Recently, former employees of Meghan Markle have begun to share their experiences working under her, revealing surprising insights into her management style.

Among the most shocking revelations is the nickname they reportedly gave her, which paints a rather unflattering picture of the Duchess of Sussex.

This comes amidst ongoing discussions about her and Prince Harry’s relationship dynamics, particularly surrounding rumors of a potential divorce book.

In a recent article from Vanity Fair, it appears that the tide may be turning against Meghan and Harry.

Andy Signor from Popcorn Palace expressed his astonishment at the revelations, noting that the article was particularly damning.

Reports indicate that staff members from Markle’s ill-fated podcast, Archetypes, required long-term therapy after their experiences, a statement that has raised eyebrows across the media landscape.

Jack Royston from Newsweek commented on the situation, suggesting that Meghan should reconsider her approach to managing her staff.

This sentiment seems to echo a growing sentiment among the public and media alike, as more individuals come forward with their stories.

The nickname given to Meghan by her podcast team—”Eva”—was a clever play on words, derived from the character Eva in the 1955 film Queen Bee, famously portrayed by Joan Crawford.

This choice of name was not meant as an endearing term but rather served as a warning signal for her staff.

The comparison to the character Eva, who is known for her manipulative and destructive behavior, has drawn parallels to how some former employees felt during their time working with Markle.

The notion that she might remain oblivious to this nickname adds another layer of intrigue to the unfolding narrative.

After all, who wouldn’t want to know how they’re perceived behind closed doors?

As the story continues to develop, it’s evident that the criticisms of Meghan are gaining traction.

Supporters of the couple may dismiss these claims as mere gossip, but the sheer volume of similar accounts suggests that there could be substance behind the allegations.

The media’s shift in tone, especially from outlets that previously defended them, signals a significant change in public perception.

Amidst these revelations, speculation surrounding a potential divorce book has also resurfaced.

Some insiders claim that Meghan has been exploring the idea of writing a book detailing her experiences if she and Harry were to part ways.

Interestingly, this aligns with discussions from a documentary that examined the couple’s tumultuous relationship, raising questions about the authenticity of their bond.

Despite claims from sources close to the couple asserting that they are deeply in love, the narrative surrounding their partnership remains complex.

Observers note that their mutual reliance on each other for public image and financial stability complicates any notions of separation.

Critics argue that both Meghan and Harry have intertwined their careers so closely that it would be nearly impossible for them to untangle without significant repercussions.

Interestingly, the couple’s publishing deals have also come under scrutiny.

Reports suggest that their agreements with Penguin Random House, originally intended to cover topics like leadership and wellness, have fizzled out.

This raises further questions about their financial viability should they decide to go their separate ways.

The Vanity Fair article has sparked discussions not only about Meghan’s leadership style but also about the future of her and Harry’s relationship.

As details continue to emerge, many are left wondering whether these revelations will lead to a deeper understanding of the couple or simply fuel more speculation.

With the release of additional documentaries and analyses on the horizon, the conversation surrounding Meghan and Harry is far from over.

As audiences await further developments, one thing is clear: the narrative surrounding the couple is evolving, and it promises to keep everyone on their toes.

What do you think about the recent allegations?

Are they indicative of a larger issue, or are they simply the result of disgruntled former employees?

The answers may lie in the stories yet to be told.