Why Meghan Markle's ‘fragile' employees waited years to accuse her of bullying
Former The Times royal correspondent Valentine Low explained why Meghan Markle's former staffers waited years before they accused her of bullying in Low's 2022 book 'Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown'
'There was strong elements of nervousness and worry,' Low stated on Kinsley Schofield's 'Unfiltered' podcast last week. 'Some of them were still in a very fragile state.'
7 Meghan Markle.
/ SplashNews.com
The author added that Markle's employees 'were very worried about what Meghan would do to them' and 'viewed her capacity for revenge as infinite.'
'It was two and a half years later. They'd left the employ of the Royal Family and they still were in a psychologically delicate state as a result of what happened to them at that time,' Low also said.
7 Valentine Low.
In addition, Low claimed that the staffers didn't want to be in the spotlight because of their allegations against Markle, 44.
'They are happy leading their new lives, doing whatever new job it is they do. They don't want the media on their doorstep,' he said. 'They don't want to have a target on them.'
7 Valentine Low's book that came out in 2022.
St. Martins Press
In his book, Low published anonymous staffers' claims about the alleged abuse they suffered working under the 'Suits' alum.
The ex-employees claimed Markle — who they referred to as a 'narcissistic sociopath' — went on screaming tirades.
On the podcast, Low noted that if Markle and Prince Harry 'were difficult to work for then, they're difficult to work for now.'
7 Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their wedding day in May 2018.
Getty Images
He also recalled how the couple's legal team allegedly reacted to the book being published in 2022.
'We got a very, very long letter from their lawyers. And then sometime later we got another slightly less long letter from their lawyers, basically being very feisty, very strong,' Low said, adding, 'We published, and then we didn't hear a word from them.'
7 Meghan Markle speaks onstage at The Archewell Foundation Parents Summit: Mental Wellness event in NYC in Oct. 2023.
Getty Images for Project Healthy Minds
Low also stated: 'If the Times runs a story like that, and doesn't get sued, there probably something in it. And suddenly you realize all those tabloid stories earlier suggesting she might be the 'Duchess Difficult,' actually maybe they're true.'
Markle's spokesperson told The Post that Low is blasting 'harmful gossip' and 'continues to desperately recycle false, offensive, and long-discredited allegations in an apparent bid to sell books and resuscitate relevance.'
7 Meghan Markle and Prince Harry left the royal family in 2020.
/ SplashNews.com
'These claims—rooted in anonymous, unverifiable sources—form part of a broader and deeply troubling agenda that seeks to dehumanize a woman who has consistently stood up for fairness, dignity, and truth,' the rep continued.
'The Duchess has faced years of unfounded attacks masked as journalism in a never-ending smear campaign, beginning only once she was affiliated with the institution.Meghan remains undeterred by the noise and firmly focused on her family and work,' the spokesperson added.
7 Meghan Markle with Prince Harry.
Instagram/@meghan
Markle was in the royal family from 2018 until 2020 when she and Harry, 40, quit their royal duties and moved to America.
The mother of two faced other bullying accusations from some of her former staffers — who dubbed Markle a ''Mean Girls' teenager' — in a Vanity Fair report that came out in January.
Last year, a report from the Hollywood Reporter claimed Markle instills fear in her staff, with one insider describing her as a 'dictator in high heels' who has reduced 'grown men to tears.'
Markle's team has denied all bullying claims.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
8 swoon-worthy L.A. spots to celebrate Bookstore Romance Day
In 2019, Oregon bookseller Billie Bloebaum saw an author raise a question on X she had heard many times before: 'Why should I support independent bookstores when independent bookstores don't support romance?' 'For a long time, and still somewhat to this day, independent bookstores have had a reputation as being not as welcoming to romance readers and books as they could be,' Bloebaum told The Times. 'There were a lot of booksellers that I knew who read romance, who championed romance, who had it on their shelves in the bookstores where they worked or that they owned.' Determined to rewrite the narrative, Bloebaum launched Bookstore Romance Day in August — Romance Awareness Month — that same year. The inaugural event had less than 200 participating bookstores across the U.S. Now, in 2025, there are more than 600 registered locations around the world. 'It really was a way to get the word out that independent bookstores are not romance-unfriendly,' Bloebaum said, 'to bring those two communities together, the romance community and the independent bookstore community.' There are now 103 brick-and-mortar, romance-only bookstores in the U.S., according to Romancing the Data, including the Ripped Bodice in Culver City, Heartbound in Anaheim and Mystic Box in Huntington Beach. Over the past three years, Pages: A Bookstore in Manhattan Beach has doubled its space dedicated to romance titles, said general manager Jeff Resnik. 'We take romance seriously,' Resnik said. Across Los Angeles, independent storefronts are observing Bookstore Romance Day on Saturday, Aug. 9, with author talks, book bedazzling, giveaways and more. For those who can't attend the festivities in person, Bloebaum also offers free virtual events all weekend.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Meghan Markle's 'Special' 44th Birthday Marked By 'Standout Dining Experience' And A-Lists Snub
Meghan Markle's 44th birthday paled in comparison to the love she once received from the Royal Family and her celebrity pals. The Duchess of Sussex marked her big day with a low-key celebration surrounded by her family and friends. Although she credited her husband, Prince Harry, for making the event "special," it must have stung not to receive any recognition from her famous pals. Meghan Markle's birthdays previously received love from her in-laws, Prince William and Kate Middleton, even after stepping down from her role as a senior working royal. However, her relationship with the royals has since turned bitter, and the same appears to be happening to her celebrity acquaintances. Meghan Markle Enjoys Low-Key Celebration With Friends & Family Meghan turned 44 on August 4 but recently revealed how she celebrated the event with her loved ones. She dropped a picture from her birthday dinner on Instagram, capturing her blowing candles on a beautiful cake decorated with yellow flowers. "Blowing out the candles on a beautiful 24 hours, and thanking my husband, friends, and family for making it so special. To those of you I don't know, but who send love every day, thank you so much. Please know I feel it and appreciate it," Meghan gushed in the post's captioned. She revealed her birthday dinner took place at the popular Funke restaurant in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, crediting the establishment's chef and team for blessing her with one of the top five meals of her life. "Extraordinary. Thank you for a standout dining experience," Meghan concluded her post. The Former Actress Was Reportedly Snubbed By Her A-list Friends Although Meghan enjoyed a private dinner with her husband and loved ones, it appears that only those in her innermost circle cared to mark her big day. RadarOnline shared that her once-close celebrity pals like Beyoncé and Tyler Perry failed to acknowledge the Duchess of Sussex's birthday. Besides getting snubbed by her A-list pals, Meghan also received zero congratulations from the Royal Family. Prince William and Kate used to mark her birthday even after Meghan and Harry stepped down from their roles in 2020. The outlet noted King Charles and Queen Camilla also celebrated Meghan's birthdays. However, the congratulations stopped coming after Harry and Meghan dropped scathing allegations against the Royal Family in the tell-all Netflix docuseries in 2022. Additionally, the Duke of Sussex's bombshell memoir "Spare" further escalated the rift between them. Critics Bash The Duchess Of Sussex For Getting Snubbed The lack of recognition on Meghan's birthday sparked a wave of criticism as many believed celebrities rightfully snubbed her. "Ha! Hollywood A-Listers could NOT Care Less about Meghan Markle's Birthday--NOT a Single A-Lister contacted her," someone wrote on X. Another echoed similar sentiments, claiming: "C-cksucker Megan was never friends w/them to begin with, they knew Megan is using them and btw she is 48 yrs old." A third agreed that Meghan never cut it with the A-list crowd, noting: "She was never anything special, people are starting to see it now. She's getting the bad karma that she put out there." The criticism continued with an X user theorizing that everyone wanted nothing to do with the former actress. "Those 'supporters' of years past have probably realised what many people knew all along, Meggy's a mess, she's an ongoing mess, she likes to make a mess," the individual declared. Prince Harry & His Wife Face Backlash For Not Supporting Tyler Perry Meghan's birthday snub comes weeks after she and Harry faced backlash for staying silent amid Perry's sexual assault lawsuit. The Blast covered the story, reporting the famous couple was trashed by fans and royal commentators, including Hilary Fordwich. Fordwich slammed Harry and Meghan's silence as "a clear demonstration of a total lack of moral courage," with sources echoing similar sentiments about their lack of support. An insider explained the couple was keeping quiet to avoid getting dragged into the lawsuit, adding: "But many think it's hypocritical, since Tyler Perry has stuck up for them so many times, and it's bad that the Sussexes don't say anything to support him now." Meghan Markle Labeled' Duchess Difficult' For Allegedly Mistreating Staff The Blast recently reported that Meghan's past bullying allegations had resurfaced over her attitude towards staff. Royal reporter Valentine Low first dropped the scathing claims in 2021, alleging: "There had been one or two stories which suggested there were difficult relations between Meghan and her staff. We'd seen them, and the phrase 'Duchess Difficult' had been used." Low claimed he knew Meghan was "angry" about the bullying allegations; however, there appeared to be some truth behind these claims. He shared that those who suffered under Meghan's employment were emotionally distressed till date because they feared her "infinite" capacity for revenge. Will Meghan Markle continue to get snubbed by her celebrity pals? Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Sydney Sweeney's 'Great Jeans' Illuminate the Dangerous Resurgence of Eugenics
American Eagle came under fire recently for an ad campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney. In one ad, Sweeney fiddles with her jeans, saying, "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My genes are blue." A male narrator finishes with, "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." It's a play on homophones, but the wordplay reveals a more sinister element: Sweeney does not just have great American Eagle jeans, she has great American genes. Picking a blonde, blue-eyed, able-bodied all-American girl was not an accident. It was about showcasing what are "good genes," and thus what are "bad genes." It's a modern eugenics movement proudly re-emerging amid a welcoming political climate. A window display of actress Sydney Sweeney is seen on a window of an American Eagle store on Aug. 1, 2025, in New York City. A window display of actress Sydney Sweeney is seen on a window of an American Eagle store on Aug. 1, 2025, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images The American eugenics movement has historically promoted the superiority of Anglo-Saxon, able-bodied, wealthy people, leading to harmful policies from the Immigration Act of 1924 barring immigrants from Asia to a practice of unnecessary and undisclosed hysterectomies performed on Black women in the South so widespread it was coined the "Mississippi appendectomy." Eugenicists promoted anti-miscegenation laws and forced sterilization of those in prison and in poverty and of those with disabilities or mental illness. These practices have not died. In 2020, low-income immigrant women detained by ICE in Georgia were forcibly sterilized. As we hear rhetoric from the current administration about immigrants "poisoning the blood" of our country, it invites horrifying thoughts of what may be happening to immigrants currently being detained by ICE. Even more sinister, however, is a modern eugenics movement camouflaged by in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF is increasingly popular, and rightfully so. Couples with fertility issues can conceive. Women can freeze eggs. Queer couples can have genetically related kids. IVF can also ostensibly prevent harm. IVF clinics might screen embryos for sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, BRCA1, and Down syndrome. Things get confusing and uncomfortable, however, when we try to define what harms are worth preventing. In a world where whiteness and conventional beauty are tightly coupled with success, couldn't selecting for these features be a way to minimize a child's future suffering? Most sperm donor companies have a height minimum of 5'9". Harvard graduate egg and sperm donors are highly sought after. While it's hard to fault parents for wanting the best for their children, as a geneticist, it is concerning to me how much stock people put into the inheritance of such complex and environmentally influenced traits. With biotech companies explicitly offering genetic testing, I am even more concerned. Last October, Helios Genomics offered to boost a couple's future child's IQ via genetic screening. Nucleus Genomics recently took this a shocking step further by announcing it is offering genetic testing for traits like eye color, hair color, height, BMI, and IQ. Companies perform these screens with polygenic risk scoring, which makes use of genetic mutations identified from large scale population studies to be associated with a complex trait like intelligence. But these findings are just that: associations. We barely understand the true, context-dependent function of all the genes and mutations associated with complex traits. The idea that a company could confidently boast a six-point increase in a trait as socially and environmentally modified as intelligence is naïve at best and deceptive at worst. It also plays directly into the ideals of eugenics: that all social disparities and ailments are genetically determined, and that there is one correct way to be. Amid devastating cuts to everything from Medicaid to education, it is curious that one of the few spaces the Trump administration has pledged to increase federal funding is in vitro fertilization. Is this a random act of kindness amid an onslaught of cruelties? Or is it one of several strategies for breeding a homogenous generation of nationalistic Americans—ones with "good genes" and predetermined allegiances to the regime (thanks to $1,000 savings accounts established in their name from birth)? In this modern era of eugenics, as immigrants are expelled while neo-Nazis spew hateful theories of "great replacement," it is no wonder American Eagle felt bold enough to declare that Sydney Sweeney has great genes. America must reject this renewed, government-endorsed eugenics. Scientists must think deeply about ramifications: Just because we can, or think we can, does not mean we should. IVF companies should be barred from making false promises about the heritability of traits like intelligence, BMI, and hair color. While fatal diseases like breast cancer are fair to select against, prospective parents should think twice about what is lost when selecting for subjective social norms. We all have great genes and we all deserve a society that embraces us, that makes us feel whole, and bold, and beautiful—like a pair of great jeans. Tania Fabo, MSc is an MD-PhD candidate in genetics at Stanford University, a Rhodes scholar, a Knight-Hennessy scholar, a Paul and Daisy Soros fellow, and a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project. Her PhD research focuses on the interaction between genetics and diet in colorectal cancer risk. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
