The recent Daily Mail article rehashing allegations about Meghan Markle’s supposed treatment of royal staff raises serious questions about journalistic standards, evidence-based reporting, and the motivations behind these persistent claims. A careful examination of the available evidence reveals significant problems with both the substance and timing of these allegations.
The Evidence Problem: What We Know vs. What We Don’t
Investigation Findings Remain Hidden
The most telling aspect of this entire controversy is that Buckingham Palace conducted a full investigation into the bullying allegations but has refused to publish its findings. Palace officials stated that the investigation was completed by an independent legal firm, yet they will not release the results, citing “confidentiality” concerns.
This silence is particularly suspicious given the Palace’s initial eagerness to announce the investigation. Critics have noted the inconsistency: “Where was the concern for confidentiality when they told the entire world that Meghan bullied certain members of staff? They didn’t care about the staff’s confidentiality then”.
Allegations Were Actually Rescinded
Perhaps most significantly, reporting from royal biographers Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand revealed that “upon the discovery of Jason’s email, two of the individuals mentioned in the email asked for any allegations made to HR about their experiences with Meghan be rescinded”. This crucial detail undermines the entire foundation of the allegations yet receives little attention in continued coverage.
Anonymous Sources and Lack of Verification
The allegations consistently rely on unnamed sources making unverifiable claims. As Newsweek noted, “The accusations are difficult to assess as they are based on unnamed sources”. Valentine Low himself admits “I can’t speak to the truth of that, of course, because I wasn’t in the room and I haven’t heard Meghan’s side”.
The Timing: Strategic Leak or Genuine Concern?
Pre-Oprah Damage Control
The original bullying allegations were leaked just days before Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey was due to be broadcast. Valentine Low openly admits this timing was deliberate: “If it had waited until after Oprah, Meghan would have established her narrative, and to say anything about bullying afterwards would just come across as sour grapes”.
This strategic timing suggests the leak was more about media damage control than genuine staff welfare concerns. Low acknowledged: “So the only way to make sure that they got heard was to make sure their story came out before Oprah… So it’s not some evil palace conspiracy. It’s just the way these young people suffered, in their view, at the hands of Meghan”.
Pattern of Coverage vs. Investigation Timeline
The allegations first emerged internally in October 2018 but weren’t made public until March 2021—two and a half years later. If these were genuine workplace safety concerns, why the extended delay in addressing them publicly?
Counter-Evidence: Supporters and Colleagues Speak Out
Current and Former Staff Defend Meghan
Multiple current and former staff members have gone on record defending Meghan against the bullying allegations. Us Weekly spoke to “five staff on the record and another two off the record” who said “the previous anonymous allegations made are wildly inaccurate and damaging”.
Long-time friends have consistently defended her character. Actress Janina Gavankar, who has known Meghan for 17 years, stated: “Here’s what she is: kind, strong, open. Here’s what she’s not: ‘a bully.’ ANY of us who know her, feel the same thing from her broken silence: Relief. The truth shall set you free”.
Professional Character References
Former employees have provided positive testimonials: Josh Kettler, former chief of staff, said he was “warmly welcomed” and called the couple “dedicated and hardworking.” Ben Browning, former head of content, described his experience as “positive and supportive”.
Media Bias and Double Standards
Documented Pattern of Unfair Coverage
A Press Gazette survey of 721 journalists found that 50% had seen coverage of Meghan Markle that they thought was “racist in tone or presentation,” with 87% of Black journalists saying they had seen racist coverage.
Media analysis has documented stark differences in how similar situations are covered when involving Meghan versus Kate Middleton, with critics noting that the “right-leaning media” are “leading the charge against Meghan for absolutely no reason other than because she’s Black”.
The Daily Mail’s Track Record
Meghan’s legal team has documented the Daily Mail’s “obvious agenda of publishing intrusive or offensive stories” intended to portray her “in a false and damaging light”. Academic analysis notes that coverage of Meghan has been “largely negative, differing from her predecessors in ways that highlighted racial distinctions rather than just class differences”.
Questions About Source Credibility
Jason Knauf’s Potential Bias
Recent reporting suggests that Jason Knauf, the primary source of the allegations, “remains close to Prince William and wouldn’t have spoken to ’60 Minutes’ Australia without the consent of the Prince of Wales”. This raises questions about whether Knauf is an independent whistleblower or someone advancing a particular agenda.
Valentine Low’s Motivations
Valentine Low has built a career on royal reporting and authored books about palace intrigue. His continued focus on these allegations through multiple publications suggests a vested commercial interest in maintaining the controversy.
The Palace’s Telling Silence
Why Hide Exonerating Evidence?
Sources close to the Sussexes suggest that “Meghan is a fair boss and never bullied anyone who worked for her at the Palace in the first place” and that “she’s happy that her name has been cleared from the defamatory claims”. Social media observers have noted: “Why announce you are launching a probe into the Meghan Markle bullying claims, but refuse to release the findings of the probe? Seems like they didn’t find anything, and they are too embarrassed to admit nothing was found”.
If the investigation had found evidence supporting the allegations, it’s reasonable to assume the Palace would have used those findings to justify their initial concerns and respond to the Sussexes’ public criticisms.
Conclusion: A Pattern of Unsubstantiated Claims
The continued recycling of these allegations, despite the lack of published evidence, the rescinding of key complaints, and the strategic timing of their initial release, suggests this is more about maintaining a negative narrative than addressing genuine workplace concerns.
As Dr. Shola Mos-Shogbamimu observed: “The reason why the results of the investigation of the review is being buried is because it most likely incriminates the royal family and it proves that Meghan Markle did not bully anyone”.
The persistence of these unverified claims, amplified by outlets with documented bias, while ignoring exonerating evidence and supportive testimonials, raises serious questions about the motivations behind their continued promotion. Rather than accepting these allegations at face value, readers should critically examine the evidence, consider the sources, and question why certain narratives persist despite a lack of substantiation.
In any fair assessment of workplace behavior, verified evidence, credible witnesses, and proper investigation findings should carry more weight than anonymous claims, strategic leaks, and tabloid speculation. The available evidence suggests these allegations are far from the definitive truth they are often presented as being.
Sources
- https://graziamagazine.com/articles/revoked-bullying-allegations-meghan-markle/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/30/meghan-royal-family-bullying-report-conclusion/
- https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/meghan-markle-bullying-investigation-never-published/
- https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-echo-bullying-accusations-1954372
- https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markle-supporters-slam-palace-over-claims-bullying-investigation-report-was-3544929
- https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a35702703/meghan-markle-denies-bullying-accusations-oprah-interview/
- https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-bullying-claims-palace-protecting-duchess-keeping-review-private-experts-claim
- https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-staff-fightback-bullying-1958960
- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
- https://www.stylist.co.uk/people/meghan-markle-racist-bullying-tabloids-prince-harry-wardrobe-malfunction-duchess-difficult-examples/342213
- https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-tabloid-criticism-podcast-american-riviera-orchard-2062400
celebchai.com 