Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Why is there more online vitriol towards Megan Markle than Andrew?

969 replies

ladykale · 22/10/2025 10:21

I find it ridiculous how there is consistent hate towards Megan markle when she does pretty low key things like launching jam that no one is being forced to buy. People were delighted that she is no longer using HRH titles and even said she shouldn’t call herself the Duchess of Sussex (even though that is distinct from royal titles).

On the flip side - NO ONE has called for an actual investigation into Prince Andrew on the days that he claimed to be at Pizza Express in Woking, when his movements are logged by the royal gamily and his security detail so they eill
know exactly where he was!

He slept with an underage victim of sex trafficking who
conveniently died by suicide shortly before her memoir naming and shaming many individuals came out.

Limited criticism of the late Queen who used £12million
pg her personal money to pay off an underage sec trafficking victim & shielded him from any investigation.

Disgusted by it all and was amused to see the vitriol on an article about Megan breathing, whereas limited calls for Andrew to be investigated by any U.S or UK authorities!

WHY?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:18

logplant · 24/10/2025 06:20

I feel like this about every person who rants about MM - in real life, I judge them and I slightly regret knowing them - I have no idea how they can spend so much time and headspace hating on a total stranger - but you have put it so much better than I ever could!

Well clearly not as it was deleted 🙄

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:22

Lampzade · 24/10/2025 06:47

Simple answer
She is the royal scapegoat .
TPTB use her to deflect attention from the mess the monarchy has become .

How fucking clever and devious are the RF to use her as a scapegoat even though everything she does is from her own free will?

That’s next level evil genius 🤣Positively Machiavellian!

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:24

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 24/10/2025 07:04

How do you know? We weren’t privy to all of the discussions were we?

Harry before he left saw his uncle living in luxury in a £30 million pound mansion funded god knows how , enjoying the benefits of a life of half in and half out deals! While his own accommodation for his wife and family, was a lot less prestigious, despite him being a son of the monarch. And with half-in, half-out arrangements denied to him and his wife, whose mother incidentally lives in the States.

He would have seen his uncle Edward similarly accommodated in a £30 million pound pile; another one with very favourable lease arrangements in relation to the size of the house. And arguably Edward is a lot less good at charity work than Harry. He refuses to shake hands with the public fhs which I would have thought was a pretty minimum requirement for a royal!

And it’s notable that Andrew got a tax payer funded full police escort to the funeral of Katherine, Duchess of Kent, only a few weeks ago, no questions asked, despite him apparently having been struck off. Whereas Harry has had to battle for similar accommodations.

Andrew and Sarah enjoyed similar tax payer funded police protection in Sarah’s case while she was on many, many holidays with their dc, and in Andrew’s case while he reaped substantial financial rewards, some extremely dodgy and murky, for over a decade of half-in and half -out working arrangements!

I think it’s pretty obvious that Andrew shockingly had a strong protector and defender in the late Queen, no matter what crimes he had committed, but Harry couldn’t rely on his father and his step mother of course to bat for him, even before he committed his so called “sins” against the family, which were considerably less serious than anything Andrew has done!

Given the circumstances mentioned above, I could understand it if Harry felt pretty pissed off and aggrieved by his situation, especially in comparison to that of his uncle Andrew, who by the looks of it was committing fraud on tax-payers’ time, was hob-nobbing with a Chinese spy relatively recently, and until a few days ago enjoyed substantial protection from KC3!

God you know a lot for not having been privy to the discussions?

Not even going to bother trying to disentangle this drivel!

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:27

Lifestooshort71 · 24/10/2025 07:45

@CoffeeCantata
The creepy performance of M on the engagement interview.
100% this - it rang real alarm bells to me but seemed to go generally unnoticed, I guess a lot of people were happy for Harry and really thought he'd struck lucky, I know I did until then.

I just thought she was an OTT American (apologies to our US friends, you’re not all like this by any means!) who didn’t know her ‘place’, ie lacking in manners and respect!

CoffeeCantata · 24/10/2025 20:30

It’s not possible to believe that the RF knew all about Andrew but that Harry didn’t. I’m sure most of them knew he was on a spectrum between ‘criminal sex offender/ financial fraudster’ and ‘arrogant prat who keeps dodgy company’, but exactly who knew what and when would be hard to establish. It’s well-known that there’s no love lost between KC and Andrew, so they may not have seen that much of each other (they’re not the average family) in recent years.

I think it’s clear that, if we’re asserting that Andrew has been enabled and tolerated by the RF, then Harry must be included in this. And I’m shocked and baffled by his silence on the subject - especially the denial of Lownie’s punch claim. How do we square the circle?

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:31

Spectre8 · 24/10/2025 10:20

Imagine laughing all day about mm post..like doesnt something else in your life make you laugh than a sm post. Not to mention thats in your heads pace all day long...

Did you actually take this literally?🤣

Most of us would just have seen it as a figure of speech. How bizarre!

CoffeeCantata · 24/10/2025 20:33

chunkyBoo · 24/10/2025 18:15

I suspect M and PA have ‘met’ before, so they probably have a mutual amount of dirt on each other - just my opinion 😉🛥️

Edited

There’s got to be something! It’s like the Sherlock Holmes quote about ‘the dog in the night-time’. Why did the dog (Harry) do nothing in the night-time?

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:35

MrsFinkelstein · 24/10/2025 10:07

Really long post to quote, but also so much barefaced falsehoods.

H&M left in 2019. He was son of the PoW. QE2 didn't die until 2022. While his own accommodation for his wife and family, was a lot less prestigious, despite him being a son of the monarch. The sons of the Monarch in 2019 were Charles, Andrew & Edward. So according to your logic they were all in perfectly appropriate accomodation for their positions.

Who knows what properties H&M would have been offered had they not left, but instead chosen to step down as Senior Working Royals and remained on friendly terms? They had been offered Apt 1 in Kensington Palace (bigger apt than W&C). They refused it. Charles offered to buy them a country estate. They refused that.

But by 2022, according to your logic, as now son of the Monarch - he would have been offered bigger accommodation.

Harry also got fully taxpayer funded Police Protection at QE2 funeral, at his father's coronation, when he visited his father after his cancer diagnosis. In fact - he gets fully assessed police protection whenever he (& Meghan) would visit the UK - fully risk assessed. It should barely need pointing out Andrew got protection because he was going to an event where the Monarch and Heir were also attending.

I think Andrew is a vile, pompous, entitled twat, as is his wife. I'm delighted he's no longer able to use his titles and is being fully scrutinised. If criminal acts have been committed then he should be held fully accountable - as should ALL the other men involved in Epstein's illegal activity.

I think H&M are pretty vacuous, entitled airheads whose pompous behaviour on the American celeb circuit makes me laugh. In the same way celebs like the Kardashians do. I find them a fascinating study into grandiose delusions and behaviour - and a never before seen rise & fall when fame has overwhelmed. I hope H pays his court costs back to the UK taxpayer.

But what do I know? Apparently I'm just Peggy Mitchell.

Fair play to you @MrsFinkelstein for taking that nonsense on. I couldn’t be arsed! Thank you!

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:38

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 24/10/2025 10:32

Yes that is obviously the latest monarchist line as so many of you are stating it all at once! Funny that!

I don’t buy it. It’s a very rational question that most reasonable people will be asking in the circumstances; that in the middle of the Prince Andrew furore where at long last, mainstream media and certain MPs are asking more questions about Prince Andrew’s potentially illegal activities while trade envoy, and his peppercorn rent and the murky arrangements surrounding public and private financing, why does Meghan Markle have to be mentioned at all?

And yet she is! Piers Morgan is spouting on about her again and using his new anti-woke book as an excuse to do it!

And Meghan’s was at one point second story in the Daily Fail again today!

No doubt it will be Camilla’s friend, Jeremy Clarkson, next!

The plain and simple answer is that stories about Meghan have been used time and time again to (a) distract from the less salubrious antics of the RF and (b) to make money,

Anyone with any nouse most surely recognise a PR strategy by now when they see one?

Over fertile imagination tips over into fantasy.

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:44

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 24/10/2025 11:21

Well I would go along with forelock tuggers (joke) 😃

I don’t agree with the pleb comment, but in all honesty, I do think there is a bit of reluctance on behalf of royalists who are so attached to the principle of having a monarchy that it prevents them from wanting to look behind the veil of what is revealed when a serious journalist goes diggiing.

It’s rarely anything good! Do monarchists ever ask with genuine curiosity why it is necessary for our H of S to be cloaked in heavy layers of secrecy? And why so much information is unavailable to us ordinary citizens? Such as their wills and records of Andrew’s time spent working with the foreign office?

I know that monarchists are as individual as republicans in their views, but if we are lumping them all roughly together, I would have more respect, if one of their number had, for example, in response to Lownie’s findings, started a thread asking how much the late QE2 knew about Andrew’s “dodgy financial deals on the side” while acting as trade envoy? It’s also seriously worrying that us ordinary folk have few powers to change this situation.

I mean, this is serious stuff! Our head of state potentially covering up illegal behaviour! The Royal family acting as though they are above the law!

I may have missed it as I am not on here all of the time, but to my knowledge not one monarchist has posed this question? And it makes me question their objectivity and integrity if I’m honest.

That’s a sincere answer btw. I don’t want to insult anyone.

Edited

You have insulted people. Plenty of ‘monarchist’ leaning posters have condemned Andrew, both before and since this newer information emerged - but it doesn’t suit your agenda to acknowledge that.

Andrew has been universally despised for years by a vast majority.

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:49

CoffeeCantata · 24/10/2025 11:33

Meghan loves to grab a mic and hold forth about women finding their voices. I wish she was as keen not to silence the many women who’ve left her employ feeling gagged, bullied and belittled.

I loathe hypocrisy and Meghan has a PhD in it.

Funny you should say that! I just read a report of Meghan snatching a microphone off her friend at an event in a bookstore and showing her how to use it!

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:57

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 24/10/2025 13:52

The sheer proportion of invective directed at her amounts to hate imho,

Your opinion is incorrect for the most part. Open your mind!

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 21:02

jumpingthehighjump · 24/10/2025 14:57

Totally agree.
It's endless

Totally disagree.

Anyway scroll on by! Rise above it instead of sitting there feverishly cobbling together insults that you think make you look clever when the reverse is the case.

It’s tiresome.

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 21:08

ConverseAddict · 24/10/2025 15:17

Because M is American and they see value in houses in the size. Someone British would understand something can be small but worth much more. Notts Cottage is prime real estate by area and the security it gives.
Even people who live in great big stately homes often just live in an apartment in them.
But yes an apartment in KP/Nott Cottage would have been fine through British eyes, but probably not to someone from LA.

Pretty grandiose expectations from someone who didn’t even have her own property in her late 30s!

She appreciated none of the riches she accessed purely because of who she married!

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 21:17

CoffeeCantata · 24/10/2025 17:58

Well perhaps YOU can answer my question then, which I’ve now asked three separate times (of H&M fans) only to get absolute silence and tumbleweed!

My question is this:

Thinking of all the complaints and whinging which Harry and Meghan put out in their documentary, the OW interview and in Spare, and also thinking of the vicious attacks they launched against the softest target of all, H’s one-time ‘sister’, Catherine, can you explain why the appalling, seedy, corrupt, abusive, likely-criminal, Andrew, got off Scot-free? Not a dickie bird of criticism of him. In fact Harry was very quick off the mark to assert that he had NOT punched his uncle Andrew, despite Lownie telling us he definitely did.

I would be beyond grateful for any light H and M defenders can throw on this puzzling question.

I can’t answer but I agree.

Why was there a complete absence of any ‘Andrew did this yet was allowed to do that, and to make money as a working royal, but I wasn’t allowed to’?

He might even have had a point! So why didn’t he take that line?

On a side note, I will be delighted if the gruesome twosome have to leave RL! I had a feeling it was coming.

ozarina · 24/10/2025 21:43

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 20:22

How fucking clever and devious are the RF to use her as a scapegoat even though everything she does is from her own free will?

That’s next level evil genius 🤣Positively Machiavellian!

I really can't believe that some posters think that Meghan was used from day one as a cover up for the rest of the RF. 😂 what kinds of minds do some people have? It's ludicrous.

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 21:56

ozarina · 24/10/2025 21:43

I really can't believe that some posters think that Meghan was used from day one as a cover up for the rest of the RF. 😂 what kinds of minds do some people have? It's ludicrous.

The levels of stupidity here sometimes plumb the depths!

jumpingthehighjump · 25/10/2025 05:46

Tiredofbullsit · 24/10/2025 21:02

Totally disagree.

Anyway scroll on by! Rise above it instead of sitting there feverishly cobbling together insults that you think make you look clever when the reverse is the case.

It’s tiresome.

Anyway scroll on by! Rise above it instead of sitting there feverishly cobbling together insults that you think make you look clever when the reverse is the case.

I haven't insulted anyone. Why are you saying I'm sitting cobbling together insults, when it's clearly untrue.
To have a different opinion to some on here is not insulting anyone.

Anything you see me post that you deem to be an insult, please report to mnhq, I'm more than happy with their decision

ozarina · 25/10/2025 18:50

Now what were we talking about? 😂😂😂

ozarina · 25/10/2025 20:28

Meghan doing a countdown to the launch of more plonk? It looks like someone having a Pap smear 😬

Tiredofbullsit · 26/10/2025 18:52

jumpingthehighjump · 25/10/2025 05:46

Anyway scroll on by! Rise above it instead of sitting there feverishly cobbling together insults that you think make you look clever when the reverse is the case.

I haven't insulted anyone. Why are you saying I'm sitting cobbling together insults, when it's clearly untrue.
To have a different opinion to some on here is not insulting anyone.

Anything you see me post that you deem to be an insult, please report to mnhq, I'm more than happy with their decision

You’re posting in plain sight. We can all read them.

jumpingthehighjump · 27/10/2025 04:48

I have no idea what you mean. Who is 'we'?!
I insult no one. I give my opinion which is the basis of a forum. Opinions.
Enjoy your day

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 27/10/2025 06:10

Indianrollerbird · 24/10/2025 11:31

Not really. Most regular critics of the Sussexes - the ones being criticised in this thread - are informed, inquiring, polite and literate. They don’t come here to call others jealous, racist, forelock tuggers etc. You might not like the subject matter of the discussion, but it is a discussion. At the very least, they have the courtesy to ensure their words make sense before pressing “post”.

I find this post both typical and extraordinary!

I know the regular critics of the Sussexes genuinely believe themselves to be

“informed, inquiring, polite, and literate”

but in all honesty, speaking as a poster who when posting generally across Mumsnet, tries quite hard not to insult people, I have never come across more goading, condescension and closed minds than when on the royal threads.

Most people out in the rational world do think it is surprising that MM is still appearing in the headlines of many tabloids and as the subject of many podcasts, is still written and spoken about by the usual culprits, even though there is, contrary to the very convenient rhetoric on here, so much to discuss about Andrew. The invective waged against her is obsessive and disproportionate.

Just finding yourself of the same opinion as Piers Morgan should normally be enough for people to question themselves surely?

And speaking of Andrew; there is so much more to say and find out; eg how much did the late QE2 and the then Prince Charles know, who in the RF was responsible for covering up his illegal activities carried out by him when he was funded by tax-payers and acting as trade envoy, even when proof was brought to them by diplomats and politicians and complaints had been made about him in the FO, what did Andrew give in return for the money he received in murky deals with dodgy international businessmen, ditto the Chinese spy, where is he getting the money to pay for Royal Lodge now, should he face charges for his corrupt behaviour, when can this be discussed in the H of C, should the RF continue to be responsible for managing their own finances without more outside checks and more transparency and accountability, to name but a few subjects for discussion?

But no, there is nothing further to discuss about Andrew apparently! Nothing at all! So let’s continue to have a dig at Meghan! It’s laughable honestly!

And most reasonable people see through it and understand that even now, all of these years on, criticism of MM is being used as a useful distraction away from pertinent questions being asked about whether some key members of RF see themselves as above the law?

IAmATorturedPoet · 27/10/2025 07:53

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 27/10/2025 06:10

I find this post both typical and extraordinary!

I know the regular critics of the Sussexes genuinely believe themselves to be

“informed, inquiring, polite, and literate”

but in all honesty, speaking as a poster who when posting generally across Mumsnet, tries quite hard not to insult people, I have never come across more goading, condescension and closed minds than when on the royal threads.

Most people out in the rational world do think it is surprising that MM is still appearing in the headlines of many tabloids and as the subject of many podcasts, is still written and spoken about by the usual culprits, even though there is, contrary to the very convenient rhetoric on here, so much to discuss about Andrew. The invective waged against her is obsessive and disproportionate.

Just finding yourself of the same opinion as Piers Morgan should normally be enough for people to question themselves surely?

And speaking of Andrew; there is so much more to say and find out; eg how much did the late QE2 and the then Prince Charles know, who in the RF was responsible for covering up his illegal activities carried out by him when he was funded by tax-payers and acting as trade envoy, even when proof was brought to them by diplomats and politicians and complaints had been made about him in the FO, what did Andrew give in return for the money he received in murky deals with dodgy international businessmen, ditto the Chinese spy, where is he getting the money to pay for Royal Lodge now, should he face charges for his corrupt behaviour, when can this be discussed in the H of C, should the RF continue to be responsible for managing their own finances without more outside checks and more transparency and accountability, to name but a few subjects for discussion?

But no, there is nothing further to discuss about Andrew apparently! Nothing at all! So let’s continue to have a dig at Meghan! It’s laughable honestly!

And most reasonable people see through it and understand that even now, all of these years on, criticism of MM is being used as a useful distraction away from pertinent questions being asked about whether some key members of RF see themselves as above the law?

Edited

There are at least 15 active threads about Andrew and the York family on the RF board (one or two trending), so lots of questions being asked and discussion being had.

How have you missed all these?

Indianrollerbird · 27/10/2025 08:22

ChatHeeBeeGez6298 · 27/10/2025 06:10

I find this post both typical and extraordinary!

I know the regular critics of the Sussexes genuinely believe themselves to be

“informed, inquiring, polite, and literate”

but in all honesty, speaking as a poster who when posting generally across Mumsnet, tries quite hard not to insult people, I have never come across more goading, condescension and closed minds than when on the royal threads.

Most people out in the rational world do think it is surprising that MM is still appearing in the headlines of many tabloids and as the subject of many podcasts, is still written and spoken about by the usual culprits, even though there is, contrary to the very convenient rhetoric on here, so much to discuss about Andrew. The invective waged against her is obsessive and disproportionate.

Just finding yourself of the same opinion as Piers Morgan should normally be enough for people to question themselves surely?

And speaking of Andrew; there is so much more to say and find out; eg how much did the late QE2 and the then Prince Charles know, who in the RF was responsible for covering up his illegal activities carried out by him when he was funded by tax-payers and acting as trade envoy, even when proof was brought to them by diplomats and politicians and complaints had been made about him in the FO, what did Andrew give in return for the money he received in murky deals with dodgy international businessmen, ditto the Chinese spy, where is he getting the money to pay for Royal Lodge now, should he face charges for his corrupt behaviour, when can this be discussed in the H of C, should the RF continue to be responsible for managing their own finances without more outside checks and more transparency and accountability, to name but a few subjects for discussion?

But no, there is nothing further to discuss about Andrew apparently! Nothing at all! So let’s continue to have a dig at Meghan! It’s laughable honestly!

And most reasonable people see through it and understand that even now, all of these years on, criticism of MM is being used as a useful distraction away from pertinent questions being asked about whether some key members of RF see themselves as above the law?

Edited

And speaking of Andrew; there is so much more to say and find out; eg how much did the late QE2 and the then Prince Charles know, who in the RF was responsible for covering up his illegal activities carried out by him when he was funded by tax-payers and acting as trade envoy, even when proof was brought to them by diplomats and politicians and complaints had been made about him in the FO, what did Andrew give in return for the money he received in murky deals with dodgy international businessmen, ditto the Chinese spy, where is he getting the money to pay for Royal Lodge now, should he face charges for his corrupt behaviour, when can this be discussed in the H of C, should the RF continue to be responsible for managing their own finances without more outside checks and more transparency and accountability, to name but a few subjects for discussion?

And what new insight have you added to any of these matters in your discussions? Why should I talk to you about these things when I can watch Andrew Lownie discussing them all over UK news outlets?

I want to know about his Crown Estates lease. Do you have a copy? Do you know what's in it? Do you understand leasehold law? Have you ever conducted a court procedure to evict someone on a long lease? If not, what's the point in talking to you?

What do you know about the cover up by the Queen/KC? What are your insights that advance that conversation?

What information so you have about Andrew's time as a trade envoy over and above that which Andrew Lownie tried and failed to obtain on FOI? Do you know anyone in the DTI who can spill the beans to you? How do you advance the knowledge about his activities in your discussions?

What am I getting from spending my time talking to you or anyone else about these things? I've already been on a couple of threads, I don't think the discussion you want has progressed since those ones I posted on. People are asking all the same questions you are asking above, and nobody is giving you any answers. So how does talking to you about Prince Andrew advance my understanding and why should I spend my time on it, when I can put a podcast of Andrew Lownie on and hear from an expert on the matter?

And most reasonable people see through it and understand that even now, all of these years on, criticism of MM is being used as a useful distraction away from pertinent questions being asked about whether some key members of RF see themselves as above the law?

Why are you distracted by discussion of MM? I can hold many thoughts in my head at once, and I can discuss many, many topics in a single day. If I discuss MM, I don't automatically forget everything else. What's wrong with you that this is the effect on you? How is the news cycle ignoring Andrew in favour of Meghan's latest instagram reel? I haven't noticed the latter trumping the former on BBC news or any other MSM, have you?

Just finding yourself of the same opinion as Piers Morgan should normally be enough for people to question themselves surely?

If you are so offended by Piers Morgan's views, I suggest you stop watching him. I don't, because I don't care for the man. If you measure your opinions and moral compass by what a media gobshite might/does believe, then I am afraid that makes you a bit of a lemming. I form my own opinions.