Royal Feuds: He Said, She Said, They Said

[CuriousParker]

Any & all discussion about royal disputes that do not fit in other topics.

Examples: 

• William & Harry dispute talk goes in this topic.
• Charles & Harry dispute talk goes in this topic.
• Charles & Andrew dispute talk goes in this topic.
• William & Catherine dispute talk goes in the William & Catherine topic.
• Harry & Meghan dispute talk goes in the Harry & Meghan topic.
• Catherine & George dispute talk goes in the William & Catherine topic.

[Bethany]

Dissed! Why Kate Middleton Refused to Curtsy to Queen Camilla at Coronation

Quote

Kate Middleton and Queen Camilla aren't letting go of their grudge.

The pair's tension was most recently on display at the May 6 coronation, where onlookers noticed the mother-of-three shockingly didn't do a traditional curtsy when Camilla passed her at Westminster Abbey.

"That obvious insult raised eyebrows big-time," an insider spilled to Radar. "Apparently, Kate was seething over commands Camilla made about coronation guests and decided to make her angry feelings very obvious."

According to the source, the Princess of Wales was particularly peeved that she was only allowed to invite four family members to the historic event while Camilla had 20 guests of her own. 

Adding insult to injury, the new queen invited longtime friend Rose Hanbury, the woman Prince William was accused of having an affair with.

"William's affair was vehemently denied, but damage was done and his marriage to Kate suffered," noted the insider. "By inviting Rose, Camilla was going for the jugular!"

 

[Makai]

30 minutes ago, Bethany said:

Dissed! Why Kate Middleton Refused to Curtsy to Queen Camilla at Coronation

 

This seems like much ado about nothing. Almost no one curtsied or bowed specifically to Camilla and she was walking behind Charles. Seems like a general curtsy in the area should cover both when they are the vicinity of each other. 

[merylinkid]

Oh yes, the  Rose Hanbury thing.   Seriously leave the poor woman alone.   

The curtsy is a tempest in a teapot -- if it was even a problem.

[MissLucas]

In the name of research I traced the story back to its  origin which is surprisingly late for such a supposed scandal, you'd think the tabloids would have jumped on that right on coronation day - per thenews.com:

Quote

Appearing on Dan Wootton Tonight on Tuesday, May 16th, 2023, Bower, 76, claimed that Middleton, 41, and her husband, Prince William, 40, were not happy because the princess was able to invite only four of her family members while Camilla, 75, had 20 people present, per New York Post.

Bower shared that Kate’s siblings were not allowed to bring their partners to the historic event.

“Camilla brought 20 Parker Bowleses to the coronation and there were four Middletons,” Bower said. “If you look at the coronation footage, as the king and queen leave the thrones and head for the exit of Westminster Abbey, you’ll see that everyone bows and curtsies to the king and no one moves a limb, a muscle, when Camilla passes.”

Two things stand out in that quote: Bower was not at the Abbey and that 'no one moves a limb, a muscle, when Camilla passes'. So, according to this Kate was not alone in her alleged refusal. But by first stating a supposed rift between Kate and Camilla, followed by the statement about no one moving when Camilla passed, he had placed the seeds for the story. 

As for the actual footage of said event: The camera follows Charles after he had passed his family, we then get a close-up of Charles and only then cuts the footage back to Camilla who had already passed the pew with Will & Co - due to the angle she looks closer than she is and indeed nobody moves. This is the exact moment:

So either they were not supposed to curtsy (unlikely as we see others curtsy to Camilla later in the footage), or they were all complicit in this horrible snub or they had bowed/curtsied seconds before the footage cut back to this camera.

 

Edited May 25 by MissLucas

[Bethany]

24 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

But by first stating a supposed rift between Kate and Camilla, followed by the statement about no one moving when Camilla passed, he had placed the seeds for the story. 

I wondered where this all began as I have started seeing a lot of stories about dissension between Kate and Camilla and Kate and the King - not seeing too much about William. 

I suspect in the future we are going to see a lot more of these kinds of stories. Maybe  based on fact - perhaps Kate and Camilla really do not get along - but like most of these feuds I am expecting to see much ado made of very little going forward.  Two women actually disagreeing over things but in the main getting along?  Perish the thought!

Edited May 25 by Bethany

[MissLucas]

They might not get along or are secret buddies - I doubt we will ever know. But what I know is that the yellow press will fabricate stories of female infighting ad nauseam because sadly it sells. There was something similar about Camilla furiously whispering to Kate to keep her kids under control during the Queen's funeral. 

For the record: we did see Kate curtsy to Camilla at the coronation concert.

[BookEater]

10 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

For the record: we did see Kate curtsy to Camilla at the coronation concert.

Also at the Christmas carol service last year, it all looked very warm. Catherine greats them both with a kiss on the cheek and then dips in a curtsy to both.

 

[Bethany]

To be honest if I were Kate I would probably have some feelings about having to curtsy to Camilla but I have no way of knowing if she feels this way herself.  She may be doing the "go along to get along" thing and hiding her true feelings, or maybe she and Camilla are bestest buddies.

I did have to laugh at the idea that Kate expected to have the same number of invites to the Coronation as Camilla.  If she genuinely did get angry about this (I doubt it) it's like the bridesmaid expecting to have the same number of guests at the wedding ceremony as the bride!  This was Camilla's day not Kates.

[Makai]

1 hour ago, Bethany said:

I wondered where this all began as I have started seeing a lot of stories about dissension between Kate and Camilla and Kate and the King - not seeing too much about William. 

I suspect in the future we are going to see a lot more of these kinds of stories. Maybe  based on fact - perhaps Kate and Camilla really do not get along - but like most of these feuds I am expecting to see much ado made of very little going forward.  Two women actually disagreeing over things but in the main getting along?  Perish the thought!

I’ve long thought that this was coming as soon as Camilla became Queen. Basically a rehash of Camilla vs Diana with Kate as a stand-in for Diana. I don’t think it matters is they get along wonderfully or hate each other. Two women in prominent positions of the BRF are always going to be pit each other. Sophie is the only one who hasn’t been dragged into a “feud”. 

[Bethany]

1 minute ago, Makai said:

Sophie is the only one who hasn’t been dragged into a “feud”. 

Good point.  I think only because she is just enough removed from the centre that there is no woman she could reasonably be pitted against!  

[Notabug]

Just now, Bethany said:

Good point.  I think only because she is just enough removed from the centre that there is no woman she could reasonably be pitted against!  

Yep, I think Sophie was never a factor or she would've been dragged too.  The media needs to stop pitting powerful women against each other.  Whether Kate or Camilla like each other is really none of our business.  Kate can be disappointed that her brother and sister in law weren't able to attend the coronation without blaming Camilla.  For all we know her brother and sister in law were relieved to be off the hook and happy to stay home.  It won't be much longer until there will be another coronation and Kate will invite as many people as she wants.  Being ticked off about this ceremony when she will have a starring role in the next one seems unlikely to me.

[ozziemom]

The media pitting Kate vs. Camilla is really exhausting but typical. Why aren’t we hearing about William being upset about his in-laws not being invited to the Coronation? If this event was anything like a wedding for example, someone always feels like this one or that one should or shouldn’t be invited. But apparently women in the BRF feuding is what sells newspapers.

[MadyGirl1987]

1 hour ago, ozziemom said:

But apparently women in the BRF feuding is what sells newspapers.

Not just royal women… It’s any women fighting. Stories of famous women feuding are everywhere, especially in Hollywood. Look at Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Elizabeth Taylor and Debbie Reynolds. Seinfeld even did a episode highlighting this where Elaine has a coworker threatening her and whenever she goes to someone about it, their reaction is just to brush it off as a “cat fight.”

[Shelbie]

Supposed royal infighting or feuding will always sell.
In 10 or 15 years I’m sure there will be stories featuring Charlotte snubbing or disliking George’s partner or vise versa. It will never end.

[ancslove]

When Game of Thrones was at its height, a nonfiction book called Game of Crowns came out, all about the maneuvering and machinations of the Queen, Camilla, and Kate to keep/gain supremacy.  Kate was still relatively new to the RF then.  These stories will persist because there’s a huge audience for court intrigue, even without people having deep-seated feelings for or against one or the other.

[blackwing]

3 hours ago, Notabug said:

The media needs to stop pitting powerful women against each other.  Whether Kate or Camilla like each other is really none of our business.  

Or Kate vs. Meghan, one of the supposed longstanding feuds.  Meghan seems to have removed herself physically from potential conflict, so now the media is turning to Kate vs. Camilla.  I'm not surprised, they seem to sensationalize a lot in order to sell papers.

[Bethany]

1 minute ago, blackwing said:

Meghan seems to have removed herself physically from potential conflict, so now the media is turning to Kate vs. Camilla. 

In the fulness of time Camilla will likely be out of the picture as well.  I wonder who they will pit Kate against then?  Or once she is Queen will they be moving on to the next generation instead.  George and Louis and their feuding wives!

[LegalParrot81]

Speaking of feuds......if the article can be believed, Prince Pedo doesn't have to move after all.   He just keeps getting his way, doesn't he. 🤢

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/king-charles-iii-reportedly-caved-let-prince-andrew-get-his-way-in-a-royal-real-estate-standoff/ar-AA1bDK6L

[Bethany]

16 minutes ago, LegalParrot81 said:

 He just keeps getting his way, doesn't he. 🤢

The Andrew vs Charles saga always reminds me of this:

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, ozziemom said:

The media pitting Kate vs. Camilla is really exhausting but typical. Why aren’t we hearing about William being upset about his in-laws not being invited to the Coronation? If this event was anything like a wedding for example, someone always feels like this one or that one should or shouldn’t be invited. But apparently women in the BRF feuding is what sells newspapers.

William has been "incandescent with rage" for the last few months.  I'm sure the guest list from the coronation was part of that at some point.  

[Makai]

1 hour ago, LegalParrot81 said:

Speaking of feuds......if the article can be believed, Prince Pedo doesn't have to move after all.   He just keeps getting his way, doesn't he. 🤢

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/king-charles-iii-reportedly-caved-let-prince-andrew-get-his-way-in-a-royal-real-estate-standoff/ar-AA1bDK6L

He never had to move and this isn’t Charles caving. He has a very long lease which ties everyone else’s hands. He can stay until he dies or can no longer pay to maintain the property. It seems like Charles was trying to get him to agree to leave when his funding was cut but that was never a guarantee. 

[film noire]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

Or Kate vs. Meghan, one of the supposed longstanding feuds.  

I always appreciated Meghan's comments about Kate:

"They really seem to want a narrative of a hero and a villain. She's a good person. So much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity where if you love me, you don't have to hate her. And if you love her, you don't need to hate me."

 

Edited May 25 by film noire

[blackwing]

27 minutes ago, Makai said:

He never had to move and this isn’t Charles caving. He has a very long lease which ties everyone else’s hands. He can stay until he dies or can no longer pay to maintain the property. It seems like Charles was trying to get him to agree to leave when his funding was cut but that was never a guarantee. 

The article doesn't seem very clear... it says that the rent and upkeep is $434,000 per year.  Even if he has a 75 year lease, isn't that conditional upon paying rent?  The article then mentions that Andrew doesn't have any funds.  So who exactly is paying for the $434,000?  Is it the Crown or is it Charles personally?  

I thought I did remember reading that Charles cut Andrew's stipend, to try to nudge him to move to the less expensive Frogmore Cottage.  Fergie lives in Royal Lodge too, doesn't she?  Does she pay half of the rent?  Where is her funding coming from?  I can't imagine she is earning enough from her books or whatnot to be able to pay half of that rent.

 

[Bethany]

3 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Where is her funding coming from?  I can't imagine she is earning enough from her books or whatnot to be able to pay half of that rent.

Taking my reply to the Other Royals thread.

[LegalParrot81]

18 minutes ago, blackwing said:

So who exactly is paying for the $434,000?  Is it the Crown or is it Charles personally?  

Good question.  It's been printed that Charles is having Duchy of Lancaster cover Andrew's private security, since he lost his UK government treasury funded security when he was no longer a working royal. So the Duchy may also pay the upkeep.  Who knows.  

I don't think Fergie has to live there.  I believe she purchased a residence in the Mayfair district in London a while back .

Edited May 25 by LegalParrot81

[Makai]

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

The article doesn't seem very clear... it says that the rent and upkeep is $434,000 per year.  Even if he has a 75 year lease, isn't that conditional upon paying rent?  The article then mentions that Andrew doesn't have any funds.  So who exactly is paying for the $434,000?  Is it the Crown or is it Charles personally?  

I thought I did remember reading that Charles cut Andrew's stipend, to try to nudge him to move to the less expensive Frogmore Cottage.  Fergie lives in Royal Lodge too, doesn't she?  Does she pay half of the rent?  Where is her funding coming from?  I can't imagine she is earning enough from her books or whatnot to be able to pay half of that rent.

 

It’s been awhile since I’ve read the details but from what I remember the Lodge needed massive renovations when he moved in. He agreed to spend a certain amount on the renovations and that effectively bought out his rent for the life of the lease. It requires that he pay for the upkeep which is where the $434,000 comes from. He was supposed to be paying it himself but most assumed the Queen was the one footing the bill for the renovation and upkeep from her personal wealth. The crown can’t pay for it. Since it is a crown estate the lease had to be approved outside of the royal family. If Andrew moves within the first 20 years (I think?) of the lease, he will get some of the money he spent on renovations back. 

Edited May 25 by Makai

[film noire]

2 hours ago, LegalParrot81 said:

since he lost his UK government treasury funded security when he was no longer a working royal. 

Andrew had protection as a non-working royal for years. He stepped back as a working royal in 2019, and (according to The Times Nov 28, 2022) only lost royal protection in November of 2022:

"Andrew was said to be furious that he would no longer be escorted by police guards whenever he left the grounds of Windsor Castle. His round-the-clock protection has been estimated to cost between £500,000 and £3 million."

eta:

Quote

I don't think Fergie has to live there.  I believe she purchased a residence in the Mayfair district in London a while back .

And that was an expensive piece of real estate, iirc, right?  Lots of cash with no clear origin.

One feud I want to continue, at full force for eternity: Charles and Andrew. That awful man cannot be rehabilitated. 

Edited May 25 by film noire

[Makai]

22 minutes ago, film noire said:

And that was an expensive piece of real estate, iirc, right?  Lots of cash with no clear origin.

Not really. The house was £5 million and Fergie signed a 22-book in 2021 after already writing dozens of books. If Charles succeeds in getting Andrew out of the Lodge, Fergie will be fine. 

Edited May 25 by Makai

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, Makai said:

Not really. The house was £5 million and Fergie signed a 22-book in 2021 after already writing dozens of books.

Whatever advance Fergie got for her outrageous book deal would not be for all 22 up front.  Publishing doesn't work that way.  They pay out advances in increments for each book.  The 22 books locks Fergie into a single publisher so she doesn't have to worry about shopping her finished manuscripts around, and the publisher knows they have a product to sell and make money if they want to continue the partnership.  And that's a big if.  Fergie has published one book a year since this deal.  No one knows what the public will want 20 years from now.  In the US, Fergie is a midlist author. I don't know how well she performs in the UK, but I doubt she's a Danielle Steel or a Nora Roberts.  

[Blergh]

12 minutes ago, Makai said:

I didn’t think it would but I’m sure she has enough to buy her house. She probably didn’t pay for the house with cash. 

I wouldn't count on the Duchess of York having learned a jot of fiscal responsibility despite having had a Texan she termed her 'financial adviser' supposedly re-enact the Cinderella story with her (despite no glass slipper being seen anywhere near the staging) when then paps snapped a now-notorious  pic.

[film noire]

7 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Whatever advance Fergie got for her outrageous book deal would not be for all 22 up front.  

Plus,  Fergie paid cash, and is not free to sell the property without the written consent of her daughters:

"Now the mystery over how she afforded the Belgravia property has deepened after it emerged she cannot sell it without written consent signed by her daughters...Official Land Registry documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal the unusual ‘restriction’ was placed on the pretty mews terrace when Fergie, 63, bought it in June last year. The deeds also reveal she paid £4.25 million outright without need of a mortgage."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11767451/Insiders-suggest-Duchess-York-4-3m-Belgravia-flat-purchased-daughters.html

Gird your loins, Charles, and throw the bum out! Consign him to the sheer hell of living in luxury in Frogmore or Mayfair!

(Footage of Charles returning from Transylvania, ready to deal with Andrew...)

Edited May 26 by film noire

[Makai]

21 minutes ago, film noire said:

Plus,  Fergie paid cash, and is not free to sell the property without the written consent of her daughters:

"Now the mystery over how she afforded the Belgravia property has deepened after it emerged she cannot sell it without written consent signed by her daughters...Official Land Registry documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal the unusual ‘restriction’ was placed on the pretty mews terrace when Fergie, 63, bought it in June last year. The deeds also reveal she paid £4.25 million outright without need of a mortgage."

Deepened? It seems like that would have solved it. Bea and Eug probably bought it for her. Possibly with their inheritance from Philip. The timing makes a lot of sense. Realistically, Bea and Eug each got a lot richer in the last two years. 

Which is also a factor with the Charles vs Andrew thing over the Royal Lodge. With his inheritance from both his parents, Andrew probably got enough to thumb his nose at what Charles wants for at least a little while. 

[pancake bacon]

23 minutes ago, Makai said:

Andrew probably got enough to thumb his nose at what Charles wants for at least a little while. 

Little Rascals realness! 

[merylinkid]

Bea and Eugenie bought their mom a house so she would have somewhere to stay knowing that when Charles became King, the stay at Royal Lodge may be over.   But they don't want their mom doing something stupid like selling it when she needs cash and then being stuck without a home of her own.   

6 hours ago, Makai said:

With his inheritance from both his parents, Andrew probably got enough to thumb his nose at what Charles wants for at least a little while. 

True, we don't know how much the Queen left her 3 children not named Charles.   She probably provided well for them because Charles didn't need the money since he would get all the stuff of being King.   

[Roseanna]

15 hours ago, film noire said:

I always appreciated Meghan's comments about Kate:

"They really seem to want a narrative of a hero and a villain. She's a good person. So much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity where if you love me, you don't have to hate her. And if you love her, you don't need to hate me."

That was sheer hypocrisy after just telling that "it was she who made me cry" - hardly anybody remembered the incident but Meghan still hold the grudge because Kate and the Palace didn't correct it in public. 

It was a classic method "I don't want to blame my ex, but" - and then doing just that.    

3 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

True, we don't know how much the Queen left her 3 children not named Charles.   She probably provided well for them because Charles didn't need the money since he would get all the stuff of being King.   

I have understood that the Queen actually left all her fortune to Charles because he, as the King, don't have to pay the inheritance tax, trusting him to provde for other family members.

[Bethany]

8 hours ago, film noire said:

Fergie paid cash, and is not free to sell the property without the written consent of her daughters

This is going in my notes.  My kids have gotten off easy, flowers chocolates, framed pictures of the grandchildren. Where's my house?  

[Makai]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

I have understood that the Queen actually left all her fortune to Charles because he, as the King, don't have to pay the inheritance tax, trusting him to provde for other family members.

It’s all just speculation. The royals have been able to keep their wills private for decades after the person dies. There are also ways to make it so beneficiaries pay a lot less than the inheritance tax. 

[Bethany]

22 hours ago, ozziemom said:

But apparently women in the BRF feuding is what sells newspapers.

This is absolutely true but I've noticed since the Coronation that there is now a focus in some places on a feud festering between Kate and King Charles. 

It's interesting to me that they've chosen to either create or accurately report (who knows really!!) on a feud between these two as opposed to William and the King. 

I know in the past there were reports on Prince Philip disliking Fergie to the point where she wasn't welcome to come on over for Sunday dinner if he was there but I don't think I've ever read anything that would make me think that Charles dislikes Kate or vice versa. 

So much ado about nothing or seething undercurrents that are just being noticed?  Watch this space 🙂.

[Notabug]

3 hours ago, Roseanna said:

That was sheer hypocrisy after just telling that "it was she who made me cry" - hardly anybody remembered the incident but Meghan still hold the grudge because Kate and the Palace didn't correct it in public. 

It was a classic method "I don't want to blame my ex, but" - and then doing just that.    

I have understood that the Queen actually left all her fortune to Charles because he, as the King, don't have to pay the inheritance tax, trusting him to provde for other family members.

Meghan's husband also cast shade at Kate in his book because she didn't want to share a lip gloss with Meghan, in his opinion.  She actually did share the gloss, BTW, but Harry felt she hesitated and looked shocked at the request.  And, as we know, Harry feels Meghan gets what she wants when she wants it and it was terribly rude of Kate not to hand over the gloss immediately.

When the Sussex whine and complain about how everyone treats them, they need to look at the way they speak of others.

Edited May 26 by Notabug

[merylinkid]

Perhaps Kate had a cold and didn't want Megan to catch it.   Or Megan had one.   Sharing lip gloss is ... odd to me.

Harry is also making his own interpretation of the interaction and, of course, casting everyone else in the worst possible light because he is the eternal victim.   

Honestly I was mostly indifferent on the Sussexes.  I certainly did not feel I had to chose EITHER the Cambridges or the Sussexes.   Both had their positives and negatives.    Harry was a nice enough guy.   Megan was a pretty lady who seemed to jump into her Royal Duties with both feet and did great.   She did suffer horrific racist abuse.   But the more they talk, the less and less I like them.  Like everything is not a personal attack.   Everyone is not against you.   Dial it back about twelve notches and talk about what REALLY happened, not your version of events that makes you look good and everyone else terrible.   

[Bethany]

The supposed Sussex/Cambridge feud probably is history now.   Unless something else happens between all the combatants of course.  

[film noire]

10 hours ago, Roseanna said:

hardly anybody remembered the incident

 

It was not forgotten by the tabloids. The "Meghan made Kate cry" story first appeared in the tabs in 2018, and over two years later,  it had evolved into Tightsgate: "Now it is claimed that the spat centred on whether Princess Charlotte and the other young bridesmaids at Meghan's marriage to Harry in May 2018 should wear tights."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8359285/Meghan-Markles-rift-Kate-Middleton-caused-clash-tights-Tadler-reports.html

Because the rumour was still alive, Oprah asked about it. Meghan explained what really happened while making it clear that Kate had treated Meghan very well after the incident. I don't see Meghan hypocritically subjecting Kate to a double-standard in any of that; she acknowledged Kate is a good person, treated Meghan well after the incident, and that both women are constantly subjected to an unfair polarization. Mileage, etc.

Edited May 26 by film noire

[film noire]

The War of the Roses continues!

Sources are reporting that Charles is much miffed, a wee miffed, or not at all miffed about Kate's visit to the flower show - one thing seems clear; Kate miffed off the press pool. Richard Pohle (photographer, The Times) on the amusing chaos of Kate's 'private' visit  to the show (golf clap to Kate for finding a way to send them all a-scrambling):

“Photographers were getting calls from their editors because the newsrooms were buzzing about a private “royal visit”. "How can you have a ‘private visit’ on press day?” we asked. Wouldn’t it overshadow the official visit by our new King later that day? It seemed crazy. Plans were falling by the wayside.

A trusted photographer with an international news agency was on his phone. He walked away, talking quietly with his head down — which meant we all followed him, desperately eavesdropping. He hung up and looked at us. “It’s happening. She’ll be here in half an hour,” he said. Our group descended into panic."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-kate-ambushed-us-photographers-at-the-chelsea-flower-show-lgbnvvpf0

Well played, Kate, well played ; )

Edited May 26 by film noire

[MissLucas]

It's another snub by Kate for not having been allowed to invite her brother- and sister-in-law to the coronation. From now on expect her to show up on all C&C's outings poking through shrubbery, mingling with the crowd, crouching behind lampposts always wearing bright pink as to make 'Where's Kate' a bit easier!

[Roseanna]

12 hours ago, film noire said:

 

It was not forgotten by the tabloids. The "Meghan made Kate cry" story first appeared in the tabs in 2018, and over two years later,  it had evolved into Tightsgate: "Now it is claimed that the spat centred on whether Princess Charlotte and the other young bridesmaids at Meghan's marriage to Harry in May 2018 should wear tights."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8359285/Meghan-Markles-rift-Kate-Middleton-caused-clash-tights-Tadler-reports.html

Because the rumour was still alive, Oprah asked about it. Meghan explained what really happened while making it clear that Kate had treated Meghan very well after the incident. I don't see Meghan hypocritically subjecting Kate to a double-standard in any of that; she acknowledged Kate is a good person, treated Meghan well after the incident, and that both women are constantly subjected to an unfair polarization. Mileage, etc.

Meghan could have answered: "Oh, there are always these kind of rumors - the best way, indeed the only way, to live happily is not to pay any attention on them." A lie, yes but a white one that would have made her look better.  That she after years wanted to tell "what really happened" (which one must take with grain of salt, maybe there was another incidents where Kate cried) proved her to be a bearer of grudges. And Harry even continued the matter by describing this incident in Spare, even citing Kate's text messages which he had no right to do - after accusing the media violeting his and Meghan's privacy.

It doesn't prove well of Ophrah's professionalism, either, that she chose to ask about the completely trivial rumor about the matter that can happen in any family, but didn't ask about the matter of great importance - claims about bullying the staff. 

[PepSinger]

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

didn't ask about the matter of great importance - claims about bullying the staff. 

I wouldn’t have asked about those conveniently placed claims, either. 

Edited May 27 by PepSinger

[Ohiopirate02]

47 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

I wouldn’t have asked about those conveniently placed claims, either. 

I may be wrong here, but didn't the "Meghan is a bully" story break during the time between the filming of the interview and it's airing.  

[Oosala]

I don't really know about the timing, but Harry himself admits in SPARE that W&C and H&M staff members (I think they shared a staff at one point) were often reduced to tears, and there were several staff members that actually resigned.  I don't think that was happening before Meghan came onboard, so, again, I apply Occam's razor and conclude that Meghan bullied her staff.  Simple as.

[Avaleigh]

1 hour ago, PepSinger said:

I wouldn’t have asked about those conveniently placed claims, either. 

Harry confirmed in Spare that this was one of the chief issues with the William/Meghan feud. William didn't like the way that Meghan treated the staff. He said she was rude and had alienated half of them. He asked Harry to help fix the problem but Harry refused to see that Meghan was part of the reason for why the working environment was toxic for the staff. The William/Meghan feud was very apparent both in the Netflix series and Spare.