Harry and Meghan offered royal accommodation

[SparklingXmas]

Will they stay at Royal Lodge? I really hope it all works out for KC and to see his grandchildren would be lovely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzlmkl7zzo

Sources? You've been asked already, several times.

William's temper has been reported by multiple independent authors, not just one.

You keep repeating this but refuse to cite the exact sources or give attributed quotes. Very poor standards. Very WhatsAppy.

And meanwhile, I don’t know whether the new tactic of having a LLM put your post into grammatical English is something I should be grateful for or not

Evidence is evidence, opinions are opinions, bollocks is bollocks! , either there is proof or there isn’t.

Absolutely no one has said William shouts at his staff. No one.

That’s some desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel going on @LipglossAndLies . Not to mention utter bullshit and bunkum.

Well in house staff have said he doesn't so if you want be dismissive of them and say they are lying sure go ahead but don't then accept that in-house staff said Meghan is a bully. So no I am not scrapping the barrel here. You can't say he never shouts or never had a temper when there are employees who say otherwise.

Who says so? Where are these accounts? Please cite the references.

Who are these "house staff" that you keep going on about? At what event did William lose his temper?.
Why do you keep saying the same thing?
Why can't you be specific?

Because it's more lies lies and damned lies.

The clue is in the user name which is why I don’t bother engaging.

Where’s the evidence? What ‘house staff’?
I’m not saying ‘they’ are lying but you have absolutely no evidence so yes, bullshit.

God forbid you’re ever on a jury.

I certainly can choose to believe that reports of M bullying are true, based on the evidence I have seen, namely the reporting of the story, backed up by Jason Knauf’s email, as well as many other stories which tend to support the fact that she bullies people, as well as - obviously - my own observation of M’s words and conduct over the years. On all the evidence I see, I find it easy to believe that she is a bully and she did bully people.

William may have a bad temper but my observation of his behaviour shows me a man who’s professional, behaves affably with members of the public, lovingly with his family, patiently with children, etc. None of that proves he doesn’t have a bad temper but at the very very bare minimum, there’s no evidence to suggest his personality causes serious problems in his private or public life.

My understanding is that the dog bowl incident was PWs absolute disgust, exasperation and frustration on hearing of MM’s bullying treatment of staff in BP. To me that’s evidence (from PH himself) that shows PW as the person standing up and stepping in for those who are the victims of bullying and poor behaviour.

But the staff weren’t anonymous on each of the numerous, additional, separate independent bullying investigations carried out by highly respected, legally watertight industry publications beyond the initial BP investigation - regarding MM staff in California.

Witnesses to MMs bullying and victims of MMs bullying went on the record independently to report their experiences and observations. All of these publications have the employees names and sufficient legal evidence to support publication without risk of a legal challenge from MM. The names are withheld due to the requirement of the NDAs imposed on working for H&M - and no doubt to prevent online harassment from the SS.

You're making assertions that haven't been publicly substantiated. The only confirmed formal investigation was Buckingham Palace's internal review, and its findings were never published. If you're referring to media reports in California, those are still based on unnamed sources and reporting not publicly available independent investigation reports.

You also keep saying publications know the employees' identities but withhold them because of NDAs. Fine, but that's exactly the same principle that applies to palace sources who speak to reputable royal biographers and journalists about William. Confidential sources are common in journalism. You can't accept them as credible in Meghan's case and dismiss them outright in William's.

The issue isn't whether every allegation is true. It's whether you're applying the same evidential standard to both. At the moment, you aren't.

Which goes to my point of the poster I was responding to who said William does not have a temper. So at least you agree with me that he does. That was the point I was making. Noone can say he doesn't have one when we know he does as evidenced by his own employees.

There is no evidence.
"House staff" or "employees"?
Who, when, where?
You claimed that William lost his temper at work. No evidence.
If there's no evidence at all, then it must be....lies.

Or perhaps just defending himself against a man (H) who has form for getting physically aggressive, documented in all those photos of him attacking photographers, punching drummers and AMW, throwing society gels into the swimming pool.

Don't forget the weird stuff with men's nipples and buttocks that H doesn't seek consent to tweak and slap.

Fair point. How do you defend yourself against an unpredictable angry man like Harry, someone known for being aggressive and lashing out?
Well documented. Well evidenced.

You're making assertions that haven't been publicly substantiated.

A bold assertion from someone who, despite multiple requests, is still unable to provide any proof of William’s alleged bullying / temper. And we all know that lack of proof = lies 🤪

There is evidence you simply don't accept it. Those are not the same thing. I've already cited reputable royal biographers such as Robert Lacey and Tom Quinn, whose work is based on interviews with palace staff and royal insiders. Tom Quinn's work was also serialised by The Times. Publishers and newspapers have legal teams that scrutinise potentially defamatory material before publication. That doesn't make every claim a proven fact, but it certainly means they aren't simply "lies."

Even if Meghan's case involved an official Buckingham Palace investigation, the findings were never published and the staff who complained have never been publicly identified. You accept those allegations because you trust the investigation and the reporting surrounding it.

So why do anonymous palace sources suddenly have no evidential value when the reports concern William? You don't have to believe every account, but it's incorrect to say there is "no evidence" simply because the sources aren't publicly named.

The issue isn't whether the two cases are identical they're not. The issue is whether you're applying the same standard of evidence. If anonymous staff and confidential sources are acceptable in Meghan's case, they can't automatically be dismissed as "lies" in William's. What you really mean is that you don't find the evidence persuasive, not that no evidence exists. Those are two very different things.

Why don't you name all those who spoke about Meghan, who when where...I look forward to you producing this information you obviously have access to the report

I believe you are conflating temper with bullying. As someone who has experienced both, believe you me it is the bullying that has the greatest long term mental and psychological damage.
William's reported temper apparently is never experienced by staff or children. The greatest number of examples of his outbursts quoted are in response to his father - and the frustration william must have experienced wrt KC's approach to both the Harry and AMW issues.
As for evidence of Megan's reported bullying, it's not just staff at BP who have complained about it via Jason Knauff, but there are many examples given in the many biographies available currently, not just of M&H. Try Betrayed by Tom Bower.

Harry is a steaming ball of anger and resentment, anyone with eyes and ears can see that.
MM is a control freak (amongst other things)
Their staff turnover is ridiculously high

People like HAM do not make for good employers, they are way too volatile.

PW has a much bigger team of staff and a more responsible role, he isn’t a ball of pent up anger and resentment, nor does he have a controlling wife. They don’t have a turnover of staff anywhere near as high as HAM.

I’m sure William does get cross (that’s not anger) and it’s a valid emotion but he is way more level headed, self aware and considerate.

William couldn’t be more different than Harry and this is reflected in how they value and manage their staff.

Haven’t the Wales’ had the same nanny for 12 years?

I certainly know which brother i’d rather work for