People need to fuck off bringing Diana up. I’m sick of the “poor Harry” narrative. What about William he went through the exact same thing? and unlike Harry he’s going to be king one day so he would have faced more pressure then Harry ever has. Yet he’s got a beautiful family, a classy woman and defends his family.
- Notice
Baguette
VIP Member
I want to post the whole of the Economist leader - it's so well written, thoughtful and devastating to M&H' . But it also represents a burning of bridges. For the duchess at least, there will be no going back.' (In full here https://archive.ph/Q1PSq
That interview
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle take on the firm
The palace’s nightmare made flesh
The British monarchy’s record of absorbing outsiders is patchy. In recent times, it has had one outstanding success (Kate Middleton, Prince William’s wife), several modest successes (including Sophie Rhys-Jones, Prince Edward’s wife), a few questionable results (among them Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew’s ex-wife) and two stunning failures (Diana Spencer, the late Princess of Wales, and Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s wife). On March 7th the world was treated to dramatic evidence of the latest disaster, in the form of an interview which Prince Harry and Ms Markle—the Duke and Duchess of Sussex—gave to Oprah Winfrey, America’s most famous talk-show host.
The revelations in the interview were in part familiar. The loneliness of which the duchess spoke, and the lack of support from within the “firm”, echoed Princess Diana’s experience. “This was very, very clear,” the duchess responded to a question about whether she was having suicidal thoughts. “Very clear and very scary. I didn’t know who to turn to in that.” A new factor, and a particularly explosive one, was race. The duchess, herself mixed-race, said that when she was pregnant with her son Archie, her husband had told her there were “conversations about how dark his skin might be”, and she implied that the issue was connected to decisions about her son’s title and security for the family. Both declined to say who had raised the issue, though Ms Winfrey later said Prince Harry had told her it was neither the queen nor Prince Philip.
The couple’s evident closeness during the interview underlined another big difference between their situation and Princess Diana’s. They are together, having left the country—rather as Wallis Simpson, the last American to marry a senior member of the royal family, and Edward VIII did, when they went to live in Paris. The painful consequences of Prince Harry’s decision to move to America for his relationship with his family also came out in the interview: for a while, the prince said, his father stopped taking his calls.
These revelations indicate what is presumably part of the purpose of the interview. There has been plenty of criticism in Britain of the couple’s decision to leave the country for California, and of their attempt to retain some of the privileges of royalty while doing so. A prime-time slot with the world’s most famous interviewer—who is also a friend, and attended their wedding—is a good way of putting their side of the story. Such exposure should also enhance their celebrity and popularity, on which their income depends now that they have been financially cut off by the royal family. But it also represents a burning of bridges. For the duchess at least, there will be no going back.
Two days after the interview, the palace issued a neutral, conciliatory response: “the issues raised, particularly of race, are concerning…they will be addressed by the family privately.” But it included a carefully worded phrase casting doubt on the notion that the couple’s account was the objective truth: “some recollections,” it said, “may vary.” And somebody, whether inside or outside the royal household, had launched what looked like a pre-emptive strike. After the interview was recorded, but before it went out, a complaint made against the duchess in 2018 by a senior member of staff was leaked to the Times. Jason Knauf, at the time press secretary to both princes, wrote to Simon Case, then Prince William’s private secretary and now head of the civil service, saying that she had “bullied two pas out of the household”, and was bullying a third. The timing of the leak of a complaint from two and a half years ago suggests that a point was being made: when a relationship breaks down, there tends to be fault on both sides.
Beyond the sniping, the fundamental problem, with which Princess Diana struggled, is clear. Being a royal is about serving an institution. It does not work for those who crave individual attention. The job requires self-effacement, at which the queen, who has not said a single interesting thing in public in her 70 years on the throne, has excelled. That’s not because she is a boring person, but because she understands the demands of the job. The Duchess of Cambridge, aka Ms Middleton, is, similarly, brilliantly bland. The Duchess of Sussex is not; and her complaint in her interview that while she was a royal she was not allowed to talk to Ms Winfrey without other people in the room demonstrated her failure to grasp the need to subsume individual needs in those of the institution. Given the potential impact of such an interview on the monarchy, it would have been bizarre for the household’s communications chiefs to allow her to negotiate with the world’s most powerful interviewer by herself.
As it is, the duchess has done the interview on her own terms, and its consequences are exactly those that the palace dreaded. It has exposed the royal family to criticism to which it cannot properly respond publicly without getting into a shouting match that would damage the monarchy further, and it has sharply divided opinion (see chart), thus undermining the institution’s unifying role. Younger Britons—along with Americans—are more likely to take the view that the monarchy and the British press are institutionally racist, that the duchess should have been given more support and that she is justified in airing her grievances in public. Older Britons are more likely to be of the opinion that she is an adult who should have thought harder about the job before signing up to it, that if she was depressed, her husband, who founded a mental-health charity, could have got help for her, and that the couple have wilfully and selfishly damaged an institution to which Prince Harry’s grandmother and father have devoted their lives. Britain’s reputation as a socially liberal, racially tolerant country has taken a hit, too.
Yet the interview may do the monarchy less damage than the current furore suggests. Earlier, similar troubles did not much dent its popularity. Even during the split with Princess Diana, it barely budged. That may, of course, have a lot to do with the queen. Ironically, given her determination to obscure her personality, she is personally very popular. When she dies, things may look different.
Editor's note: This article has been updated since publication to note the palace's response
This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Taking on the firm"
That interview
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle take on the firm
The palace’s nightmare made flesh
The British monarchy’s record of absorbing outsiders is patchy. In recent times, it has had one outstanding success (Kate Middleton, Prince William’s wife), several modest successes (including Sophie Rhys-Jones, Prince Edward’s wife), a few questionable results (among them Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew’s ex-wife) and two stunning failures (Diana Spencer, the late Princess of Wales, and Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s wife). On March 7th the world was treated to dramatic evidence of the latest disaster, in the form of an interview which Prince Harry and Ms Markle—the Duke and Duchess of Sussex—gave to Oprah Winfrey, America’s most famous talk-show host.
The revelations in the interview were in part familiar. The loneliness of which the duchess spoke, and the lack of support from within the “firm”, echoed Princess Diana’s experience. “This was very, very clear,” the duchess responded to a question about whether she was having suicidal thoughts. “Very clear and very scary. I didn’t know who to turn to in that.” A new factor, and a particularly explosive one, was race. The duchess, herself mixed-race, said that when she was pregnant with her son Archie, her husband had told her there were “conversations about how dark his skin might be”, and she implied that the issue was connected to decisions about her son’s title and security for the family. Both declined to say who had raised the issue, though Ms Winfrey later said Prince Harry had told her it was neither the queen nor Prince Philip.
The couple’s evident closeness during the interview underlined another big difference between their situation and Princess Diana’s. They are together, having left the country—rather as Wallis Simpson, the last American to marry a senior member of the royal family, and Edward VIII did, when they went to live in Paris. The painful consequences of Prince Harry’s decision to move to America for his relationship with his family also came out in the interview: for a while, the prince said, his father stopped taking his calls.
These revelations indicate what is presumably part of the purpose of the interview. There has been plenty of criticism in Britain of the couple’s decision to leave the country for California, and of their attempt to retain some of the privileges of royalty while doing so. A prime-time slot with the world’s most famous interviewer—who is also a friend, and attended their wedding—is a good way of putting their side of the story. Such exposure should also enhance their celebrity and popularity, on which their income depends now that they have been financially cut off by the royal family. But it also represents a burning of bridges. For the duchess at least, there will be no going back.
Two days after the interview, the palace issued a neutral, conciliatory response: “the issues raised, particularly of race, are concerning…they will be addressed by the family privately.” But it included a carefully worded phrase casting doubt on the notion that the couple’s account was the objective truth: “some recollections,” it said, “may vary.” And somebody, whether inside or outside the royal household, had launched what looked like a pre-emptive strike. After the interview was recorded, but before it went out, a complaint made against the duchess in 2018 by a senior member of staff was leaked to the Times. Jason Knauf, at the time press secretary to both princes, wrote to Simon Case, then Prince William’s private secretary and now head of the civil service, saying that she had “bullied two pas out of the household”, and was bullying a third. The timing of the leak of a complaint from two and a half years ago suggests that a point was being made: when a relationship breaks down, there tends to be fault on both sides.
Beyond the sniping, the fundamental problem, with which Princess Diana struggled, is clear. Being a royal is about serving an institution. It does not work for those who crave individual attention. The job requires self-effacement, at which the queen, who has not said a single interesting thing in public in her 70 years on the throne, has excelled. That’s not because she is a boring person, but because she understands the demands of the job. The Duchess of Cambridge, aka Ms Middleton, is, similarly, brilliantly bland. The Duchess of Sussex is not; and her complaint in her interview that while she was a royal she was not allowed to talk to Ms Winfrey without other people in the room demonstrated her failure to grasp the need to subsume individual needs in those of the institution. Given the potential impact of such an interview on the monarchy, it would have been bizarre for the household’s communications chiefs to allow her to negotiate with the world’s most powerful interviewer by herself.
As it is, the duchess has done the interview on her own terms, and its consequences are exactly those that the palace dreaded. It has exposed the royal family to criticism to which it cannot properly respond publicly without getting into a shouting match that would damage the monarchy further, and it has sharply divided opinion (see chart), thus undermining the institution’s unifying role. Younger Britons—along with Americans—are more likely to take the view that the monarchy and the British press are institutionally racist, that the duchess should have been given more support and that she is justified in airing her grievances in public. Older Britons are more likely to be of the opinion that she is an adult who should have thought harder about the job before signing up to it, that if she was depressed, her husband, who founded a mental-health charity, could have got help for her, and that the couple have wilfully and selfishly damaged an institution to which Prince Harry’s grandmother and father have devoted their lives. Britain’s reputation as a socially liberal, racially tolerant country has taken a hit, too.
Yet the interview may do the monarchy less damage than the current furore suggests. Earlier, similar troubles did not much dent its popularity. Even during the split with Princess Diana, it barely budged. That may, of course, have a lot to do with the queen. Ironically, given her determination to obscure her personality, she is personally very popular. When she dies, things may look different.
Editor's note: This article has been updated since publication to note the palace's response
This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Taking on the firm"
amethyst_unicorn
Chatty Member
I am way behind and struggling to catch up so massive apologies to everyone if there are duplicates in what I am saying here.
Miss you @freda19, know how you feel about needing time out - had a complete psychological breakdown @ 9 years ago (work related plus PTSD related to work and childhood sexual abuse and DV from first marriage ) and it's taken a long time to get to a point of functioning, and yet it's tattle - on certain threads - that gives me a safe space and strength to overcome the days when I feel overwhelmed by the injustice of things around me and take up the mantle and be the strong person I was before the breakdown and not let the b*st*RDS grind me down!
Yes, this current situation with this narcissistic witch has triggered me somewhat - I felt very low, very tearful. Even though I despise Harry for his role in abbetting her in this dastardly and wicked way to divide people around the world just to promote herself financially and through media, I do also feel a modicum of pity for the child within him that is clucking with the chickens...
Thank you, everyone on tattle, specifically everyone on this thread, for keeping me sane. When everyone around me, my beloved children and nieces, are exploding with sympathy for the evil witch from the west of California and Wokeness, thank you for keeping me hopeful that this too shall pass. Hubby does try, but we relocated I don't have many other "sensible" other sources to strengthen me when I occasionally feel a blip.
Which makes me think...
Megain as the wicked witch from Oz,
Omid as one of the flying monkeys...
There's a whole picture developing there for @Pom Bear ...
Miss you @freda19, know how you feel about needing time out - had a complete psychological breakdown @ 9 years ago (work related plus PTSD related to work and childhood sexual abuse and DV from first marriage ) and it's taken a long time to get to a point of functioning, and yet it's tattle - on certain threads - that gives me a safe space and strength to overcome the days when I feel overwhelmed by the injustice of things around me and take up the mantle and be the strong person I was before the breakdown and not let the b*st*RDS grind me down!
Yes, this current situation with this narcissistic witch has triggered me somewhat - I felt very low, very tearful. Even though I despise Harry for his role in abbetting her in this dastardly and wicked way to divide people around the world just to promote herself financially and through media, I do also feel a modicum of pity for the child within him that is clucking with the chickens...
Thank you, everyone on tattle, specifically everyone on this thread, for keeping me sane. When everyone around me, my beloved children and nieces, are exploding with sympathy for the evil witch from the west of California and Wokeness, thank you for keeping me hopeful that this too shall pass. Hubby does try, but we relocated I don't have many other "sensible" other sources to strengthen me when I occasionally feel a blip.
Which makes me think...
Megain as the wicked witch from Oz,
Omid as one of the flying monkeys...
There's a whole picture developing there for @Pom Bear ...
freda19
VIP Member
Quick visit. Ok, I think Clooney will keep out of it. Amal is very into international shit regarding Human Rights in her job and the fact of smeggy wearing those earrings that came from a guy who OKed the butchering of a journalist will not sit well with her.
Elton. In the disney elevator pitch where hazza pimped out his wife you can see Elton in the back ground get a bit of a wobble and David Furnish assisting him into a chair. OK, he's not in great health anyway, but since it keeps popping up (the video) I can't help but wonder if he's thinking "Holy fuck! Is he pimping out his wife? On the feckin' red carpet! Jesus, Diana would be mortified
... and his legs went wobbly at witnessing the horror of a Prince pimping out his wife for work.Now, some have mentioned the MM sex tape. I saw the alleged one. Very good likeness facially (really looks like a younger prettier smeggy) but waaaay to many tattoos and far too sexy shapely a figure to be smeggy. Deffo not her.
BUT, I do have the interview with some sex tape guys who said they were offered a smeggy sex tape when smeggy got engaged to hazza back 4 years ago. From a Canadian woman who was trying to sell it. They asked for a snippet, and are absolutely certain it was her, not a doubt in their minds. So much so that they shit a brick and turned it down in case MI5/6 whatever came after them, so they deleted what she sent and told the Toronto woman it was too hot to handle considering who she was about to marry. I wonder if it was that TP2 woman (obviously french canadian) who occasionally snipes at smeggy on twitter.
I'll dig it out tomorrow and post. The interview, not the tape obviously.
EnoughAlready
VIP Member
Had a night off Tattle last night because the other half was like “can we have a few hours without you fuming about the Royals tonight” 
....Maybe I should have told him the thread turned to spit roasts, skills, sloppy bj’s and back doors, his little eyes would have lit right up ha, I always miss the good bits!!! 
....Maybe I should have told him the thread turned to spit roasts, skills, sloppy bj’s and back doors, his little eyes would have lit right up ha, I always miss the good bits!!! Me too. In fact I think her story ties in with all the woke crap about Meghan. MM fans and by extension the woke brigade bang on about these invisible instances of racism, sexism, homophobia in terms of light hearted comments, jokes or even the ‘wrong’ look at someone at work.
What happened to Sarah Everard is a genuine tragedy and an issue that should be highlighted- women do not feel safe on the streets at night. That is a properly important issue, not whether piers Morgan says he doesn’t believe you or the royal family make a curious comment as to what your baby might look like. Meghan is a disgrace for making out she is an innocent victim who has faced any hardship at the hands of the RF or British public and press.
Chilli pepper 19
VIP Member
If she's so keen for emails yo be released then maybe all the ones she sent to her staff should be released too as I suspect she won't be so keen now. This is classic Merkin and gives me hope again. When she seems to be in a winning position she can't just step away but ends up blowing itHow fucking childish can you get?
Meghan's friend Omid Scobie quotes email he claims she sent to Palace
Omid Scobie claimed Meghan emailed a royal aide asking if Kensington Palace could 'set the record straight' about allegations she made Kate cry in November 2018.www.dailymail.co.uk
We don't care about this silly tiff and yet Meghan still seems to think that it's important that we know Kate made her cry.
Too late bitch we couldn't care leas if Kate shat on your wig, in fact we'd all bloody applaud if she had
I just can’t believe how stupid her fans are that they don’t see the blatant contradiction. According to Meghan, the RF is a racist institution (she didn’t say this as a quote but it was pretty much implied throughout, and when Harry chipped in about the media). So hideously racist that she had to leave. Her fans say it’s antiquated, out of date and should be abolished. And yet, Miss Narcissist is desperate for her son to be a fucking Prince?! Ridiculous hypocrisy. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so infuriating.And he will get a title, he has the right to be styled as Earl of Dumbarton already and he will inherit Harry’s title (Earl of Dumbarton, Baron of Killeel, Duke of Sussex) when Harry dies.
she just got her knickers in a twist over Prince, a title he was never entitled to at birth anyway.
but isn’t Meghan soooooo progressive and forward thinking, what a change maker
Baguette
VIP Member
The Palace handled this correctly. The Montecito traitors were itching for a BP point by point response to keep the headlines rolling.
ETA. Just realised, This is clever BP PR. Suggest that the Palace could have issued a detailed rebuttal (i.e. they have the evidence) but decided not to. The 'for now' is silent... Subtle stuff - I nearly missed it!
www.thesun.co.uk
And a source today told The Sun Online: "There were different reactions when the palace was working out what to do.
"One, to take the Queen's view, to issue the quiet statement saying we are unhappy to hear they were unhappy.
"But Prince Charles wanted to rebut, point by point, the claims thad had been made."
However, they said that the Royal Family did not want to get caught up in a "tit for tat" rebuttal.
ETA. Just realised, This is clever BP PR. Suggest that the Palace could have issued a detailed rebuttal (i.e. they have the evidence) but decided not to. The 'for now' is silent... Subtle stuff - I nearly missed it!
Charles 'wanted to issue point-by-point rebuttal' to Harry & Meg interview
PRINCE Charles wanted to issue a point-by-point rebuttal to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, it was claimed today. The Prince of Wales is said to have …
www.thesun.co.uk
And a source today told The Sun Online: "There were different reactions when the palace was working out what to do.
"One, to take the Queen's view, to issue the quiet statement saying we are unhappy to hear they were unhappy.
"But Prince Charles wanted to rebut, point by point, the claims thad had been made."
However, they said that the Royal Family did not want to get caught up in a "tit for tat" rebuttal.
JAR21
VIP Member
Finally made it to this thread.
Harry looks really unhappy and has done since just after the wedding. If Brenda realises this, and is trying to get him back on side and back home again, how do we think she is going to be able to have any conversation with him, without the manipulator listening in and monitoring what is being said, and continuing to poison his mind?
Harry looks really unhappy and has done since just after the wedding. If Brenda realises this, and is trying to get him back on side and back home again, how do we think she is going to be able to have any conversation with him, without the manipulator listening in and monitoring what is being said, and continuing to poison his mind?
Miscanthus
VIP Member
Well done for taking action. I can't believe the Harkles were Commonwealth ambassadors representing the Queen. Smeg is absolutely smarting that their roles were removed..... 'so much has been lost already'
No way on earth do I believe Hazno when he says they would come back in a heartbeat. How would anything be different?
If they came back we would have two competing courts....Harkles and Cambridges. It's clear that she engineered a split with the 'Fab Four', wanted to do her own things in her own way, was crowing that there was jealously about the success of their Australian tour. If Hazno had the right wife they could have been a huge support and asset to William and Kate. I'm sure if Kate had plans for a fourth child its been shelved after this as she is needed on the front line.
WadieHaddadsChocolates
Chatty Member
You know, if people want to get into 'problematic' articles regarding Narcle, they seem to forget the utterly tasteless VICE article that discussed which RF family members would have to DIE for Smeggers to become 'Queen' (actually she would be Queen Consort only, which they don't seem to realise, but anyway):
Who would have to die for Meghan Markle to be the queen of England? (vice.com)
Yes, it's basically about succession, but couched in such an unpleasant way, basically implying that they'd be fine with everyone including small kids getting murdered if it could someone put an American 'person of colour' near the throne.
Then there's the truly cretinous one where they rank royal CHILDREN from 'worst' to 'best', because of course picking on kids is fine as long as you pick on the 'correct' ones:
Royal Babies, Ranked from 'Worst' to 'We Renounce Democracy; Be Our King' (vice.com)
But apparently pearls are only clutched when Doria's haircut is mentioned, or Comptom. Fuck off.
Who would have to die for Meghan Markle to be the queen of England? (vice.com)
Yes, it's basically about succession, but couched in such an unpleasant way, basically implying that they'd be fine with everyone including small kids getting murdered if it could someone put an American 'person of colour' near the throne.
Then there's the truly cretinous one where they rank royal CHILDREN from 'worst' to 'best', because of course picking on kids is fine as long as you pick on the 'correct' ones:
Royal Babies, Ranked from 'Worst' to 'We Renounce Democracy; Be Our King' (vice.com)
But apparently pearls are only clutched when Doria's haircut is mentioned, or Comptom. Fuck off.
Last edited:
Inforapenny
Chatty Member
There are many reasons I don't like Meghan and Harry but the one thing that irks me the most is their arrogance to educate me on race. I also believe these two privileged Idiots have pulled the race card for their own gain. I do not believe they have ever experienced racism at all. And I will not have them tell me I am subconsciously racist or need educating.
I am a qualified teacher who taught religion and philosophy for 12 years and was head of department. One of the areas all kids learnt about was prejudice and discrimination. The kids had chance to explore topics of racism, sexism etc and I felt in a privileged position to give kids a safe environment where these sometimes difficult and emotive subjects could be explored.
i was lucky to teach in a multi cultural school and the kids taught me and gave me insight into genuine racism and prejudice. I'll never forget a few lessons with the gsce kids and we just chatted for the hour. One boy shared with the group that he was regularly called the p word on the football pitch in a 'jokey' way. Honest to god it was heartbreaking to hear but also the courage he took to say this I could feel was overwhelming.
So I am angry that Meghan and Harry pulled the race card whilst in their ivory tower.
Lets not forget Harry is a person who dressed up, for fun, as an SS soldier. He also called his colleague of Pakistani heritage the p word in apparent jest. He also has been recorded as using the vile term 'r**head' (and no I don't mean red head).
The royal family PR over the years have really protected him and managed to let all these vile incidences of racism go quietly with little fall out.
So yes I'd say the RF to an extent are racist but Harry from what I can see is the one who did most of it. Why didn't Oprah pull him up on this?
As for Meghan, I don't know what qualifies her to educate me on race. She has no training, no back ground, no experience, nothing.
It's bizarre!
I am a qualified teacher who taught religion and philosophy for 12 years and was head of department. One of the areas all kids learnt about was prejudice and discrimination. The kids had chance to explore topics of racism, sexism etc and I felt in a privileged position to give kids a safe environment where these sometimes difficult and emotive subjects could be explored.
i was lucky to teach in a multi cultural school and the kids taught me and gave me insight into genuine racism and prejudice. I'll never forget a few lessons with the gsce kids and we just chatted for the hour. One boy shared with the group that he was regularly called the p word on the football pitch in a 'jokey' way. Honest to god it was heartbreaking to hear but also the courage he took to say this I could feel was overwhelming.
So I am angry that Meghan and Harry pulled the race card whilst in their ivory tower.
Lets not forget Harry is a person who dressed up, for fun, as an SS soldier. He also called his colleague of Pakistani heritage the p word in apparent jest. He also has been recorded as using the vile term 'r**head' (and no I don't mean red head).
The royal family PR over the years have really protected him and managed to let all these vile incidences of racism go quietly with little fall out.
So yes I'd say the RF to an extent are racist but Harry from what I can see is the one who did most of it. Why didn't Oprah pull him up on this?
As for Meghan, I don't know what qualifies her to educate me on race. She has no training, no back ground, no experience, nothing.
It's bizarre!
cosmo girl
VIP Member
What I don't understand is why Harry and Meghan haven't asked parliament to remove their titles? If the royal family is such a terrible institution then get rid of your titles and remove your son from the line of succession.
They can have as many children as they want if they wish so, it's their family...
Chilli pepper 19
VIP Member
Interesting article the DM are picking on, about leaking their own freedom of the press. Please please let this cause her to lose her appeal 
But it's it's already yesterday's news in the papers and on twitter and I'm loving how upset the wokerati are that Catherine is trending with positive tweets
But it's it's already yesterday's news in the papers and on twitter and I'm loving how upset the wokerati are that Catherine is trending with positive tweets
BarnsleyWitch
Well-known member
Never commented on this thread but I’ve been lurking 
I find it quite frustrating that M&H can go on a tv programme and make all these claims but William says one sentence and is getting butchered on Twitter! Can’t both sides have a say now? Yes I’m surprised William answered the question and maybe PR wise he should have stayed quiet but wow all I see on my Twitter feed is people calling Meg a ‘Queen’ and ‘yes girl’ ‘karma to the royal family for Diana’
I mean really?
I find it quite frustrating that M&H can go on a tv programme and make all these claims but William says one sentence and is getting butchered on Twitter! Can’t both sides have a say now? Yes I’m surprised William answered the question and maybe PR wise he should have stayed quiet but wow all I see on my Twitter feed is people calling Meg a ‘Queen’ and ‘yes girl’ ‘karma to the royal family for Diana’I mean really?
timemachinephantom
Well-known member
Dorariel Eboneyoncé Mountebank-Winfrey
timemachinephantom
Well-known member
I think he will regret it, but she's immune to normal levels of feeling (except on her own behalf, expressed in classic narcissistic rages). He'll be justifying his actions to himself and sitting on the truth about what he's done, having basically trashed his grandmother's lifework of building up trust throughout the Commonwealth and round the world. Incredible. I actually fear that once the truth hits him, he'll really spiral down (drink, drugs, self harm of some sort, even suicide) and by that time, Her Markleship will have no use for him at all. Messy. But that woman will still find a way to be the victim.