Thoughts on a Tumultuous Week Ahead of Oprah Appearance

I was moderating comments the other day and paused for a moment whilst reading a thoughtful remark from a reader. "This is not what you signed up for when you took up royal blogging." To say it hits the nail on the head would be quite an understatement. As an avid royalist and blogger, I had so enjoyed following Harry's journey -- how he was crafting his own legacy supporting veterans, including the foundation of Invictus. When Harry met Meghan and it became obvious this was a serious relationship, it was a tremendously exciting time.

Yet, here we are over three years later, spectators to a situation so toxic it has been dubbed 'War of the Waleses 2.0'. I know for me this entire situation is an unsolved puzzle with key pieces missing from the narrative we're hearing in the UK. I want to shine a light on a handful of pieces in this post because, like for so many of you, there is a plethora of valid questions which I need answered.

In a pre-emptive strike ahead of the Sussexes' interview with Oprah, the Times sensationally led with a story claiming Meghan had bullied several aides during her time at Kensington Palace. A spokesperson for the Sussexes responded, "Let’s just call this what it is -- a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation. We are disappointed to see this defamatory portrayal of the Duchess of Sussex given credibility by a media outlet."

They say timing is everything and it is undeniable the timing of this is suspicious to say the least. It's only reasonable to ask why this story is coming to light now. Why not in 2018 after it allegedly happened? Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting there were not tensions, nor am I suggesting anyone involved is a figure of perfection, but the timing of this story, combined with what can only be described as a rather low blow about a pair of earrings and a barb about Meghan's views on UN Women undeniably has the smell of throwing the kitchen sink at it before the interview airs.

Vanity Fair writes 'Why Kensington Palace Just Can't Let Go of Meghan':

'The mention of Meghan’s earrings has nothing to do with her alleged behavior toward her aides, or really anything to do with Mohammed bin Salman; at the time she wore them, her press team simply said they were “borrowed.” Nor does anyone seem to bring up the earrings to suggest that the royal family should be more transparent about the gifts they receive from the Saudi royal family or other accused violators of human rights. It is, like so many of the supposedly damning stories that leaked out of the palace while Meghan lived there, just a detail arranged to make her look bad.'

As for the UN, Meghan served as  UN Women's advocate for political participation and leadership before she met Harry. During the tour, when she allegedly strutted off in a huff over their participation, she in fact went to meet several UN representatives and leaders. I should note before continuing that Meghan's work with UN Women is highlighted on Archewell's website right now.

Was the situation inside Kensington Palace toxic? Absolutely and without reservation, yes. While the relationship between Harry and William disintegrated and leaks became the order of the day, there is simply no doubting a distinct air of unpleasantness and mistrust filled the Palace. As an observer of this situation since the beginning, it's clearly a hugely complex situation; there have been salient points omitted time and time again.

The Times revealed details of a private email Jason Knauf sent to William's then private secretary Simon Case outlining his concerns about the Duchess' behaviour, noting she "undermining the confidence" of staff", "was able to bully two PAs out of the royal household" and "seemed intent on always having someone in her sights". However neither member of staff involved made a complaint personally and when they learned of the email they asked for the matter to be rescinded.

In a piece for the Daily Mail, royal reporter Rebecca English revealed, "One person sobbed down the phone to me after a particularly harrowing day."

The above is an incredible insight. A Kensington Palace employee was on such warm terms with a Daily Mail reporter they personally called to discuss details about the principals they were working for. Could you imagine a situation where staff working for the Queen, Charles or William were doing so? It's a recipe for a disastrous environment.

A point of interest from this Harper's Bazaar article:

'One of those employees, personal assistant Melissa Toubati, left Kensington Palace in October 2018 after reportedly being “driven to tears,” according to British tabloid reports at the time. An aide anonymously defended the abrupt departure, quickly giving a glowing account of her tenure to the Daily Mail. However, it later emerged in court documents during Meghan’s privacy case against The Mail on Sunday that Toubati had, in fact, been dismissed from her role by the couple due to misconduct (the details of which are known to this author but cannot be repeated for legal reasons). In the Sussex biography, Finding Freedom, sources revealed that it was Knauf’s longtime friendship with Toubati that had led the Sussexes to believe that certain staff, including their own press secretary, were “more interested in protecting one of their own than Meghan."'

A glimpse into just how desperate the situation had become arrived when Private Eye reported royal correspondent Chris Ship was investigating stories the Sun paid the partner of a senior Kensington Palace staffer for information on the Sussexes. The report notes Ship was being assisted in this endeavour by former Sun employee Emily Andrews. It followed an exclusive report from Byline Investigates, citing whistleblower information and a legal "letter before action" from Harry. Byline added the intriguing detail that “the payments appear to have been identified by way of an internal News UK accounting code". The staffer involved denied the allegations when approach by Byline Investigates. Will we hear more on this? It will largely depend on whether or not Harry is still pursuing legal action. The full piece can be read here. The original Byline Investigates report is here.

Additionally, it was revealed during Meghan's High Court case against the Mail on Sunday, "a senior member of the royal household" was meeting with the newspaper's editor.

Let's pause for a moment and consider Meghan's case against the Mail on Sunday. I suspect amidst this avalanche of stories and exclusives, it was missed that before the Times story broke, Lord Justice Warby denied an appeal to the newspaper and it was ruled 90% of Meghan's legal costs should be paid (in the region of £1.5 million). It was also decided the paper must publish a front-page statement about Meghan's victory in her copyright claim.  When Meghan was granted the summary judgement, a surprising story emerged in the Sunday Times revealing palace aides were "shocked" "the palace four" wouldn't have the opportunity to give evidence. There was a definite sense of disappointment in the article and equally a feeling we were on the cusp of another very serious round of leaks. That assumption was correct, and three weeks later bullying allegations were made via the Times.

The above are merely a few examples of events which contributed to what I'm sure was a very tense and unhappy situation at KP.

We also have to consider cultural differences here. There's been quite a bit of chatter about Meghan sending emails to staffers very early in the morning. As we adapt to working from home, how many of us have been receiving and sending emails in the late hours? The weekend? And yes, "early in the morning". I was chatting to a fellow royal watcher the other day who worked for an American company, rising to a very senior position, and the pace she described was relentlessly hectic. So, certainly, it's easy to see how a culture clash came about. Yesterday, Camilla Tominey wrote, "Meghan's supporters say staff members 'who preferred a more genteel pace' could not keep up with the Duchess's 'American work ethic'."

But to suggest, the "culture clash" was all the fault of the American duchess would be hugely disingenuous because we have ample proof to the contrary. Tatler observed Kensington Palace staff had taken to calling her "ME-Gain". The Telegraph revealed Palace staff had taken to calling Harry "the hostage".  One source for Valentine Low's story presented this view, saying, "The mistake they made was thinking she wanted to be happy. She wanted to be rejected because she was obsessed with that narrative from day one." Quite a shocking statement to make and a shocking assumption -- a shocking accusation. Were some in the royal household harbouring those thoughts from the beginning? Even one of Meghan's most vocal critics, Janet Street-Porter CBE, conceded, "Meghan might have been the newbie at the Palace but she was entitled to loyalty from her team - and as this week's Bullygate scandal reveals, that's hard to come by. She's thousands of miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, but former staff still seem to need to belittle her anonymously." The journalist and broadcaster also added, "Dubbing her a bully smacks of nastiness, not to mention that classic Upper Class British attribute (for examples look no further than Boris Johnson) ... casual racism."

Omid Scobie recently told Glamour he once asked a senior palace aide why, no matter what she did, everyone seems to dislike Meghan. The response he received? "If she had just sat down and listened instead of trying to be so bloody opinionated all the time, we wouldn’t be in this situation." Scobie added, "I think that really sums up the problem here. She is not subservient. She challenged the norms of what a female royal role is - and I’m very aware of the fact that the queen is very much a feminist herself and a woman of power in a very strong role. But I’m talking about the newcomers that marry into the royal family who, for their differences, are often turned into the enemy."

Of course, tales of members of the Royal family treating their staff poorly can be found by the dozen online, if you are so inclined. A former royal aide told Camilla Tominey, "Bullying is endemic across all the households. The Meghan thing is a disgrace, but it's not in isolation. They cut you out, undermine you, talk down to you. One minute you're in – the next you're persona non grata. Some staff have special protection. I've never witnessed behaviour like it before. I wish I'd never seen behind the curtain."

I recall one incident in particular in 2019, when an altercation between Prince Andrew and a royal aide was considered so serious Prince Charles had to intervene. There were suggestions of a physical altercation, though this was swiftly denied by the Palace. The Countess of Wessex was photographed embroiled in a heated argument with a bodyguard in 2011. Despite the acres of coverage in both cases, Buckingham Palace did not pursue an inquiry into bullying to gauge what "lessons can be learned", as is the case with allegations against Meghan.

Peter Hunt, reacting to the investigation, said, "They have opened an unbelievable can of worms. Are they really going to find her guilty of bullying? Will it be in the form of a #MeToo investigation? It really feels like the anarchists have taken over the institution."

Indeed, aside from royal principals, senior staff have been entangled in similar webs over the years. Back in the late 1990s, a headline-grabbing story appeared about the Queen's dresser, Angela Kelly, when the longtime aide was reportedly involved in a heated physical fight with a young maid at the palace over the affections of a royal pastry chef. It was reported "royal security officers had to pull the pair apart, as they grappled on the floor of the servants' entrance to the palace". At the time, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson said, "We do not comment on internal staffing matters."

At this juncture, it's important to raise the topic of race. There tends to be a screeching backlash to even mentioning this, so what I'll say is, it is time to listen to the voices of women of colour and their experiences before making up your mind as to the role this played in Meghan's experience in the UK. In a powerful piece for the Guardian, the inimitable Afua Hirsch wrote:

'Racism is a lucrative business. When it comes to Meghan Markle, the media’s strategy is transparent. Tabloids pillory her with a range of mostly ludicrous allegations – her baby bump is too prominent, her avocados are not “woke”, her earrings are drenched in blood – and then networks double up with manufactured debates in which anti-racist commentators try to push back on those narratives.

It’s difficult to compare these personal experiences to those facing Meghan, because she has become a fixation of the global news media in ways few of us can imagine. She is in this position because of her relationship to the palace – a unique institution that creates global superstars who are not elected, not accountable to the electorate. In her case, she no longer even lives at the taxpayers’ expense.

And yet there is so much the palace could have done to provide Meghan with the same shielding that other senior members of the royal family enjoy. For Prince Andrew, who has faced allegations of involvement in sexual abuse, a palace spin doctor even tried to enlist the help of an online troll to discredit the prince’s accuser.'

Afua cites one deplorable incident in the media during which journalist and commentator Andrew Pierce "offered us an up-to-date example of how, confronted with Meghan -- a black woman he does consider attractive -- commentators reconcile this apparent anomaly by reclassifying her as not black at all". Have a listen to Pierce's words in the video below.

Just a reminder of who Andrew Pierce is... (sound on) pic.twitter.com/wUKq6deFAY

— Royal Suitor (@royal_suitor) March 3, 2021

Writing for the Independent, Funmi Olutoye shared her thoughts:

'Once upon a time, I naively thought that Meghan Markle’s entrance into the royal family represented a changing institution and a changing society. How wrong I was.

From the day their relationship was officially announced in late 2016, there has been excessive criticism and abuse directed at them. It has been ferocious, relentless and, frankly, absurd.

The Duchess of Sussex is a woman who fell in love with a man. That’s it. Unfortunately for her, this man happened to be a British prince. For that, she has paid an incredibly high price: attempts to undermine her character, unprovoked criticisms and bizarre anger from royal commentators determined to disrespect her. All this quickly became the norm.'

The experiences of First Lady Michelle Obama focused a global spotlight on the prevalence of racism experienced by female public figures. In 2017, Michelle was asked about breaking glass ceilings as first lady, and responded, "The shards that cut me the deepest were the ones that intended to cut. Women, we endure those cuts in so many ways that we don’t even notice we're cut. We are living with small tiny cuts, and we are bleeding every single day. And we're still getting up." Expressing great sadness, she added how hurtful it was "knowing that after eight years of working really hard for this country, there are still people who won't see me for what I am because of my skin color".

Today writes:

"Michelle Obama has recalled her "exhausting" experience with racism using the example of a simple trip to get ice cream with her daughters during her time in the White House.

"We had just finished taking the girls to a soccer game," Obama said. "We were stopping to get ice cream, and I had told the Secret Service to stand back because we were trying to be normal, trying to go in," Obama said.

"There was a line, and once again, when I'm just a Black woman, I notice that white people don't even see me. They're not even looking at me. So I'm standing there with two little Black girls, another Black female adult, they're in soccer uniforms, and a white woman cuts right in front of us to order. Like she didn't even see us."

This is what the white community doesn't understand about being a person of color in this nation, is that there are daily slights. In our workplaces, where people talk over you, or people don't even see you."

Tomorrow night, Oprah's special with Meghan and Harry will air, and no, they are not getting paid for the interview. After four years of relentless smears, they want to tell their side of the story once and for all. Be mindful though, several commentators have already made up their minds. The following would be rather funny if it wasn't terribly sad. Four well known faces were asked to share their thoughts on the Oprah interview and imply they had already seen it - they hadn't - nonetheless they were happy to go ahead and in most cases offer a critical review of Meghan. Majesty Magazine's editor Ingrid Seward declares, "In the interview, from start to finish Meghan was acting." The Queen's former press secretary, Dickie Arbiter, is jokingly asked about Meghan not taking the Covid-19 vaccine (of course, she never said any such thing), to which he replies, "Selfish." 

As I come to the conclusion of this post, it's just an hour or so before the Sunday papers' headlines will be revealed. I have no doubt, in one final attempt before the interview airs, Meghan will be excoriated. I hope at the least this post piques your curiosity and raises some valid questions. A word which captures the essence of this entire situation - sadness. We have lost two fantastic ambassadors for the UK and the monarchy, a woman who was the subject of daily attacks throughout her first pregnancy, and now history is repeating itself. A relationship between two brothers seems to have been irretrievably damaged, and we will likely never see scenes like this again. I know the vast majority of you will share my disappointment and fervent wish it could all have been very different.

More than anything, I think of all the little girls who finally saw themselves reflected in the monarchy through Meghan. Those who watched her day-by-day rejection in the UK. From criticism for shutting her own car door to "flaunting" her bump, to the tireless portrayal of her as the villain who entered the House of Windsor and wreaked havoc on all in her path. Not only did it eat away at Meghan -- and undoubtedly her mental health -- it sent a heartbreaking message to the girls and young women who watched her story unfold.

In his interview with Glamour, Omid Scobie concluded, "Maybe the problem really isn't a couple speaking their truth in a sit-down interview with Oprah. Maybe the problem is the truth itself, about both the institution the pair once worked for and the treatment from the press that covers it so vociferously. It could have been so different." Scobie added: "I hope people realize this is a couple that tried everything they could to make it work before they stepped away. ather than following the narrative that they just quit because they couldn’t have it their way." Veteran royal correspondent Peter Hunt mused, "The key damaging thing for the institution of British monarchy in the 21st century is that it completely and utterly failed to embrace a bi-racial woman, a woman who opened up the institution to a whole range of people who before weren't opened up to it. They failed there and the other quite extraordinary thing is they haven't quite registered what they have lost."