Meghan and Harry, however, were oblivious to the consequences insofar as they might adversely affect the monarchy, though they were only too mindful of things as these affected themselves. They both felt that Meghan had a right to her political opinions, that no one had a right to deprive her of her right to express them, moreover that they were such good opinions that everyone else should possess them, and those who did not, needed enlightening. Never one to hide their light or misery under a bushel, Meghan, and Harry on her behalf, complained vociferously about how her ‘voice’ was being ‘muted’ and her ‘soul crushed’. She did not consider that the monarchy might be worth the sacrifice, and he backed her up in that belief. As far as they were concerned, monarchy or none, she was going to get her point across, and if she couldn’t do it orally, she’d do it silently. So when President Trump, who is someone for whom she has a pathological loathing, arrived in Britain with the First Lady Melania Trump for their State Visit at the beginning of June 2019, Meghan declined to attend a reception at Buckingham Palace with the other royals, though Prince Harry made an appearance. Maternity leave was given as the excuse for her absence, though she managed days later to progress down the Mall from Buckingham Palace to Horse Guards Parade for Trooping the Colour in one of the state landaus, a veritable picture of robust good health with an adoring Harry shooting her approving looks when he wasn’t beaming proudly at the assembled crowd. The press were quick to pick up on the underlying message: Meghan had snubbed Trump. This did not strike the British as a source of glee, not when the Queen had exemplarily hosted world leaders such as Presidents Xi Jinping of China, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Nicolae Ceaușescu of Romania, and made sure that she accorded all of them the dignity their office demanded even if she might have had personal reservations about their human rights records. One person who could not condemn his daughter-in-law for her undiplomatic behaviour, however, was Prince Charles, who had snubbed President Hu Jintao of China on his state visit in 2005.
Of course, if Meghan did have long term goals where American politics were concerned, her conduct made perfect sense. Shortly afterwards, she reaffirmed her political sympathies when she asked Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea for tea at Frogmore Cottage - and made sure that the world knew about the visit. It began to look suspiciously as if Meghan was playing a long game, and that she was doing it with skill.
Political ambitions aside, she and Harry remained working members of the Royal Family, so, on the 23rd September 2019, they took off on a ten day tour of South Africa. No one outside royal circles appreciated that this would most likely be their final royal tour. As far as the British press were concerned, it was once more business as usual. It needs to be emphasised at this point that everyone wanted Meghan and Harry’s tour to succeed. Because a constant run of bad publicity is in no one’s interest except possibly the subject who wishes to be presented as a victim, the British press were eager for the trip to go well so that they could file glowing reports and restore Meghan and Harry’s popularity. One editor told me that all the papers were delighted to see that the Sussexes were greeted with joyousness, the local people taking pride in one of their own race being a member of the Royal Family. This, after all, was one of the most important attributes Meghan possessed, a veritable gift for the monarchy and a unifying link between it and the citizens of colour in the Commonwealth which, it must be remembered, is primarily a union of people of colour.
Meghan acquitted herself admirably. She was charming, gracious, affable, and delightful. She made a speech to a group of women referring to herself as a sister and a woman of colour. She was greeted with genuine enthusiasm and it was a true joy to see the pride people everywhere took in her existence. In royal circles, everyone could not have been more pleased with the reception she was getting. Meghan was fulfilling the promise which people all over the world had vested in her, and everywhere, genuine delight reigned. Many of the Commonwealth diplomats to whom I spoke felt that she was representing people of colour everywhere with true grace and dignity. They all expected her to be a real force for good as long as she continued to represent such hopefulness and positivity to the hundreds of millions of people who now regarded her as the embodiment of what people of colour could achieve.
The press also noticed, and commented favourably upon, Meghan’s choice of wardrobe. Tactfully, it was more high street than couture as she downplayed amongst the poverty stricken the fashion parade for which she was so well known, and which garnered her such praise amongst the fashionistas on both sides of the Atlantic. What remained unknown so far were the furious battles that had been fought between the couple and the financial comptrollers for the Duchy of Cornwall, who were liable for the expenses of Meghan’s wardrobe. In the months since her marriage, she had gone through some $2m for clothes alone. She never wore the same item twice, and virtually everything was couture. As the cost mounted and the courtiers tried to keep the tab down, Meghan and Harry doggedly refused to relent, stating in no uncertain terms that she had to look good and they weren’t about to cut corners for penny pinchers.
Proving that even when she pinched the pennies, she looked good, Meghan used the visit to display not only her stylishness but also to show off her son. She and Harry introduced Archie to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and his family. The press, hungry for pictures of the baby and the happy family, lapped up every charming moment.
Harry then left Meghan and Archie on their own to visit Botswana, Malawi and Angola. While there, he retraced his mother’s footsteps in the famous landmine journey she had made in Huambo shortly before her death, though by now the fields were gone, replaced by a concrete jungle. Articulating the ultimate purpose of the tour, he said, ‘This is a wonderful example of how the UK, in partnership with Angola, can address the issue of landmines, bringing prosperity to an area, creating jobs, helping people access education and healthcare and making communities safer.’
As the tour approached its end, it seemed to observers as if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had finally turned a corner. Their run of bad publicity had come to an end. All their publicity had been positive. They had acquitted themselves admirably. They had behaved in impeccable royal style and done so with all the charm, style and gloss which had turned them into one of the world’s most famous couples. The trip had been a resounding success. The goodwill with which they had started their marriage, and which had seeped away in the year and a four months since it, had flooded back in. Then, the day before their departure, they took a pickaxe to the pool of wellbeing, hacked away at the accumulation of success, drained away all the positivity which had been built up in restored good relations with the press, and dissipated the very purpose of a royal tour, which is to promote harmony while turning the world’s attention to the place being visited. In one fell swoop, Harry and Meghan diverted attention away from South Africa, the suffering of its people, and their own success, by issuing a statement, unknown to their official office at Buckingham Palace or to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is in charge of royal tours, through their American-managed official website. It declared:
Statement by His Royal Highness
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
01 OCTOBER 2019
As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.
Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.
There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are
repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.
Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations - something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.
It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.
This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.
There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.
We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.
MEDIA INFORMATION
Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Sussex has filed a claim against Associated Newspapers over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court relate to the unlawful publication of a private letter.
A legal spokesperson from Schillings who are representing The Duchess of Sussex said:
“We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”
The case is being privately funded by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Pending a Court ruling, proceeds from any damages will be donated to an anti-bullying charity.
This was throwing down the gauntlet in a major way. It was a declaration of war against the British press and while the American media might not have understood this, their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic did. Although it isn’t totally unheard of for royals to sue, it is highly unusual. And the timing could not have been worse from the point of view of the British Nation, even if it could not be bettered from the point of view of Sunshine Sachs, whose brief was not to protect Britain’s interests, but to weaponise any and everything to the advantage of the Sussexes personally.
Putting aside the personalities and the personal benefits Sunshine Sachs could gain for the Sussexes by hijacking the purpose of a royal tour to the detriment of Britain’s national interests and indeed the benefits that would otherwise have accrued to the people of South Africa, the announcement brought a worse than sour end to royal duties that had been a howling success. The statement eclipsed a tour that had been months in the making, had cost a vast sum of money, and had gone so well until the declaration of war had stolen the scene from South Africa and its problems. The only mitigating factor, if one existed, for stealing the tour’s thunder and diverting attention away from its purpose, i.e. the South African people and their problems, to the personal interests of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was that Sunshine Sachs, being an American company with left-wing sympathies, had neither knowledge of nor interest in furthering the monarchic and Commonwealth agenda when they could take a wrecking ball to a royal occasion on behalf of their clients. Unsurprisingly, their timing was greeted by outrage in Britain.
There was little doubt who had advised him and Meghan regarding the statement and its timing. It had all the hallmarks of an American initiative and this smacked of interference by a foreign entity into the national life of another country. Sunshine Sachs, Harry and Meghan might not have had it to the forefront of their thinking, but the press, the palace and the rest of the Royal Family appreciated in full the constitutional significance of members of the British Royal Family taking on the press the way they had one. The statement itself was a curious blend of fact, fiction, wishful thinking, fear, loathing, and false accusation. Harry’s passion and emotion were uplifting, though whether they were misplaced was another matter altogether. The fact was, when you cut through all the unfounded claims of bullying, of the wicked press manipulating a gullible public and hounding Meghan and Diana who, as stated earlier, customarily tipped off journalists and was therefore largely if not totally responsible for her own pursuit, the supposedly innocent Meghan was not suing over lie after lie, as Harry stated, but because her father had approached the Mail on Sunday over the use to which Meghan and five of her friends had put a supposedly private letter she had written to him the year before, a letter whose contents he had kept private until she divulged them, patently with the sole purpose of leaking its contents to discredit him. Contrary to the claims of her friends, who had quoted from the letter and could therefore have had sight of it only through Meghan, she had not tried to contact Thomas Markle on the many occasions she claimed, nor had he failed to contact her on the many occasions he said he had done. He had the telephone records to disprove her version and prove his, along with much else besides, including who had paid to put her through university: something he had done.
The grounds for action were therefore not the deviousness, manipulativeness, or mendacity of the Mail on Sunday, whose behaviour on that occasion had been beyond reproach. The legal and moral issues could not have been clearer. That newspaper had merely referred to the People article and quoted from a letter Meghan had written to her father, following her breach of her own privacy by revealing its contents to not one but at least five separate friends, all of whom had joined forces to further the breach of that privacy by revealing to People magazine the contents of the letter she had written. According to Meghan, she had put pen to paper to repair their broken relationship, not to lay down a paper trail in which she could bring as much ammunition as she judged necessary to blast her father into oblivion, and in so doing restore some of the damage which her icing of him had caused to her reputation. The facts spoke for themselves. If she had truly wanted to restore relations with hi, why had she failed to respond to any of his subsequent to contact her? Why had she publicised a supposedly private communication between daughter and father which he had expected would remain private but which she had revealed to not one but several of her friends? What was Meghan’s definition of private? Did it extend only to her protection of her own interests? Did it have such a loose definition that she could demand silence from the recipient of a le
tter whose sole raison d’être appeared to the fabrication of self-serving proof of her side of a story? Did all rights repose in Meghan and none in Tom Sr? And what about those five friends who had violated Meghan’s trust in them by repeating the confidences she had imparted for publication? Were we to accept that friends who betray your privacy are alright, because you take the view that they’re trying to protect you, but the father whose privacy has also been betrayed, by you and your friends, has no right to defend himself against the violation of privacy you have instituted?
The sheer illogic of the premises being put forward by Harry for the lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday was untenable, not that anyone in the know expected the general public to realise that. Why would they, when they only had the merest glimpse of the whole picture?
Meghan would then stretch the bounds of credulity further by maintaining that her friends had taken it upon themselves, without her knowledge, consent or approval, to fabricate the whole thing in an attempt to protect her. Were we truly to t believe that Meghan, who has made such an issue of privacy, accepted her five closest friends breaching the confidences she had placed in them as she showed them the letter she had written to her father? As they contacted, arranged and fabricated the interview they gave, to a nationwide publication as popular as People magazine? That they were free to do so without any adverse consequences, but that the father they had pilloried did not have a right to defend his actions, his interests, and his privacy, which they had violated in furtherance of their own interests? Meghan had seemingly written the letter with the purpose of reviling her father. She had revealed the contents to her friends, who had parroted her words to People. She was therefore the perpetrator of the breach, not its victim. All her father had done was defend himself against accusations Meghan’s friends had made on her behalf. According to the Mail on Sunday, which had tapes and documents to back up their claims, all her father had done was sought to set the record straight, using her own words to reveal the facts.
Meghan and Harry Page 33