Prince William and Meghan Markle were trending today here in the US and elsewhere around the world because of the Tweet Prince William sent out about "racist abuse aimed at England's players". Many were calling out his hypocrisy.
I decided to go through the Quote Tweets (2.396 at the time I did this) and focus on the Blue Checks. I discovered something interesting. These are the 22 Blue Checks condemning the hypocrisy of Prince William's Tweet, criticizing it, or giving it context in relation to Meghan:
These are the 23 Blue Checks whose comments are neutral or comment positively on Prince William's Tweet without pointing out any hypocrisy. With the exception of one (who is a retired Olympian), all are Royal Reporters/members of the press.
So out of the Blue Checks who Quote Tweeted Prince William's Tweet about racist abuse of England's football players:
22 are critical of Prince William's hypocrisy
22 are neutral to positive royal reporters/media
1 is a retired athlete who used an emoji in support of the sentiment
What's also interesting is the amount of engagement the above Blue Check Tweets got:
5 that were critical of Prince William's hypocrisy received over a likes (Imani Gandy received 14.8k)
0 that were neutral to positive received 1k (Chris Ship got 944 likes)
(The above was supposed to read over 1k likes, There was a typo I fixed then Twitter got glitchy when I copy and repasted it with the correct spelling and somehow 1k likes became "a likes".)
In case the above compilations are a little difficult to read, these are the other four Verified Account Tweets besides Imani Gandy's that had the most engagement as of fourteen hours ago when I did the screenshots:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's interesting that so many anti-Sussex YouTube channels think Meghan and Harry sit home and watch their channels religiously when in fact, as Meghan stated in the Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan, their security includes online monitoring which is pretty standard these days.
Some of these channels have discussed the possibilities of their getting sued by the Sussexes for their @TeamYouTube content. SueMe even did a fundraiser in case the Sussexes did decide to sue one of the channels.
This weekend on her 10th ban-evading @TeamYouTube channel, Yankee Wally once again taunted Prince Harry to "sue me" but conceded he probably won't because "I'm worth nothing". I agree it's unlikely Prince Harry would sue her. There could still be repercussions though.
Hey, @KensingtonPalace. I was just wondering if you have any insight on what's happening here. Would you say this is bot activity trying to minimize reaction to the photo Kate admitted to altering or would that be a #katespiracy?
Oops. I used the wrong handle. Should have tagged @KensingtonRoyal.
Looks like we have a pair of blue check subscribers here Tweeting the exact same thing.
Tom Bower stated in an interview that he hopes his book "Revenge" hastens the downfall of the Sussexes "because they pose a real threat to the royal family". The book has an expressed motive and numerous inaccuracies have been discovered. 🧵 newsweek.com/meghan-markle-…
The book claims Emma Watson refused to meet with her after a 2015 Women's Day event:
Apparently Samantha Markle told Daily Mail columnist and GB News host Dan Wootton that they ask for privacy at this time. Curious to describe Thomas Markle, who threatened to continue to give interviews until his demands of Meghan were met, sold photos, etc. as "tortured".
What was Thomas Markle doing in Tijuana 4 days after being unable to appear in court due to "medical emergency" for a hearing which will most likely result in his case against the paparazzo he conspired with getting tossed & Thomas Markle responsible for Rayner's attorney fees?
I started this thread because of appalling comments left on BRF's Twitter posts for Archie's 1st birthday in violation of the BRF's social media policy. As Archie's 3rd birthday is celebrated, it appears @RoyalFamily, @ClarenceHouse & @KensingtonRoyal are still not taking action.
These are some of the comments left from the first few hours after @RoyalFamily posted their birthday wishes for Archie which include surrogacy conspiracy theories, claims Archie is a doll, a reference to him as "a cancer" to be "cut out" and one that calls his mother "It".
In Samantha Markle's lawsuit against Meghan, she claims she was invited to Meghan's first wedding. So why did Samantha admit to the Loose Women panel that she hadn't been?
In the lawsuit, Samantha Markle denies she "reached out to The Sun". The article states she did speak with them and even "shared intimate family snaps of Meghan with The Sun". Note that same article contains the quote from Samantha "We were not close."
(thesun.co.uk/news/2096699/s…)
Samantha Markle disputes she changed her last name back to Markle when Meghan started dating Prince Harry (public 10/31/16). Samantha's IMDb, her suspended SamanthaMGrant Twitter account started in 2012, and a November 1, 2016 Daily Mail article all show her using Samantha Grant.