poor managerial skills.

    • Kingston says:

      The Sussexes are the only human beings related to that anachronism that gave it a hint of relevance in the 21st century in the little time that they were there. The sideshows are and have been those trapped in time and space, who sporadically animate themselves with performative nonsense for the entertainment of those who love their reality shows and cant get enough of it, either on or off-screen.


    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Solidgold, I think it went far beyond poor managerial skills. The brf never passed up an opportunity to humiliate H&M. They never passed up an opportunity to isolate either of them when they were around other members of the brf. This isn’t specifically about management. This is about the individual family members. IMO this is much worse than poor managerial skills.

  9. Amy Bee says:

    What Mayer should have said is an institution built on white supremacy was unable to deal with a person of colour amongst its ranks and its inability to reconcile with that means that it has no place in modern British society.

    • lanne says:

      That needs to be said out loud, and by white people as well as POC. That’s the heart of it. The royals are the epitome of white supremacy, whether they admit it or not. They are the pinnacle that white supremists strive to be. That’s a fact. Whether or not they embrace that fact actively (which I believe they do), tacitly (which they certainly do), or whether they acknowledge that fact in order to disavow it, they must contend with that fact. They can’t pretend it doesn’t exist in their heirarchical society. It’s utter absurdity for them to pretend it doesn’t exist.

    • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

      To quote Prince Harry, “Boom!” *invisible mic drops*

      Also: is there somewhere Sussex Squad and general Harry & Meghan sympathizers can have a conversation on what the heck did Prince Harry expect when a woman of color joined the royal family? There’s a lot of nitpicking of Meghan’s racial experience even in the Harry & Meghan documentary (that’s my main criticism of the series so far) but where are the pointed questions to the actual Prince on his expectations of bringing a woman of color into “The Firm.”

      Was Prince Harry not aware that the British monarchy is built on white supremacy before he proposed to Meghan? Is he aware of it now? Was he not aware of how placing mixed race people into the line of succession would undermine the British monarchy–because it IS a monarchy built on white supremacy?

      I do think Prince Harry is trying to be actively anti-racist, but we need to ask ALL adults born into the royal family about race. They ALL need to be held to account for how they see themselves and the Black and brown “peoples,” as Charles says, they rule over. Prince Harry cannot truly be anti-racist if he doesn’t publicly acknowledge that this institution has no place in modern society if it cannot accept the existence of his mixed race children.

      • Kingston says:

        @Queen Meghan’s Hand

        Unconscious. Bias.

        Prince Harry speaks to it in this docu and doesnt excuse himself. Perhaps you might want to watch the docu again? It lends itself very well to being watched and rewatched for as many times as you wish.

        Also: Unconscious bias: Google is your friend.

      • Becks1 says:

        So I think he does touch on this, but I think its also worth mentioning that…..sometimes you don’t know your family is racist or is a racist institution if there are no people around for them to be racist towards, you know?

        Like he talks about his unconscious bias, and I’m sure he laughed at some of Philip’s jokes over the years, but also….if the only black people in the firm were fairly low level, then he might have just never even thought about it. Like it might not have even occurred to him that his biracial wife would be a “problem” bc he never saw the Windsors have any issues with any POC….because there were no other POCs trying to come into the Windsor space, if that makes sense. It’s really easy to hide your racism when the only black people you interact with are serving your food or other similar work, which seems to be the case there. his friend talks about what a bubble they lived in at Eton and in their general circles. And his unconscious bias kept him from seeing many things that were racist (cough colonial and native parties) as racist.

        I live in a very white area and once in a while in a facebook group a POC will ask something about how welcoming the area is for black families or hispanic families, and all the white people are like OMG ITS SO WELCOMING!!!! then a black woman will chime in and say “well here is my experience” and the white women all react as you would expect. One time I got dragged for saying that we shouldn’t dismiss the black women’s experiences bc we (white women) aren’t going to experience the same things. I can only imagine how much worse and more extreme the Firm was in this regard.

        If HE didn’t have a problem with Meghan’s race, why would it be a problem for anyone else? I’m sure that was his thought process and he had a real wake-up call, for sure.

      • Queen Meghan's Hand says:


        Lol, yes I remember him saying “unconscious bias.” He said it a few times actually. And at least one of those times, it felt like a euphemism for racist. That’s why I want Prince Harry to be asked pointed questions. I would like to know when Prince Harry *first* became aware of his family’s “unconscious bias.” When did he *first* become aware that The Institution, as he describes the monarchy, is racist? Does he even feel comfortable using that word in reference to the monarchy? Or only the British press?

        I love Harry and I cannot wait for the Invictus Games docu-series. A British prince vaguely alluding to his family’s i.e. THE British monarchy, racism and white supremacy does not cut it for me. Dismissing the racist attacks on a family member is not “unconscious bias.” That is racism.

        Prince Harry argued to his father–multiple times–how the press attacks on Meghan were more intense and dangerous, and would always be more intense and dangerous without palace intervention because she’s a WOC. Charles not only repeatedly refuse to negotiate with the right-wing press to protect Meghan and speak out against the racist mistreatment, but participated and still participates in their harassment against her. That’s not Charles exposing his unconscious bias, that is Charles being actively racist.

        Prince Harry is not truly anti-racist if he cannot acknowledge and identify his family’s racist behavior as racist. If he’s uncomfortable doing that publicly, then he should at least publicly acknowledge that the “Institution” has no place in modern society if it cannot accept the existence of his mixed race family.

  10. MipMip says:

    Charles “give my regards to all the ethnic groups” being touted as the least racist royal says everything about the way these insulated dummies think.

    • Debbie says:

      Yeah, I remembered that remark while reading that too. And, unless I’m very much mistaken, that happened close to William’s “we’re a very much not racist family” platitude too.

  11. Becks1 says:

    This is just a really good article. It says a lot about what happened and about how Sussexit has impacted the Firm. It made the royals look racist at worst and out of touch at best.

  12. art maven says:

    The British monarchy has no future.
    This is like the people who escaped to the life boats criticizing the folks left on the Titanic as it surely sinks.

  13. Eurydice says:

    So interesting to hear that there are “prominent commentators ” who’ve been gaslit. Maybe now they’ll have some more courage to speak out. And I love the image of all the women competing to see who can do the deepest curtsy without falling over – like a weird version of Cinderella.

  14. Mrazi says:

    I took the time to watch Piers Uncensored show yesterday, because he had on Geraldo Rivera and would you know it, there was no yelling, gaslighting, minimizing of Geraldo. Piers reserves that for women particularly those of color. I was stunned watching Geraldo give a balanced and fair assessment of the H&M documentary. He believes them, he understands that the coverage of Meg was racist and he even called Piers out for attempting to suggest that the ‘nearly straight out Compton’ nonsense wasn’t racist. He also told Piers that he comes across as having a chip on his shoulder about them. Minimal/very light push back from Piers.

    I like the excerpts of this piece except the part about Meghan being an ‘imperfect victim’. It really riles me up when people do this, there are no perfect people out there not even H&M and we should stop expecting it.

    • CheChe says:

      Interesting interview tone…I wonder if Piers is trying to anticipate a future conundrum with his journalism. Also ,the constant petty digs at Meghan are always a little shady. People can’t just give the woman a little grace and respect.

    • Blithe says:

      This is one of the most positive things I’ve ever heard about Geraldo Rivera. So much of the vitriol directed against Meghan— and even Harry — has been stoked, if not created, by Piers Morgan. I trust that Morgan’s eventual comeuppance will be every bit as public and as wretched as his abusively bilious spewing has been.

      Thanks for posting this Mrazi!

      • MicMac says:

        Morgan is a strange character. An ethnically Irish person that grew up in a time when England had signs up like “No dogs, no ni——-,no Irish” you’d think he would have some empathy for what Meghan had to endure. I’m suspicious that he is putting on completely schtick for his pay-lords, as I remember him being too left of center for his audience when he had an American tv show.

    • Debbie says:

      I just wanted to say that you must have a really strong constitution to watch Piss Morgan’s show.

  15. Brassy Rebel says:

    I love it when anyone says, “Well, too bad So and So is an imperfect victim.” That was the part of the article I side-eyed. There is no such thing as a “perfect victim” or a perfect anything. People are imperfect. Human beings ALL have flaws. Meghan is not perfect any more than anyone else, but it’s both racist and misogynistic to expect her to be. What ever Meghan’s imperfections, they pale in comparison to those of the Windsors. They’re not just imperfect. At times, they are engaged in active evil. Charles the money launderer, Andrew the pedophile, William the lazy philanderer and who knows what else. Meghan can’t compete with this.

    • dee(2) says:

      Yep. It’s why they spend so much time looking for the exception to prove the rule on everything she says. It is designed to make her look like a liar and unreliable, when in truth no one else is held to that standard. Even with celebrities who are under scrutiny, I have never seen people counting how many times Taylor Swift or Tom Holland say I or me in an interview or trying to match dates and clothing wear to simple statements or hyperbole.

    • equality says:

      Yes. It’s the same thing that leads to more trauma for a woman who has been raped and her past is examined.

    • Queen Meghan's Hand says:

      And what imperfections???!!!! This is so annoying! I know you’re not using this word in a malicious way at all @Brassy Rebel. It’s gotten stuck in all our consciousness because of loud haters of Meghan and moisturizer, but it’s so annoying that it has.

      We don’t describe any celebrity we dislike for silly reasons as “imperfect.” We just say, “I don’t like her/him/them” and move on. Describing Meghan as ‘imperfect’ implies that celebrities are only celebrities because they are perfect. Or that we only like celebrities when they are perfect. I like Gwyneth Paltrow because she’s got a stick up her butt and thinks she’s better than everybody else. Her ignorance amuses me. She’s not “imperfect”–she’s a dumb snob.
      Meghan has no “imperfections.” She’s sweet and earnest, a bit corny (the b-word, really?), and preternaturally polished. Those are not imperfections, that’s who she is. And I like that. If you (the global you, not you @Brassy Rebel) don’t, okay move on, but don’t call her personality or public persona ‘imperfect.’ UGH!!! No person is imperfect because we are all imperfect because people are not objects!!!

  16. Kim Cole says:

    I am rewatching the whole series before Thursday. I keep sighing. All of British society needs to have a conversation with itself–about racism, jealousy, the monarchy, sexism, and the insanity that their tabloid press has caused AROUND THE WORLD.

  17. dee(2) says:

    I can’t imagine having to curtsey to my boyfriend. Do people not realize the incredibly imbalanced relationship that has to be formed around that idea? Relationships deal with issues around financial stability, socioeconomic differences and privilege already, to have it baked in and laid out clearly that one party is “better” than the other? Have mercy.

    • Blithe says:

      Reading your comment gives me great hope! Not so very long ago, it was a given that relationships were imbalanced — and were SUPPOSED to be imbalanced: legally as well as socially. I’m heartened by your shock at things that many older generations viewed as being unquestionably baked in. Yay! I’m also heartened by the light that a “spare” and a biracial American not-from-Compton are shining on these centuries of assumptions.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Blithe, ITA, it’s one of the things that is different from my early years that gives me so much hope for the future.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I read in a biography of Edward VII that his mistress Alice Keppel (Camilla’s great-grandmother) would curtsey before she hopped into bed with him.

  18. sparrow says:

    I like that she has made clear the RF isn’t irrelevant or an innocuous bit of pomp and ceremony we Brits enjoy as the nationalistic backdrop to our lives. They are rich and they are powerful, and they are holding us back.

    I was reading about the bullying report in another article. Apparently, the RF is holding onto this as a grenade; its findings haven’t been published yet, not because the allegations are groundless, but because they are calculatedly working out when to throw it at M&H. Charles thought of doing it after the Oprah interview, but figured it would have looked petty and therefore trumped up. Now he is holding back until a way after the Netflix series and Harry’s book. Please don’t ask me for a link, because I am rubbish at them, and I’ll have to google like mad to find it amongst the hundreds of other articles I’ve been reading. I thought it was interesting that they think they have something and how childish they are in their strategy.

    • lanne says:

      The problem with their report is that the royals themselves have been accused of bullying to a much greater extent than anything insinuated against Meghan. Royals have shouted at subordinants, shoved them, sworn at them. All of this is on record. So far, the only accusations against Meghan is that she “made people cry” and reduced aides to tears. How so? By shouting? Threatening? If that was the case, do you really believe it wouldn’t have come out already?

      And do you really believe that Meghan, who has no record of bullying or mistreating people in her professional life, is going to come into an institution as venerated as the royal family and start throwing her weight around, when she is acutely aware, as a WOC, hell, as a woman period, that she will be tone-policed and scrutinized?

      The bullying report is red meat for the racists. It’s relying on several racist and sexist tropes: one, the “Hollywood Actress” used to being fawned over and screaming for attention (when in truth, that kind of behavior gets all but the biggest female stars fired) and the “Angry Black Woman” trope. Again, if there were actual instances of bullying as specific as Andrew shouting over teddy bears, what incentive would they have to be quiet about it? These people who dined on “Meghan made Kate cry” for years would have been shouting from the rooftops.

      You might be right–they might be holding a report that they think they can throw at Meghan, but it’s a risky take–Meghan has kept receipts. Her lawyers have already asked to receive the report and they have been rebuffed. Why? The royals seriously underestimated Meghan. They really believed she was a brash suitcase girl who would wither under the royal gaze, and that she would have no way to defend herself against anything they said. Why has Buckingham palace tried to bury this ao-called report? because it likely doesn’t exist. It became an “investigation into HR practices” to save face. Because Meghan can lob a bomb right back: I was suicidal and went to the family for help, and I received none. That has been verified by Valentine Low.

      Does the royal family really want to go there?

      • sparrow says:

        I agree with you totally. Like I say, it is just odd to me that they are clutching at this one straw. That’s all they’ve got and it will sink them rather than affecting M&H. They are childish people who are shooting themselves in the foot, over and over. I’d hate to be around them if this is their sole “grenade”. Charles, grow up.

      • Becks1 says:

        Let’s go along with the theme from the past few weeks about the royals being desperate to “win” the US. Most likely, the bullying report is not the grenade they think it is for the US. Even if there were “clashes” like this article says, the clashes are probably what we have speculated on here – M asks staffer to do something, staffer does not, M asks again, staffer refuses, M asks again, nothing, M finally has to call the staffer at 6 pm on a Friday night bc she has an event the following evening and the staffer did not do what was asked of them FOR that event.

        This turns into “omg she even called us on Friday nights!!!!”

        But all the anti-American stuff here is going to come back to bite them, because for better or for worse, many Americans would hear that story and shrug and say “well I guess you should have done what she asked you to do.” So these bullying stories may get them more sympathy elsewhere, but they aren’t going to help them “win the US.”

      • QuiteContrary says:

        Agree, lanne. Let us hear retellings of Andrew throwing tantrums because his teddy bears weren’t lined up correctly … of Charles tearing a sink off the wall because of a lost cufflink, or pitching a fit over a malfunctioning pen.

        And yes, as Becks1 says, Americans are just going to roll their eyes when they hear Meghan expected staffers to do their freaking jobs.

    • Nic919 says:

      Any report investigating allegations of employees being bullied would have to be disclosed pursuant to human rights and employment legislation in the UK. And while the palaces like to act like no laws apply to them it is simply a lie to say that they can hold on to a report for maximum impact.

      At minimum it would be destroyed as being biased and used as the basis for a defamation suit by Meghan against the palace. But the reality is that any employer taking years to investigate bullying complaints would be liable themselves. We are talking 4 years later from the alleged events.

      The bullying report is as authentic as the current state of Hunter Biden’s laptop.

  19. Laura D says:

    A lot of this could have been avoided if they had appointed a Diversity Tzar when they said they would. Instead of interviewing three candidates and then dismissing them as “unsuitable” they should have re-advertised. I still think the candidates were suitable but, it was the RF who didn’t like the answers they were given. It wouldn’t surprise me if one (or all) of the candidates turned them down when they realised what they would be working with.

    These people (along with the men in grey) have cultivated an institution where they barely come into contact with people of colour so, won’t be challenged on attitudes and opinions which are downright offensive. When someone like Meghan points it out to them it’s they who are offended and will have a dozen reasons as to why she’s being “sensitive”. If reaction to H&M’s documentary drags the institution into the 21st century then they will have done the rest of the family a huge favour.

  20. Riley says:

    As far as the curtsy reenactment – I thought it was funny but I don’t think Harry thought so! His facial expression borders on “not amused” so I wonder if there’s a little tension there. Or perhaps it was just because she was speaking about granny.

    • Laura D says:

      @Riley – Seriously? Tension? Do you not think Harry and Meghan discussed what would be said beforehand? If we know anything about this couple it’s that they will always put forward a united front. His facial expression was probably the same as mine. As a Brit you know you really wouldn’t curtsey like that! No-one except the most biased de-ranger would have taken offence to what Meghan was saying/doing.

      True story. Curtseygate reminded me of a former work colleague who wasn’t British and had worked at the palace. Like Meghan she was from a country where there isn’t a monarchy. TQ used to give out the Christmas presents to the staff. Like Meghan her only reference to meeting royalty was “Disney” and she knew she had to curtsey but didn’t have a clue how. When she showed me what she did I couldn’t help but, smile because she hadn’t curtsied but had done a very grand elaborate Disney type bow! TQ wasn’t in the slightest bit offended, gave her the gift thanked her for her hard work and wished her a merry Christmas!

      Moral of the story? Disney has a LOT to answer for. 😆

      • Riley says:

        @Laura – oh, I definitely worded that poorly! I did not mean tension between them, obviously they are on the same page and would have discussed prior. I don’t think tension was the right word – I’m not sure what word I was going for there!

  21. Kingston says:

    This biotch. How’s she gonna say:
    “It doesn’t help that Meghan is ……. not always consistent in her accounts and prone to flourishes.”

    And then later in the piece also say:
    “Watching this ugly, predictable backlash unfold, [i:e the racism toward sistah space] I thought how unsurprising it was that the Sussexes should feel the need to tell, and retell, their story….”

    Doesnt she see her own dissonance!??! H&M makes it clear in the docu (especially the story of how they met) that the palace DID NOT want them to be any more specific than the pigeon-hole they placed H&M in, during the televised engagement interview. Also, about not googling H: she explains that perfectly clearly in the docu. As H said, they didnt want them to tell their whole story. Then M said, “thats why we’re here.”

    So catherinemayer KNOWS that H&M were NOT allowed to speak, or certainly only allowed to speak scripted tales during the entirety of their time in the BRF. But yet she turns around and accuses M of ” not always consistent in her accounts.’


    This is why NONE of these british HYPOCRITES get any leeway from me because they are AAAAAAAALLL the same. Theyre either loud, wicked and wrong, like the RotaRats and all who get their coin by sucking at the teet of the grifters living in palaces; or theyre soft-pedalled BUT STILL WRONG like this milquetoast, catherinemayer, because she earns her coin on the periphery of the circle of the grifters living in palaces and so she straddles the fence, not wishing to lose the access she has.

    Effing bunch of cowed, pretentious, steeenking b*stards.

    • Nic919 says:

      The talk of Meghan being difficult to work for may have indeed existed in 2018 but conflating that with bullying was poor writing on the part of Mayer. We had heard the staff didn’t like 5 am emails from early on. No reference to bullying came until Knauf decided to claims this on behalf of others days before the Oprah interview.

      There is a huge difference. And Meghan would crush any allegation of bullying at this point because there is no evidence of it.

  22. Margaret says:

    Meghan wasn’t making fun of the queen, or your traditions, just it was something she wasn’t prepared for. Go back and really listen to what she said.
    Also if harry was not amused, oh well that was her take on her experience.

    • Krity says:

      I thought it was clear Meghan was not making fun of the monarchy, the family, etc — she was being self-deprecating about not knowing how to do it, and doing it wrong.

    • Riley says:

      @Margaret I know she wasn’t making fun of the queen, but I’m not sure what you mean by “my traditions”??

      @Krity this is it exactly, she was being self-deprecating. I apparently was not my verbose this morning and you hit the nail on the head of what I was trying to say.

  23. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I really love hearing everyone’s take on these stories. Thank you for educating me!

  24. Emily_C says:

    I’ll make fun of the monarchy and its “traditions.” Monarchy is terrible, the “traditions” are based on being forced to bow to the biggest thugs around, and the whole thing is very very silly at best. And Brits are better at making fun of it than anyone else. That long and proud British tradition of insulting the monarchy is an excellent one of which I thoroughly approve.

    The fact that even a supposedly left-wing British publication is still into forelock-tugging should be a national embarrassment to Britain.

  25. Mtl.ex.pat says:

    Re the “no one curtseys like that” – I seek to recall a video recently of Anne doing what seemed like a ridiculously exaggerated curtsey when she was introduced to the King of Jordan royals (I think?) She was practically on the floor – again, selective memories much?!

  26. MJM says:

    Prince “you don’t look like you’re from Manchester” Charles is the least racist. I shudder to think how bad the rest are then.

  27. Isabella says:

    @sparrow. I seriously doubt Meghan was a bully or that the royals can prove she was. The fact that you can’t provide a link to the story makes it even more doubtful.

    “Apparently, the RF is holding onto this as a grenade; its findings haven’t been published yet, not because the allegations are groundless, but because they are calculatedly working out when to throw it at M&H.”