Although Tom Sr and Meghan were in touch after the first heart attack, and she encouraged him to come over and not pull out of walking her down the aisle, as he had said he intended to do, so great was the embarrassment, once he had his second heart attack, that she declined to contact him and refused to respond on the many occasions he tried to get in touch with her. Harry, on the other hand, did text Tom. He berated him for upsetting Meghan, while failing to ask the man who was about to become his father-in-law how he was following his second heart attack.
Wounded feelings and poor judgement were about to make what the press had already dubbed the Markle Debacle into something which was not only damaging and destructive but would cause unnecessary damage and pain to all the parties involved.
CHAPTER 5
As marriage loomed for Harry and Meghan, the Markles and Ragland/Johnsons were not the only families whose equilibrium was dashed along with their hopes and expectations. So too were the Royal Family’s, though for them there appeared to be compensations which would balance the downside.
Despite the considerable advantage that Meghan’s colour was, and the demonstrably apparent love between the couple, there was the inconvenient fact that Meghan had a past that could damage the prestige of the Royal Family if the press did not remain on side. As stated elsewhere, no one associates closely with the Royal Family without their background being investigated by the palace. I know of many examples where the royal concerned has been quietly informed that it will not be appropriate for him to continue seeing so and so. The palace broke up Prince Andrew and Koo Stark and tried to break up Charles and Camilla. They would have succeeded, too, had the Prince of Wales not informed the powers-that-be that she was a ‘non-negotiable’ part of his life.
The interventions have not been limited to royals’ personal lives. Sometimes it has been someone with whom a royal is involved professionally. As long ago as the 1970s, Princess Alexandra’s husband the Hon. Sir Angus Ogilvy was made to resign his directorships and cease functioning as a businessman in the light of the Lonrho scandal, when that company was discovered breaking sanctions against Rhodesia.
Not even charity provides a sanctuary. Because it is deemed to be a valid professional part of a royal’s life, and there are many donors who have made fortunes dubiously then tried to gain respectability by donating large sums to royal causes, the fundraising activities of royal charities, or of charities involved with the royals, are closely watched. I know of one case, which has never been made public, in which one of the most senior royals was banned from taking further sums on behalf of his primary charity from a particularly generous donor who was reputed, whether fairly or otherwise is beside the point, to have murdered two spouses. The ban extended to that individual being admitted into any royal palace in any capacity whatsoever.
Because the palace has always functioned under the premise that there are times when the quid simply isn’t worth the pro quo, intervention never comes as a surprise to royals who are intent on pushing the boundaries. They know that these lines of demarcation have been drawn to preserve the integrity and reputation of the monarchy. It is rare indeed when a royal does as Prince Charles did when he refused to give up Camilla.
Meghan’s colour was an advantage that gave her and Harry flexibility they would never have otherwise had. There is little doubt that there would have been behind-the-scenes manoeuvres to break up the relationship before it could lead to marriage, had she been white. The objections lay with the tales of her past which Harry referred to in his statement at the time their relationship went public, as well as Meghan’s open advocacy of political causes which could politicise the apolitical character of the monarchy. There was also her unpopularity amongst the people she had crossed in the past, some of whom would inevitably come out of the woodwork if she married into the Royal Family, and brief journalists against her. But even worse than any of that were the hard-core porn tapes purporting to be Meghan Markle performing in flagrante delicto. I have seen the tapes. We all know that nowadays it is possible to convincingly doctor tapes so that what looks like one individual is actually two, with the head of one superimposed on the body of another. Maybe the woman in the tapes is Meghan’s doppelganger. Maybe the face is Meghan’s, superimposed onto someone else’s body in a cynical money-making exercise. Either way, there is no doubt that someone who looks exactly like Meghan is being robustly penetrated by an immense penis belonging to a stud of the first order, and that the Meghan character is groaning in a manner reminiscent of her performances in Suits.
The supposed Meghan’s body looks very much like what we can imagine hers to be, except that the breasts are mercifully larger than the ones Meghan presents us with nowadays. This, however, did not deter her detractors, because if one examines photographs taken of her in her early twenties while she was starting out in the industry, one observes her breasts in halter necklines being much fuller towards the armpits than they are nowadays. This suggests that she might well have had her breasts augmented, then had them reduced once she became more successful, as Victoria Beckham did. Because the timeline of the sex tapes dovetails with Meghan’s penurious period, doubting Thomases took comfort from the coincidences which allowed them to remain convinced.
This was anything but a desirable scenario for any respectable institution, much less a royal family. In some ways, it didn’t even matter whether the tapes were authentic or fabricated: their very existence was a problem. The idea, that any member of the British Royal Family could have had a past that permitted a sex tape, real or fake, to exist, that it was out there on the internet for all to see, and that there would always be a percentage of people who believed it to be genuine even if it was not, was anathema. The one thing that kept all critics of the marriage at bay was Harry’s determination to marry Meghan, no matter what.
Nevertheless, there was great concern because Meghan herself is the sort of personality who people either love or loathe. While some people, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Harry himself were convinced of Meghan’s sincerity, others worried that she might be an opportunist who trots out the lines that work to her advantage. Was she just too glib, too practised in the art of conveying convincing vulnerability, too adept at portraying herself as Little Ms Wonderful, for red flags not to be raised? One critic noted that her performance was uncomfortably ‘like all genuine phoneys, she has perfected the art of projecting a convincing display of sincerity. That in itself would’ve raised hackles even if we didn’t have access to all the other information’ emanating from those she had crossed over the years, ‘not to mention the gobbledy-gook she’d been spouting for years. Many of her statements were all the evidence we needed. Those blogs hoisted her on her own petard.’ Meghan’s statements about how desirable self-love was, about how you could be anything you wanted to be, about how it was okay to lie to yourself as long as you were doing it to achieve your ambitions, rang loud bells of caution. ‘She’s obviously never heard the maxim: A word once uttered cannot be recalled. Nor the one about never putting pen to paper. She definitely raised our hackles.’
Her avowed humanitarianism, mixed up as it was with political activism, also caused pauses for thought. The British Establishment is one of the most sophisticated in the world. Its more intelligent members are infinitely less gullible than most of their counterparts situated elsewhere. Although these people are often highly principled, their guiding light is realism. They are refreshingly free of prejudice, very up-to-date with the zeitgeist, interested in workable solutions rather than cant and hypocrisy. They know that humanitarianism is often a mask put on by hypocritical attention-seekers to disguise their true intentions as they seek to gain approbation through pretending to be more wonderful than they are. To use an example, I witnessed Sir David Eady, the senior judge of the Queen’s Bench Division who used to preside over defamation cases, dismiss the attempt of a billionairess to impress him by declaring her occupation as ‘philanthropist’ when in fact she is known as a r
ampant social climber. ‘Philanthropist?’ he said bitingly, conveying in that withering question what he thought of her pretensions and, by implication, her character.
No one actually cared whether Meghan’s humanitarianism was genuine or not, as long as she was prepared to do the job of royal consort as and when she was required to do so. But her avowed politicisation was a real worry. It could taint the Crown if she and Harry married. The British monarchy, like all the other constitutional monarchies in Europe, is resolutely apolitical. All of them appreciate that their survival depends upon absolute apoliticism; their very raison d’ être rests upon their ability to provide society with the protection only apolitical heads of state are capable of giving against the encroachments of ambitious politicians. Privately, it is no secret that most of the royals are either extremely centrist or slightly left of centre politically. They are, in reality, liberal conservators. This has come about in the last century because reigning royal families appreciate the need for change. They desire the improvement of their citizenry’s lot. However, they also appreciate that it is necessary to retain elements of the past if a society is to remain stable. Change, to be truly effective, has to be measured and gradual. The lesson learnt from revolutions has been that throwing the baby out with the bathwater renders people childless, even when it clears the bath. Meghan’s advocacy of change as if it were inevitably a positive indicated a degree of naiveté which could be dangerous once she had a royal platform, for she was clearly ignorant of the destabilising aspects of change.
Insofar as anyone could tell, Meghan’s political sentiments were also resolutely American. America is a young country while Britain and all the other European monarchies are ancient. In the last two centuries, European society has undergone extensive changes as all the states have democratized and some have become republics. The present-day monarchies are often more stable and meritocratic than their republican counterparts, with the result that contemporary constitutional monarchies regard themselves as not merely a form of government, but as the best form of government. In their opinion, their system of government protects the welfare of all in society, not only as a bulwark against power grabs by ambitious politicians, but also by representing all the citizens of their country irrespective of their political persuasions. Republican government only ever represents those citizens who voted for the party in power. There was concern in palace circles that Meghan was not experienced enough to appreciate the subtleties of the world she would be joining, and that Harry would not assist her in seeing the light.
In the year between the Sunday Express exposing Harry’s relationship with Meghan and their engagement, the powers that be had been able to get what they believed to be an accurate measure of her. Although she had endeared herself to the Prince of Wales by smoothing out some of the ruffles in his relationship with Harry, and the Queen liked her because she likes anyone who is bright, vivacious and has a sense of fun such as Meghan conveyed, the feeling amongst dispassionate observers was that she might turn out to be more troublesome than they hoped. This was because she was so strong-minded, had such pronounced political bias, was so strident where silence would be desirable, and was so upfront about having to have her own way, that an air of confrontationalism followed her wherever she went. At the palace, where an atmosphere of agreeability has always been valued above any one person getting his or her own way, this made people pause for thought and question whether Hurricane Meg wouldn’t be blowing down all sorts of edifices which everyone wanted to remain upstanding.
What also perturbed observers was the control Meghan exerted over Harry. Admittedly, he was happy. Indeed, both he and Meghan seemed to be flying high as they sparked each other off to ever greater heights. Their relationship also seemed to be fairly layered, with Harry strutting around playing the Alpha male protecting the hyper-feminine flower against potentially adverse elements, while she stroked his back and clucked after him like a Mother Hen with her chick. So what if she did most of the talking, and even when he wanted to make a point, she would either talk over him or finish what he was saying? She was extremely feminine while he was extremely masculine, on some level playing out the Yin and Yang almost stereotypically. But some people who were concerned about Meghan being the stronger, more intelligent and capable partner, noted that hers was the femininity of a strong and assertive matriarch, not of the obliging and docile Little Woman. They questioned, possibly unfairly, whether she wasn’t too dominant for everyone’s good, her own and Harry’s included. ‘The surprising thing was that the only person who couldn’t see it was Harry,’ someone who has now left the palace told me, quite missing the point that if Harry was happy to follow in Meghan’s wake, the dynamic suited him.
Putting the relative strengths of the couple aside, ‘She and Harry were tripping,’ someone close to him told me. ‘He is a very emotional guy, and she knows just what buttons to press to get him going.’ While admirers felt that she was very much in tune with Harry emotionally, and managed him well, detractors felt that ‘she’d slam the physical button, wrapping herself around him like bindweed, stroking his back as if she were his nanny and he a vulnerable six year old in need of reassurance. I for one felt that she was manipulating him emotionally. Undermining him by playing on his vulnerabilities. Doing so under the guise of caring for him when in fact she was really gaining power over him. The way he used to look at her when she was on the other side of the room was painful to see. He was like a puppy looking adoringly at its master. His eyes would swivel in his head as his gaze followed her around the room. But she’s clever. She would be constantly reinforcing her control over him by agreeing with him, indicating how clever he was, how wonderful. Laying on the adulation with a trowel. It was pure treacle and I wonder if he would’ve seen through it if the sex hadn’t been so good. You could tell it was fantastic. He couldn’t keep his hands off her. She also touched him a lot, though I felt that she used touch as another device to control him. I got the distinct impression that she’d reward him with pats when he was good: shades of nanny. She’d also snap at him if he stepped out of line. She did it at Princess Eugenie’s wedding in full view of everyone, and I’ve seen her do it on many other occasions. But if he moved too much out of her orbit, or was in danger of eluding her, she’d re-establish contact physically. This would have the effect of sucking him in again. There really was no escape from her. Not that he seemed to want to escape. On the contrary.’
A controlling, dominating ultra-feminine woman playing upon the masculinity and weaknesses of a handsome and vulnerable prince is one interpretation. Another is a couple so in tune with each other, so absorbed in each other, so in love with each other, that one finishes the sentences of the other because they have ceased to be two individuals and are now functioning as a unit. Certainly, Meghan had a lot of time for Harry. It didn’t seem to be a sacrifice for her to be with him. Yes, he was in her thrall, and seems to have been from very shortly after they met, but like many Alpha males, he had found himself an Alpha female who was a stronger personality than he was, and he was happily enchanted by her. The fact that Meghan was also far more intelligent than him, and more worldly-wise than any prince, who has spent his whole life being cosseted by nannies, servants, private detectives, staff and courtiers, could ever be, might well have been a plus where Harry was concerned, even if critics felt it should be otherwise. Hungry for love, feeling love and believing that it was reciprocated, he was placing his fate in her hands. To those who questioned her motives, this was frightening, not only in practical terms, but in emotional ones as well, but to those who did not, their relationship was something to celebrate.
Because Harry was so far down the line of succession to the throne, no marriage of his would ever possess such importance constitutionally that it would threaten the fabric of the monarchy the way the direct heir’s could. It was therefore safe to leave the problem, should there really be one, for family and friends to solve. The first person to try to try to influence Har
ry into taking things at a more considered pace was William. By this time, it was obvious to everyone that Harry and Meghan were hurtling at great speed towards matrimony. By their own admission, by their third date they were planning their future together and even telling each other how they would change the world together. Harry had never before shown such a predilection to make his mark on the world at large, and observers became worried that such potent headiness could lead to problems unless he took a step back and pursued the relationship at a more considered pace. These concerns would have existed even had Harry and Meghan’s worldly positions been more equal, but the fact that they were not, raised a red flag. When one had so much and the other so little in comparison, the question that Meghan might be using Harry was bound to arise. But Harry himself had no such reservations. He might have been blind to the dangers of the adage, ‘Marry in haste, repent at leisure’, just as how I was until I found a wedding ring on my finger and a millstone around my neck, but William was only too aware of the possibilities. He tried to introduce an element of caution into Harry’s reckoning, even warning his brother how their mother had always preached the virtues of longstanding relationships rather than sudden passions. Harry, however, had already burnt his bridges emotionally, and now started burning them personally as well. His response to William was aggressive, unappreciative, and resentful. He even accused him of being jealous and trying to deprive him of his right to happiness, which really was ridiculous, as William has always loved his brother and had always sought his happiness. But that still did not stop Harry from resenting his brother’s intrusion and putting a wholly personal and somewhat irrational spin on his motives.
Meghan and Harry Page 17