Royals at War

by Dylan Howard

  In January 2020, lawyers for the newspaper stated that Meghan “knowingly” allowed her friends to leak details of the letter to the media. She “caused or permitted” five close friends to speak anonymously to the US magazine People, to attack Thomas. The court filing also insisted that Meghan had never denied that she gave her consent to People magazine’s five sources. The meaning and effect of the “one-sided and/or misleading” account in People “was to suggest Markle had made false claims about his dealings with his daughter.”

  In other words, Meghan was now, unbelievably, being accused of invading her own privacy.

  The Mail on Sunday’s defense also stated: “The People interview stated that Mr. Markle had responded to the letter with a letter of his own in which he asked for a ‘photo op’ with [Meghan], with the implicit suggestion that he was seeking to make money from a photograph of him with [her]. This was false.”

  The media organization’s legal eagles added, “Mr. Markle had in fact written, ‘I wish we could get together and take a photo for the whole world to see. If you and Harry don’t like me? Fake it for one photo and maybe some of the Press will finally shut up!’ None of Mr. Markle’s account of events or feelings about those events was mentioned in the People interview.”

  The lawyers said it was apparent from Meghan’s neat handwriting and immaculate presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being read by others—or possibly disclosed to the media. In legal papers obtained for this book, the newspaper argued far from being a private and personal communication, Meghan actually meant for it to be disclosed to the public: “It is apparent from the Letter that the Claimant [i.e., the Duchess] took great care over its presentation. The Letter appears to have been being immaculately copied out by the Claimant in her own elaborate handwriting from a previous draft. There are no crossings-out or amendments as there usually are with a spontaneous draft. It is to be inferred also from the care the Claimant took over the presentation of the letter that she anticipated it being disclosed to and read by third parties.”

  Meghan went on to claim the British tabloids had waged a three-year campaign against her, printing a litany of falsehoods. In court filings, obtained by this author, she set out an extensive list of “false” and “absurd” stories. She disputed spending five thousand pounds for a copper bath, five hundred thousand pounds on soundproofing, and building an entire new wing of their home at Frogmore—and charging it to taxpayers. She told the court this was all “completely untrue.” She also complained about a “deliberately inflammatory” story that connected her enjoyment of avocado toast to “murder” and “human rights” abuses, and another that linked a community kitchen project she supports to Islamist jihadists. (For its part, the newspaper said: “These allegations are nonsense. As we have said before, we will be defending this case vigorously. We do not intend to provide a running commentary on it.”)

  ***

  However, an examination of the court filings shows just how distraught Meghan felt, at least at the time, about the coverage. It also raised the specter of whether the British media’s coverage of Meghan is racist and stoked by entrenched attitudes that the Royals are a white, hereditary monarchy.

  The Mail: “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother revealed—so will he be dropping by for tea?”

  Markle: “The statement that the Claimant lived or grew up in Compton (or anywhere near to it) is false. The fact that the Defendant chose to stereotype this entire community as being ‘plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs’ and thereby suggest (in the first few days of her relationship being revealed) that the Claimant came from a crime-ridden neighborhood is completely untrue as well as intended to be divisive. The Claimant will also refer to the fact that the article cites her aunt as living in ‘gang-afflicted Inglewood’ in order to bolster this negative and damaging impression of where this (black) side of her family is said to come from. In fact, Ava Burrow (said to be ‘the actress’ aunt’) is not her aunt or any blood relation at all, a fact which if correctly stated would have undermined the narrative which the Defendant was intended to convey.”

  The Mail: “Kitchen supported by Meghan’s cookbook is housed inside mosque ‘which has links to 19 terror suspects including Jihadi John.’”

  Markle: “The connection made between the Hubb Community Kitchen (in which the Claimant worked with those affected by the Grenfell tragedy as part of a cookbook project which became a New York Times best-selling book) and the Al Manaar Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre (supposedly ‘linked to 19 Islamic extremists’) is at best a highly tenuous and deliberately inflammatory one. The characterization of these victims as being linked to terrorism, in the same way as the Claimant is said to be supporting or endorsing jihadi terrorists through her participation in a cookbook for victims of Grenfell, is as false as it is offensive.”

  The Mail: “How Meghan Markle’s Australian aide Samantha ‘the Panther’ Cohen rose from a Brisbane home to Buckingham Palace—before becoming the second aide to walk out on the ‘difficult Duchess.’”

  Markle: “The suggestion that Samantha Cohen (who was private secretary for both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex) walked out on the Claimant or that she did so because the Claimant was ‘difficult’ to work for (a word used six times in this article) is untrue, as well as ‘damaging.’ Ms. Cohen, who was a highly respected and dedicated member of Her Majesty the Queen’s staff for sixteen years, personally chose to come out of retirement in order to work for the Claimant.’ Far from walking out on her, Ms. Cohen even extended the original year which she had intended to work for as she wanted to carry on helping the Duke and Duchess with their office. Further, the Claimant’s ‘personal assistant’ was in fact assistant to both the Duke and Duchess, and, contrary to what the Defendant stated in the article, she did not ‘quit.’”

  The Mail: “How Meghan’s favorite avocado snack—beloved of all millennials—is fueling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

  Markle: “The connection made between the fact that the Claimant likes eating avocado and made avocado on toast for a friend who visited her with human rights abuses, murder and environmental devastation is another highly tenuous and deliberately inflammatory one … The suggestion that by liking avocados she is fueling or supporting these extreme occurrences, and therefore is disingenuous about her ‘campaigning for racial equality and female empowerment,’ is again as absurd as it is offensive.”

  The Mail: “Doria Ragland spotted alone in LA while daughter Meghan Markle parties with famous friends at her $300k baby shower.”

  Markle: “The suggestion that the Claimant deliberately left out her mother from her baby shower and ditched her in favor of her famous friends is untrue and offensive to her. The Claimant’s mother was of course invited, and the Claimant also offered to buy her airline tickets. However, her mother was unable to attend due to work commitments. It was also untrue and offensive to suggest, as the article does, that ‘not a single guest had known [the Claimant] for more than a decade.’ In fact, the true position was that the baby shower (which actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article) was organized and hosted by one of her best friends from university; the fifteen guests who attended the shower were close friends and included long-term friendships some of which had existed for over twenty years.”

  In all, it was a sad chapter for everyone involved, noted biographer Angela Levin: “For a daughter and a father to be fighting each other in a court of law is most unpleasant. I mean, it’s very unedifying. I think airing dirty laundry of yourself and your family is absolutely awful in public … but she’s a very determined woman.”

  At the time of publication, Meghan had suffered a major setback in her legal fight. In a pre-trial victory for the tabloids, a judge struck out key requirements that Meghan would need to prevail: That being, determining whether the Mail on Sunday acted dishonestly, deliberately stirred up conflict between the Duchess and he
r father, or pursued a deliberate agenda of publishing offensive or intrusive articles about the Duchess. Touting the court’s findings as a win, counsel for the newspaper raised a “curious” alarm: If the Mail on Sunday was being accused of manipulating Thomas when Meghan hasn’t spoken to him since she married Prince Harry, it said, how could she have “verif(ied) these allegations with him or obtaining his consent. It is therefore highly unlikely that she has any credible basis for these allegations of impropriety towards him.” The court’s surprising ruling ensured the case will rest solely on the claims that the Mail on Sunday infringed on Meghan’s privacy, breached copyright, and violated data protection laws—still a strong case, according to many legal observers.

  As for Meghan, despite the finding, she was unrepentant. A spokesperson for Schillings, acting on behalf of the Duchess, said: “(It’s) very clear that the core elements of this case do not change and will continue to move forward. The Duchess’ rights were violated; the legal boundaries around privacy were crossed. As part of this process, the extremes to which The Mail on Sunday used distortive, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to target The Duchess of Sussex have been put on full display.”

  Meghan and Harry’s tete-a-tete with the tabloids opened up the world to an even darker underbelly. Maya Goodfellow, an academic who holds a PhD from the School of Oriental & African Studies in London, the University of London, concluded the media coverage of Markle has been undeniably racist. Writing for VOX, she deduced:

  The Royal Family is historically a white institution. So when Markle, a biracial woman, became a member, some heralded it as “progress.” But in late 2016, the same year it was announced she and Prince Harry were dating, the prince put out a statement condemning the “wave of abuse and harassment” Markle had already been subjected to. That included “the racial undertones of comment pieces” and “the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.” Three years later, Markle talked about the difficulty of dealing with tabloid coverage more broadly, saying it had been “hard,” and that adopting “this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip” was difficult.

  For example, the press has talked about her “exotic DNA”; described her as “(almost) straight outta Compton”; attacked her for the very things that Kate Middleton, Prince William’s white wife, has been praised for; and compared the couple’s son to a chimpanzee. But in TV studios around the country, commentators seem to have peculiarly missed all of this. The coverage of Markle has been welcoming and warm, they say. And when confronted with the evidence that shows that certainly hasn’t always been the tone of reporting, they ask: Is it really racism, though?

  Not all racism is overt. Much of it is subtle, quietly shaping the way people are seen, talked about, and treated. Some, like Piers Morgan, have argued it’s not racist to talk about Markle’s DNA as “exotic,” but this term has colonial roots, long working as a form of othering. Acknowledging this would mean really grappling with the insidious ways racism operates in the UK, undermining the notion that it is fundamentally a “tolerant” and “progressive” country.

  In the days following the Sussexes’ announcement that they would be “leaving” the Royal Family, the racist—not to mention, sexist—attacks continued. One poll suggested a significant proportion of people thought it was Markle’s decision, not one made jointly or by Prince Harry. We don’t know, and might never discover, all the ins and outs of what prompted their departure from their frontline “duties.” But in this telling, Prince Harry’s previous admission that he didn’t want to be a “traditional royal” disappears, and all the power, responsibility, and blame seems to lie with Markle.

  There’s little doubt that racism in the British media was—in some part—a driving force behind Meghan and Harry’s decision to “step back.”

  THE $500,000 WOMAN

  In better times, the team of Harry, Meghan, William, and Kate had been dubbed the “Fab Four”—successors to the Beatles—by the British media. They had collaborated on charity events and public appearances together, maintaining a facade of friendship and warmth. But by spring of 2019, the truth had become too hot to handle. On March 13, a telling statement was issued by Kensington Palace:

  Queen Elizabeth II has agreed to the creation of a new household for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, following their marriage in May last year. The household, which will be created with the support of the Queen and The Prince of Wales, will be established in the spring. This long-planned move will ensure that permanent support arrangements for the Duke and Duchess’ work are in place as they start their family and move to their official residence at Frogmore Cottage.

  While the news came as no surprise to many observers within the inner circle, there was immense sadness that the Sussexes and Cambridges had publicly acknowledged their incompatibility—one the torchbearers of a new monarchy full of hope and promise—and had formally split their households. To many, the impenetrable bond between Harry and William that had endured so much over the years was now in tatters.

  But the move was approved of—and enabled by—senior staff at the Palace and at the very top of the family. Clearly, they understood that Meghan was a big draw, and, as their postwedding tour of Australia and the Far East had shown, the couple was extremely popular and would continue to be a huge asset to the family.

  Compared to the rather staid Kate, Meghan was an exciting addition—entertaining, inspiring, and unpredictable. She had tapped into the mood of the young around the world and connected with them in a way nobody since Diana had managed to. The rift with William had to be managed and not allowed to deteriorate further. The Firm knew they had to act—and fast, before Harry and Meghan did something unthinkable. From what they had seen of her so far, she obviously would pursue any route she deemed necessary, Royal or not.

  Suitable roles for the couple were discussed, roles that would keep them within the family structure but allow as much as possible their tricky balancing act of self-promotion and privacy.

  There was talk of allowing the couple to assume a role in Africa that would combine their “rock star” appeal with work promoting Commonwealth interests as well as keeping up their charity work on the African continent.

  Other ideas floated included making Harry the Governor-General or Deputy Governor-General of Australia or Canada, member nations of the Commonwealth. But these were soon dismissed, according to one royal aide. Another idea was that the couple become trade envoys for post-Brexit Britain. It enjoyed support from senior figures in the government, but it was ultimately rejected.

  According to a report in London’s Times newspaper, a great deal of work at the very highest circles was involved, to manage the crisis. “The plan has been drawn up by Sir David Manning, the former British ambassador to the U.S. and special adviser on constitutional and international affairs to the two princes,” reported the paper. “Lord Geidt, the Queen’s former private secretary, has also been involved in the discussions. He is chairman of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, an organization that champions young global leaders, of which Harry and Meghan are president and vice-president.”

  The article added, “The proposal would give the couple the chance to enjoy a break from the divisions that have riven the royal household in recent months while ‘harnessing’ their global appeal for Britain.”

  Everyone had hoped that this would be a workable solution to the problem and that once Meghan had given birth, the matter could be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

  ***

  In the meantime, Meghan was blossoming. As her pregnancy continued, she cocooned herself in a nest of self-care and healthy living, while Harry fussed and fretted around her, ensuring she was as comfortable as possible. During this time, she took a number of healing therapies, including sessions with a celebrity acupuncturist at an exclusive herbal wellness center in London (where treatments can come in at £6,200 for a year of forty-five-minute sessions).

  The couple also visited Ilap
othecary in Notting Hill, for a twelve-week course of numerology readings, costing £2,520, to ensure that everything was A-OK on the spiritual front. The couple then went on a joint “babymoon” together to the luxury Heckfield Place spa, in Hampshire. Reported to have cost £33,000, the three-night stay included three security staff, who presumably also got a chance to enjoy organic mani-pedis and salt body scrubs along with the Duke and Duchess. Back at Frogmore Cottage, tabloid reports suggested they were taught hypnobirthing techniques, as well as Meghan insisting on preparing with chanting, aromatherapy, and massage therapies, in the hope of reducing any need for an epidural or pain relief during the birth. She was also convinced her unborn child was already a feminist.

  “I had seen this documentary on Netflix about feminism and one of the things they said during pregnancy is, ‘I feel the embryonic kicking of feminism,’” Meghan said during an International Women’s Day panel on March 8. “I loved that, so boy or girl, or whatever it is, we hope that’s the case.”

  But it was Meghan’s maternity wardrobe—or wardrobes—that drew gasps of horror from the notoriously frugal Royals. The royal fashion blog UFONoMore tallied up all the new items that the thirteen royal women—including Meghan, Kate, Eugenie, and Beatrice—added to their closets last year. Topping off the list was the Duchess of Sussex, who spent a whopping $508,258 during 2018—excluding her wedding gown! Compare that to Kate, whose new clothes in 2018 cost $85,097, a mere fraction of Markle’s wardrobe, while Princess Eugenie, a noted contemporary fashion icon, spent $39,818, which also excluded her own wedding gown.

  Even before money spent on birthing, baby clothes, equipment, and numerous other sundries, this was shaping up to be one of the most expensive babies of 2019!

  The fact that Meghan splashed so much cash rang alarm bells with the traditionally conservative Queen Elizabeth. Growing up in the war left the monarch with a built-in sense of frugality and economy, despite being one of the richest women in the world. Away from the spotlight and the pomp and circumstance, the Queen is an unassuming character. This was amply demonstrated to the world when in 2002, a British tabloid journalist managed to sneak undercover into the Palace and gain a job as a footman. The journalist tried to dish dirt on the Queen living an extravagant existence when the truth was far more boring. Her Majesty, it was discovered, ate her breakfast out of Tupperware boxes, often thriftily using up leftovers. HRH even used to feed her beloved corgis scraps under the table.