The Times

[Rushingfool]

Anyone else think The Times should not be printing extracts from this new book about Royal Courtiers at this time? Incredibly stupid given that H&M are trying to mend fences? I feel really quite cross for everyone involved - William's efforts to build bridges etc, all going to be in vain now. Very naughty.

'aimed at' not 'time at' - autocorrect is not my friend

@BlueRidge they are paid. From the sovereign grant….www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

I figured it out - thanks for your opinion

Eh?
What a strange thing to say!

It was aimed at the delusional Meghan defenders - that woman could start world war 3 and it would be someone else’s fault

There's nothing like rudeness to help a discussion along.
Not.

That woman could come up with a cure for cancer and she'd be at fault for not telling you first 😂

@Roussette, I presume that that supercilious and sneering remark is aimed at people on this thread who might take a short time out of their day to post on here and are therefore deemed to be inferior in some way and not have meaningful lives. Doesn't also apply to them of course.
Best ignored.

Yes, I must. You are totally right.

I’d be delighted if she discovered a cure for cancer

There seem to be 2 extremes, people who would criticise Meghan for blinking the wrong way, and people who would defend her if she rampaged around Buckingham Palace with a gun.

They both sound equally hysterical.

Can anyone shed light on the reason MM was ushered out of the Fijji market and the issue with UN women branding. Doesn't make sense to me?

It’s no one’s fiend, @myrtleWilson

I've now read the article and it isn't actually that shocking IMO and is nothing we didn't already know.

I've also read the book and feel the same, also how do we know these sources are accurate? I'm not so sure, or are we working on the assumption they would be sued if it were false?

That all depends on whether what this books says is actually the truth. All too often exaggerations and fiction sell much better.

It was shocking to me.

Were other royals criticised in the book?

That's what It looks like to me. Why aren't they being fired unless they are worried they will expose a lot about them?

The explanation given by Valentine Low in the extracts is because several of the staff members in question were highly valued by the Cambridges, even if they had had a terrible time working for the Sussexes, and they didn’t want to lose their skills and experience.

Also, I’m not sure why you think they could fire them.

I've also read the book and feel the same,

The book (Courtiers) hasn’t been published yet, Not sure what you’ve read? The articles in the Times are pre-publication extracts.

@BlueRidge Since you are asking nicely - quite simply no. If you understand my posts - either you can agree or disagree whether you think I am right or wrong. I couldn't care less.

Yes I am still unclear about what they were asking Meghan to do - nobody answered

1. A working royal and thus paid in some capacity (which I thought she was anyway)
2. A wife of a working royal but not a working royal herself hence told to go back to acting.
3. I never said she was a slave - I said she would be if she was expected to work for them for free and not receive any income and told she can go back to acting.

It's ok if you want to take it out of context and make it seem like what it isn't - I wont feel bad at all. It's just another day on MN.

I'll link this again for those who haven't seen it. The author's tweet

@ valentinelow
"Sep 24
I couldn't agree more. In the book I am critical of Meghan, but also very critical of the way the palace handled her."

Worth reading the thread he was responding to by Catherine Mayer.

twitter.com/valentinelow/status/1573581408580280321

It's not so black and white as everyone seems to think.

Some people may criticise her for blinking the wrong way - I don’t.

if its verified that bullying was happening at the palace, I for one will be interested to find out why senior royals did nothing.

@Serenster I guess there are several issues here

I suppose they let go who they could for misconduct and legally wouldn't be able to fire any of the other staff members.

I feel it's not in the RF's best interests to release it - what are they hiding? They have never protected Meghan - so it's not about that.

K+W and M+H may all well be innocent but the staff may be holding something over them. If a colleague did something atrocious to my relative, I can't see how I could continue working with them unless they would expose my secrets.

I guess we will never be allowed to see the report.

I am not sure I believe Low - the book so far seems to be written about H+M - I stand to be corrected when it's released. Avid readers will tell us.

"Handled Her"

Interesting what Catherine Mayer has said and here's some of it below.

Sep 24
The racism towards Meghan was & is very real. The abuse directed to her is out of all proportion to anything she's supposed to have done or did. The timing of allegations & the sharing of information was of course not coincidental. That doesn't mean she's flawless. Nobody is!
There will some of you who think none of this matters. Who cares what's written about a bunch of privileged rich people? Well, I think in dehumanising people in the public eye, we more easily accept the dehumanising of those without a platform. . .

"And the monstering of Meghan is part of a culture of misogyny & racism more often promoted than challenged by media. Debates about valentinelow
's book could focus on many angles but I bet I get invited to "defend" Meghan against one of the female columnists paid to attack her"

@Samcro The reality is that we will never know why any bullying took place or still takes place. If it means too much will be exposed the RF are not subject to that. The case will remain closed. They have laws in place to protect their interests. A lowly subject can question this but they will never have to respond to us.

@daysayso tbe book isn’t published until October how have you read it ?