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

[ladykale]

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?

Sure, I get that some of the people they associate with have questionable histories, and Harry and Meghan are scrutinized because of their status. But it’s also important to separate their personal actions from the people around them. Meghan doesn’t control everyone Harry knows, Oprah, or other adult people business connections, they’re not her responsibility who a friend of a friend in terms of guilt. So yes, discuss questionable associations, but let’s be precise about what Meghan herself is actually responsible for, instead of letting sexism and rumor drive the conversation. People like you didn't show same rage when Catherine was laughing comfortably with a sexual offender like Donald Trump; or William, Catherine and royal family was cozing up to Andrew, driving with him, laughing with him, protecting him, those are facts bigger than a 'friend of a friend', or any rumour that it's impossible to prove.

People like you didn't show same rage when Catherine was laughing comfortably with a sexual offender like Donald Trump or William, Catherine and royal family was cozing up to Andrew, driving with him, laughing with him, those are facts bigger than a 'friend of a friend'.

God, do you have any straws left to grasp? Catherine was acting on behalf of the Labour government, sitting next to Trump, exercising soft diplomacy, doing the bidding of Kier Starmer so that Trump doesn't fuck the UK over with tariffs. What was she supposed to do? Stick a knife into his side? I'm sure you won't be complaining about the economic stability having Trump on side brings the UK. And by the way, when Catherine was illegally papped and published topless all those years ago, Trump made some disgusting comments about it/her. That she did not shirk her duties to the Crown and this country, and sat next to that beast and made him feel charmed enough to look kindly on this country, shows you that she is ideally suited to the role of consort to the future head of state, a constitutional role you clearly don't understand.

As to the rest of your post, it's been plain that it's been painful for William and Catherine to have Andrew present at family gatherings. Driving with him? Do you mean driving him from the airport to see the dying Queen, his mother? Or being told by the King to drive him somewhere? Is that the hill you are dying on? That's comparable to being a free agent, and voluntarily flying to Aspen and revelling with Kris Jenner's freak off loving boyfriend, is it?

No, that excuse doesn’t hold.

Catherine sitting next to Trump wasn’t the issue. The issue is that when it’s Meghan, every indirect association gets inflated into a moral crime, but when it’s a royal doing the exact same or worse, suddenly the explanation becomes ‘duty,’ ‘soft diplomacy,’ or ‘they had no choice.’ That’s a double standard, specially because there was other ways to hold soft diplomacy to people like him, the queen herself didn't act that way and was deeply respected.

Andrew wasn’t just ‘painful for them to see.’ The entire family publicly protected him for years, photo ops, car rides, walking him into church, keeping him at events long after the allegations. That’s not comparable to Meghan knowing someone who was friend of someone through Soho House.

You can’t claim Meghan is responsible for every distant association in her orbit while simultaneously insisting royals bear zero responsibility for actual family member with credible accusations and who they associate with. Either associations matter, or they don’t, but they can’t matter only when Meghan is involved.

The Queen didn't act what way? She was extremely welcoming of Trump as well as all manner of horrors that came before him. That was her job as head of state. That's what good heads of state do. They leave the politics to the politicians and, as all diplomats must do, they keep their personal dislike for foreign leaders to themselves. Do you think Trump is the worst foreign head of state that has ever entered out shores? If you can't understand the role of the constitutional monarchy, I suggest you go and read some history and constitutional law, and stop posting bollocks.

The royals are constrained by the head of the family, ie the monarch. They generally fall in line. I totally agree Andrew should have been out on his ear years ago, but that's not the fault of other family members. That's on QEII and Charles, both of whom have been weak on the matter. Probably because he's not an arms length person they can easily decide not to have a relationship with. Much like the plethora of women on this site who say they would stand by their child (and would not turn them in to the police) if they committed a crime.

Meghan and Harry are absolutely free to consort with whomever they like. They are not constrained in any way. That they choose to consort with the likes of the Kardashians is completely down to their moral compass.

The UK has a very favorite tariff rate:

https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2025/11/20/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/

‘Racism to a kid in the family’ do you mean Archie @Fairgamer

Meghan isn’t instructed by the government who she has associate with for the good of the Country. She has chosen to mix with shady characters, dubious foreign regimes, wear jewellery gifted from known murderers, associate herself with a design house with a revolting ad campaign involving children. Meghan has total free will and as @Indianrollerbird says it highlights who Meghan is, a grasping grifter with no moral compass.

If you can't understand the role of the constitutional monarchy, I suggest you go and read some history and constitutional law, and stop posting bollocks.

Well said.

Indeed! , nothing more annoying than people who confidently put their opinions forward as factual when they are completely wrong and have no idea about the very institution they are criticising! 🙄

It’s not really a completion, op. I see a huge amount of vitriol to andrew, the disdain Megan and Harry gets is nothing in comparison and good reason. And andrew gets disgust, outrage, Megan and Harry get disdain really at their poor behaviour,

it’s really not about who gets more, both sets of people can behave badly. Both can elicit a poor response from the public, they are not mutually exclusive.

You’re actually proving my point for me.
Diplomacy isn’t the issue, double standards are.

Yes, the Queen welcomed Trump. Every head of state does diplomacy with people they may personally dislike. Nobody is arguing that state visits should be cancelled because a leader is unpleasant, it's the way they behave. Catherine sitting next to Trump in an official capacity isn’t the debate. It's how she behaved, being more at happy there with this kind of man than any previous reunion than dignified like the queen, it's the association with dirty money over and over again,. This you don't mention right? What is the debate is how associations are weaponised selectively.

That’s the inconsistency I’m highlighting.

On Andrew:
The family didn’t just quietly tolerate him, hey protected him, tried rehabilitate him, and platformed him long after the public already knew the allegations.

Walking him into church, photo ops, PR cover, public appearances he didn’t need to be at, that’s not constrained by monarchy. That is an institutional choice.

And no, that’s not remotely comparable to Meghan having acquaintances that know other people in Hollywood also know. Calling that a moral crisis while excusing a decades-long institutional shielding of Andrew is exactly the double standard people are talking about.

If associations matter, they matter for everyone.
If context matters, it matters for everyone.
If you only apply moral outrage to Meghan, that’s bias, that's targeted hate, not principle.

You'd have to have a point. Which you don't.

Catherine was behaving like she always does. Warm, smiley, chatty. That's her public persona. If she didn't behave like that, it would be noted and would cause a diplomatic headache if it was thought she was snubbing him. And you can absolutely guarantee that's what the media would say was happening. The man is all ego and will make or break a country and its economy based on a whim. If you snub him, you are toast. Not all leaders behave like that, rule by their ego and how much it is massaged, but this one does. Can you get that into your head? Hope you are enjoying the fact that your pension/investments are no longer fucked because of his tariff announcement.

You are being deliberately obtuse on the Andrew issue, and this is my last post to you. Charles and QEII both made mistakes wrt him. That's not the fault of other family members who are told what to do by the head of the family. The relationship of family is also a complication that can't just be ignored. That situation is nothing like the voluntary associations that Harry and Meghan make, completely of their own volition.

Not remotely interested in anything else you have to say.

Catherine sitting next to Trump in an official capacity isn’t the debate. It's how she behaved, being more at happy there with this kind of man than any previous reunion than dignified like the queen,Catherine sitting next to Trump in an official capacity isn’t the debate. It's how she behaved, being more at happy there with this kind of man than any previous reunion than dignified like the queen,

Can you break this down please @Fairgamer as am not sure I'm understanding...

Are you saying Catherine is 'more at happy there' (sic) with Trump compared to other state events in general, or the last Trump visit, or compared to the current Queen or compared to late QE2?

It’s about proportionality though isn’t it?

There were understandably lots of thread on here about Andrew and Sarah Ferguson when the Lownie book had just been published.

But now that story is dying down a little, there appears to be a slew of new threads back at the top of the RF board, pretty much all about Harry and Meghan, when they haven’t really done anything to justify that level of vitriol.

It feels strategic and a bit bizarre at this point in time. That is what people are objecting to I think. They have left the RF. You don’t need to be exacerbated by them any more bc they are out of it!

Well Margaret wore that racist brooch...that is proven..the pictures are there to see. What more proof do do you need about that? So surely even you agree she has proven to be a racist.

Phillip and all the things he said, again its all there to see, so again that proves he was a racist...surely you also agree with that?

Or are you saying you don't agree that they have proved they are both racist and you are denying they did that...?

The Queen didn't act what way? She was extremely welcoming of Trump as well as all manner of horrors that came before him. That was her job as head of state. That's what good heads of state do. They leave the politics to the politicians and, as all diplomats must do, they keep their personal dislike for foreign leaders to themselves. Do you think Trump is the worst foreign head of state that has ever entered out shores? If you can't understand the role of the constitutional monarchy, I suggest you go and read some history and constitutional law, and stop posting bollocks.

I think this bears repetition. The working Royal family host state visits on behalf of the government. The late Queen had many guests whom she probably would have preferred not to have - Ceaucescu among others. It's part of the job.

There is no comparison with deciding in private life to be associated with questionable people, or ask them to be godparent to your child.

Well Margaret wore that racist brooch...that is proven..the pictures are there to see. What more proof do do you need about that? So surely even you agree she has proven to be a racist.

You don’t know who “Margaret” is, do you@Spectre8?

Margaret ? Princess Margaret? Wore a racist broach? …are you sure about that?
i mean being kind I’m assuming you have mixed up princess Michael with Margaret especially as Margaret was dead before Meghan came along!! 🤔.
confidently wrong.

I wonder how many posters on here really know their friends and family, do you vet them every year to make sure they dont do drugs, have any nefarious associations with other people or are themselves a bit shady...I mean how many times do we hear that in the news friends and family saying they never knew a person was like this.

And to the point of Andrew, once they knew they should of dealt with it then. No way would I have driven Andrew and have been seen next to him after it first came out.. where were all the drivers? Coukd of called a taxi to take him or a security person..come on it was a choice to get in a car and drive him and then what about the pictures of then laugjing together...if you don't like someone if you are pained to be near them you wouldn't be laughing

Many of us manage to post on both Sussex and Andrew threads.

There was, as you say, a flurry of threads about Andrew when there were items in the media about him.

Otherwise, the consensus is fairly clear - people deplore his behaviour, and there is therefore little discussion and little need for threads.

The Sussexes, by their actions and behaviour, keep themselves constantly in the media and there are varying opinions on them, hence many threads.

It is particularly interesting that over a couple of months you have derided people for posting about the Sussexes, but have not yourself ever posted about Andrew.

No.
She's obviously no idea who she's talking about.
My suspicion is she'll continue to waffle on and insist she's right then do a U-turn when someone explains who she actually means.

State visits aren’t the problem.
Tone, choices, and consistency are. Yes, heads of state host whoever the government asks them to. Nobody is disputing that. But diplomacy doesn’t require warmth, giggling, body-language signalling closeness, or going out of your way to look comfortable with someone you find morally repugnant. The late Queen understood that distinction. She was formal and polite, not performatively cosy. Catherine wasn't like that with other heads of estates in recent visits.

And the Andrew comparison is relevant, because driving him to church, walking him into events, and placing him front-and-centre at public occasions were not diplomatic obligations. Those were voluntary choices by Charles, William, and Catherine, choices that projected support and normalisation. Nothing material would have changed in the UK if they had kept their distance.

That’s the double standard: distant indirect associations become scandal for Meghan, while direct, public alignment is dismissed for the royals by some people, even if it makes zero sense

Who else do we know who invents stuff and then acts like it never came out of her mouth?

Ok so let me get this straight you are making a direct comparison between Catherine doing her job and Meghan going to a party?

and after it was explained many times that it’s part of her job and refusing would be subject to more criticism, you have decided that because she was pleasant to the current president of America, that was exactly the same thing?!
you obviously have never worked in any diplomatic capacity or indeed in customer service!

you are aware ( I doubt it!) that had Catherine not sat there smiling and being polite but instead insulted and snubbed trump it would have triggered a tantrum from him and a diplomatic controversy?
confidently wrong!

First, I have posted many times about Andrew just as I have posted on different topics on Mumsnet over the last few months.
Mumsnet HQ can verify.

Second, there is plenty more to discuss about Andrew eg whether he will face a prison sentence, and whether there will be an enquiry as to who in the RF and Government knew about his sexual and financial wrongdoings, seeing as he was being financed by the tax payer at the time? And who covered it up? Will there be any repercussions?

My main argument is that it’s pretty obvious to many of us why die hard monarchists prefer to not address the latter four points about Andrew and prefer to keep redirecting their focus back on to H&M!

Third, you undermine your argument when you start policing the legitimacy of posters and questioning where they can post and under which nn, rather than simply addressing content, especially when they are posting according to Mumsnet guidelines.

Four, it gets very boring for other readers too.