Vanity Fair podcast

[Atlasvue]

Carrying on.

Employee feels Harry is happy doing charity work and is happy for meghan to do all the work to make money so he doesn’t need to

I know, that was one of the things that was so, erm, entertaining about the whole saga. At the time, I was ready to believe that the press were being awful to Meghan to stir up a fictional feud between the two duchesses for headlines and clicks. It was pretty obvious that the two duchesses wouldn't be a natural fit (Meghan's public confidence and Kate's reluctant public speaking, Meghan's work history and Kate's lack of work, for example). I figured that the press were poking at those differences in the hope of causing trouble but, it turns out, they didn't have to manufacture it.

What articles were true?

Also what was written by the UK press and her bullying.

It follows the exact same pattern

I'm sure the palace insiders said that when she shines a light on you it’s warm, then she ignores you and she’s so cold. In particular she bullied lower ranking staff members.

That's exactly what they said in the VF article- at first she’s warm but then she’ll turn on you- feed you to the wolves it says, give you the cold shoulder, mean girl tactics. Again, targeting lower ranking staff.

She also uses other people to do her dirty work. Remember in the lead up to the wedding that Harry was shouting ‘what meghan wants, meghan gets’. She sends in others so she doesn’t have to look bad. Like she got this Terri Woods to do the shouting for her this time on the podcast production.

I've now listened to it as well as read it. It really feels like a turning point. I will also admit to feeling a bit sorry for them. Yes, they put themselves out there, yes, they shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it, but, ouch, this is brutal.

Vanity Fair has been one of the most incisive, well connected and reputable sources of stories about the British royalty since the 1980s, when it was edited by (the British) Tina Brown.

And British imperialism, championed by the royal family of just a single generation ago, continues to have devastating impacts on post-colonial countries around the world struggling with post-colonialism corruption, debt, ethnic fractures (encouraged by the British in a divide-and-conquer strategy).

It is absolutely right that media consider the tension between the ongoing tragedy of British imperialism and a royal family who want all the personal benefit and no responsibility for the consequences of their legacy.

@Atlasvue if you still haven't been able to read the article:

archive.ph/2025.01.17-161858/https//www.vanityfair.com/style/story/prince-harry-meghan-markle-cover-story-2025

Edit: first attempt didn't work. I manually typed it out and you'd probably need to copy and paste it but I hope that'll work, not sure I'll be able to edit again.

Thanks@Not2identifying

It must be my phone causing issues

That podcast was quite the listen.

I can't think of anything written by the British media that was quite so devastating.

Thanks for the lecture, but VF is basically one step up from 'People' magazine now.

I'm not sure a journalist who refers to the 'Queen of England' is a good bet for ' incisive, well connected and reputable sources of stories about the British royalty'.

Sorry, I don't think my second attempt worked either. I'm looking at an archived version on archive.today.

The cover:American Hustle

Dan Wootton leading with the post divorce book. Even he is shocked!

Dan Wootton is a creep.

That cover photo is an interesting choice. Holding hands but looking in different directions. Harry looks glum but she is clearly happily talking to someone else outside the frame. Of all the photos they could have chosen, that's the one they go with?

My take: what a great, classic VF piece.

I agree that ultimately this will be the mud that sticks.

I think the attempts at balance aren't "veneer" that's just normal proper reporting to include credible counter narratives so you're not just dismissing stuff you don't like.

The story that sticks with me is Meghan's pride at never signing an NDA ("I have a voice, I've never lost it"); then making her staff sign NDAs. It's so emblematic of how differently she sees them- and others- to how she sees herself.

Interested to see Elizabeth from SMT thoughts- my feeling is she commendably recognised that some of her (and the general) early criticism of Meghan was based in racist tropes, but she's so afraid of being accused of that again that she just can't bring herself to acknowledge the increasingly compelling case that Meghan is a bad employer and a workplace bully.

He is, but it’s the fact that even he is shocked.

Gosh, I'd love to see the journalism you're accessing if you consider this story- with what looks to be about 20+ separate and reputable sources- as one step up from People magazine.

The photo has a great narrative energy! Could be from a fashion shoot.

Yeah, she really does look like a superstar in it.

I mean what the hell must be going on back at the office of the Duke and Duchess. So far……Her show and brand have been delayed, her tv trailer mocked, the fires, ‘disaster tourists’. Now- she’s confirmed as a bully and looks like the ‘love’ story narrative is falling apart because she was seeking a post divorce book!

Crazy times

Im guessing they won’t sue though. They never sued the HR. Although, this is much much worse.

Here’s me thinking the divorce gossip today would be about the Obamas!

Listening to this did actually make me laugh out loud.
There is no way at all that it wasn't meant to be sarcastic.

The Office of the D & D of Sussex might be in disarray but I expect their former UK staff are feeling mighty vindicated.

It's interesting that they must have known this was coming, and that a "source" said something along the lines of "Meghan is going to win everyone over with her warmth in her show, you'll be sorry you ever doubted her" a few days ago.

Almost seems like a pre-emptive clapback.

I think that with Trump coming in and the "death of woke", a lot of previously-celebrated celebs are about to be thrown under the bus to suit this new narrative.

Meghan's tattle tale interview with Oprah was a mistake as no a-listers, nor any of the royal family, will ever trust her again. She'll never ever be on the a-list inner circle. If she could be, there's no way VF would be going for them like this. You'd never get a piece like this about Beyoncé or Taylor Swift.

I think it wouldn't be so bad for her (the Oprah interview) if she had stuck 100% to objective fact. In the VF article, it talks about (I'm now working from memory) 'emotional truth' and 'literal truth'. Meghan is very associated with one rather than the other.

Podcast staff needed therapy. That’s what the Telegraph are leading with

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/01/17/podcast-staff-needed-therapy-working-with-meghan-reports/

https://archive.ph/U4U7Z

This bit caught my eye (now I've got to the written version, courtesy of Apple News)

"This intracouple permission to stray from other's realities may have led to some of the points of contention that people bring up when questioning Meghan's fidelity to emotional truth above literal truth....(examples)"

(How does that square with Archewell statement on fact checking?)