It's been a few slow days of Sussex news, so slow that Meg had to post 4-year-old video of herself speaking at the United Nations to support the International Day of the Girl.
Today's Daily Mail online briefly headlined a staff departure on the Cambridge side - one of Kate's body women has apparently "been made redundant", or laid off, due to a downsizing of staff.
Not particularly hot news, unless you're Meghan's team and know that her team will be downsizing sharply soon. Samatha Cohen officially left yesterday, but that was long expected - the trip to southern Africa was designed to be her last hurrah.
Sykes goes on to note that several of Harry's advisers specifically told him not to overshadow his South Africa trip by issuing the press statement, but Harry did it anyway.
Fiona McUnspellablename, the ambitious Foreign Office careerist only recently assigned to the Sussexes, may follow.
Right now the Sussexes seem to be infatuated with their new social media hire, 26-year-old former Burberry employee David Watkins, who was presumably responsible for that weak tea comedy video featuring Ed Sheeran and Harry.
Watkins had better keep his LinkedIn current though, because nobody lasts too long with the Sussexes.
Today's Daily Mail online briefly headlined a staff departure on the Cambridge side - one of Kate's body women has apparently "been made redundant", or laid off, due to a downsizing of staff.
Not particularly hot news, unless you're Meghan's team and know that her team will be downsizing sharply soon. Samatha Cohen officially left yesterday, but that was long expected - the trip to southern Africa was designed to be her last hurrah.
More departures soon?
But more departures are expected soon, if Tom Sykes of the Daily Beast can be believed. In an article titled Prince Harry's War on the Media Leaves Him Isolated in the Royal Family, Sykes writes:There is widespread speculation that there may be a new spate of resignations at Harry and Meghan's office, with many staff increasingly feeling that as well as finding Meghan and Harry difficult to work for, they also have no real responsibility, are not asked for input, and are not valued when it comes to big decisions.
Sykes goes on to note that several of Harry's advisers specifically told him not to overshadow his South Africa trip by issuing the press statement, but Harry did it anyway.
Next out the door
Who's next to leave the Sussex team? Sara Latham seems like the obvious choice, taking her heavyweight contacts list (the Obamas, the Clintons) along with her.Fiona McUnspellablename, the ambitious Foreign Office careerist only recently assigned to the Sussexes, may follow.
Right now the Sussexes seem to be infatuated with their new social media hire, 26-year-old former Burberry employee David Watkins, who was presumably responsible for that weak tea comedy video featuring Ed Sheeran and Harry.
Watkins had better keep his LinkedIn current though, because nobody lasts too long with the Sussexes.
Is there more to the Cambridge story?
Back to the story of the departure from the Cambridge household. Is it precisely what it seems?
The Daily Mail reports that Sophie Agnew had recently returned from her honeymoon, after marrying "insurance company director Stuart Hill" and was surprised to be dismissed after seven years of service.
Perhaps Sophie really wasn't needed any more, due to the "split in households." Perhaps she would rather focus on her marriage to what sounds like a very wealthy man.
Or perhaps the "split in households" reference obliquely suggests that Sophie was a Sussex mole.
The Shakespearean drama continues.
Comments
WHAT a change from the self-serving South African tour with the whining thrown in for good measure. It was very insulting toward South Africa, I thought.
Nutty, the main reason I’m pounding a keyboard is to thank you. You’ve taken on the thankless task of keeping this bunch of sometimes-rowdy ladies in line. We’re usually pretty well behaved but sometimes we get naughty. And every now and then we get invaded by an outsider and you have the unenviable chore of teaching her some manners. The great things about this blog is that we each have an area of expertise and were usually well behaved so we aren’t cursing like a sailor. I know I have.
It's almost like a royal training course, with the Susssexes providing the 'how not to do it' version and the Cambridges the 'how to'.
So...I just pretend I didnt see the films of her wobbling belly on youtube :)
He's wearing socks that are too small and terribly bad for the soft bones in his feet. I'm genuinely concerned for him and hope he's from central casting and is returned to someone who loves him after every scene.
I don't believe she was ever pregnant, she showed none of the usual signs like exhaustion, needing a wee every five minutes, big boobs and the kind of generalised weight gain that is associated with pregnancy. She went on maternity leave without any extra weight and reappeared looking as though she'd been eating much more than usual. Her boobs aren't those of a feeding mother; all this "fitting my schedule around Archie's feeds" nonsense reeks of protesting too much. She knows she doesn't have a baby and she's very insecure about the situation so tries to behave as she thinks a nursing mother would. She has airbrushed her visits to watch Serena play and Misha Nonoo's when Archie didn't need her and expects us to forget too.
They have rejected any kind of guidance and are taking terrible missteps. Faux motherhood is just one of them.
I agree with you both. I think they did use a surrogate and Megs is definitely not taking to "her child". Harry appears very detached too. It is a worry for this little boy who needs love and attention.
When they were in Australia last year they were in separate rooms and Harry was heard to ask if she was really pregnant. The sources are believed to be 100% reliable.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/hcg-and-weight-loss
This is a link, one of many, about hcg and weight loss. NOT HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE. HCG.
HCG is indeed involved in pregnancy, but it is also used in weight loss.
His comment was in stark contrast to Harry's recent visit to an underprivileged school in Nottingham. There, Harry, like the new prophet of future wokeness he has declared himself to be, basically says exams are hard, stressful, etc and that there will likely be no more exams in the future because he is the education expert and the prophet coming back to tell the plebs of a new future, where no child shall be asked to mentally or emotionally strain themselves for exams.
School is tough no doubt, but kids do not need to hear such messages as a form of pity, sympathy or pandering because it does not really make it easier, especially for children in more vulnerable socioeconomic classes where the pay-offs to sticking it out in school are much harder to convince them of. Expressing empathy with a child does not require you to take on the mentality of a teenager about to drop out - school sucks! No more exams in the future!
Also look at how KP describes the aim of the tour:
"The Duke and Duchess’s first official visit to the country will pay respect to the historical relationship between Britain and Pakistan, but will largely focus on showcasing Pakistan as it is today — a dynamic, aspirational and forward-looking nation."
So it's what a royal tour should be - positive and feel-good. Not dwelling on the country's many problems, like with that 'other couple' who seemed to emphasise the negative, eg apartheid and violence against women. That's not what royal tours are about.
And I saw on the itinerary phrases like 'today the Duchess will learn about...' So in other words, they are not there to preach and act like faux experts, but to learn. A bit of humility goes a long way.
"I’ve said it before on this blog, and I too do not believe in the surrogate conspiracies, there’s too much they’d need to keep hushed up etc. I do however think they both Meghan and Harry have a rather unnatural interaction with Archie, I’ve never seen both parents hold a baby in such a odd and unloving way."
That's exactly how I feel. I do think Arche is their son and that Meghan carried and gave birth to him.
However, there is something very 'off' about the way they interact with him. So cold and so contrived. I can fully understand that from someone as self-absorbed as Meghan, but Harry? He was supposedly desperate for a child and now he has one. Is he just so nervous around her? We've noted before that when he's away from Meghan, he seems so much more relaxed and at ease. Maybe in private he interacts much more naturally with his son, but with Meghan he's terrified of doing something 'wrong'?
Here's to hoping he doesn't pepper his speeches with personal anecdotes about when he was a child and led a letter-writing campaign, or how he was a young adult and did something probably terribly unrelated for Pakistan, or how he has some special quote just to cheer up and inspire those sad plebs in gloomy, dark, Pakistan to look up to him for support and to regram.
@Louise500 I share your opinion on the surrogacy - it's just too much effort. I also think Archie looks a bit disconnected. But it may just be that he has a vision problem. I read that babies with severe far-sightedness often don't look at their parents, particularly in the early months. The fact that Archie was actively looking at Tutu and probably his daughter (off-camera), and the fact that people think his eyes look wonky, it might just be that, i.e. vision problems. Not sure if one can really tell HazMat are bad parents from photos. They do hold the baby in an unnatural death grasp, but look at how Meghan holds Harry's hand/arm/whole body as an adult in a two-handed death grasp. Must just be their weird thing that they now do with Archie. Meghan and Harry use Archie like a security blanket, just like they use each other as a security blanket.
Exactly. British and local taxpayers fund these tours, so of course they should be about showing both countries in a positive light and emphasising the relationship between them. Otherwise why bother?
"Here's to hoping he doesn't pepper his speeches with personal anecdotes about when he was a child and led a letter-writing campaign, or how he was a young adult and did something probably terribly unrelated for Pakistan, or how he has some special quote just to cheer up and inspire those sad plebs in gloomy, dark, Pakistan to look up to him for support and to regram."
Well indeed. And let's also hope his wife doesn't prefer to sit around in the city while he heads off to less glamouous places, just so she can promote herself and do some filming for a toe-curling 'documentary'. But since this is Kate, we know she won't.
Like if we have rumours Archie starts to act out in school or gets caught doing drugs or other attention-seeking call for help behaviours like his father did, we'll probably have a better idea. But I think it's hard to tell from a baby unless you spend a lot of time with them. Lots of new moms become anxious that their baby is behaving so differently from those in their friends and family circles, but then they go post on a forum and see that their kid is actually quite fine and that they changed at anyway at 15 months.
They do seem like bad parents. They don't even know how to hold him. And, he doesn't interact with them at all. We've had theories about eyesight, muscular problems, etc but some of these have been debunked. And, a royal baby in the care of an experienced nanny would get the best medical care available. If he hasn't, then that's bad parenting as well.
Everyone is commenting over at DM about how odd they behave towards him and Archie's behaviour.
I know some people don't, but I am polite enough not to pass petty judgement and say they must walk around with their eyes shut not to have noticed something I have seen.
I also thought that the surrogate stories were far fetched but after studying the photos of her, it was the only logical reason I could come to to explain the changes in her appearance. The swinging belly was the nail in the coffin. I also thought that nobody was foolhardy enough to try to fool the entire world about a pregnancy, but I had to trust what I saw with my own eyes. What she did was gaslight the entire world about what she wanted us to believe.
I don't fall for this gaslighting that narcs specialise in, and anyone who tries to stop me from interpreting the events as I see fit, are as guilty of gaslighting as she is. In narc terms, people who do the bidding of a narcissist are called "flying monkeys".
I wonder if that is how the senior royals see it?
There are a lot of complaints about 'Why aren't they doing anything about these two?" but perhaps they aren't that perturbed. The queen and other senior royals know better than anyone else that royalty is a long game. Yes, the Harkles might be enjoying the media spotight now, but give it 10 years - in the unlikely event they're still together - nobody will much care about them. They'll be pushing 50 while the Cambridge kids will be growing up and taking some part in public life. All the attention will be on them, not on the Sussex duo. William will be king and Catherine will be his queen, and they are both pretty much perfect for the job. So who really cares about the increasingly irrelevant Sussexes?
I'll even make you a template because I'm considerate like that: "SwampWoman, you ignorant redneck witch (witch because Liver Bird is probably nicer than I am, but who knows), you are certifiably insane and so are your theories. Are you writing from the looney bin because you obviously do not belong among normal people!"
Any sane person would simply say they were expecting a child by surrogate and no one would bat an eyelid, not even if it were Harry and Meghan. So much video evidence of changing bump size, the up and down bump position, squatting down in high heels and straight up like a gymnast when 8months pregnant etc. These mirror the actions of Beyonce and Nichole Kidman’s first pregnancy exactly both surrogate births. Nicole decided to admit her second child was by surrogate and Beyonce’s second natural pregnancy was quite different to her first.
However M&H are in a very peculiar position because if Archie was born by surrogate then he cannot inherit Harry's titles, nor is he eligible to be in line for the throne. I do believe the child is 100% Meghan/Harry DNA but the inheritance rules are very strict the child must be 'born in lawful wedlock and of the body' (i.e. of the wife’s body).
The complete mayhem surrounding his birth just added weight to the theory, first the baby was to be born at home and Meghan refused to have the Royal gynaecologists in attendance, then they said she went to hospital where the baby was born , but reporters were staking out their Windsor home and no cars or ambulances left by either road during that that time. They didn't announce that Archie had been born until after they allegedly returned home a few hours after she gave birth, none of the reporters saw a car or ambulance enter the roads to the house in that time frame.
No doctors names have been released (against standard procedure in the Royal Family), the birth of a child in close relationship to the throne must have a member of the privy council present at the birth as witness. This dates back over 400years and is to prevent a changeling being swapped out for a stillborn child or a girl child. Then Harry’s weird statement after the presentation at Windsor castle that babies change a lot in two weeks and then we are presented with a baby which seemed several weeks older than he was purported to be at the Christening. Then the giant 2mth old baby which turned up in Meghan’s arms at the polo match less than a week later.
Perhaps they hid the surrogate birth from the Queen and by the time anyone twigged it was too late to nay say it after constant tummy rubbing and world media interest, so it was kept quiet, the child is the Queens great grandchild after all even if he was delivered by surrogate, but they would have been told the baby would have to be just plain Master Archie. I can’t find any official announcement that says Archie is 7th in line to the throne, everyone just assumes it because he is Harry’s son.
Perhaps the family think that the matter will never really be an issue and will just keep it quiet , perhaps the Queen and Philip are still in the dark about it. No one seems to be asking about the fact that we don’t know if a privy councillor was even present at the birth, if no PC was there as witness then they can just say at some time in the future that the reason he is not officially in line is because of this ‘unfortunate oversight’.
Then came the baby’s name Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, no title. H&M said it was so he could have a normal life (this baby will never have a normal life), but I really can’t see Meghan not wanting her baby to have all the bells and whistles and be called by a the name he is entitled to....... Archie, Earl of Dumbarton (it would put the baby on the same peerage footing as Charles’ youngest brother Prince Edward). She revels in the title Duchess and listed her job on Archie’s birth certificate as “Princess of the United Kingdom” so it’s not really likely she or Harry would bypass the title unless he was born of a ‘surrogate’ and can’t legally use it.
If she had just followed Royal procedure this would not even be a topic, but because of all her secrecy and drama and insisting on doing things her way, there will always be someone to ask why, what were they hiding?
lol at Swampwoman for the brass-balled ovaries retort :D I wish I could be as quick on my feet in situations like that.
By now, she's probably wearing something quite different.
>>>Theres something about the recent photos and videos of Archie that make me feel deeply, deeply sad . . . there's no schadenfreude to be gleaned from seeing a young baby so clearly detached from any apparent emotional connection to his caregivers . . .That poor baby doesn't seem to recognize them at all. The awkward way that they hold him and restrain his hands strikes me, as others have pointed out, as a means to stop him from trying to wriggle away to reach for the nanny. And little Archie just seems so disinterested, so detached from what's going on around him. He just hangs there. Babies that age are usually so curious and engaging...is he doped before public engagements? It's profoundly sad to see a baby - a precious, beautiful little baby - hauled around like a prop. There's something not right here.<<<
And Mischi called Archie 'lifeless'. He seems so oddly passive for a baby of his age, the same little tyke we saw during the Tutu visit.
Until Archie was debuted with Tutu, and even getting off the plane, where he was bundled up like he was disembarking for Christmas at Balmoral but was still holding his head up and looking forward like a normal baby--I was quasi in the 'Archie is a doll' camp. We'd never seen the baby so much as twitch an eyelid until then, and the mother-child posture at the polo outing was strenuously not normal, with Archie's head shiny and his limbs stiff and immobile like he was cast out of plastic.
I had to readjust my mindset in a big way since then, but I have to say that I felt more at ease when I thought Archie was made of vinyl. Because he's real, and I've scrutinized those pictures of Harry squashing him as Megsy kisses his head and clamps her hands all over his face.
That baby looks frightened. There's no other word for it. He's scared. First of all, they are not letting him breathe or have freedom of movement, and his lack of engagement with either of them signals that he has been handled very little by either of them, and he doesn't recognize their faces.
I am not a mom, but in my job I get to observe lots of children at all stages of development. (I'm a children's librarian.) For the last 18 years, I have done story times for all ages from infant through school age, including many sessions of lap time classes specifically for infants. Now I see lots of babies, many younger than Archie is now, who are toted along to our family story times, with older siblings, and a lot of the time they sleep through it, but at the pre-crawling stage, such as Archie seems to be, they are very active and wiggly. Even in a series of still pictures, we'd have evidence that a baby of that age is moving, shifting position . . and one thing they certainly do is search out the faces of their beloved caregivers and smile and coo. Archie does not look at either Harry or Meghan, and in fact seems actively trying to avoid it. In one shot, you can see his little eyes looking off to the side as if he sees somebody he knows off-camera.
My stomach for following this craptacular exercise in joint narcissism has dwindled once it was apparent that the Suxxits were 'commoditising' a real baby and using him like a prop.
Based on his looks, Archie seems undeniably to share their DNA. Or at least hers. I'm wondering if Haz had no actual input into this baby production project, which would account for his curiously distant demeanor with his own son. We've got raftloads of pictures of Harry in former days interacting warmly and tactilely with children who were complete strangers to him, with big smiles and warm hugs in the manner of his late mom. The rapport he had with these kids did not look put on; the children responded to him in kind.
If he'd been on board with trying to conceive a baby as quickly as possible and actively involved with the process, why would H. and M. have been having daily arguments about the pregnancy in Australia? Why would Haz question the legitimacy of the pregnancy within earshot of staff? (I absolutely believe all the testimony that has emerged from Australia House.) Even if Archie had to by necessity be conceived with the aid of fertility technology/surrogacy, I find it hard to believe that Harry would be so cold toward a child of his own body, after expressing the desire for so long to become a dad. Even if Archie were not his genetically--a tough pill to swallow for any man--it feels like, if he were living with and co-parenting Archie, he would have, over time, developed paternal feelings for the little bloke. This extreme coldness and detachment on Haz's part is hard to fathom if he is in any way involved in the care and raising of this child.
Those pictures of Archie look like the baby would cry "Help me! Get me out of here!" if he were able. If he's not in their full-time custody, it means that multiple other parties are actively complicit in the sadistic trafficking of an infant for promotional purposes--and this complicity has to go all the way ultimately up to the Queen. I just don't know what to make of it, but it is sickening to watch.
Believe me, I understand your incredulity with the whole 'faux pregnancy/faux baby' conspiracy theorists. Until Meghan came on the scene, I was very leery of conspiracies myself. I hold the position (and still do) that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and just got incredibly lucky with his shot--though he had a lot of help from a lot of people to get so 'lucky', including his victims, who were breathtakingly careless about their own security.
When considering what Meghan Markle might be capable of, including staging a 10-month long pregnancy on the world stage or carting around a plastic kid at a polo match, we have to toss out our conception of what 'normal' people, normal women would do. Meg has consistently, over the two years give or take that we've been observing her, displayed all the classic markers for NPD, which qualifies her as a sociopath. With sociopaths, all bets for 'normal behavior' are off. These people cannot experience genuine emotions or higher executive functions classed as 'conscience'--including such feelings as: guilt, shame, remorse or compassion. Normal people have these capabilities, which is why society and its laws are able to function. I believe Meg is like a great white shark--an apex predator who is only driven by one thing: self-interest. Once we set aside any notions of societally acceptable conduct being of any sort of curb or motivator for a sociopath, ie, expecting them to behave as normal people would in similar circumstances . . they actually become quite predictable. Whatever benefits them most in the short term is what they will do, with little thought for future consequences or sustainability. They have sublime confidence in their ability to achieve their objectives and talk their way out of any tight spot . . usually by casting blame on some other quarter or playing a victim narrative. Meg is in a tight corner now from all her shenanigans and the victim mentality is being played as hard and loud as it has ever been.
When considering her and her actions, it is necessary to accept that there is no scheme so 'crazy' nor so potentially illegal which she will not employ to achieve her aims. Narcs inhabit their own constructed reality wherein everything they desire by whatever means necessary makes perfect sense to themselves. Questioning the sanity of one's actions is in fact the mark of a sane person, which Narcs technically aren't. Also, since one of their primary characteristics is a overwhelming sense of entitlement which places themselves above any mere 'laws' which would prevent them from getting what they want--the fear of punishment in doing something illegal which is a curb to a normally oriented person is also missing.
In this light, faking a pregnancy and using a prop baby when it is expedient is actually predictable--so long as we look at Meg through the lens of what she is, and not how you or I would behave.
I'm also pretty peeved off by the fact that they were so inyourface about the documentary in SA.
From Day1 a lot of things about the tour seemed off, fishy, seemed so out of character for them, the pictures were so hammy, the sheer number of sheepches they gave, so full of punchlines... Then the stories about the clothes, the number of people and assistants accompanying them, the student photographers they hired, range rovers being shipped for free without the Sussexes incurring any costs for the cars (which to me was so obviously a sponcered deal), the number of private engagements she had, Harry's Angola visit Diana cosplay.... I could go on. But what I mean to say is that a lot of things were suspicious about the tour, and so many of us caught on to it. Now it turns out they we're filming the entire time. meaning that everything EVERYTHING was designed to look a certain way, there was no authenticity to any of their actions throughout the tour.
Which is why I think it's safe to assume that there must some substance to the many many rumours going around and some of the crazy conspiracy theories could very well be true.
It's about what the many other high-profile people who would have to have been involved - including the queen - would do. Way too many hypotheticals and consipiracy theories for this to be plausible in my view.
I was skeptical but after reading the article on the Royals' finances, I am sure that she is getting her expensive wardrobe for free, and using product placement to make money. I think Harry is going along with it because he likes the idea of making money as it frees him from the shackles that the BRF put on him wrt his behaviour.
It's a bit like what Dr House says on House, "It's almost never lupus." I'm beginning to wonder if it's the same thing for NPD.
It's running on the border of libel and defamation to say she's obviously NPD and thus capable of doing any crime.
This trend to assume armchair psychology diagnoses as truth or fact as a basis to interpret other actions, is to me, is simply crossing that very thin line from speculation and gossip to spreading vicious rumours. We're all narcissists to some degree because it's one of the major five personality traits that are currently being used to described people. Lacking narcissism is unhealthy. Some people are emotionally unintelligent or self-absorbed or manage to do immense damage to others that way too. That does not make them have full-blown malignant NPD. There's a great book called children of emotionally unintelligent. A lot of the traits overlap with narcissism without being called out as such.
I know I'm an unpopular, unwanted opinion here. I don't read charlatan duchess or the skippy stuff because it's way too extreme.
The Charlatan Duchess on Tumblr lists the rather extensive visa protocols for American citizens wishing entry into several African nations, including Malawi, which Harry visited solo on the tour, and it seems entirely possible that the reason Meg did not accompany him was she could not obtain the appropriate visas. The Royals are allowed to travel without passports on official royal business to other countries, but how this courtesy plays out in the case of the BRF's lone non-British member is a matter of conjecture. Meghan is not yet a British citizen, a process that takes several years, and in all honesty, I don't think she ever intended to renounce her American citizenship at all. I predict the marriage will be over before the obligatory paperwork is ever filed to put her citizenship through.
So here we have the unprecedented situation in which the spouse and mother of heirs to the throne of Britain isn't even a subject of Her Majesty. Meg therefore would not possess a British passport. If she's attempting to travel on her American one, perhaps her visas were not in order. Because, just maybe, apart from the visit to South Africa which was sanctioned by the Queen, she was not authorized to accompany Harry on any other part of the visit. All that self-promotional busywork, paid lunch appearances & virtue-signalling/merching at the death site of an innocent young woman were Meg inventing ways to fill up time (and maximize profits) while waiting for her Plus One to get back from *his* official Royal duties.
Apart from the Well Child award event, there seems to be absolutely nothing on the Court Circular for either of the Harkles for the rest of this month. All the other Royals, by contrast, are incredibly busy, with multiple engagements every day for the upcoming two weeks. Richard, Duke of Glouchester, the Queen's cousin, is doing more for the Crown than #6 in line, and Richard is like, 18th or even further down.
It will be interesting to see if the Harkles get any Royal engagements at all going forward. In 2020, I look for them to perhaps turn up at the Kids' Choice Awards or somewhere equally B-list celeb worthy. Maybe Megs will copy her new BFF Kim Kardashian and solicit the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce for her own star on the Walk of Fame.
They turned Kim K. down. Turns out that one can't actually purchase one's own star on the Walk of Fame without a 'significant career of artistic achievement promoting the performing arts'. I'd love to see Meg's sugars band together and try to buy her one though.
Also, danja zone has something very interesting to say. It's what I originally intended to come here to post today but was incensed by some post. You can check it out yourself.
@Marie such a good post on the difference between William and Harry’s responses when children ask about goals and education. Harry really has no mind of his own, just Meghan’s banana platitudes.
@Liver Bird I certainly think you are entitled to your opinion. For me it is always images that tell me a story. (And not the staged, manipulated ones.) With the Harkles my suspicions started with the images of the wedding. It was clear something was very wrong with MM. Anyway wonder if you have seen the countless bump images? Sometimes high, sometimes low. Bouncing from from side to side. Showing various strange protuberances. You can find them all on the Internet if you haven’t seen them. If you have and remain unconvinced that’s just fine with me. Sadly for Archers sake I think this is one secret that will never come out into the open—although it should.
Think the documentary will be a laugh fest for me.
Of course whether Archie has a good connection or not is subjective, and let's face it he will be in uncomfortable situations at the time the photos are taken.
But it looks like MM can barely hold him, let alone do it comfortably, and she doesn't give off the vibe of being a mum at all. That poor kid.
Wasn’t MM trying to make green “her” color? Hope it was intentional shade. LOL
Our firstborn looked like a very small, undersized troll. Since there were no trolls in the family, we had hopes that he would improve with time. I was out with a friend for lunch who told me "Look over there! That looks just like your youngest grandchild!" It was, and he was with my son, the former troll. After they left, she said "You never told me how incredibly good looking your son is!" I told her that he has certainly improved with time and, while I think he's good looking, mothers always think that.
Why would she need to? Both Britain and the US allow dual nationality.Autumn Philips, who like Meghan is married to one of the queen's grandsons, is a Canadian citizen. I'm not sure she acquired British nationality at all, but her daughters - who are in line for the throne, albeit distantly - have dual nationality. She did have to convert to the Anglican faith, but that would no longer be neccessary since the ban on Catholics marrying royal heirs was lifted.
"So here we have the unprecedented situation in which the spouse and mother of heirs to the throne of Britain isn't even a subject of Her Majesty."
Almost no British citizens are 'subjects'. The status was more or less abolished decades ago.
But it's all far too speculative for me to go down that road. I'd rather look at things that I can see for myself rather than speculate on things that are impossible to know, despite the fact that things do look a bit odd.
Here's what we know:
Harry and Archie look the same.
Archie doesn't look close to his parents.
MM and PH are privileged, snobbish, dim, entitled, hypocritical and whiny.
They don't understand that they are not celebs and that their job is to serve.
They don't understand that their great privilege and wealth comes with drawbacks, and that is a loss of privacy.
I stick to that stuff only!
@ Marie Yup I'm totally with you on that. Hollywood is full of single minded career climbing actors and actresses. I had a brief brush with that bunch of people and it's safe to say that they really are a breed apart. MM is definitely one of those and as far as we can tell quite the schemer, but diagnosing her with a serious personality disorder (plus a secret surrogacy!) does tend to veer into rather nasty speculation. I've made this point before and been attacked for it so you're not by yourself!
Personally, I think it was because she was a supervisor of several assistants, and when the staff was cut because of the split with the Sussexes, there was no longer any need for a supervisor. To give her back her old duties would have seemed like a demotion.
The DOC owns all the colors. LOL.
>>> But I just have to say firmly, NO ethical, practicing psychologist would ever try to diagnose someone with malignant NPD without having talked to them in person and over multiple sessions.<<<
You are completely right. Which is why, as a layperson who is not a practicing psychologist, I stand firm in my armchair diagnosis of Meghan as a narcissist. Were I a mental health professional, I'd be violating my professional ethics to 'diagnose' any mental disorders in a public forum of someone I'd never treated.
Good thing I'm not psychotherapist under professional oath, because that means I am entirely free to express a medical opinion. It is without credentials, so everyone can take it or leave it. I am an intelligent person who has access to the literature on this disorder have read widely in it. Meghan exhibits all of the markers for NPD, just going by her own statements and behaviors--so many of which have been exhaustively documented and examined these past two years. It's not just former friends or staff or family members with grudges that paint this picture, but Meghan herself, with her own words and actions. She churns out a LOT of both and provides observers with so much material, even if we entirely discount other folks with axes to grind.
If Meg does suffer from NPD, that's bad news for anybody in her orbit, but in one sense is kind of the compassionate diagnosis. Because if she does suffer from this, she really can't help the way she's wired up, and all the damage she inflicts on other people is, in a clinical sense, not personal. She's like an instinctual creature operating on self-preservational instinct, which is why I likened her to a shark.
I think in years to come, pending on how things play out in the House of Windsor, and Meg's future role in it, there will be dozens or hundreds of case studies written about MM and what makes/made her tick. I am looking very forward to the forthcoming biography of Meghan by a man who is not known for his sycophancy to royalty. I wonder what his conclusions will be.
In the early '80s, author Joe McGinniss collaborated with convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald, convicted of killing his pregnant wife Collette and two young daughters in a brutal knife attack. MacDonald steadfastly maintained his innocence, claiming that his family was slaughtered in February 1970 by a copycat Helter Skelter gang, despite the fact that he, a trained Army surgeon was left with only superficial injuries. McGinniss began the project convinced of MacDonald's innocence, and hoped to exonerate him. In the course of his research however, the author had a 180 change of heart after experiencing at first hand hundreds of hours of MacDonald's charming Narcissist personality and the myriad inconsistencies of his testimony about the fateful night.
I'm not equating Meg to a family annihilator in her actions, except possibly figuratively. She certainly has been a destructive force so far within her marriage family. I do believe she is a narcissist. Too much collaborative evidence from her interpersonal relationships to ignore.
I can’t help but point out that it is just as much photo assumption (the horrid Lainey’s term, but it works) to suggest MeMe wore a fake bump as it is say Archer isn’t particularly attached to his parents.
Whoever has been looking after him, I certainly hope she continues for the next ten years at least.
And we can all thank Meghan for bringing it to the attention of the public.
Narcs are famous for gaslighting - making you doubt your own reality. If you see it with your eyes, it's true, people. Don't let the narcs tell you otherwise by calling you crazy. It's a well known narc tactic to make you doubt yourself and your sense of reality.
But square baby bumps are not photo assumptions. It's 20/20 vision and healthy sense of reality to point it out when you see one. The fact that thousands of other people on DM have also seen this justifies my sense of reality. Also, the increasing and decreasing size of the bump, the bump which is too big for the phase of pregnancy, the squatting in high heels and getting up again, no change in the gait, the jelly like wobbling from side to side, the odd shape with square edges, the displacement of the belly button to the side, the lack of any weight gain anywhere on her body, etc. Do you think we should all just accept these oddities for the sake of going along with this grifter?
"...Meg has consistently, over the two years give or take that we've been observing her, displayed all the classic markers for NPD, which qualifies her as a sociopath. With sociopaths, all bets for 'normal behavior' are off. These people cannot experience genuine emotions or higher executive functions classed as 'conscience'--including such feelings as: guilt, shame, remorse or compassion. Normal people have these capabilities, which is why society and its laws are able to function. I believe Meg is like a great white shark--an apex predator who is only driven by one thing: self-interest."
Chilling, isnt it? Prior to Archie's birth, I found the whole madness surrounding Meghan incredibly entertaining. The awful fashion sense. The moonbump. The increasingly cringeworthy PR. It was a farce...a farce being funded by taxpayers money, but a farce nonetheless. In recent weeks, however, I've come to reevaluate my feelings on the matter. I no longer consider Meghan funny - I think she is dangerous. Your analysis of Meghan's psychological profile strikes me as pretty on the nose, and if there's one thing that we know about people with NPD, it's that they make terrible parents. I find Archie's withdrawn and disacociated behaviour to be so concerning. Children of NPD parents often experience profound emotional neglect during their childhood, and often report being treated as 'props', or unthinking, unfeeling extensions of themselves by the NPD parent. I think we have all observed the red flags of this kind of behaviour with Meghan and Achie, even with such limited footage available. Something is very, very wrong with that woman, and now it's impacting an innocent baby in ways that will likely affect him for the rest of his life. It's just not entertaining anymore.
>>>Why would she need to? Both Britain and the US allow dual nationality.Autumn Philips, who like Meghan is married to one of the queen's grandsons, is a Canadian citizen. I'm not sure she acquired British nationality at all, but her daughters - who are in line for the throne, albeit distantly - have dual nationality. She did have to convert to the Anglican faith, but that would no longer be neccessary since the ban on Catholics marrying royal heirs was lifted. Almost no British citizens are 'subjects'. The status was more or less abolished decades ago. <<
Liver Bird, I assume you are a British citizen? I have forgotten where you said you were from. If you are, then you are of course better placed than I to know whether residents of the UK still think of themselves or are referred to as subjects of Her Majesty. You provide the rather vague information that 'that status was more or less abolished decades ago.' In a good faith desire for knowledge, would you be able to clarify your last statement for me, and cite something official? 'Abolish' sounds like force of law . .ie, that residents of the United Kingdom are no longer, by law, recognized as subjects of Her Majesty. If this is true in the UK, that is surprising news to this American. In the Commonwealth I could understand it, but this is the first I am hearing that citizens of the UK do not regard themselves as subjects of the monarch. Why is the constitutional monarchy still in force, then? If there has been a bloodless coup in which the citizens of Britain have declared themselves a republic, I seem to have missed out on that bulletin, along with the House of Windsor.
Dual citizenship is of course allowed in the U.S. and the U.K. Not disputing that at all. I do regard a person who has married the son of the heir apparent to the Crown as being not the typical applicant for dual citizenship, though. Peter Phillips is also a grandson of the Queen, as is Harry, and his daughters apparently given places in the succession, though I am not sure why. Anne's line is completely irrelevant to the succession and her children never had titles (by their mother's own request) . . so the nationality of Peter's wife is irrelevant. She at least hails from a Commonwealth nation. Harry is of Charles's line, though and that makes him and William categorically different than the Queen's other grandchildren. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. God FORBID something were to happen to William's children . . Harry would ascend to the throne and his wife would be Queen Consort. Having someone that close to the Crown who has not pledged total fealty to the British state is very problematical in the way that Autumn Phillips' passport isn't . .even if it is largely theoretical exercise. That's why Meg's citizenship matters more, or should. Why make her publicly convert to the Church of England if her citizenship didn't also matter?
It doesn't matter what people 'think'. The status of British 'subject' no longer exists, except in a very few cases.
" In a good faith desire for knowledge, would you be able to clarify your last statement for me, and cite something official?"
From the horse's mouth:
"Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’.
All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as ‘British subjects’ until January 1983. However, this was not an official status for most of them.
Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects."
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject
"t this is the first I am hearing that citizens of the UK do not regard themselves as subjects of the monarch"
There's a first time for everything I guess.
"Peter Phillips is also a grandson of the Queen, as is Harry, and his daughters apparently given places in the succession, though I am not sure why."
Well, I am. Peter Phillips is just as much the queen's grandson as Harry is. Therefore he is in the line of succession and so are his children, however distantly.
" Anne's line is completely irrelevant to the succession and her children never had titles (by their mother's own request) . . so the nationality of Peter's wife is irrelevant."
Well, you said it was 'unprecedented' for the mother of potential heirs to not be a British citizen. I'm just pointing out that it is not. And Anne's line is not entirely 'irrelevant'. She may have declined titles for her children but they are still in the line of succession. It's highly unlikely any of them will get near the throne of course, but same is true for Archie.
" Having someone that close to the Crown who has not pledged total fealty to the British state is very problematical in the way that Autumn Phillips' passport isn't"
But she is - or so we're told - planning to take British citizenship. That, however, requres 5 years of residence in Britain before you can even start proceedings. It would look bad if that requirement was to be waived for Meghan and no doubt there'd be complaints on blogs like this if it were. So while I'm more than happy to criticise her when her behaviour merits - which is frequently - I'm not sure this is one of those cases.
William is wearing the traditional Pakistani garments in green, to match the Duchess's dress (and the Pakistani flag) and looks very handsome indeed. He has very good posture and much presence.
The couple exudes elegance.
To be honest, both the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are blessed with being born with bodies that wear clothes well, compared to the Sussexes. But it is what it is, and the Sussexes should accept that they can never appear as glamourous. Therefore, they should work on their personalities if they want to make themselves attractive.. as if they would do that..
It has just been revealed that Kirsty Young, (former host of Desert Island Discs) has been appointed to be the director of Harry and Meghan's Sussex Royal foundation.
>>>@Hikari, I really think that narcissism will be the next trendy condition we will all be discussing, like addiction was in the last few years.
And we can all thank Meghan for bringing it to the attention of the public.
I have a feeling you are right. Though rampant narcissism has gone beyond a trend to a really worrisome sociological pattern. Among the younger generations, encompassing the Millennials and on down, there have been documented upticks in the occurrence of antisocial personality disorders, including NPD, violence, attachment disorders and the like. Many factors are cited for this: the breakdown in the traditional family structure is a biggie but most especially social media technology. Children now experience the world at a remove, though a screen. Emotions are replaced by emoticons. Interaction with other people is facile, Insta-worthy . .and cold. Anonymous. When I was in school, online bullying didn't exist. Now antisocial attitudes dog kids even when they are alone in their rooms.
Meg is technically a shade too elderly to be a Millennial but she slips in just on the cusp. Most 'Influencers' are in their teens and 20s, just pointing to how emotionally arrested MM's development is in her values. This demographic is the one more likely to film someone being attacked on their phones than they are to call for help. Systematically human emotions and connections are being weeded out of our society, replaced with their plastic, electronic alternatives. Meg is in that sense a symptom of the larger underlying cancer of our 21st century society. Narcs used to be pretty rare, like an exotic species--most people would go a lifetime without encountering one in the flesh. I think Narcissism is fast becoming a more garden-variety condition, like autism. When I was growing up, autism wasn't even recognized. Then it was rare, like 1 in 500 kids or something. Now, if the stats are to be believed, the diagnosis is now 1 in 26 children.
The rise of autism and narcissism as being linked would make for an interesting doctoral study . . I think there are intriguing societal factors in common.
If I wasn't aware of the connection before - I certainly am now.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7575273/Former-Desert-Island-Discs-host-Kirsty-Young-director-Meghan-Harrys-Sussex-Royal-Foundation.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed
Doesn't it just!!
And again: Why do these two need a 'foundation' with expensive staff? Do other royals in a similar position have their own 'foundations', complete with PR (didn't they claim SS was hired for the 'foundation'?) and high-profile directors? And who is paying these people's salaries?
I know you mean well and you're concerned for Harry and the BRF. And you understand very well, like all of us, how terrible it is to be fooled by a charming person. We definitely both agree Meghan comes off as fake and scheming, just disagree to the severity of these things.
You bring up an interesting topic though, about being intelligent to read psychological literature and form opinions from it. I do think psychology is an interesting field, and I also like reading up on it like you. But I think that intelligence is not actually enough to be able to make heads from tails from reading literature in such a specialized field, and there's a mild bit of danger to thinking it is enough. It's necessary, but not sufficient.
In my opinion, reading is simply not a substitution for actual training or expertise in any career, whether from motherhood to construction to theoretical physics to a supermarket cashier. There are a lot of other trainings and skills that go unsaid in applying what is written about psychology; a lot of psychology and medicine seems to be also finding the appropriate context for checking off the checklist of symptoms. It's more than an accumulation of facts because without the proper context, "facts" are actually quite useless.
But it's kind of easy to underestimate how much effort it requires to become very skilled in something because we often think that understanding a topic should lead quickly to being able to apply it as well. Yet understanding something is easier than being able to create or produce or apply the knowledge. I can understand what makes a movie great, but that doesn't mean I can really write a viable filmscript. I can read and understand carpentry diagrams, but I can't actually build a house from reading alone.
For those also interested in psychology, there's a type of cognitive bias/heuristic observed that is now known as the Dunning Krueger effect. For me, the Dunning Krueger effect was an eye-opener - it basically explains that it's actually quite difficult to assess one's own competence. From the wiki article: "In 2011, David Dunning wrote about his observations that people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect" (Wikipedia article accessed today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ) One of the corollaries drawn from the Dunning-Krueger effect is that people who are sort of intermediate level in competence tend to be underconfident in their abilities, and that experts are pretty confident but also accurate in their self-assessment.
>>Which is why, as a layperson who is not a practicing psychologist, I stand firm in my armchair diagnosis of Meghan as a narcissist.>> Armchair "diagnoses" have so little to do with actual diagnoses at all, in my opinion. Also, just announcing their lack of qualifications/status as a layman does not absolve one of ethical and responsible statements and give one the freedom to say whatever they want. Things spread so quickly online and people forget to attribute something as an opinion and from where that opinion came. But I guess we'll disagree on that though. :)
One of her children, now deceased, said how hard it was to be told how lucky he was to have such a wonderful mother. He said she turned into a horrible person when there were no witnesses and nobody ever believed him.
I do not know for certain that this woman is in fact a narcissist, just that it was confided to me by a former friend of hers. I do know that the lives of her children and close family members have been destroyed or cut short. I'm going to go by the old biblical adage of "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them". It would appear that her fruits are deadly no matter what the ultimate diagnosis is.
I likewise have no idea whether MM is a narcissist or not. There has always been something that felt "off" about her to me. If she is a narc, I hope that she is being watched closely and has very limited interaction with the child.
Key symptoms of NPD (narcissistic personality disorder)
1. fantasising about power, beauty and success (we don't know what Megs fantasises about, but she seems to be driven to pursue these things)
2. exaggerating achievements and abilities (yep, and bringing up the embellished story of the sexist commercial over and over again ...)
3. superiority, specifically towards people perceived as ‘lower’ in status (rumours, but I can't cite a specific example)
4. inflated sense of entitlement (what else drives the spending and lavish lifestyle, the very hasty acceptance of a title and public funding in a foreign country?)
5. obsession with class and status (I think this one is obvious!)
6. believing that others are envious of them (her supporters label any criticism as racism or jealousy, and Megs has done nothing to counter this but rather use quotes in a passive aggressive way to support this view)
7. great pride in the accomplishments of children or family (nope, she has thrown away family like old dishrags; although she does fawn over her husband in a patronising way it comes across as that and not pride)
8. expecting constant praise and recognition for achievements (she certainly allows fawning adoration and being given titles such as 'global style icon', global humanitarian', and so on, even when they are obviously ridiculous and unwarranted)
9. unrealistic goal setting (she already has achieved unrealistic goals ... how much more can she aim for?)
Problems in relationships for those with NPD:
1. inability to listen to others
2. lack of awareness regarding others
3. exploiting others for personal gain
4. lacking empathy, especially for perceived weaknesses
5. strong desire for control over relationships
6. envy for those perceived as being of a higher status
7. distant, practical manner in regards to personal relationships
8. can ‘write off’ friends permanently over small or imagined issues
My armchair diagnosis? If she has full-blown NPD, at her age, her life would be more of a wreck and there would be a lot of skeletons rattling behind her. Her work as an actress, specifically playing the same character for many years, must help her cope with manipulating others and putting on a mask, but NPD is hectic and at her age, she would have gone off the rails in a major way (but maybe having the stability of that role in a soap for many years helped her, or maybe she is more on the neurotic end of the spectrum rather than the pathological).
Leon F Selzer adds six more signs of narcissism, and it is useful to read about these in detail here https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about.
Maybe it is not harmful or wrong to get to know the symptoms and signs and then use reasonable and rational analysis as a defence against the manipulation of a narcissist?
A thought: A narcissist would hate British satire, but it has always been a useful way to use humour to reveal 'vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings' in people, society, government, religion and corporations. There seems to be less tolerance for satire than there was in the past. I hope the narcissists don't shut it down!
It is more accurate to say that she shows signs of narcissistic behaviour. I have a friend who is similar, undiagnosed but exhibits similar traits (as far as I can tell).
One thing that is interesting is that my friend tends to swap friendship groups every 4 to 5 years as people gradually realise that she is not quite what she seems, starts to pit people against each other and cause trouble and so gradually drift away from her. I call people like that social hand grenades. If you invite them into your circle of normal friends without much ego or drama then you know things will blow up eventually!
Interesting that MM seems to follow the same pattern although in her case she chooses to cut people off.
The thing is, what's the difference between what she is doing and anyone who is shallow and ambitious? Not a hell of a lot I would think.
>>>>Meghan's lack of attention to detail, which shows in everything from her clothing choices to her ever changing bump size, is now becoming a major problem, because she never thought the surrogacy through properly until the end.<<<
I know. Such apparent sloppiness in execution of her schemes and slovenliness in her personal presentation seems diametrically opposed to Meg's self-promotion as a super-intelligent person who cares so much about fashion. What is fashion, after all, or running a business like the Tig but attention to detail? The fact that she seems to let things slide in a big way with the way she looks and presents herself really surprised me . . at first.
If we view Meghan through the filter of a person who consistently displays narcissistic behaviors (I will henceforth avoid any 'clinical' definitions out of courtesy, since I am not a licensed psychotherapist), I think there's an even more intentional explanation for all these wardrobe malfunctions and PR fails. Some traits typical of narcissists, as displayed by Meghan: Arrogance, belief that she is way smarter and more special/beautiful/worthy than others; haughtiness, entitlement, treating staff very poorly unless they meet her shallow standards for physical attractiveness . . occasional bouts of violence when her desires are thwarted . .okay, we have no video evidence that she hurled a pot of hot tea at former assistant Melissa Toubati, who swiftly resigned immediately after the Australia tour, but such an allegation of physical assault toward a member of staff which, if true and were Meg not shielded by the protection of the Royal Family would result, for an ordinary citizen in a criminal assault charge and GBH, if the said employee was severely burned or concussed by said action.
Yes, this is hearsay, but such a shocking allegation of physical brutality is not something which is commonplace with Royals. There are too many anecdotal reports of Meghan's physical temper and verbally abusive tirades and crude language for them *all* to be fabricated.
I think this woman is so arrogant and enjoys her little deceits so much that she actually revels in 'making mistakes' on purpose, so great is her belief that she is 'Getting Away With' all her scams large and small. Whether or not one believes that she actually gestated Archie herself, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that she often employs body padding. She's done it since Archie's birth, unless one believes that she sprouted a Kim Kardashian-sized badonkadonk overnight out of her own tissue, which quizzically disappearedd again the next day. Whether to fill out an outfit which would otherwise be too big, or just to get attention--speculation on her physical appearance is food for her like the rest of us eat, you know . food--Good, bad . . she'll take any kind of coverage except the 'indifferent'--so long as she is the topic on everyone's lips.
A more discreet woman who was embellishing, if not outright fabricating the size of her baby bump, knowing that she'd be photographed hundreds of times that day would have chosen a loose-fitting maternity dress in a darker color to *hide* rather than accentuate the area. But that's not how Meg rolls. She wants maximum exposure, even if by training a kleig light on 'problem areas' she risks giving all her secrets away. There were numerous times when Bump appeared to slip to her knees. A normal person would be racked with self-doubt at such an audacious ruse and would avoid calling attention to her stomach in public situations that were going to be documented on film and the Internet for posterity.
But Meg doesn't operate the way most women would, as we see.
Her 'gaffes' are not really gaffes at all, but rather, I think, dares. She dares us to contradict her narrative of reality. She dares anyone to call her out on her behavior. She is intentionally provocative, so that she can then claim bullying, harassment and racism when people clap back against the constant gaslighting of the Sussex PR machine. She does not care; to her her audience are pawns, nothing more. The Harkles seem to want to be beloved and respected, but anyone who truly cared about those things would respect others enough to act worthy of love and respect. They are *demanding* global adoration as their *right* and at the same time giving everybody watching two fingers with the other hand. Courting their 'fans' and laughing at them at the same time.
>>>The thing is, what's the difference between what she is doing and anyone who is shallow and ambitious? Not a hell of a lot I would think.<<<
I guess seeing a difference all depends on how much, or not, one is disposed to believe the testimony of family members, former partners, friends & abused staff members et al, in assessing the damage.
We all know shallow, ambitious people . . the kind that might be fun to hang with out for drinks but to whom you'd never confide anything personal nor consider for deep friendship.
But there's shallow ambition . .and then there's the toxic kind. I think Meg exhibits the latter. A person might be a bit superficial and self-absorbed without leaving behind him/herself a trail of broken relationships and causing international incidents based on his/her behavior. Most shallow, ambitious folks, or narcissists for that matter, don't have the world stage which Meg now has. If she hadn't become a global celebrity, we never would have heard her siblings say that she destroyed their family. That would be strictly family knowledge.
The Markles may not be the most trustworthy of witnesses . .but we have had corroborating evidence of her destructive tendencies due to the incessant drama and upset which has followed her entrance into the RF. She's dismantling her marriage family (with collusion from Hapless) like she did her birth family. The relationship between Diana's sons is irretrievably broken. How can William ever trust his brother again, given that he has chosen Markle over his family?
Patterns tell the tale.
As for Me again, I can’t for the life of me figure out her end game.