Sussexes and bullying campaign

[DeepThinkingGirl]

Hi everyone !

Does anyone find the constant bullying of the Sussexes to affect their mental health ?

I find the mainstream misogyny to be a reflection of how society really does view women as a whole and how othering it is of people of other cultures.

I think baby Lilibet would be very sad to know the world received her with such strong opinions against her naming. It’s really sad that the world so full of hate doesn’t provide a nice place for kids to grow confidently.

I feel like if this happens in a powerful royal family, what’s there to hope in your average family!

Btw I have in law issues and I find the attitudes towards the sussexes triggering and upsetting

@Roussette

But why did he think that the tax payer would continue to pay for his security for him and his family?

They pay for their own security.
Unlike Andrew at £300,000 per year

Look at the fuss they made about that. One thing that Meghan was guilty of was claiming that security was linked to title (inaccurate) and that was why she wanted Archie to be a Prince.

They didn’t want to pay for their own security. Even in Canada, they expected funded police protection.

The Wessex’s are working royals and did more engagements than the Cambridge’s last year. So not the same . The Kent’s are in their eighties , and the Duke of Kent is accompanying the Queen at the Trooping of the Colour.

@Roussette

They do but he doesn't think they should

Well... if your Uncle who is a non working member of the RF, who has kept his military patronages and who has done some very dodgy deals in the past, and Epstein.... if he carries on with his funded security, I suppose if it were me, I'd be a bit miffed too.

I thought the queen funded his security?

Well... if your Uncle who is a non working member of the RF, who has kept his military patronages and who has done some very dodgy deals in the past, and Epstein.... if he carries on with his funded security, I suppose if it were me, I'd be a bit miffed too.

I think the difference may be that they chose to live overseas, which makes everything more complicated and expensive. I imagine that if they were still living at Frogmore it wouldn't have come up.

The royal connection is their use. It’s being milked for all it’s worth. If they want privacy, just keep their heads down and shut up about their family.

Harry and Meghan started it by commenting first.
Technically the RF "started it" by leaking nasty stories about Meghan to the press for years.

One thing that Meghan was guilty of was claiming that security was linked to title (inaccurate) and that was why she wanted Archie to be a Prince.
Gosh GUILTY what an emotive word! She said she was told they were changing the rules so Archie wouldn't become a prince when his granddad was crowned King, and as a result wouldn't receive security.

Do you have proof that conversation never happened?

This has been explained before, but palace source means a member of staff in the palace press office. The Royal correspondents work with the RF press team all the time. It's not as if someone popped into a phone box to make an anonymous call to Jonny Dymond's answer machine with a hanky over their mouth to disguise their voice. They will have been instructed to brief the press in the usual way. Signed off by the Queen.

Nope, completely false. I've worked in PR. The only things signed off by the Queen are official press releases which are clearly labelled as being sent out by BP press office (CH and KP also have their own press offices.) Not some weird random unsourced "palace insider claims..." This was NOT a press statement from the BP press office. Period. The fact it wasn't sent from BP press office makes it very dodgy.

@Roussette

But why did he think that the tax payer would continue to pay for his security for him and his family?

They pay for their own security.
Unlike Andrew at £300,000 per year

You can't have it all ways!

Harry is the grandson of the queen, son of the future king - he was born a target. Just because he doesn't want to play along anymore doesn't mean you can say 'fuck off and die then!' 🙄

He's a target because 'we' support the institution that makes him so. If you don't want to fund it stop supporting the institution that creates the need in the first place!

And if the queen pays for Andrew's security but kept quiet when there was noise about PH's what does that say about her?

This was NOT a press statement from the BP press office. Period. The fact it wasn't sent from BP press office makes it very dodgy.

It really doesn't. And the idea that some rogue press officer made this up against the wishes of the Queen and passed it on to the BBC is laughable. It would have been corrected by now for a start, whereas when ITV asked about it, they wouldn't deny it.

Technically the RF "started it" by leaking nasty stories about Meghan to the press for years.

Where's the proof of that? Seen as you're so keen on asking others for proof...and years is stretching it a bit. She was only married to him for a couple of years before they left!

And if the queen pays for Andrew's security but kept quiet when there was noise about PH's what does that say about her?

Exactly. The Queen indulges Andrew big time. Last year she paid off £6.7million debt so he avoided a court case in Switzerland.

People and institutions are two distinct things.

They are indeed. But if the institution is the problem, why are they using their titles and making an issue of their children not being prince/ss?

I haven't a clue what they want or are trying to achieve - what they say and what they do are so at odds.

I've worked in places where the management style is bullying - sometimes for longer than was good for my mental health while I found another job. Once I had left I heaved a sigh of relief and moved on - I didn't spend my time and energy on criticising those still working there.

They've left... but they don't seem to be able to move on from that. Very odd and very sad.

There's the hounding and bullying (from people who think H&M can do nothing right so every single thing they do is picked apart) and there's stating objective criticisms where necessary and applauding them where necessary. But for people who think H&M can do no wrong, both are lumped in as bullying or they say why even mention any criticism.

I disagree, IMO it's the exact opposite. I've also never seen those in the latter category (who sometimes criticise and sometimes applaud) get lumped in as bullies.

First, there are ten times as many posters who think Meghan is basically the devil and that literally everything she does is evil, as posters who think she can do no wrong.

Second, there's a ton of proof that "Meghan haters" have engaged in a huge amount of abuse and troll tactics to push their agenda, including MNHQ posting that Meghan haters were engaging in mass sockpuppeting, Meghan haters being banned and coming back as PBPs, one Meghan hater admitting she'd created dozens of new email addresses so she could register lots of separate accounts, Meghan haters setting up whole separate forums off-MN to discuss the best tactics to get Meghan defenders deleted and banned, Meghan haters following posters around MN making nasty comments on any thread they post on, sending abusive PMs, starting nasty threads about them on other sites, doxxing them IRL, and those same posters have also harassed posters to the point of police action, and photoshopped fake DM conversations to try to get people banned. Not to mention intentionally derailing threads containing even the mildest criticism of the Cambridges to get them deleted.

Third, 99% of the time it's Meghan haters starting the threads. This is a rare example of a thread started to defend her. How many literally hundreds of of threads have been started with the sole intention of bashing Meghan? Please stop acting like Haters and Defenders are behaving in the same way, because that's clearly false.

Fourth, plenty of posters have been extremely critical of Meghan, or even said they personally dislike Meghan, but have still been accused of being "Meghan defenders" and consequently harassed and attacked simply for saying she's been a victim of racism and that racism is not okay.

There's blind worship, and there's saying "I dislike Meghan and think she's made terrible mistakes and lied, but she's also been subject to bullying and that's wrong." People for whom Meghan can do no right lump both into the same category as superfans.

One thing that Meghan was guilty of was claiming that security was linked to title (inaccurate) and that was why she wanted Archie to be a Prince.
Gosh GUILTY what an emotive word!

No, I’d said in my previous post that she couldn’t be blamed for Harry’s actions and that those blaming her for Harry’s actions had an agenda.

To go on to say “One thing she is guilty of...” is saying “OTOH, this other thing was her own fault...”. Perfectly normal turn of phrase.

She said she was told they were changing the rules so Archie wouldn't become a prince when his granddad was crowned King, and as a result wouldn't receive security.

That’s not quite what she said and police protection has never been contingent on title anyway. So she muddied the water there. She has earned some of this criticism by saying several things that were inaccurate. Pointless own goal.

And the idea that some rogue press officer made this up against the wishes of the Queen and passed it on to the BBC is laughable.

There is no suggestion it came from the press office, period.

"An anonymous insider claims" could mean literally anyone.

Christian Jones' partner was busted accepting payments from the Sun to sell stories about Meghan. Jason Knauf famously leaked stories to the tabloids. Meghan's former PA was fired for gross misconduct then landed a new job as live-in nanny for the family of a tabloid journalist. Other journalists are on record as saying they were in regular contact with palace staff and servants. The palace is infamous leaky.

If the Queen/BP wanted to deny the story, Buckingham Palace's press office would have said so. The fact they have not said so, and have not confirmed this vague "an anonymous source claims" nonsense, says a lot.

Nope, completely false. I've worked in PR. The only things signed off by the Queen are official press releases which are clearly labelled as being sent out by BP press office (CH and KP also have their own press offices.) Not some weird random unsourced "palace insider claims..." This was NOT a press statement from the BP press office. Period. The fact it wasn't sent from BP press office makes it very dodgy.

If you’ve done PR work, you should know that Press Officers make verbal comments & responses routinely. Not everything is put out in a written press release. Of course not.

You already killed your credibility by denying that Harry said everything he did say in the Apple TV series, though.

It seems you are being deliberately misleading. Repeatedly.

There is no suggestion it came from the press office, period.

"An anonymous insider claims" could mean literally anyone.

Right. That will be why BBC news and their senior reporter stood by the story and didn’t even blink? Sure. 😏

*If you’ve done PR work, you should know that Press Officers make verbal comments & responses routinely."

Not as vague "anonymous sources" they don't (and please stop making personal attacks). Doesn't matter whether a press statement is issued in writing or verbally, they are NEVER issued anonymously. The idea that BP's press office would phone up a news outlet and say "but don't let on it came from us, pretend it came from an anonymous source" is laughable.

Again: if it came from BP press office, why has BP press office not confirmed that?

To go on to say “One thing she is guilty of...” is saying “OTOH, this other thing was her own fault...”. Perfectly normal turn of phrase.

But that's the whole point, it's not her fault. Meghan was told security was linked to title. If that is incorrect, then the fault lies with whomever gave her that incorrect information.

Meghan is completely within her own right to state "I was told they were changing the rules so monarch's grandchildren would no longer automatically become prince/princess, and that my baby wouldn't receive security as a result." Unless you have proof that conversation never happened, then Meghan is not wrong, not at fault, and not "guilty."

So agree rainy. I would think 1% of the threads on H&M are started to criticise. Any positive threads, like one this year, and about 4 last year, and in fact one this week from a poster talking about MM's book.... they are literally bombarded with 'detractors'.

Then there's literally the rudeness, the snarky posts, the personal insults to anyone who dares to disagree with the incessant dislike. And calling posters bots, superfans, Sussex Squad, Doria, Meghan, Sunshine Sachs employee, paid to post.
This happens All The Time even on this thread probably.

Not as vague "anonymous sources" they don't (and please stop making personal attacks).

Hang on. You launched into this by calling @Bovrilly a liar despite the fact that what she had said was entirely accurate. THAT was a personal attack. This isn’t. These are brisk responses to the poster who is wrongly calling people liars.

Doesn't matter whether a press statement is issued in writing or verbally, they are NEVER issued anonymously. The idea that BP's press office would phone up a news outlet and say "but don't let on it came from us, pretend it came from an anonymous source" is laughable.

Firstly it seems more likely that Dymond rang the source than vice versa, but maybe.

Nobody’s “pretending it’s an anonymous source”. They’re just not naming their source. There’s a difference. They know who their source is and they obviously think (know?) they can stand the story up.

It doesn’t have to be the Press Office to be a good senior source at the palace, does it? It could be someone PR or strategy related, it could be someone else at the palace.

Again: if it came from BP press office, why has BP press office not confirmed that?

Do you really need the whole thing explained to you? Ridiculous. If you don’t know why, you’re not being honest about your work background.

@RickiTarr

Nope, completely false. I've worked in PR. The only things signed off by the Queen are official press releases which are clearly labelled as being sent out by BP press office (CH and KP also have their own press offices.) Not some weird random unsourced "palace insider claims..." This was NOT a press statement from the BP press office. Period. The fact it wasn't sent from BP press office makes it very dodgy.

If you’ve done PR work, you should know that Press Officers make verbal comments & responses routinely. Not everything is put out in a written press release. Of course not.

You already killed your credibility by denying that Harry said everything he did say in the Apple TV series, though.

It seems you are being deliberately misleading. Repeatedly.

... and to add to this, the BBC aren't going to make a headline from a random/non verified source as they have their own reputation - perhaps the DM but hardly a BBC thing to do

@ohforarainyday

*If you’ve done PR work, you should know that Press Officers make verbal comments & responses routinely."

Not as vague "anonymous sources" they don't (and please stop making personal attacks). Doesn't matter whether a press statement is issued in writing or verbally, they are NEVER issued anonymously. The idea that BP's press office would phone up a news outlet and say "but don't let on it came from us, pretend it came from an anonymous source" is laughable.

Again: if it came from BP press office, why has BP press office not confirmed that?

To go on to say “One thing she is guilty of...” is saying “OTOH, this other thing was her own fault...”. Perfectly normal turn of phrase.

But that's the whole point, it's not her fault. Meghan was told security was linked to title. If that is incorrect, then the fault lies with whomever gave her that incorrect information.

Meghan is completely within her own right to state "I was told they were changing the rules so monarch's grandchildren would no longer automatically become prince/princess, and that my baby wouldn't receive security as a result." Unless you have proof that conversation never happened, then Meghan is not wrong, not at fault, and not "guilty."

'It's not her fault she was given the wrong information' .... She seems To be being given no info or wrong information A LOT! I think perhaps her DH needs to step up and start educating her .... oh ... unless it's an excuse perhaps 🤔

They seem to thrive on all the attention and seek it out, if they really felt bullied they could just lead a quiet and private life I suppose.

Tbh they seem to be the ones picking arguments and twisting the facts, giving interviews etc. It doesn't look like that want to be left alone.

Please stop acting like Haters and Defenders are behaving in the same way, because that's clearly false.

I think you need to calm down a bit. I'm not "acting like" anything - I'm neither a lover nor a hater as I have no personal interest in a stranger but i can objectively look at what they choose to share publicly and decide for myself.

You seem to have a lot of details that I don't have when it comes to the Meghan haters and lovers spat so I'll defer to you on that. I was only referring to what I see and know. I don't care about or follow this debate so closely or personally enough to rightly divide the number of haters vs lovers.

Based on what you've written, some people really are batshit but I'm not surprised about it. Perhaps Meghan lovers need to realise this too so they stop getting triggered so much and treat the batshit types like what they are - batshit and not worthy of investing time and energy over. As I've written a few times here already, Meghan and Harry can do nothing right to some people, so I haven't denied that.

Nobody’s “pretending it’s an anonymous source”. They’re just not naming their source. There’s a difference. They know who their source is and they obviously think (know?) they can stand the story up.

It doesn’t have to be the Press Office to be a good senior source at the palace, does it? It could be someone PR or strategy related, it could be someone else at the palace.

the BBC aren't going to make a headline from a random/non verified source as they have their own reputation - perhaps the DM but hardly a BBC thing to do

All of which is completely different from the original claim, that this was an official press release from Buckingham Palace Press Office which the Queen personally and directly signed off on.

Please provide proof that this "anonymous palace source" came personally and directly from the Queen, otherwise it does prove that allegation "Harry called the Queen a liar" is a lie.

They've left... but they don't seem to be able to move on from that. Very odd and very sad.

because they dont have the privileges anymore the other members have. H was used to them and M wanted them so much. they cant accept that.

and at the same time whatever they do/say, if its controversial or not they are earning money as long as they are on the media and they do their best for it. they like attention a lot, too.

so they are like killing 2 birds with one stone.

this will always go on like that.