- Last week, in the lead up to Meghan and Harry’s eagerly anticipated Oprah interview, Palace sources were quoted as saying that the Palace was “prepared to retaliate with fresh disclosures about the couple’s behaviour if the monarchy is attacked”.
Great, so what next
External lawyers to probe bullying by other royals?
External lawyers to probe racism within RF?
External lawyers to probe whether there was disability discrimination in denying support for mental health?
External lawyers to problem Andrews behaviour and whether it broke public code of conduct (not criminal investigation, but did he bring us into disrepute type of stuff)?
Is this a vendetta or is RF finally going to be be subject to public accountability?*
I honestly don't understand how you can make some of the posts you have.
You insinuate there is a vendetta against M based on spurious allegations (you mentioned 5am emails in one post) yet fail to see any irony in doing similar to the RF by linking to many tabloid gossip stories that have little evidentiary basis.
Additionally you seem unwilling to accept that this enquiry is a good thing on a number of levels.
By independently reviewing Palace HR's response to accusations of bullying by "Principles" any findings and recommendations would apply at a policy and procedural level and thus cover any such instances concerning any member of the RF in the future.
In that sense it does cover alleged bullying by any Royal.
The reason (yet again) why M was the catalyst for this is the evidence that was supplied to and investigated by The Times - a reputable journalistic outlet.
The investigation will be private. The Palace has confirmed it will not make the findings public. How is that in keeping with the narrative that it's a smear campaign against M when they are NOT even investigating her nor will they release the outcome of the investigation?
You seem to want to argue both sides of the same coin when it suits your agenda.
It's ok to use "sources" close to M or the RF when they say what you want.
It's ok to cite as evidence gossip websites when they dig the dirt on anyone but M.
It's ok to throw in utterly spurious claims about why W&C's housekeeper left - even throwing Carole Middleton into the mix for good measure....
It just undermines the points you are trying to make and comes across as utterly over invested and sadly somewhat unhinged.
If you want to support M then frankly there's a whole load of legitimate arguments to express why rather than slinging mud at the RF and hoping some of it will stick with the lurkers or posters on here.
She's been treated appallingly by some sections of the press, been the subject of both overt and insidious racism and frankly whether she knew what she was "getting into" or not it's perfectly reasonable for her to say I'm not prepared to sacrifice my mental health living like this any more once she experienced the reality of it.
I'm glad they've walked away if thats what's it's taken for them to be happy. I don't mind them trading on their "ex-royalty" to make a living - security isn't cheap and I want them to be safe and secure and if Netflix deals will afford them finance independence and security - great.
That doesn't mean I think this interview was a good idea for them or the RF - quite the reverse and these allegations of bullying are a prime example of why.
I'll say again there's no conflict at all in expressing distaste for the RF on a number of matters and also being critical of some aspects of how H&M have behaved over their exit.