Meghan’s Bullying Defence Backfires: Lawyer’s Explanation Sparks Fresh Mockery and Reignites Palace Storm

Just as the bullying controversy surrounding Meghan Markle had begun to fade into the background, it has been dragged sharply

back into the spotlight — this time by her own legal defence.

Accused of humiliating and intimidating palace staff to the point of fear and distress, the Duchess of Sussex sought to rebut

the claims. Instead, her explanation has triggered a fresh wave of public ridicule, scepticism, and renewed scrutiny of her time inside the Royal Household.

Appearing on the BBC on November 29, Jenny Afia of law firm Schillings — Meghan’s legal representative — attempted to dismantle the bullying allegations head-on. Afia insisted there were “major inaccuracies” in the narrative that Meghan had mistreated staff and categorically denied that the Duchess had ever bullied anyone.

But it was the reasoning behind the denial that left many viewers unconvinced.

Afia argued that the term “bullying” had been misunderstood, stating that true bullying involves a repeated, intentional misuse of power designed to cause physical or psychological harm. Meghan, she said, “completely denies” engaging in such behaviour — while simultaneously adding that the Duchess would “not dismiss anyone’s personal experience.”

When pressed on whether Meghan could provide evidence to support her denial, Afia conceded:

“It’s extremely difficult to prove a negative. If you haven’t bullied someone, how do you prove that you haven’t?”

That moment, critics say, was when the defence unravelled.

Social media quickly erupted, with many accusing Meghan’s legal team of talking in circles and insulting public intelligence. Rather than clearing her name, the interview became fuel for renewed mockery.

“How does this lawyer know Meghan didn’t bully anyone when she wasn’t even there at the time?” one viewer commented.

“Is she simply repeating whatever Meghan tells her and calling it truth?” another asked.

Others pointed out the apparent contradiction: “She says Meghan never bullied anyone — but also won’t deny anyone’s experience. Which is it?”

Several questioned why former staff members were never invited to speak for themselves.

The backlash reignited long-standing concerns about Meghan’s short and turbulent tenure within the Royal Family. In reality, within less than a year of marrying Prince Harry, several members of her staff abruptly resigned. At the time, palace insiders alleged that Meghan placed relentless pressure on aides, demanded absolute compliance, and created a tense working environment.

Prince Harry himself once famously summed it up with a blunt statement that still echoes today:

“What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.”

Fuel was further added to the fire by Jason Knauf, the former communications secretary to the Sussexes, who has repeatedly challenged Meghan’s public narrative. Knauf not only accused the Duchess of leaving staff “shaking with fear” but also exposed evidence that Harry and Meghan had cooperated with authors of Finding Freedom — despite Meghan initially denying any involvement. She later admitted to providing information, claiming she had “forgotten.”

Royal biographer Andrew Morton, author of Meghan: A Hollywood Princess, has also weighed in. Speaking to the Express, Morton argued that the Sussexes consistently demanded more than the institution was willing — or able — to provide.

“They wanted fame,” Morton said, “but what they truly struggled with wasn’t celebrity — it was hierarchy.”

According to him, Harry and Meghan were frustrated by their lower rank within the royal pecking order, disappointed by financial limitations, and resentful of what they perceived as insufficient support from the Palace.

By reopening this chapter now, the controversy takes on renewed significance. What was once dismissed as an old palace dispute is again being reframed as a question of credibility, power, and truth.

And as the public revisits these claims with fresh eyes, one uncomfortable question refuses to go away:

Did Meghan’s defence really protect her reputation — or has it only deepened the doubts she hoped to bury?