This is sensible.I completely agree with you.
I think when Meghan says she didn’t Google the Royal Family, she is totally lying. But I think what she’s trying to say is that she didn’t go back to articles from 2010 to see the abuse Kate got.
I do agree with H&M that she shouldn’t expect to get abused, but equally I don’t agree with them that it’s the palace’s place to stop this.
I think a lot of their comments piss people in the UK off because we feel like the Royals owe us something as we fund them through taxes, where as in America they are received better because they don’t.
The idea that someone going to South Africa, on behalf of the Government, and at the expense of the tax payer, and then complaining about it, leaves a bitter taste for some people.
It’s the same with the idea she’s claims she couldn’t seek help for her mental health struggles. Harry, with William and Kate, literally founded a mental health charity, and William and Harry had already both spoken about how they had sort treatment. There are 10,000’s of people in the UK in desperate need of mental health support who can’t access it because of the state of the NHS, where as the RF can easily have a discrete private sessions, multiple times a week if they wanted!
I don’t think she really understood the role of a royal, I think she thought it was the same as being a celebrity and it isn’t.
I think though, that if the rumours she wants to run for office in America are true, she should stop slagging off the RF and the UK in general as the behaviour will just be massively used against her to show she isn’t fit for office.
Tom Bower made it clear that when Meghan says she wasn't protected by the palace, what she expected and wanted was for the Kensington Palace press people -- Jason Knauf, Samantha Cohen, Sara Latham and other staff assigned to the Sussexes, all of whom were prepared to testify against her in court -- to call the newspapers and make demands, to stop "false stories" from appearing in the media, the way Hollywood PR reps do. (She never gave hers up during her royal service.)
What Markle means by false stories is, stories which challenge her long record of lying to reporters, as well as legitimate assaults, like the DM's "straight outta Compton" story. Or, possibly, Piers Morgan's comments on the Oprah interview, which I didn't see. Markle filed an official press complaint against Morgan.
The Queen had a track record for intervening with the press over intrusive coverage of Diana, but not, as far as I recall, of Markle. (Queen's press sec Michael Shea invited editors in 1981 to the palace for cocktails to ask them to stop harassing Diana. Queen made an unannounced appearance.) And Charles/Camilla/Marc Bolland have been direct sources for newspapers for 40 years, since at least 1982, when Camilla started calling royal reporter Stuart Higgins once a week.
There are PR experts here. Do you think KP should have taken on the racist press?
I wonder if the KP press staff, Jason Knauf et al, should have pushed strongly back on the racist stories, perhaps with the cocktails with the Queen strategy. The piecemeal pushback by Markle seems only to have caused the DM to double down on their anti-Markle agenda. But if the Queen, who famously, and uniquely, among world leaders talked to African and Caribbean leaders annually at Commonwealth conferences and danced with Nkrumah, had been enlisted as the anti-racism warrior she might have been, things might have turned out differently.
Or not. The press finally did hound Diana until her dying day. Markle has released that energy in the DM at least.
Last edited: