Why do people feel it’s okay to say nasty things about Meghan on social media?

[Lilyyy]

Why do people care so much about her and Harry’s relationship and are so intent on just being incredibly nasty about someone they don’t even know or really know the truth about? Harry must love her and be happy so why don’t the media and people on social media just let them be?

genuinely asking as I don’t understand why she gets so much hatred everywhere, must be really bloody hard for them to see it all the time. People act like she’s a murderer or something.

Fascinating contribution 🙄

Makes a good hat!

Quote one thing I've said that's untrue 🤷🏻‍♀️

You don't need to watch breakfast news to hear about the drivel that man spouts - which you've clearly shown with your claim that H&M called the queen a liar....which came directly from Morgan's mouth and was bullshit 🤷🏻‍♀️

Edited - you're quite right @MarshaMelrose I got my liars mixed up there 🤣

Everything you posted is supposition and rumours, neither can it be proven or unproven. Therefore others can choose to believe or not as is their right , nobody here holds the proven truth only their interpretation of it . My point of view is that its rubbish.

I dunno @lemmein. That seems I've a long rant about stuff. Even bringing Saville into the mix so many years after his death. To be honest, if you know about it, clearly the palace didn't keep it out of the news.

And I seriously don't watch Piers Morgan on TV and I don't have twitter to read about him. I see quite regularly on here posters say that people only say negative things about H&M because they read the press. But it is possible that people can read statements that both parties write and watch interviews that Harry gives and come to conclusions ourselves. After all, we do that all the time in our everyday personal and work life. It's no different to do it for famous people.

The broadsheets have reported extensively on Harry and Meghan's behaviour and most notably the bullying allegations which come from a named source, Jason Knauf, who worked closely with the couple and with the Cambridges. The people who were subject to the alleged bullying have also been named by some of the broadsheets but they are unable to speak out due to their contracts. These reports appear in multiple credible sources of quality journalism. If you don't want to believe them that's your prerogative entirely but trying to tell people that their opinions come from the Daily Mail, Piers Morgan and gossip rags is ridiculous. The couple have also released a substantial amount of content themselves, much of it very easily disproven. My opinion that Meghan is a compulsive liar comes mostly from the stuff she has put out there about herself and the fact that so many credibly people (the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the BBC's Mishal Husain to name just two) in addition to all sorts of other people who don't appear to have any reason to lie (eg lion kind actor) have pointed out the inaccuracies. These lies cause real pain to many people, most of all their families and if you have definite proof that she is doing this, as we do, it's not a big step to believe that the bullying allegations are likely true as well. They fit with what we know about her character from the information she's put out there about herself.

There have been complaints about her behaviour widely reported in the press - both the tabloids and the broadsheets. And also in Tom Bower's books. You don't believe any of it but to say it hasn't been reported is wrong. Taking just one example, her souring of relations with the Vogue staff when she tried to behave controllingly towards them. Again you don't have to believe this stuff if you don't want to but you can't say it doesn't exist. It very much does.

H&M are used as a distraction for the plebs to bury other unsavoury royal news (PA)

The unsavoury Prince Andrew's links with Epstein were under scrutiny before H&M even met.

And the plebs are perfectly able to loathe two or even more royals on different behavioural grounds simultaneously.

I think this is about a strict interpretation of what was said.

“The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called. During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor.” The spokesperson added, “Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.”

www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/prince-harry-meghan-markle-ask-queen-elizabeth-permission-name-baby-lilibet-palace-sources

i.e. Harry did say to the Queen he wanted to call their baby Lilibet and she seemed fine with it. But he did not say - can I ask permission to use the name Lillibet.

You can tell from the quotes given by the palace this is the most likely scenario.

“There have been complaints about her behaviour widely reported in the press - both the tabloids and the broadsheets. And also in Tom Bower's books.”

That would be the Tom Bowers who said that, “It’s Meghan, I’m after.”

Probably although I haven't read wherever that was quoted. Why wouldn't he say something like that though if he wanted to write her biography? She's an excellent subject for a biography.

Here is the interview.

It is Meghan I am after, when speaking of stripping of titles.

www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/royal-biographer-tom-bower-meghan-markle-harry-book-criticism-151540308.html

It was on a morning show that he said it. He said it after he’d written the book. So no, he wasn’t chasing info on Meghan for his book when he said it.

I don't see what difference it makes. Bower, as far as I can see, makes no secret of the fact that he is drawn to investigate self important people that try to dominate and control those around them. I don't get the impression he particularly likes any of those he targets in his biographies (indeed several of tries to sue him although unsuccessfully from what I've read). But he has impeccable credentials and the fact that so few have managed to successfully sue him does suggest that his work stands up to scrutiny and can be substantiated. It includes many details of people finding Meghan difficult, demanding and unpleasant prior to her involvement with Harry and the Royal Family. You don't have to believe them of course but they do exist and come from a credible source.

“It is not very honorable behavior.”

That’s interesting because the royal family have apparently earned their wealth and status through a strategy known as ‘divide and conquer’. Chickens have come home to roost.

They’ve explained it’s because they want to use their own voices, not speak through the royal family and press relationships mouthpiece. It won’t work as they think if people have already made up their minds.

Yep. Sold to the highest bidders because they knew the value of their story. Would you feel differently if they did this for free or for a charity?

the bullying allegations which come from a named source, Jason Knauf, who worked closely with the couple and with the Cambridges. The people who were subject to the alleged bullying have also been named by some of the broadsheets but they are unable to speak out due to their contracts.

Interesting that Jason Knauf was able to speak out isn't it? No NDA for him! 🙄

He wasn't even called to be a witness for the Daily Mail, he volunteered confidential information....just before he went on to work for Will's and Kate. You'd think the last person they'd want to employ is a leaky 'communications chief' - interesting that it didn't concern them.

No that's not what happened.

Jason Knauf asked not to give evidence in the trial so the DM didn't call him. But when Meghan lied and he knew she lied, he had to tell the court. That's not leaking anything and it has nothing to do with an NDA. It's like you reading a report from a trial where someone has given an alibi as being at your house when that wasn't true. You'd inform the court that was a lie.

What did she lie aboutu exactly? How did that come about?

Well, is it a coincidence that there have been reports of bullying made by palace staff in the U.K., there has been quite a turnover of staff at Archewell in the US (not always clear why they left) and there were reports of incident(s) with staff while the couple were on their tour of Australia - that's three different continents!! Pure coincidence and everyone's out to them or just maybe she treats people like something off the bottom of her shoe when promoted to a position of power. I'm sure in time all will become clear.

Jason Knauf asked not to give evidence in the trial so the DM didn't call him. But when Meghan lied and he knew she lied, he had to tell the court. That's not leaking anything and it has nothing to do with an NDA. It's like you reading a report from a trial where someone has given an alibi as being at your house when that wasn't true. You'd inform the court that was a lie

Correct once again, Marsha - it's hard to avoid thinking that the real objection to Jason Knauf is that he was instrumental in proving Meghan had lied, and that some would prefer that not to be known

The obvious solution would be not to have lied in the first place, but on H&M's known form that almost seems too much to expect

What did she lie about? Not bullying people?

meinteresamucho On this particular issue concerning Jason Knauf, she lied to the court about not having collaborated on Finding Freedom. However her emails to him showed quite clearly that she had, so she apologised to the court, claiming that she'd "forgotten" the messages

I live in Australia. I was living in the same city as Admiralty house where they stayed. There was no drama reported here about mistreatment of staff or anyone, that I know of. Although there might have been reports on sky news (Murdoch owned) and Channel 9 (manager is a friend of Murdoch) - Channel 9 is about unkind, gossipy ‘ reporting’ - or on radio 2GB where they seem to excel in employing women hating shock jocks. I wouldn’t know about their reporting on MM as I don’t watch/listen to these media outlets.

However, Not one of my friends or family ever said anything to me about negative reports of Meghan Markle in Australia (and some members of my family listen to, and watch, the above stations).

Only on here have I read about ‘flying teacups full of hot tea’. I’ve often found that things on social media sites make their way over to the tabloid media and then we get articles full of unnamed sources, friends of, palace insider, etc., etc.. If negative stuff flies on social media, tabloids will often print it, unless it’s libellous -and sometimes they’ll still print it.

The turnover of Archewell staff could be for entirely different reasons, (businesses everywhere, on all three ‘continents’ , (btw, are you referring to Europe, as UK is not a continent afaik? ) are struggling to retain staff post covid). Rapid turnover of staff is, in this moment, a fact of life for many businesses.

My main point in regard to ‘reports’ is that it’s all conjecture and gossip aimed at a Black woman who has a voice and uses it. Sadly, it is generally not a terribly popular attribute for a woman, made less popular if the woman is a member of the RF. They stay popular by not talking - just smiling and small pleasantries. What’s wrong with this picture?

you are probably right - that in time all will become clear. But until then I’m not going to sit in negative judgement, but am going to examine why some people so desperately want her to be guilty of things they cannot have observed themselves. All through history woman have been judged and denounced unfairly. What has astonished me is that on mumsnet -a site for women - there are so many women ready, willing and eager to have a go at another woman. Not just Meghan Markle or Kate, but each other, as well. Some of the responses I see on mumsnet towards other members astonish and depress me for this very reason.