The Beckhams at the State Dinner

[stripeyshutters]

Ouch that's got to touch a nerve for the Sussexes ! I did notice that VB was respectfully dressed as was only right for the occasion.

That’s rather the point isn’t it?

There have been many reports and rumours over the years about Prince Andrew’s behaviour to servants who don’t put the teddy bears back on his bed in the right way and his swearing at security guards when he crashed his Range Rover returning home one night.

Prince Philip was on camera swearing at a photographer and was well known for his temper. King Charles is reported as being rather petulant and has demonstrated this on camera. I’d be interested to know how they behaved off camera for example.

There are many examples of Princess Margaret’s haughty behaviour in various biographies.

Someone working for Harry’s enemy (his brother William) instigated a bullying enquiry against Meghan, which was then conveniently leaked to The Times.

The RF aren’t likely to instigate a bullying enquiry against members of the family who are “in the fold” are they?

My assertion is that if they were looking in to Meghan’s behaviour then they need to scrutinise everyone in the institution, which seems fairly reasonable to me.

I am saying that the people who have alleged this allegation against M either have something to gain commercially or know where their bread is buttered.

Wow.

Is this your assumption for all multiple separate victims that bravely come forward after abuse - Wienstien, Epstien, Al Fayad ... even Gregg Wallace?

These are all separate individuals who have endured and suffered - its the exact opposite - they have a lot to lose personally by speaking out ie their careers and their reputation within their industries which will cost them £££.

It is ususally people in their early careers with less influence and fragile financial status that are subjected to abuse. As Greg Wallace lamented this week that it was only middle-class and women of a certain age who spoke out - and that's because they are taken seriously being more senior in their careers at that point and were unable to take the risk before.

Can you expand and specify on how these people have gained commercially?

Can you explain why MM when alleging the BP bullying allegations were a 'calculated smear campaign' and following the bulling expose in THR has not sued for defamation?

Why would she allow this smear campaign to stick?

An aide hid in a cupboard from Charles when he pulled a sink off the wall in a rage.

👏👏👏 Brilliant post, it’s disgusting reading the posts of the apologists on here saying the victims are liars and doing it for commercial gain when they literally have no voice as they have NDA’s, posters falling over themselves with their whataboutery, anything to excuse the fact that Meghan is a bully who abused her staff, shameful.

Is this your assumption for all multiple separate victims that bravely come forward after abuse - Wienstien, Epstien, Al Fayad ... even Gregg Wallace?

Wow yourself. Of course it isn’t and I think I should probably report that accusation if I could be bothered and it wasn’t so frankly ridiculous!

I would never defend those hideous people. That’s really quite a reach!

I’ll leave the odious Greg Wallace out of this as he is under investigation right now but I hope he gets what it looks like is coming to him!

Are you saying that Meghan’s alleged crimes are equivalent to that of Epstein and Al Fayed? Really?

Can you not understand the difference between people who have been arrested and tried in court and imprisoned or died, and someone who was allegedly investigated by a bullying enquiry which was initially kept quiet and leaked about to the press at a highly convenient moment; the results of which have never been published?

And where the investigating was all done “in house” and not carried out by a neutral body? And the instigator still works for “the other side”?

Come on now.

Is this from the same source that said Meghan threw a cup of tea over one of her staff when in Australia?

@La@Ladyswhatlunch

So in summmary:

• you don't have a source, you were making shit up about the "want to be at the state dinners"
• you apparently missed all the "working royals" and hanger on who have milked the system over the years (Airmiles Andy anyone?) and think that the grifting cousins/hangers on are ok. BTW I have no problem with their deal with Netflix, I'm sure that working Royal Edward who has been involved in various media companies has no problem either.
• You think the Duchy of Cornwall and the title of PoW is automatic on death of the monarch/ascent of the new monarch (it isn't, unlike the automatic ascension of the heir which is automatic)
• Billionaire "family offices" and family estate management is not exactly a global secret. Don't take my word for it - google familes both from the modern era eg Buffet, the previous industrial era eg Getty or any of the big European landed families (including the RF in previous generations)
• I note your failure to address the "doolittle" history of the Wales

Have you ever tried to rip a sink off the wall? You would need to be irradiated by gamma radiation and turn green to do that. And the story changes every time it is told. It was a story that was originally sold by a former butler, who said the then prince “ripped the sink off the wall” because he had lost a shirt stud down the plug hole. Not sure why an aide would have to hide in a cupboard because of this. Receiving money for a story often leads to hyperbole

typo

For clarity, and for those who purposefully wish to misinterpret my words to boost their own dodgy arguments … I never ever said that the victims are doing it for commercial gain.

I said the people who were reporting it had financial incentives.

If Meghan bullied someone in BP then I would hope it was dealt with professionally, which means an enquiry should have been carried out by an independent body, in a transparent way.

I find it highly dodgy that an enquiry was leaked about and not announced, and then the results weren’t forthcoming, And that the instigator works for Prince William. And everyone accepts that interpretation as the truth!

That is what I am saying. But it suits certain people on here to deliberately misunderstand.

Stop obfuscating.

And answer the Qs asked of you:

Can you expand and specify on how these people have gained commercially?

Can you explain why MM when alleging the BP bullying allegations were a 'calculated smear campaign' and following the bulling expose in THR has not sued for defamation?

Why would she allow this smear campaign to stick?

It was from an ex staff member. The Royal Family quickly got an injunction to prevent any further revelations.

From an ex butler who sold his story. For money. See my post above

What? I’m not obfuscating. I think that’s you! You are the one bringing unrelated sex offenders in the mix not me!

Can you expand and specify on how these people have gained commercially?

You can’t understand how a newspaper makes money by writing stories?

Can you explain why MM when alleging the BP bullying allegations were a 'calculated smear campaign' and following the bulling expose in THR has not sued for defamation?

No, Can you? Maybe she tried but couldn’t prise enough information about the enquiry out of BP? Because, you know, it was all done in secret?

The only statement I can find from BP was that they were concerned by a report in the Times of claims that Meghan had driven out two personal assistants during her time as a working royal, while Kensington Palace staff had been “humiliated” on several occasions.

They went on to say,

“Accordingly our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned.”

Harry and Meghan queried the timing of this statement stating it was suspicious as it went out just prior to their interview with Oprah; another one with a commercial interest btw.

The Guardian at the time reported that,

”The source acknowledged that a direct accusation of responsibility against the palace by the couple had been clumsily phrased, but suggested “people in the royal orbit” were responsible for the timing of the story – and claimed it was intended to create scepticism over Meghan before the high-profile interview to be aired on Monday.”

Good to discuss both perspectives I think. If that qualifies as obfuscation in your mind then I can’t help you I’m afraid.

Why should he not receive money for it? You do know staff are paid very low wages? He probably needed the money. If what he said was untrue, he would have been sued. He was not. Instead the Royal Family just used the law to shut him up.

I said it was hyperbolic. I didn’t say something like that might not have happened, just that it’s unlikely that Charles was physically capable of pulling a sink off the wall. And that the original story doesn’t mention anyone hiding in a cupboard. The RF very rarely get involved in litigation or explain themselves. How do you know they issued an injunction?

typo

Ooh bullet points! I have got you riled!

• you don't have a source, you were making shit up without

Never said I did! You were the one who claimed I said I had a source, when it was my opinion based on their own statement, you are the one making shit up, learn to read carefully before you fire back you just make yourself look foolish.

• you apparently missed all the "working royals" who have milked the system over the years (Airmiles Andy anyone?) and think that the grifting cousins/hangers on are ok. BTW I have no problem with their deal with Netflix, I'm sure that working Royal Edward who has been involved in various media companies has no problem either.*

I didn’t miss them, I asked you who were the royals who sold access to the Queen as you claimed. I see you can’t supply your sources for this, interesting. Yes I don’t mind Zara representing Rolex or her brother promoting milk in South Korea or wherever it was, or Fergie selling books, they don’t want to collaborate with the King or represent the government on our behalf at the same time as commercial deals so they can crack on, same with H&M so long as they don’t represent the Crown they can do what they like. It amuses me how all these hangers on as you call them upset you so much by making money commercially, yet you have no problem whatsoever with Harry and Meghan doing the same, your cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.

• You think the Duchy of Cornwall and the title of PoW is automatic on death of the monarch/ascent of the new monarch (it isn't, unlike the automatic ascension of the heir which is automatic)*

Again, read posts properly, I never claimed it was automatic, stop putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say, I asked you if you had a problem with Charles being declared King the moment the Queen died.

Billionaire "family offices" and family estate management is not exactly a global secret. Don't take my word for it - google familes both from the modern era eg Buffet, the previous industrial era eg Getty or any of the big European landed families (including the RF in previous generations

Oh don’t worry I don’t take your word for anything! Have you perused the Royal accounts yet? I did google Gordon Getty but all I got was Meghan schmoozing up to him at the Beverly Hills hotel and his family having to step in to put a stop to it.

I note your failure to address the "doolittle" history of the Wales

I did address it actually as I said they were irrelevant to the discussion in hand but as you particularly want to push this point I will address it, and yes I do agree with you that they need to up their game, I gave them a pass while the children were young and also Catherine at the moment while she is in recovery, but in general they certainly need to be more Princess Anne, they can’t be part time senior royals anymore, as much as I like William and Catherine they do need to step up significantly.

Who in particular had a financial incentive?

The enquiry was by an independent law firm. This article addresses the points you have raised.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61984118

I won't reply to everything you said but wanted to point out some inaccuracies (I'm sure you support Prince Harry's campaign against misinformation).

Charles was unexpectedly and unusually quick to make William and Catherine Prince and Princess of Wales. However, William became the Duke of Cornwall and entitled to the Duchy of Cornwall funds the moment the Queen died, Charles didn't have any control over that.

Towards the end of your comment you wrote 'If the Wales don't like H&M deriving their own living then perhaps they should have been a bit more generous with the purse strings...'

William has never been responsible for allocating Harry funds. Charles was, when he was Prince of Wales, and he still would have been as King. William would have only taken on this responsibility when he becomes King.

For the third time; journalists and newspapers benefit financially by repeating a juicy story like that.

Can someone please find a quote from Buckingham Palace saying which law firm was used? Was it the Queen’s own lawyers by any chance? So unbiased then?

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how a closed institution such as the monarchy can possibly hold a transparent, objective enquiry in to itself?

If someone can give me the name of the law firm that might be a first step in believing that; A it took place , and B that it was transparent and objective.

Additional edit: all that BBC article says is
“ The review, launched in March 2021, examined the response to claims about bullying of staff - but any changes to policy will not be made public.”

The Hollywood Reporter publishes reports of 12 victims of bullying by MM - and she doesnt sue - why on earth not?

I am saying that the people who have alleged this allegation against M either have something to gain commercially or know where their bread is buttered.

To me this reads as though the victims of Meghan’s bullying are the ones who you are saying would benefit, you didn’t say journalists and media outlets as you have changed your narrative in subsequent posts, and as for the rest of it, you can research this all yourself, you have been given plenty of information, do your own legwork but the fact that you don’t even think it took place speaks volumes.

Well that was badly worded on my part then because I meant journalists and newspapers when I wrote it and I still do. I haven’t changed narratives.

No one sides with bullies and I certainly don’t. I assumed that would be understood.

And I commented that JK was working for W & K at the time when all of this fall out happened and still works for Earthshot now. So he can’t exactly be seen as objective.

Edited to say: I have tried to research the name of the lawyers who carried out the internal enquiry and can’t find it anywhere.

You know she formed brand Beckham?

For the sake of claritty, I have already stated four or five times in the thread already that I detest bullying and do not support it in any circumstances. But it is in the interests of RF supporters to ignore that I suppose.

They also ignored the remarks I made about misogyny in the Palace, and how other members of the RF have been known to behave in a less than pleasant manner eg Prince Andrew, Prince Philip, Princess Margaret, so why wasn’t their behaviour investigated too?

They have also ignored my main point which was,

If Meghan bullied someone in BP then I would hope it was dealt with professionally, which means an enquiry should have been carried out by an independent body, in a transparent way

As I said, I find it highly dodgy that an enquiry was leaked about and only announced retrospectively, at a highly contentious time for Harry, at the height of his battles with his brother, and then the results weren’t forthcoming, That the institution was essentially investigating itself. And that the instigator works for Prince William.

And everyone accepts that interpretation as fine and dandy without questioning it!

Genuine question on when the heir apparent becomes Prince of Wales (asking in case someone has it at their fingertips, I’ll try google this evening)

Prince William became PoW the day after his father’s accession, having become Duke of Cornwall automatically on ER II’s death

Prince Charles, who was 3 when ER II became Queen, became PoW when he was 10, investiture when he was 22

Before him was Edward VIII who was 16 when his father acceded; (7 weeks in to George V’s reign) investiture a year later

IIRC, George III was born as heir apparent, and was PoW from birth

Cant think of others offhand, but William’s isn’t the shortest interval - but are those two atypical?