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.

I don't actually give a monkey's whether you think JK was "objective" or not - he was giving a voice to those people whom you keep dismissing, the actual victims of the bullying. He wasn't complaining about being bullied, so his loyalties one way or another don't matter one damn.

Might there be a legitimate reason why the identity of the lawyers isn't public knowledge? Think about it.... though I guess you're not objective enough to come out with a rationale that isn't nefarious, because it suits your purposes!

@adriftinadenofvipers "
Yeah, I guessed it was a 'cleverly coined' little phrase from your own head because nobody else uses it"

I can but hope! 🤣

I love a royal thread 🍿😃 so much snark all round. I always imagine this is driven by different sets of royal PR and a mighty battle is being fought in places like mumsnet and Reddit etc.

@adriftinadenofvipers i have just read the rest of the thread and you are the biggest driveller.

A state dinner for the Qatari government, obviously organised by the state and hosted by royal family (as we all know that’s how these things are organised :-)) with the beckhams in attendance, is absolutely nothing to do with harry and Megan. No matter how much you try to shoehorn it in.

i made an attempt to being in the relevant point about the 3m (yes just 1m in fortnum and mason bags!) in plastic bags and valises and hold all’s that were passed over to Charles by the Qatari state. It’s sometimes nice to have the opportunity to remind people of such things whether there is wrongdoing or not. I believe that none of us would get away with such things but that’s for me and others to make their minds up on.

you shut down anyone that doesn’t want to trash H&M even though it is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

I guess that you will try and trash me again for my input as you do to anyone who doesn’t just want to trash H&M. And anyone who disagrees with you in any way.

luckily I have no respect whatsoever for anything that you have to say.

I will now annoy you again by signing off and unwatching this stupid thread.

You might have set something off I guess!

Thank you so much! That's such a great compliment!

I'd be mildly and extremely fleetingly irritated if some random on the internet who has posted an inordinate amount of unfounded and repetitive bullshit had any regard for anything I have said!

It's a win 😂

Unfounded? If you are referring to the Qatari 3 million Euros passed over to Charles in plastic bags, hold all’s etc it is absolutely on record.

If you just want to bash H&M you should start a thread on it.

HTH.

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?

Wow. You really don’t know much about lawyers, do you? Once again, the tactic is to smear everybody necessary to uphold your preferred belief.

The Queen’s lawyers have traditionally been Harbottle and Lewis, by the 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 might well be dodgy. But it’s not remotely what happened, so it’s irrelevant.

Jason Knauf worked closely with Meghan and Harry both before and after they were married. In that role he saw, and was concerned by Meghan’s behaviour towards her staff. So much so that he made a formal complaint about bullying. He said at the time he feared no action would be taken, which was correct - it got brushed under the carpet, and no action was taken. No investigation happened at all at this time. Jason (who was the complainant, not an investigator) then left his role in 2019 - which is the appropriate thing to do really, if you’ve exposed bad behaviour and no action is taken by the employer.

Meghan’s behaviour continued, we presume (I note for example that Senior Aide Samantha Cohen herself has said she had wanted to leave her role for some time - Valentine Hoy reports staffers saying Samantha was frequently shouted at and berated - but they couldn’t find someone who wanted to take on the role, and when they did hire a replacement, they took them on Meghan and Harry’s South Africa tour, and the replacement quit half way through it).

Time passes. Meghan and Harry leave the Royal Family and then arrange the Oprah interview. Former staffers are upset by how the interview is being trailed, and how Meghan is presenting herself as a victim and so they approach Valentine Hoy, senior journalist at the Times to tell their side of the story. They are subject to Non-disclosure agreements, and so have to do this in this way - as an expose to a journalist as whistleblowers as otherwise they are gagged. Valentine Hoy is absolutely clear in the article about their reasons for coming forward now, and so why it has been published when it has.

At this point the Palace is publicly exposed as, frankly, completely ignoring a serious bullying complaint and hanging its staff out to dry. This is a serious failing on their point. At this stage the Palace announce they will appoint an independent law firm to investigate their processes and make recommendations. This will necessarily involve considerations of whether Jason Knauf’s compliant was founded.

This report has not been published. No-one should expect it to be. These matters are highly confidential in any organisation. The most we were told is that it had been completed, and changes to processes have been made.

Hmm

That's someone who knows sod all about nothing lol.

Wouldn't you be embarrassed to make such a fool of yourself?!

Thank you @Serenster for that clear, factual analysis of what actually happened, not some made-uppy pile of nonsense to justify someone's totally unfounded claims.

I was beginning to think for a bit that I was the one who was going mad!!

@Serenster that's a good summary of what happened. The Times journalist is Valentine Low not Hoy though (i love a typo).

His book Courtiers is fascinating for its insights into how the palaces work, or don't work.

Still on the subject of Qatar state visit?

Travelling so not able to post at length but interested in your reply Serenster thank you.

I still think the timing of the Valentine Low’s story is somewhat suspicious I’m afraid despite his protestations to the contrary.

Also, Valentine Low is the half-brother of the author Penelope Lively, who is often photographed with Queen Camilla at the literary events she supports such as Booker Prize receptions at Clarence House.

Possibly corruption? By the palace?

I have no proof of that whatsoever. Just thought it was interesting.

You are clutching at straws.

You are right it is.

Also, Valentine Low is the half-brother of the author Penelope Lively, who is often photographed with Queen Camilla at the literary events she supports such as Booker Prize receptions at Clarence House.

This reads like a parody.

Where on earth do you find this sort of trivia?

Not when it is utterly made up guessology without a shred of proof and a complete stretch anyway. Serenster outlined the timeline of what happened. Making things up to try and fit with your disproved theory doesn’t cut it

eta I mean making up the idea of palace corruption. Just realised that wasn’t very clear

Where is your source that it is made up? Name your source,

Sorry. Amended my post to
make it clear I meant the “palace corruption” was what I meant was made up