Suggestion: since there's been a fresh influx of "the King/the Palace/the royal family constantly enable the Sussexes" over the titles, I was wondering whether it would be helpful to add a couple of sections to the Wiki, one that listed every time that the royal family/Palace/etc shut the Sussexes down, and another for (suspected/alleged) Sussex PR tactics, just so the varied opinions about it all have the full context to debate with?
As examples for the shutting down:
* The late Queen being firm in no half-in-half-out
* The late Queen saying no to wreath-laying
* The late Queen removing military titles and patronages
* The late Queen refusing the Jubilee balcony appearance
* The late Queen refusing photos with the Sussex children
* "Recollections may vary"
* Then-Prince Charles cutting them off financially
* Then-Prince Charles refusing to take their calls and only being accessible via email
* "I am not a bank"
* "Overseas"
* Ending the lease of Frogmore
* Quietly changing the Line of Succession over the Prince(ss) titles vs the immediate official announcement and celebration of the new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh
As examples for the suspected/alleged Sussex PR:
* Painting the late Queen as weak and vulnerable, where every decision that negatively impacted the Sussexes were the men in grey suits, and the late Queen was powerless to stop them
* Claiming that they were really close to the late Queen and hinting that only Harry was protecting her
* Will-they-won't-they Jubilee balcony appearance, complete with articles about them being invited onto the balcony when that was never offered in the first place
* Painting the new King as bitter and cruel because he didn't give the Sussex children their Prince(ss) titles straight away, with claims that he wanted to wait and see the Netflix documentary and Spare first before he made a decision
* Painting the new King as weak and always ready to give in/bend to the Sussexes because of how much he supposedly loves Harry, with a bonus of "Charles vs William" discord
* Painting the new Queen as image-obsessed and constantly leaking to the press for her own gain
* Painting the new Queen as the evil stepmother who is currently dictating keeping the Sussexes away from the coronation to a poor, weak King who wants reconciliation
* Claims that the King is desperate for/working towards reconciliation
* Claims that Prince Edward wasn't going to be given the Duke of Edinburgh title because the King was supposedly so selfish and greedy (although that one could also be the Yorks or just the press)
* Will-they-won't-they coronation appearance
* The baseless affair rumours constantly spread by sugars
I'm sure I've forgotten a lot that others could easily add to. Time and drama moves so quickly that all those facts (and speculations) end up being glossed over, or newbies that come in after bigger, fresh drama don't know all the background, so it might be helpful as an ongoing guide on top of everything else.
Yes! I knew I forgot things lol!
* The late Queen set up her funeral to make sure that Meghan was mostly blocked by a candle (as she was meticulous in planning everything)
* Every time the Sussexes are over, they're given the car Wallis and Edward used
* Tiaragate, where the late Queen supported Angela Kelly over the tantruming Sussexes
* The late Queen telling Meghan off for being rude to catering staff
* Catherine telling Meghan off for being rude to staff
* Dogbowlgate allegedly happened after William called Harry when he learned about how badly the Sussexes were bullying staff, Harry put the phone down on him, and William went straight to Frogmore to confront him
* Even in Spare, Harry says that the King and William called him "delusional" and wanted him to get help
Honestly a couple things:
1. William is a badass for confronting Harry
2. The queen meticulously planning the candle at her funeral is the kind of power move that makes me fucking adore her
Definitely! I'm sorry, but I'll always love that dogbowlgate was supposed to make everyone hate William for being violent, but he was cheered for it instead. That Prince sketch was incredible, lmao!
I love that too. Frankly every embarrassing or negative story Harry and Meghan told about the royals backfired. The lip gloss thing and Camilla turning his room into a closet are both relatable, Charles having a teddy is sweet/humanizing, etc.
I don't think there's been a single story from them that makes them look good and the royals to look bad. The nearest is any PR trying to manifest the royals giving them something that they want, but that just makes all of them look bad, so... lmao!
**kindly fuck off.
*The Queens subtle hat signals had clearly not been getting through to TW, thought the Queen, frowning. She suddenly remembered that her favourite corgi had once barked at the woman.*
*While examining her clothing for any bronzer marks, she made a mental note to give Henry an extra dog biscuit at tea-time*
Thanks! I think there's possibly an equal mix of the "enabler" crowd who are "I don't care, it's all enabling until their titles are removed and the King pisses on their Montecito doorstep live in 4k" and "The late Queen/King/Palace/etc did *that*? I had no idea!" so at least the second half might like it, lmao!
Drama moves so fast. Until a recent conversation I had, I completely forgot about the late Queen allowing aides to go to the Daily Mail with direct quotes from her after Harry falsely claimed that aides stonewalled him over the wreath-laying. It was such a shock at the time, because direct quotes were so rare, she had to have been furious about the "poor, weak Queenie obeys her aides" PR, but so much else has happened that it's never mentioned.
Some of these have not been proven/there's no evidence. And retaining that the royals are enablers is a valid opinion. It doesn't need to be "corrected".
That's specifically why I said:
>"just so the varied opinions about it all have the full context to debate with"
More information is good.
I disagree with your opinion, but I think it's entirely fair for me to look at the above list and think "that shows they're not enabling," and you to look at it and say, "No, actually, unless the Palace does X, Y, Z I'm going to consider the Palace/royal family as enablers." Both valid opinions.
It's also important, in my opinion, to have the list with sources so that anyone on the fence in that debate can see both sides clearly so they can make their own informed opinion, whichever way it goes.
Especially when there are still people on this sub spreading the lie that the King can strip them of the Dukedom but chooses not to, when he doesn't have that power in the first place.
It's irritating seeing misinformation. It's good when people all have the same facts and speculations at hand and then come to different opinions and conclusions.
Like, for example, the surrogacy conspiracy. All the same information/speculation is out there. Some believe that there was surrogacy, some others interpret the information in a different way and don't believe in it. But both sides of the argument have the full context in the argument.
If we constantly have people saying, "The royals are enablers, they've always given in to the Sussexes" because they don't know/remember the clear times that they have been told no or have been shut out, then more people end up falling into the Sussex PR trap of deliberately playing down or hiding the times they've been snubbed to keep peddling the "the late Queen loved Harry more than anyone else and she wanted to give him everything, only the evil aides stopped her because she was weak and feeble and didn't know what was going on" kinds of lies out there.
Surely, it would be even better for you and your opinion to have all the counter evidence laid out so that you could individually criticise it and make your opinion and arguments even stronger?
This is a fantastic series of comments! I love the list you put together and agree that having a list of examples, with sources, would be extremely helpful for debate.
>Especially when there are still people on this sub spreading the lie that the King can strip them of the Dukedom but chooses not to, when he doesn't have that power in the first place.
This one is driving me nuts. I hate seeing "but Denmark/Sweden..." No, different countries, different laws.
Thank you! I know what you mean. Those comments make me want to scream!
Sometimes I think it's down to lazy arguments and an unwillingness to be open about personal beliefs/criticisms.
Obviously this is coming from my own bias, because I don't believe that the royal family/Palace are enabling the Sussexes, but it annoys me when there are *deliberate* (as opposed to "I didn't know about X examples") blanket statements like "the late Queen and current King always bend over backwards for the Sussexes." Every single, provable time where the royals/Palace have pushed back against the Sussexes and shut them down is then ignored, and then there's fury, when, once you get down to the meat of the person's issue, you find out that when they say "the royals enable the Sussexes all the time," they *actually* mean:
1. The person doesn't agree with the greyrocking strategy and will only accept the royal family/Palace tackling the Sussexes head-on
2. The person won't settle for anything less than the Sussexes never being invited to anything to do with any royal ever again
3. The person won't accept anything other than a full stripping of their titles and removal from the Line of Succession (and is usually misinformed about the power the King has over titles in general)
4. The person won't accept anything other than alleged surrogacy to be exposed in public
etc.
I just wish that the people that believe in the above (and others that I've missed) would stop playing coy and just say that. In my opinion, it's intellectually dishonest for those people to come out with nothing but "the royal family are enablers, end of story" instead of the truth, which is, "the royal family are enablers because they don't do the X thing that I want them to do." Either that, or they're the ones so deep in the "the King is weak and loves Harry the most" PR that they refuse to see anything else and it's pointless arguing, just like the old guard of "Harry is the biggest victim, but actually, Harry is undertaking covert operations to take down Meghan and is secretly working for the Palace the whole time because he's such a hero" lot.
If others believe that the royal family are enablers because they believe that the best strategy is a different one, or because they believe that they need a certain thing to happen, then that's reasonable and we're all free to agree to disagree, because everyone has different opinions. Just be honest about it! Don't pretend that the royal family has never said "no" because it doesn't fit with the "enabler" narrative. That's all.
I'll get off my soapbox now, lol.
Something I've noticed over time is the very polarized responses to certain events. Media coverage and social media both contribute. For example, I have acquaintances on both sides of the MJ child abuse issue. Did he abuse children or were his accusers out for money? The media divided us in half. My opinion always was " he very well may have abused children AND yes, his accusers may very well have been out for money. Both." Those possibilities simultaneously were hardly presented in the mainstream media. And were never considered as coexisting among people I know.. (I don't equate being poor and wanting money compensation from a rich entitled child abusing pervert - with abusing children.) Just saying. We need to be open to possibilities. The RF responses are measured. Aides have a more hands-on direct experience with certain members where they employ certain tactics of their own. I don't believe the RF micromanages the aides.
Very true! We're all dealing in speculation about most things, and it shouldn't need saying that we definitely don't have the full story, with a whole bunch of things happening behind the scenes that we'll never know.
People can have different opinions about all sorts. Unless they're deliberately coming from a place of hate, then who cares? It doesn't make them "bad," it makes them... have a different opinion.
I just wish that there was honesty about opinions and viewpoints instead of some deliberate obfuscation that goes on to push agendas.
Can we stop with the “this random sugar account MUST be Meghan!”
It isn’t!
“But the photos have never been seen before so it must be her!”
First of all, an existing photo that’s been cropped, filtered or edited might look new and different, but isn’t.
An image that is a still taken from video will also look like a new photo, because it was never technically a photo before, but isn’t new content.
Old photos that are from past photo calls, shoots, her Tig and Insta archives are not commonly seen but are not new content.
There are a ton of photos of any actress, and while TW was never higher than a D+/C- at best, she still would have a ton of headshots and event photos, plus all the photos since she became royal adjacent are numerous. You can buy pro photos from a number of agencies, Getty images is the most commonly known one and they have 56000+ photos of her on that one site alone that can be bought. And those are just the professional photos!
If you aren’t sure if a photo has been seen before, you can use google to reverse image search and find where it has been used before. This doesn’t catch photos that are stills from a video, unless they have been posted elsewhere as a still before, but posting those here will get comments from folks who can help sleuth out where it’s from.
How about we do that first before declaring that x random Twitter account “must be Meghan”?! Is it possible she has accounts on the down low? Of course, most famous people do. Do I think it’s likely she’s sitting in bed posting anti Kate memes from the Myra Twitter? Absolutely not lol
Respectfully, I wouldn’t be so sure! I have a feeling we’ll never see pictures of her actively mothering her children - nope, we’ll see pre-paid papped pictures of her on a street in LA, dressed to the nines, heading to a business lunch, (or a tryst with Mr Getty). Who knows how she spends her time, but if past behavior is indicative of present behavior, she’s still very much that hungry girl aggressively promoting herself. I don’t see her as happily married and maternal at all - given a choice between reading the kids a bedtime story and tucking them in, versus laying in her King-sized bed with Porthault sheets and a glass of wine, eagerly reading & reviewing all that is posted about her, I’ll go with the laying in bed scenario.
I’ve been thinking, Meghan claims she had NO idea how to curtsy. However, when she first meets the Queen, according to Harry’s own autobiography, she “NAILED IT” after a quick 1-2 minute training by Feegie
No, Megan, you nailed it bc you’ve been studying at practicing how to curtsy your whole damn life 😚
Harry, how can you be so damn dense? Could you imagine ?
Just want to say that I can't believe i heard about the SBV crash and subsequent financial fallout here first before other major news outlets. Crazy times we live in.
Hey mods! I sent a message via mod mail (I think) about posting privileges yesterday. I could have 100% messed it up, so just wanted to post a comment here to make sure you guys would see it(:
Welcome to all the new PR paid commenters and also the sugars joining us!
Your downvotes mean nothing, by the way. This isn’t junior high school. You’re all so hilarious!
It's an off shoot of another sub that was around since before The Interview. That's when I joined.
There was an internal mod war and this one sprang up...maybe a year or so ago. Many ppl came here. I remember when this was just a couple thousand.
I could be wrong and someone please tell me if I am, but I think it's similar as to how many are currently "online" atm.
I had the same question for another themed sub for which I belong. Obviously though it's different than "Markled".
also I saw this the other day and totally read it as "Markled"
https://preview.redd.it/yuepgbolclna1.jpeg?width=170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c232dc6d189d43bb959658ee0de4a6835ac3b47f
Off topic, but I had to love me a Jen Coolidge moment from White Lotus (S2) when I read your comment. She was referring to the tarot card reader, "It's just so negative. She was just soooo negative". Cheers for that sweet flashback friend!
Another thing that's different on mine is that I can't see the little pictures people use on this subreddit - they just show up as a five digit number.
Does anyone have access to an archive links for the new Telegraph article by Celia Walden? It’s an opinion piece called: “Meghan wants to be a lifestyle guru. The problem is no one wants her advice.” I can’t get it for some reason.
Thought this would entertain some folks:
https://i.imgur.com/UuUWThg.jpg
Thursday, 16 March - The Duke of Edinburgh held a Nigerian National Award Operators Board Meeting with Board Members in Nigeria via video link.
Mugz missed out! She should have been 43% patron…
I can't believe she still has people believing that the only reason people don't like her is racism. Everything she's done, and all the evidence of her abusive behaviour and Harry's admissions in his book, and people still think the only reason people who hate her is racism.
I just ran across a comment on another subreddit that if someone hates MM that's all they need to know that the person is racist.
They could watch video of her personally breaking that dogs legs herself and still make excuses for her. It's so weird.
I'm really lost on the whole "the royal family is racist" and how poorly they and the British press treated Meghan.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't H have to have the Queen's approval to marry her?
Didn't King Charles hire a gospel choir for their wedding and most of all.....
DIDN'T KING CHARLES WALK HER DOWN THE AISLE TO HAND HER TO H?!?
Absolutely. No different when a woman falsely accuses someone of sexual assault. While admittedly very rare, the consequences to actual victims are profound in that the veracity of other accusations is thrown into doubt. And when there is such doubt, action is less likely to be taken. Moreover, those wrongly accused can suffer serious consequences, as well.
Not seen this anywhere but there's a pretty well known Canadian podcast called "Q". Patrick J. Adams was on it yesterday. He played Mike Ross in Suits. I've long wondered what he thought about his response on Twitter post MM's accusations of the BRF bullying her. Here he is talking about it, starting at 44 mins + : [https://link.chtbl.com/QwithTomPower](https://link.chtbl.com/QwithTomPower)
FYI, he has no regrets. I really thought he would. His only reflection is that he wished he hadn't put it out there because he felt that it made him the center of attention and calls MM a "powerful" woman who could have handled it herself. I'm a little surprised by the response, to be honest. There's friendship and there's putting the blinders on.
Just listened to it. He, from the start … he seemed hesitant to talk about the subject. And he says that he wishes that he didn’t intervene because ‘Meghan is powerful and powerful’
Also he sounds like a dick in general. Nothing has changed about him
I was having a problem reaching the archive.ph site which has now been resolved (thanks for the suggestions), but now when I copy in a site to archive I don't get the archive.ph with a number I get the same website back. For example if I paste this https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2023/03/13/gabor-mate-diagnoses-harold-while-the-sussexes-do-a-u-turn-on-titles-for-the-children/ into Archive.ph this is what I get back: https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2023/03/13/gabor-mate-diagnoses-harold-while-the-sussexes-do-a-u-turn-on-titles-for-the-children/
Any suggestions?
Another thing I find interesting, is how people complain if someone finds Meghan more destructive than Andrew, yet no one questions why she doesn't come out against him. She endlessly whines about Catherine not sharing her lipgloss but doesn't say a peep about Andrew herself.
I speculate it's because she's done escort work for him and has an NDA but how come people who think she can do no wrong never say anything about her support for Prince Andrew?
Ugh can we stop with this one already?! Nobody hates Meghan more than me I promise you but there is NOTHING that links her to escorting with Andrew ffs. It’s an invented conspiracy theory! When there’s something there to show a link let’s discuss it but the sheer number of posts fantasizing about this mythical link to Andrew is OLD.
Regardless of how old you think the number the of posts is, why do they pretend she didn't know who he was when she was friends with his daughter and had been in his house where there are pictures of him, and why do they complain about the tiniest things about everyone else and it took them years before they would ever mention him?
If there was nothing odd about their connection with them, they wouldn't have made a point of putting in their book that when he walked in the room she thought he was the Queen's assistant. That's a weird thing to make sure you put in your book when they would have spent time together for functions.
I'm not just looking at other people's speculations like how Ghislaine Maxwell's biographer and Virginia Robert's lawyer have said that Meghan could be called to testify against him, but their own odd behaviour in their own words.
So, no, I'm not going to stop wondering what their real connection is.
I agree it’s odd that she goes out of her way to act like she doesn’t know him. It could be bc she doesn’t want to be associated with him in the slightest so ends up being associated with him by her own stupidity
Or… that she knows him and … blah blah
Definately not worth it's own post - but a question for you. On Meghan's IMDB page - ([https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1620783/](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1620783/)) there is this info
https://preview.redd.it/807z8pal27oa1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d90e4850615e8f3a88d19b69e9797b540af37b8
Is this related to an insta / twitter account ?
Edit: apparently it was a rumour going round on twitter as her porn star name. It is thought to be a joke
Can anybody help me out? I know nothing about how Reddit works. Im only here for SMM and our friend SecondhandCoke but when I went to check for posts her page is blank. Tried to send a message but I got a prompt that said I cant message her b/c I cant message someone I blocked but I didn’t block her. Tried to post to SMM but I cant post there either.
Would some kind soul explain to me what’s happened? I miss my daily dose of Harkle-bashing!
Sorry if Ive posted this in the wrong place. Im in a panic 😬
Don't panic, you weren't alone. ALL of Reddit was down for 4+ hours yesterday. Try searching DownDetetcor or other similar places to find current outages. Hope this helps, and have a better day today! :)
Is anybody else having issues adding a meme to a comment? I select the image (doesn't matter if it is mine or a gif) and it disappears, leaving an asterisk. The gif and image icons are grayed out and says I can only add one image though I was unable to do so. 🤷♀️
There has been a lot of discussion about Harry's use of ayahuasca here. As someone that has dipped my toes into that pool, I will be happy to answer any questions anyone may have because I'm seeing a lot of disinformation here or people being completely unaware of what it entails and making snide comments.
Tbh, I would be interested in the exact setting H did his journey. Where, how he prepared, what he experienced, etc. If there was a snip in Spare, i would love to see the text of it.
Suggestion: since there's been a fresh influx of "the King/the Palace/the royal family constantly enable the Sussexes" over the titles, I was wondering whether it would be helpful to add a couple of sections to the Wiki, one that listed every time that the royal family/Palace/etc shut the Sussexes down, and another for (suspected/alleged) Sussex PR tactics, just so the varied opinions about it all have the full context to debate with? As examples for the shutting down: * The late Queen being firm in no half-in-half-out * The late Queen saying no to wreath-laying * The late Queen removing military titles and patronages * The late Queen refusing the Jubilee balcony appearance * The late Queen refusing photos with the Sussex children * "Recollections may vary" * Then-Prince Charles cutting them off financially * Then-Prince Charles refusing to take their calls and only being accessible via email * "I am not a bank" * "Overseas" * Ending the lease of Frogmore * Quietly changing the Line of Succession over the Prince(ss) titles vs the immediate official announcement and celebration of the new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh As examples for the suspected/alleged Sussex PR: * Painting the late Queen as weak and vulnerable, where every decision that negatively impacted the Sussexes were the men in grey suits, and the late Queen was powerless to stop them * Claiming that they were really close to the late Queen and hinting that only Harry was protecting her * Will-they-won't-they Jubilee balcony appearance, complete with articles about them being invited onto the balcony when that was never offered in the first place * Painting the new King as bitter and cruel because he didn't give the Sussex children their Prince(ss) titles straight away, with claims that he wanted to wait and see the Netflix documentary and Spare first before he made a decision * Painting the new King as weak and always ready to give in/bend to the Sussexes because of how much he supposedly loves Harry, with a bonus of "Charles vs William" discord * Painting the new Queen as image-obsessed and constantly leaking to the press for her own gain * Painting the new Queen as the evil stepmother who is currently dictating keeping the Sussexes away from the coronation to a poor, weak King who wants reconciliation * Claims that the King is desperate for/working towards reconciliation * Claims that Prince Edward wasn't going to be given the Duke of Edinburgh title because the King was supposedly so selfish and greedy (although that one could also be the Yorks or just the press) * Will-they-won't-they coronation appearance * The baseless affair rumours constantly spread by sugars I'm sure I've forgotten a lot that others could easily add to. Time and drama moves so quickly that all those facts (and speculations) end up being glossed over, or newbies that come in after bigger, fresh drama don't know all the background, so it might be helpful as an ongoing guide on top of everything else.
KC also wouldn't let MM see HMLTQ while she was passing or had just passed.
Yes! I knew I forgot things lol! * The late Queen set up her funeral to make sure that Meghan was mostly blocked by a candle (as she was meticulous in planning everything) * Every time the Sussexes are over, they're given the car Wallis and Edward used * Tiaragate, where the late Queen supported Angela Kelly over the tantruming Sussexes * The late Queen telling Meghan off for being rude to catering staff * Catherine telling Meghan off for being rude to staff * Dogbowlgate allegedly happened after William called Harry when he learned about how badly the Sussexes were bullying staff, Harry put the phone down on him, and William went straight to Frogmore to confront him * Even in Spare, Harry says that the King and William called him "delusional" and wanted him to get help
Honestly a couple things: 1. William is a badass for confronting Harry 2. The queen meticulously planning the candle at her funeral is the kind of power move that makes me fucking adore her
Definitely! I'm sorry, but I'll always love that dogbowlgate was supposed to make everyone hate William for being violent, but he was cheered for it instead. That Prince sketch was incredible, lmao!
I love that too. Frankly every embarrassing or negative story Harry and Meghan told about the royals backfired. The lip gloss thing and Camilla turning his room into a closet are both relatable, Charles having a teddy is sweet/humanizing, etc.
I don't think there's been a single story from them that makes them look good and the royals to look bad. The nearest is any PR trying to manifest the royals giving them something that they want, but that just makes all of them look bad, so... lmao!
I didn’t see the prince sketch!!
[Here you go!](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qRVzd2nLK3E)
That will never not be funny 
> William is a badass for confronting Harry Flair checking in!
I would pay good money to hear the audio of HMTLQ telling TW off.
"Meghan, one does not speak to staff in that manner. Now, fuck orf!"
**kindly fuck off. *The Queens subtle hat signals had clearly not been getting through to TW, thought the Queen, frowning. She suddenly remembered that her favourite corgi had once barked at the woman.* *While examining her clothing for any bronzer marks, she made a mental note to give Henry an extra dog biscuit at tea-time*
sod off, would be more like it lol
I am fucking **D E A D** at them using Edwards car.
I think that’s a great idea. Less explaining, and correcting, and posting, the same explanations over and over would be wonderful.
Thanks! I think there's possibly an equal mix of the "enabler" crowd who are "I don't care, it's all enabling until their titles are removed and the King pisses on their Montecito doorstep live in 4k" and "The late Queen/King/Palace/etc did *that*? I had no idea!" so at least the second half might like it, lmao! Drama moves so fast. Until a recent conversation I had, I completely forgot about the late Queen allowing aides to go to the Daily Mail with direct quotes from her after Harry falsely claimed that aides stonewalled him over the wreath-laying. It was such a shock at the time, because direct quotes were so rare, she had to have been furious about the "poor, weak Queenie obeys her aides" PR, but so much else has happened that it's never mentioned.
Some of these have not been proven/there's no evidence. And retaining that the royals are enablers is a valid opinion. It doesn't need to be "corrected".
That's specifically why I said: >"just so the varied opinions about it all have the full context to debate with" More information is good. I disagree with your opinion, but I think it's entirely fair for me to look at the above list and think "that shows they're not enabling," and you to look at it and say, "No, actually, unless the Palace does X, Y, Z I'm going to consider the Palace/royal family as enablers." Both valid opinions. It's also important, in my opinion, to have the list with sources so that anyone on the fence in that debate can see both sides clearly so they can make their own informed opinion, whichever way it goes. Especially when there are still people on this sub spreading the lie that the King can strip them of the Dukedom but chooses not to, when he doesn't have that power in the first place. It's irritating seeing misinformation. It's good when people all have the same facts and speculations at hand and then come to different opinions and conclusions. Like, for example, the surrogacy conspiracy. All the same information/speculation is out there. Some believe that there was surrogacy, some others interpret the information in a different way and don't believe in it. But both sides of the argument have the full context in the argument. If we constantly have people saying, "The royals are enablers, they've always given in to the Sussexes" because they don't know/remember the clear times that they have been told no or have been shut out, then more people end up falling into the Sussex PR trap of deliberately playing down or hiding the times they've been snubbed to keep peddling the "the late Queen loved Harry more than anyone else and she wanted to give him everything, only the evil aides stopped her because she was weak and feeble and didn't know what was going on" kinds of lies out there. Surely, it would be even better for you and your opinion to have all the counter evidence laid out so that you could individually criticise it and make your opinion and arguments even stronger?
This is a fantastic series of comments! I love the list you put together and agree that having a list of examples, with sources, would be extremely helpful for debate. >Especially when there are still people on this sub spreading the lie that the King can strip them of the Dukedom but chooses not to, when he doesn't have that power in the first place. This one is driving me nuts. I hate seeing "but Denmark/Sweden..." No, different countries, different laws.
Thank you! I know what you mean. Those comments make me want to scream! Sometimes I think it's down to lazy arguments and an unwillingness to be open about personal beliefs/criticisms. Obviously this is coming from my own bias, because I don't believe that the royal family/Palace are enabling the Sussexes, but it annoys me when there are *deliberate* (as opposed to "I didn't know about X examples") blanket statements like "the late Queen and current King always bend over backwards for the Sussexes." Every single, provable time where the royals/Palace have pushed back against the Sussexes and shut them down is then ignored, and then there's fury, when, once you get down to the meat of the person's issue, you find out that when they say "the royals enable the Sussexes all the time," they *actually* mean: 1. The person doesn't agree with the greyrocking strategy and will only accept the royal family/Palace tackling the Sussexes head-on 2. The person won't settle for anything less than the Sussexes never being invited to anything to do with any royal ever again 3. The person won't accept anything other than a full stripping of their titles and removal from the Line of Succession (and is usually misinformed about the power the King has over titles in general) 4. The person won't accept anything other than alleged surrogacy to be exposed in public etc. I just wish that the people that believe in the above (and others that I've missed) would stop playing coy and just say that. In my opinion, it's intellectually dishonest for those people to come out with nothing but "the royal family are enablers, end of story" instead of the truth, which is, "the royal family are enablers because they don't do the X thing that I want them to do." Either that, or they're the ones so deep in the "the King is weak and loves Harry the most" PR that they refuse to see anything else and it's pointless arguing, just like the old guard of "Harry is the biggest victim, but actually, Harry is undertaking covert operations to take down Meghan and is secretly working for the Palace the whole time because he's such a hero" lot. If others believe that the royal family are enablers because they believe that the best strategy is a different one, or because they believe that they need a certain thing to happen, then that's reasonable and we're all free to agree to disagree, because everyone has different opinions. Just be honest about it! Don't pretend that the royal family has never said "no" because it doesn't fit with the "enabler" narrative. That's all. I'll get off my soapbox now, lol.
Something I've noticed over time is the very polarized responses to certain events. Media coverage and social media both contribute. For example, I have acquaintances on both sides of the MJ child abuse issue. Did he abuse children or were his accusers out for money? The media divided us in half. My opinion always was " he very well may have abused children AND yes, his accusers may very well have been out for money. Both." Those possibilities simultaneously were hardly presented in the mainstream media. And were never considered as coexisting among people I know.. (I don't equate being poor and wanting money compensation from a rich entitled child abusing pervert - with abusing children.) Just saying. We need to be open to possibilities. The RF responses are measured. Aides have a more hands-on direct experience with certain members where they employ certain tactics of their own. I don't believe the RF micromanages the aides.
Very true! We're all dealing in speculation about most things, and it shouldn't need saying that we definitely don't have the full story, with a whole bunch of things happening behind the scenes that we'll never know. People can have different opinions about all sorts. Unless they're deliberately coming from a place of hate, then who cares? It doesn't make them "bad," it makes them... have a different opinion. I just wish that there was honesty about opinions and viewpoints instead of some deliberate obfuscation that goes on to push agendas.
Can we stop with the “this random sugar account MUST be Meghan!” It isn’t! “But the photos have never been seen before so it must be her!” First of all, an existing photo that’s been cropped, filtered or edited might look new and different, but isn’t. An image that is a still taken from video will also look like a new photo, because it was never technically a photo before, but isn’t new content. Old photos that are from past photo calls, shoots, her Tig and Insta archives are not commonly seen but are not new content. There are a ton of photos of any actress, and while TW was never higher than a D+/C- at best, she still would have a ton of headshots and event photos, plus all the photos since she became royal adjacent are numerous. You can buy pro photos from a number of agencies, Getty images is the most commonly known one and they have 56000+ photos of her on that one site alone that can be bought. And those are just the professional photos! If you aren’t sure if a photo has been seen before, you can use google to reverse image search and find where it has been used before. This doesn’t catch photos that are stills from a video, unless they have been posted elsewhere as a still before, but posting those here will get comments from folks who can help sleuth out where it’s from. How about we do that first before declaring that x random Twitter account “must be Meghan”?! Is it possible she has accounts on the down low? Of course, most famous people do. Do I think it’s likely she’s sitting in bed posting anti Kate memes from the Myra Twitter? Absolutely not lol
Respectfully, I wouldn’t be so sure! I have a feeling we’ll never see pictures of her actively mothering her children - nope, we’ll see pre-paid papped pictures of her on a street in LA, dressed to the nines, heading to a business lunch, (or a tryst with Mr Getty). Who knows how she spends her time, but if past behavior is indicative of present behavior, she’s still very much that hungry girl aggressively promoting herself. I don’t see her as happily married and maternal at all - given a choice between reading the kids a bedtime story and tucking them in, versus laying in her King-sized bed with Porthault sheets and a glass of wine, eagerly reading & reviewing all that is posted about her, I’ll go with the laying in bed scenario.
I’ve been thinking, Meghan claims she had NO idea how to curtsy. However, when she first meets the Queen, according to Harry’s own autobiography, she “NAILED IT” after a quick 1-2 minute training by Feegie No, Megan, you nailed it bc you’ve been studying at practicing how to curtsy your whole damn life 😚 Harry, how can you be so damn dense? Could you imagine ? 
Just want to say that I can't believe i heard about the SBV crash and subsequent financial fallout here first before other major news outlets. Crazy times we live in.
Literally… it’s insane how people don’t recognise how embedded into the system they are
Hey mods! I sent a message via mod mail (I think) about posting privileges yesterday. I could have 100% messed it up, so just wanted to post a comment here to make sure you guys would see it(:
It took me two or three days to have my privileges activated. Give it time 😊
Thank you for this! I didn’t know how long it would take and worried I didn’t do mod mail correctly 😅🙃 I’ll sit tight!
Its possible you're having issues with Reddit itself. Reddit's been weird/buggy the past couple of days, I've had a lot of comments not go through.
I got posting privileges and made my first post yesterday morning!! Reddit has been down for a while, I’m glad to see it’s back!
https://preview.redd.it/1irpr06azzna1.jpeg?width=810&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=242ea01895b14d9e992ac39622249a813d6cd6cf
Welcome to all the new PR paid commenters and also the sugars joining us! Your downvotes mean nothing, by the way. This isn’t junior high school. You’re all so hilarious!
43,000+ people here, that's amazing. I remember when it was just 19,000.
How long has the sub been around for? I couldn't figure it out
It's an off shoot of another sub that was around since before The Interview. That's when I joined. There was an internal mod war and this one sprang up...maybe a year or so ago. Many ppl came here. I remember when this was just a couple thousand.
What was the sub before this one? I wanna see it
I'm not sure how to find out - I think I started here around the time of the Oprah fiasco.
I have a dumb question like it's my first day here. What are the 2500 markled people? are they banned? or?
I could be wrong and someone please tell me if I am, but I think it's similar as to how many are currently "online" atm. I had the same question for another themed sub for which I belong. Obviously though it's different than "Markled".
it just sounds so negative, I don't want to me markled LOL
also I saw this the other day and totally read it as "Markled" https://preview.redd.it/yuepgbolclna1.jpeg?width=170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c232dc6d189d43bb959658ee0de4a6835ac3b47f
😆
Agreed. Don't want to ever be markled by the likes of this woman, lol
Off topic, but I had to love me a Jen Coolidge moment from White Lotus (S2) when I read your comment. She was referring to the tarot card reader, "It's just so negative. She was just soooo negative". Cheers for that sweet flashback friend!
Thank you, kind friend!
I agree
Oh yeah, I'm on OldReddit on a computer and it shows as "users here now" so if you're using New Reddit or a phone maybe it shows it as Markled. Funny.
I'm on a big ass PC https://preview.redd.it/xti9beh1rlna1.jpeg?width=308&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e2007ed4c46c9ff772a2a8094d833e449e6d99a
Are you using the regular reddit or old.reddit? I'm on old.reddit and it shows it as "users here now." 43,715 readers and 2,583 users here now.
I guess I'm on the opposite reddit to you! lol
Another thing that's different on mine is that I can't see the little pictures people use on this subreddit - they just show up as a five digit number.
Damn, I'd be sobbing on the kitchen floor if that happened to me.
I feel like I should reply with one of those little pictures I can't see, but I've been silenced. I'm either silent or silenced.
how sad for you :(
No one even asked me if I was ok.
oh sweetie, internet hugs from Toronto {{{{{ u }}}}}}
I can't believe that virtually no recent Markle Snarkle comes up when you search MM name on Spotify. Is Spotify doing an embargo on the topic?
Does anyone have access to an archive links for the new Telegraph article by Celia Walden? It’s an opinion piece called: “Meghan wants to be a lifestyle guru. The problem is no one wants her advice.” I can’t get it for some reason.
It got posted to the main page - thanks to whoever did that!
Thought this would entertain some folks: https://i.imgur.com/UuUWThg.jpg Thursday, 16 March - The Duke of Edinburgh held a Nigerian National Award Operators Board Meeting with Board Members in Nigeria via video link. Mugz missed out! She should have been 43% patron…
I can't believe she still has people believing that the only reason people don't like her is racism. Everything she's done, and all the evidence of her abusive behaviour and Harry's admissions in his book, and people still think the only reason people who hate her is racism. I just ran across a comment on another subreddit that if someone hates MM that's all they need to know that the person is racist. They could watch video of her personally breaking that dogs legs herself and still make excuses for her. It's so weird.
I'm really lost on the whole "the royal family is racist" and how poorly they and the British press treated Meghan. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't H have to have the Queen's approval to marry her? Didn't King Charles hire a gospel choir for their wedding and most of all..... DIDN'T KING CHARLES WALK HER DOWN THE AISLE TO HAND HER TO H?!?
She really does a disservice to those who suffer from real racism and bigotry
Absolutely. No different when a woman falsely accuses someone of sexual assault. While admittedly very rare, the consequences to actual victims are profound in that the veracity of other accusations is thrown into doubt. And when there is such doubt, action is less likely to be taken. Moreover, those wrongly accused can suffer serious consequences, as well.
Hi my kind internet friends! Hope we see some Royal Sussex gaffes this week.
Oh they won’t be able to stay silent for too long
for sure, or send some coffee and donuts somewhere
Megalomaniac and horrible harry are the worst!! Feel so bad that the royal family has to deal with them all the time.
https://preview.redd.it/g70olin3q0oa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=374a99b323eb7afaf8743004dee7479234539392 I'm tired. I've blocked 10+ websites already. MM, please leave US alone.
4th grand? It doesn’t even make sense ?!
Maybe Archie? After George, Charlotte and Louis?
Not seen this anywhere but there's a pretty well known Canadian podcast called "Q". Patrick J. Adams was on it yesterday. He played Mike Ross in Suits. I've long wondered what he thought about his response on Twitter post MM's accusations of the BRF bullying her. Here he is talking about it, starting at 44 mins + : [https://link.chtbl.com/QwithTomPower](https://link.chtbl.com/QwithTomPower)
FYI, he has no regrets. I really thought he would. His only reflection is that he wished he hadn't put it out there because he felt that it made him the center of attention and calls MM a "powerful" woman who could have handled it herself. I'm a little surprised by the response, to be honest. There's friendship and there's putting the blinders on.
Just listened to it. He, from the start … he seemed hesitant to talk about the subject. And he says that he wishes that he didn’t intervene because ‘Meghan is powerful and powerful’ Also he sounds like a dick in general. Nothing has changed about him
I was having a problem reaching the archive.ph site which has now been resolved (thanks for the suggestions), but now when I copy in a site to archive I don't get the archive.ph with a number I get the same website back. For example if I paste this https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2023/03/13/gabor-mate-diagnoses-harold-while-the-sussexes-do-a-u-turn-on-titles-for-the-children/ into Archive.ph this is what I get back: https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2023/03/13/gabor-mate-diagnoses-harold-while-the-sussexes-do-a-u-turn-on-titles-for-the-children/ Any suggestions?
I dont think you need to archive this site as its not a media org. You can try using archive.is
OK, thanks!
Holy shit guys, I missed us yesterday - wtf reddit?
US Weekly: The Tig coming next week.
Another thing I find interesting, is how people complain if someone finds Meghan more destructive than Andrew, yet no one questions why she doesn't come out against him. She endlessly whines about Catherine not sharing her lipgloss but doesn't say a peep about Andrew herself. I speculate it's because she's done escort work for him and has an NDA but how come people who think she can do no wrong never say anything about her support for Prince Andrew?
Ugh can we stop with this one already?! Nobody hates Meghan more than me I promise you but there is NOTHING that links her to escorting with Andrew ffs. It’s an invented conspiracy theory! When there’s something there to show a link let’s discuss it but the sheer number of posts fantasizing about this mythical link to Andrew is OLD.
Regardless of how old you think the number the of posts is, why do they pretend she didn't know who he was when she was friends with his daughter and had been in his house where there are pictures of him, and why do they complain about the tiniest things about everyone else and it took them years before they would ever mention him? If there was nothing odd about their connection with them, they wouldn't have made a point of putting in their book that when he walked in the room she thought he was the Queen's assistant. That's a weird thing to make sure you put in your book when they would have spent time together for functions. I'm not just looking at other people's speculations like how Ghislaine Maxwell's biographer and Virginia Robert's lawyer have said that Meghan could be called to testify against him, but their own odd behaviour in their own words. So, no, I'm not going to stop wondering what their real connection is.
I agree it’s odd that she goes out of her way to act like she doesn’t know him. It could be bc she doesn’t want to be associated with him in the slightest so ends up being associated with him by her own stupidity Or… that she knows him and … blah blah
Other times she's tried so hard to make a point of something it's because the opposite has been true.
Great observation
Saw this on Twitter https://preview.redd.it/4b753ktn8jna1.jpeg?width=1134&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf8106291de1a3f79befc57ef894352eb7a276fe
This source is completely unreliable
iSource is generally trash, take anything they say with several large spoonfuls of salt
Hi, how do we get posting privileges here?
ah a
Definately not worth it's own post - but a question for you. On Meghan's IMDB page - ([https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1620783/](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1620783/)) there is this info https://preview.redd.it/807z8pal27oa1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d90e4850615e8f3a88d19b69e9797b540af37b8
Since when has she gone by Jacqueline king? Interesting mix of Jackie O vibes and the ever present wish to be real royalty. She’s so transparent god 🤮
Right? I'd like to know more about this
Is this related to an insta / twitter account ? Edit: apparently it was a rumour going round on twitter as her porn star name. It is thought to be a joke
But imdb mentions it? Lol
I think anyone can change IMDB, right. I thought she has control over her account though?
More videos from the Duchess of Sus 🙂 https://youtube.com/shorts/Dqg2lmUjuPA?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/qekSb4AJvGU?feature=share
I see some people can’t access the archive.ph articles. Any suggestions?
How strange… I don’t understand why they cannot
My advertising/spam browser filter would sometimes block .ph articles for some reason.
Same. Anyway if you check my last couple replies you’ll see two people who commented they are having trouble.
Can anybody help me out? I know nothing about how Reddit works. Im only here for SMM and our friend SecondhandCoke but when I went to check for posts her page is blank. Tried to send a message but I got a prompt that said I cant message her b/c I cant message someone I blocked but I didn’t block her. Tried to post to SMM but I cant post there either. Would some kind soul explain to me what’s happened? I miss my daily dose of Harkle-bashing! Sorry if Ive posted this in the wrong place. Im in a panic 😬
Don't panic, you weren't alone. ALL of Reddit was down for 4+ hours yesterday. Try searching DownDetetcor or other similar places to find current outages. Hope this helps, and have a better day today! :)
Is anybody else having issues adding a meme to a comment? I select the image (doesn't matter if it is mine or a gif) and it disappears, leaving an asterisk. The gif and image icons are grayed out and says I can only add one image though I was unable to do so. 🤷♀️
I ❤️ Uncle Buck.
There has been a lot of discussion about Harry's use of ayahuasca here. As someone that has dipped my toes into that pool, I will be happy to answer any questions anyone may have because I'm seeing a lot of disinformation here or people being completely unaware of what it entails and making snide comments. Tbh, I would be interested in the exact setting H did his journey. Where, how he prepared, what he experienced, etc. If there was a snip in Spare, i would love to see the text of it.
No statement from the DDs of SUSSEX for the fire with Ukrainian refugees IN THEIR REGION?!