Why didn’t Queen Elizabeth take sides in Prince Harry & William’s feud?

I’m not surprised that People Magazine’s cover story this week is about Queen Elizabeth II. Her centenary birthday is coming up soon, which is why there’s a glut of “biographies” about her. Those biographies are, by and large, actually about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, obviously. Biographers swear up and down that the dead queen hated Harry and Meghan, never wanted to speak to them alone, was irritated that they named their daughter Lilibet, and that she personally authorized Angela Kelly’s eight-years-long smear campaign on the Sussexes over a fakakta tiara. What those biographers fail to mention is that in her life, she actually seemed to stay friendly, if not close, with the Sussexes. They also don’t mention that QEII knew that Charles and William would be terrible kings and that’s why she tried to hang on for as long as possible. Well, People Mag’s cover story is partially about why QEII didn’t fix Prince Harry and Prince William’s estrangement in her final years.

The royal family is missing their matriarch, Queen Elizabeth, who died on Sept. 8, 2022, ahead of what would be her 100th birthday in late April. In this week’s PEOPLE cover story, sources address the ongoing, six-year rift between Prince Harry and Prince William — and how the late Queen Elizabeth might have offered her support behind the scenes were she still alive.

“She saw both of them, even after the estrangement,” a source close to the palace tells PEOPLE in this week’s issue. “She also believed that you might have views, but you don’t have sides. She knew that families are complicated.”

Ailsa Anderson, a former press secretary to the Queen, adds, “It’s very difficult. The only two people who can mend this are themselves. She could have been the convener, but they have to take the first steps.”

While the brothers’ relationship remains strained, a source also tells PEOPLE that there have been gradual efforts to repair Prince Harry’s relationship with his father, King Charles, and the two have been talking more since their reunion in September 2025.

Prince Harry, 41, and Prince William, 43, have had a fraught relationship for several years. It’s been widely reported that the brothers’ rupture began in 2016 when William expressed concerns about how quickly Harry’s relationship with Meghan Markle was moving. In his memoir Spare, Harry revealed the complexities of his relationship with William, which, despite a public image of closeness, was marked by tension. Harry described William as both his “beloved brother and arch nemesis,” recounting instances of verbal and even physical altercations between them.

Tensions between the couple and the royal family continued to mount in subsequent years as Harry and Meghan, 44, moved to California in 2020, broke from the royal mandate of “never complain, never explain” and shared their grievances about royal life in various high-profile interviews, a Netflix series and Harry’s 2023 memoir.

In a new book by Russell Myers, William and Catherine: The Monarchy’s New Era: The Inside Story, the author claimed that William was left “absolutely seething” by what he saw as his brother’s betrayal.

“He felt betrayed by Harry to the extent that he vowed never to speak to him again,” Myers wrote. “Such was his anger that he told one of his most trusted aides that he had “absolutely no time to entertain either of them [Harry and Meghan].”

However, Myers said that it’s Kate, 44, who has been the steadying force for his husband amid the estrangement and the multitude of other stressors that come with being the future king of England. “Her attitude was consistently ‘this will pass,’ ” he wrote of the Princess of Wales. “Whenever William would get riled up about it, she would calm the situation down and bring him back to what matters most to them. That is their family and what they are doing.”

[From People]

Years ago, there were a few stories which I believed about QEII. One, she had one precondition for meeting Harry and Meghan before Easter 2022 – that Harry speak to his father. And I also believe that she said something along the lines of “you know what your father is like” to Harry. QEII saw Charles’s flaws and she saw that he was (and is) a dogsh-t father, and I think she was actively trying to encourage father and son to have some kind of reconciliation, or for Charles to mimic her approach to the Sussexes. Of course, as soon as she died, Charles’s first act as king was to bitch out Harry and tell him that Meghan was banned from Balmoral, which certainly set the petty, vile tone for his reign. But my point is that I believe QEII cared more about making sure Charles and Harry spoke and had some kind of relationship, as opposed to her caring about Harry and William’s feud.

As for Harry and William’s feud, I believe Harry’s story, in Spare, where he noted that William had some kind of shrieking rage-fit during the Sandringham Summit, and his childish tantrum was witnessed by QEII. Everyone in that family, even QEII, walked on eggshells around William for a reason – he’s violently stupid and ill-equipped to handle stressful or difficult situations. Meaning, I think there’s a reason why QEII never really bothered to encourage William and Harry to reconcile. She probably thought S-P-A-C-E was the best option.

Cover courtesy of People. Photos courtesy of Instar, Cover Images, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

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

66 Responses to “Why didn’t Queen Elizabeth take sides in Prince Harry & William’s feud?”

  1. Tessa says:

    For one thing the queen could have called out scooter for trying to undermine harry and Meghan s relation ship. The queen approved the wedding and should have told her spoiled grandson scooter to back off. Scooter had keen wait ten years and cheated on her in the run up to the ring. He is no role model. Harry and Meghan dated for 2 years not 2 days.

    • WaterDragon says:

      The Queen did shut down Scooter on one issue. He was throwing a major tantrum because Harry was able to wear the Uniform Harry wanted for his wedding. That ground Scooter’s gears because he hated the red uniform she forced him to wear for his (WandK) wedding. She basically told him “Tough” and approved Harry’s uniform choice.

  2. Tessa says:

    The bad decisions the queen made caused much fallout.

    • Hypocrisy says:

      She used the “falling out” hate campaign for the benefit of the monarchy to distract from any and all scandals and crimes especially the ones involving Epstein and her second son.. she knew what that son had been doing for years and paid a huge out of court settlement to AMW child victim so it didn’t ruin her jubbly which says everything about who she was imo.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Elizabeth was a sh!t parent and a sh!t monarch. As a parent she coddled and protected a rapist; allowed her first son and heir to be bestie with two child molesters; tolerated her husband’s cheating which set a bad example to her kids (both Charles and Anne cheated on their spouses, leading to divorce). As a monarch, she allowed a future monarch (William) to physically assault his brother and his wife without intervening; she accepted expensive gifts from shady foreigners; allowed “cash for access” within the family; and did nothing to stop the racist attacks on the new biracial members of the royal family.

      I’ve said it before, but the deification of Elizabeth was truly baffling to me.

      • Anna says:

        Both Elizabeth and Phillip road on the coat tails of WWII when the country saw the Royal family and the country in the same boat. Both Elizabeth and Phillip were in the armed forces, doing actual work. Elizabeth’s uncles were killed in the war. Buckingham Palace was bombed. That created an incredible bond with people who felt the Royal Family suffered the same as the rest of the country. To me, that was what carried the Royal Family and that is what did not transition to Charles.

  3. Tessa says:

    More st keen spin. She caused a,lot of trouble. Did people editors see the film clip where st keen took a threatening step towards Meghan. Plus I doubt scooter listens to keen advice. He shooed her away when she started to go near harry at Philips funeral.

  4. Smart&Messy says:

    “she said something along the lines of “you know what your father is like” to Harry. QEII saw Charles’s flaws and she saw that he was (and is) a dogsh-t father”

    I agree that she could have said that but not about the last part. I don’t think she thought of parenting as a duty to provide love and emotional support/stability. I don’t think she judged C for not providing that. If she encouraged Harry to talk to him is to make him understand that he should accept his father as he is and go along with it for the sake of the monarchy.

    I think people give her too much credit. She was a ditherer, just like KC. And she was not any better equiped to deal with the changing expectations towards her family.

    • Monika says:

      I agree. QEII was not the best mother herself, very distanced. She and Philip left raising the children to the nannies. Apperently she had more time for Andrew when he was born and we know how this turned out.
      Tbf QEII was raised in this system and probably did not see anything wrong with this.
      So imo QEII created some of the present problems.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles learned nothing from it. He did not become a good father himself. In some ways he is worse.

  5. Debbie says:

    I thought the queen HAD taken sides in the William/Harry feud. By standing by and doing nothing while William was busy involving himself in his brother’s romance, marriage, where the Sussexes lived, and their royal business, the queen effectively took William’s side.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      Exactly!! “Recollections may vary” didn’t she say that about H and Ms story?

    • Jais says:

      Well, technically she will support the future monarch no matter what. I’m endlessly fascinated by the lack of fluffy articles about the relationship bw the late queen and William. So yeah, like Kaiser, I do think she didn’t even bother trying to get William and Harry to have some sort of a relationship. Bc I think she too had next to no relationship with William as well.

      • Tessa says:

        The Queen renovated KP apartments for the Cambridges (then Keen and Scooter) and apparently was confident they would step up royal work. Instead, Scooter announced that he wanted to be an Ambulance co-pilot and postpone full time work. She let him do this even setting things up for him. She indulged his whims and perhaps he would show anger if she did not agree or moaned about the “weight” of royal work as he put it.

      • MFS says:

        This is exactly right: she did take a side. She sided with the monarchy. 🤷‍♀️

      • Monika says:

        @Jais that is an interesting point that there are no articles about Williams and QEIi relationship in the BM, not even the newly published biographies of QEIi seem to cover QEII and Williams relationship.
        As far as I remember QEIi met William regularly for tea while he was attending Eton. I think it was to prepare William for his role as Monarch and now there are reports about concerns that William being unprepared for his role as FK. You would think the BM would do a fluff piece about a special relationship between QEII and William, but no, nothing. Interesting.

      • jais says:

        There are next to none and I’m so baffled by it. The Queen was beloved so why don’t they even try to lie about their relationship. Say it was so special or whatever. It’s not like the press is above making things up. I can only imagine it’s bc they can’t. I don’t think she wanted to spend time with him. So I agree that the queen sided with the future monarch but she also was not going to force Harry to play nice with William. Bc she herself didn’t want to be around him either. I’m just still surprised the press isn’t even trying to lie about there being some sort of special relationship bw William and the queen. If they can embiggen him as some super diplomat then surely they can embiggen how close he was to the Queen. So why don’t they? At the end of the day though she allowed William to do whatever.

    • Lorelei says:

      ITA. By staying silent throughout months, YEARS of appalling attacks on both H&M, that was basically equivalent to taking W&K’s side.

    • Becks1 says:

      💯💯💯

      She took the side of the Crown, or in this case the future Crown. She let William do what he wanted and treat Harry however he wanted. Maybe decades ago she didn’t realize how William was being raised – she was busier and still traveling and spent less time just hanging out at Windsor and Sandringham and BP (I know she worked until she died but more and more of her work was local, especially after the pandemic.) But at some point she had to realize what a liability he was. Maybe she thought that by Harry leaving it would calm William down and he would get over it. Instead the opposite happened. Now that said we did see her put her foot down a few times with William (I’m sure he didn’t want H&M anywhere near the Jubbly, and she changed the procession at the commonwealth service so William and Kate weren’t part of it.)

      Do i think the queen could have put a stop the “feud”? Yes. but not without enraging William and its clear the family is terrified of William in a way they’ve never been terrified of Charles (i.e. its not just because he’s the heir.) one of my theories has long been that William has threatened to walk away and that terrifies them – and maybe even more so after Harry proved you CAN walk away (but of course William is no Harry.) But I think there is even something else going on.

      It just doesn’t make sense that William is constantly catered to by the family, by the press, etc.

      But anyway……yeah by not choosing a side she was choosing.

    • Irisrose says:

      One of the few pro-Sussex things she did was move their official Household under BP in late 2018 or early 2019.

      William screamed through sources he would remain in charge, they would remain under his control at KP. QEII doubled down and moved their Household.

      It was too little too late. Harry should have been removed from duchy funding and KP control the day he turned 18.

      She did allow them a private christening for Archie, which enabled the names of godparents to be kept private.

      • Becks1 says:

        I wonder what specifically happened that prompted her to move them under BP. There have been references in this post to the times QEII DID act decisively and most of those things happened bc something forced her hand (i.e. the Bashir interview, I think Burrell was called to testify, etc.) So wonder what it was here. Maybe the leak about the potential Africa move? I can’t remember if harry got super specific about this in Spare.

        Its clear she had an idea of how bad both William and Charles could be, and I genuinely think she did not want Harry and Meghan to step back. Maybe the former dictated why she allowed the latter.

        But regardless, she could have done more for years to support H&M and did not.

      • Irisrose says:

        It may have been William’s (possibly) criminal attempt to steal the Hubb money.

  6. YankeeDoodles says:

    The late Queen was legendary for not interfering in her family members’ private lives, which sometimes worked well and sometimes simply postponed the inevitable. But when she did act she did it with complete conviction and speedy dispatch. She watched Charles & Diana rip each other to pieces in the press for about 10 years with stoic resignation but immediately after the Bashir interview she instructed them to divorce legally. That was November ‘95 (Guy Fawkes Day, or, IIRC, Elizabeth & Philips’ wedding anniversary, I forget which) and the divorce was finalised — IIRC — in August 1996. She would have agreed with Mitterrand, who advised, “Il faut donner du temps au temps,” you have to give time some time. Time is like a developing solution, it allows character to emerge under the pressure of events.

    • Tessa says:

      Yet it’s odd that she did not order the divorce after Charles named Camilla (in 1994) as the other woman, and forced the Parker Bowles divorce. She made no comment.

    • Truthiness says:

      Yeah she was capable of action. When the whistleblower came forth in 2019 about Andrew’s corrupt practices with his money man Rowland, Andrew was removed from Buckingham Palace, no offices allowed for him anymore. Too little too late of course. Andrew pitched a MAJOR fit over it but there was no going back.

      • lemon&lime says:

        She also acted very quickly when…I can’t remember the full story…..Diana’s butler, Paul B., was being sued for theft(?) and was due to testify and spill secrets. IIRC she and Charles were photographed talking in a car and then all charges dropped. Paul himself credited her for charges dropped.

    • Lorelei says:

      Yes, haven’t we heard that Philip was the one who kept the family members in line? And man does it show. Things started to go to sh!t (well, worse than they already were) after he died. The Queen played ostrich.

  7. North of Boston says:

    The Queen was alive and reigning when Harry was set up to be the brother trashed in the press in his teens and 20’s, a scapegoat while William got a pass for the same and worse.

    She was there the during the “straight out of Compton” press, when Sussexes had their successful Australian tour and immediately became targets of Charles William their palace staff, her palace staff and the press. And during all the wedding tiara, tights, flowers and tears nonsense.

    And she was still alive and reigning when Archie was born and depicted in the press as a chimpanzee.

    Don’t tell me QEII didn’t take sides. Staying silent or ‘neutral’ when someone is being viscously attacked is a choice, it IS taking sides WITH the abusers, slanderers, attackers.

    • YankeeDoodles says:

      This is to reply to @NorthofBoston, that is my hometown!!! The late Queen made sure to release a picture of herself and Philip with Meghan and Harry and Archie and Doria Ragland, in which she is visibly delighted and positively motherly with her great-grandchild, it is an image that reads of nothing but love and should have silenced all the haters.

      • Becks1 says:

        I dont think she released that picture, I think the Sussexes did via SussexRoyal. And maybe it was with her permission but thats still very different from the official royal family account releasing it.

      • samipup says:

        GO SOX. Born in Carlisle.

    • Mayp says:

      💯💯💯💯💯, @northofboston

    • Kara says:

      Thank you! Because she made sure to lend her support and signal to the press to lay off the attacks when it came to Carrie Johnson (Boris Johnson’s wife) when she was pregnant. She never lent any type of protection to Meghan. We learned Harry wrote the papers multiple times and it was MPs from cross parties who called things out. That alone should have told the queen where public support was leaning.

    • Lorelei says:

      @North of Boston, again, I need to read all of the comments before making my own because I agree completely. By staying silent she WAS taking W&K’s side! It was infuriating, especially since we know how much Harry loved her and how important she was to him. She hung him out to dry during one of the worst times of his life — when she was really the only person who could have changed things.

    • IdlesAtCranky says:

      @NorthofBoston

      All that you say is true. So why did she favor the Heir instead of the Spare?

      As others said, her primary motivator was to protect the Crown. And part of that has always been to refrain from criticizing the Heir, as well as to suppress criticism of the reigning monarch.

      She herself did that for decades by using and abusing her own sister, Margaret, to make herself look better by providing fodder for gossip and negative press.

      She also let her Princess of Wales take the heat in the press and in private for years, despite openly abusive behavior toward Diana from Charles. Yes, she doubtless found Diana annoying, but I think that was primarily because Diana wouldn’t play the game as QEII herself played it, and keep her mouth firmly shut about any disputes, disappointments, or betrayals from her spouse.

      This was her duty as she saw it, and it was firmly enforced by her mother, who was all in on the old code of the aristocracy — if a couple, or family members, can’t get along, they simply “find themselves unable to spend as much time together as they would like.”

      Never ever air your even mildy scented laundry in public.
      Never let the peasants see you sweat.
      Never complain, never explain.

      Why? Because if the peasants realize that the aristos, and especially the royals, are actually just like them, the mystique is destroyed, and the ability to control the flow of money and power upward vanishes with it. That is a truth the current Left Behinds have utterly lost sight of.

      If you look at it in this light, all of her actions toward all of her children and grandchildren suddenly make sense. Even her coddling of Andrew. Better he be allowed to run riot in private than let his ugly predilections be exposed (plus of course he was her favorite.)

      I really wonder what kind of mother, and what kind of Queen, she might have been if her father had lived a decade or two longer.

      Because as it worked out, she really was quite the awful parent. Every one of her kids turned out badly, her sister self-destructed, her grandchildren aside from Harry are generally awful too. It’s really quite sad.

  8. another cross to carry says:

    Ask the good people of Jamaica how nice qe11 was! Ask the Rastafarians of Jamaica about the abuse they endured in the name of qe11!

    THERE IS NOTHING NICE ABOUT QE11!

  9. Neeve says:

    I think Harry truly loved his Grandma and accepted her flaws but im sure he was hurt that she could have possibly done more. But its clear that Harry and Meghan have decided Never to tell how they really feel about the Queen,thats just one step too far.

    • Blujfly says:

      I think that, rightfully or wrongfully, they truly believe the Queen was not calling the shots at the Sandringham summit and that previous attempts she did make – like bringing back Sir Christopher Geidt to find a path forward for the Sussexes – were being deliberately destroyed by Harry’s father and brother and she could not or would not be able to withstand a united front on that.

  10. Beech says:

    Appros of nothing but I looked up “fakakta”. It’s been an enduring mystery as in how does one pronounce said word and what does it all mean?! I can now rest easy, it’s a Yiddish word and all this time I thought it was a made up word. Carry on.

    • Neeve says:

      I have always read it as simply FAKATA 🤣

    • 2131Jan says:

      My grandparents and parents spoke Yiddish. They used it to keep us kids from knowing what they were saying, but of course, you figure it out after enough time lol. I learned it as FER-CAHK-TAH (Ferkacktah). In Yiddish it means “shitty”, or “f*cked up”

      Funnily enough, growing up we *could* say it in Yiddish, but my parents would *not* let us say it in English lol.

  11. Chantal1 says:

    She did take sides – the monarchy’s side. Always. She did show some affection for the Sussexes through some of her actions towards them, but constantly allowed them to be perpetual scapegoats in order to protect Charles, Wills, & Andrew.

  12. GoodWitchGlenda says:

    Woman who grew up in emotionally stunted family continues to perpetuate emotionally stunted family patterns. Fork found in kitchen.

  13. bisynaptic says:

    She didn’t know how to run a family well. It’s a rare skill set.

  14. Theresa says:

    The side eye William is giving Meghan is very telling. He cant stand that she is biracial and that Harry got to marry the love of his life while he is sitting there married to bland catherine

    • Lorelei says:

      The differences between Kate and Meghan were made so strikingly obvious when they did that “Fab Four” event on a stage when Kate was heavily pregnant. William had to have seen how much better Meghan was able to do the job. His wife was pathetically silent the entire time, and Meghan spoke articulately and off the cuff. Not to mention the cookbook and SmartWorks. Harry’s wife (fiancée?) was making it so clear to anyone watching how absolutely useless Kate is and William has never gotten over it. Looks like he never will. Petty little man. It’s not Harry’s fault that he chose Kate and that the two of them decided to do as little as humanly possible and vacation constantly.

  15. QuiteContrary says:

    “Whenever William would get riled up about it, (Kate) would calm the situation down and bring him back to what matters most to them.”

    Oh, pulleeeease. This is absurd. Kate revels in the discord between Harry and William.

  16. Amy Bee says:

    I agree with everything with Kaiser says here but I’ll add that I think the Queen could have stepped in when she saw that Charles and William were briefing against Harry and Meghan. There is a refusal in the press to acknowledge that William and Charles were briefing against Harry and Meghan.

  17. Blithe says:

    Eh. I get that Queen Elizabeth was the monarch and the matriarch of her family — and that there are expectations that go along with that, but she was also around 90 when Harry and Meghan met. While I think she used her soft power well — in ways that seem publicly protective of Meghan and Harry, I think the expectations that are often heaped on her aren’t realistic given her age. In what other families is there the expectation that a nonagenarian chair family meetings, push to have their own machinations implemented, while effectively managing and disciplining their adult children — already past their own prime in life? Yeah, it would have been great if she had done more, but as a nonagenarian with serious and debilitating health issues, I think Elizabeth probably did the best she could with what she had to work with. I’d also guess that Harry and Meghan recognized that, unlike the rest of Harry’s family, his ailing, grieving grandmother at least tried, and openly cared about them enough to celebrate and acknowledge them — both publicly and privately — as much loved members of her family.

    • sueinorleans says:

      Bravo, Blithe, well said! She was 90, grieving and in poor health and people still expected her to control William and Charles? Harry handled things with his grandmother in a loving and protective manner. He got it right.

    • lemon&lime says:

      But she controlled so much and didn’t turn any of it over to anyone. money, housing, clothing allowances, transportation, foreign travel assignments, seating plans, you name it. So it IS fair to criticize, even st 90. Because she wouldn’t resign and wouldn’t do her job. And when she did do it, she did it badly.

      • Becks1 says:

        if she couldn’t do her job, as CEO of the Firm, then she should have abdicated. This was both a family and professional matter.

      • Irisrose says:

        When your job says you’re ordained by God – and you believe it – retirement isn’t that easy. This is what Harry made clear, why he was worried she didn’t have good people around her. And she didn’t.

      • Sueinorleans says:

        The solution to her not adequately controlling Charles was to abdicate? And put Charles completely in charge?

      • Becks1 says:

        @Sueinorleans i didn’t say anything about her not being able to control Charles. I was responding to the comment about how much she controlled even at 90, which was in response to the comment above. this particular comment – ” it would have been great if she had done more, but as a nonagenarian with serious and debilitating health issues, I think Elizabeth probably did the best she could with what she had to work with” especially. In her 90s with serious and debilitating health issues that meant she could not perform her JOB – not her role as grandmother but her JOB – yes, she should have abdicated.

        And I get she was never going to do that and that there were all these complicated feelings around it because of her uncle. But to me that’s part of the failure on her part.

  18. YankeeDoodles says:

    The only person who could have seriously checked William is his own mother & she would have been team Harry 100%.

    • Becks1 says:

      I disagree. The late queen could have. charles could have. Not by the time he was 30, maybe not even by the time he was 20. But they could have from a younger age. That’s why so much of this is their fault. they enabled him and allowed him and now the monarchy is stuck with him.

  19. Monlette says:

    Nobody in the Firm is ever going to speak out against anyone in the direct LOS. That’s not personal, that’s business. The whole monarchy relies on being God’s chosen, and if even the monarchy argues that point they are sunk.
    I guarantee that if by some bizarre twist of fate the Cambridge line was struck, the rota would be pivoting to paint Harry and Meghan a modern day Ivanhoe and Rebecca while running daily smear pieces on Will and Kate. I mean that’s what they did in the abdication crisis.

  20. Gabby says:

    Does it even matter anymore? Because it seems like estrangement from William has only enhanced Harry’s life. Can you imagine if the Sussexes had to deal with him on a regular basis? No thank you.

  21. Beverley says:

    Bottom line: Ol Betty saw the media attacks on Meghan even before Meghan and Harry were engaged. She saw the “straight outta Compton” headlines. She saw her newborn great grandson mocked in the press as a chimpanzee. Yet, silence. She did nothing, she said nothing even before the debilitating illness of her last few years. Not once did she raise a finger to rebuke the press or defend the Sussexes.

    To me, that one undeniable fact speaks volumes.

    • Monlette says:

      Exactly! Even if the royals legitimately disliked her, the attacks were centered on her ethnic background. You can easily dislike one individual of color and still view racism as a social cancer. The fact that not one working royal spoke out against it really shows them for what they are, or at least whom they are trying to impress.

  22. therese says:

    My all-time favorite picture of Baby Billie. If ever a look epitomized who a person is. Over grown, over blown baby boy. But really, I see his point about wanting his brother to wait longer with Meghan. I mean, look how well that worked out for him.

  23. jferber says:

    Bj, sorry, not being good on the computer, I can’t find the clip for you. But I’m sure someone else can. When I saw the threatening step, she reminded me of the Yul Brynner character in Westworld, a killer robot going after all the human guests. I still think of Kate that way. But she’s worse than the Brynner character, because he was just a robot. Kate, supposedly, is human. Very crass and unfeminine (I’ve never used the second adjective against any woman except Kate). She really was like a killer robot.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment