Even more offensive than the letter’s rank politicisation of an issue that had nothing to do with politics, was the implication that Meghan was being victimised on racial grounds. The thinly veiled allusion to ‘colonial undertones’ was accusing the press of racism when they had welcomed Meghan with open arms and suppressed much negative information about her. They were not prejudiced against her on racist grounds. On the contrary, they had been prejudiced in favour of her on those precise grounds. The fact that they knew, in a way none of the MPs who had signed that letter did, that Meghan viewed many British traditions with barely concealed contempt, did not make them guilty of ‘colonial undertones’. If anyone was guilty of prejudice, it was the MPs who had written the letter, or Meghan herself, for what can be more prejudicial than a foreigner disdaining national customs and institutions? It was obvious that whoever was prejudiced, it was not the press, but the authors and subject of the letter, which had been written with the specific purpose of exploiting a time of national vulnerability. It was the signatories who were prejudiced: against the monarchy, the centrist and right-wing elements of the British press. They were trying to make political capital out of something which they had no right interfering with.
The British people, however, had more to worry about in the lead-up to the election of the 12th December 2019 than any of the fanciful claims the female MPs had made. Water sought its own level and the issue floated out to sea, as everyone in Britain concentrated on the truly important issue of whether the country would remain a centrist democracy outside of the European Union or become a Marxist state, possibly in, possibly out of, the EU.
It was a massive relief to people all over the country when Boris Johnson was re-elected Prime Minister with a huge majority. Several of the MPs who had so mischievously tried to make political capital out of the conflicts between the press and the Sussexes lost their seats.
The problem of opportunistic Marxist MPs having been solved by the electorate, Harry and Meghan set about providing solutions to their own problems. They gave the first indication of what they had been planning for the whole year when they announced that they would not be spending Christmas with the Royal Family, but would go abroad with Archie to be with her mother. Although few people outside of a tight royal circle appreciated that the royal couple was taking the first step in realising their ambition to base themselves in California, safely beyond the reach of the palace and its supporters in the British media while they promoted their interests and became financially independent, Harry and Meghan had nevertheless just handed their critics a dagger and the media did not hesitate to use it. Their refusal to spend what Fleet Street and most well-informed people suspected would be Prince Philip’s last Christmas with him raised questions as to just how humane they actually were when dealing with those close to them, as opposed to strangers who would give them adulation as they indulged in displays of humanitarianism. It had been an open secret in well-informed circles in Britain for some time that Prince Philip commiserated with someone with pancreatic cancer by stating that he too was diagnosed with it. Out of respect for him and the Queen, the editors in the know had decided not to break the news until the palace announced it. As no announcement had been made to date, no editor had published that fact, but anyone with a brain in his or her head only needed to look at Prince Philip to see that he could not possibly be very long for this earth, pancreatic cancer or none.
So the press waded in and questioned just how sincerely humanitarian Harry and Meghan were. While some reports did allude to the rumour that Meghan had been deliberately detaching Harry from his family, none stated that she resented her grandfather-in-law for having advised Harry not to marry her. As such, they were exhibiting self-restraint, for the word in smart drawing rooms was that Meghan had skilfully used the family’s original caution about her to gain absolute control over Harry and steer him away from his family in the direction she wanted, which was worldwide celebrity based in California.
While the press marked down the couple’s bolt across the Atlantic to self-indulgent inconsideration, with the more left-wing newspapers taking the alternative viewpoint that they were a young couple and should not be expected to always spend the festive season with Harry’s grandparents, this book’s original proposal to the publishers written earlier in the year had stated that Harry and Meghan would be seeking to lead a life on both sides of the Atlantic as they set about maximising commercial opportunities while capitalising upon their royal status and fame. The issue, as I made clear, wasn’t if; it was purely when.
To that extent, the press were therefore outside of the loop. Obviously Harry and Meghan would not be considering Prince Philip’s existence when their focus was on their own. Sentimentality aside, it mattered not a jot whether they spent Christmas in Canada or at Sandringham. What counted was where they would be living, and my information, which would only too soon be confirmed by the statement they made when they stood down as senior royals, was that they intended to live between Britain and California, enjoying the full benefits of their royal life when they were here, and the complete advantages of their American activities when they were there.
CHAPTER 10
As far as the public were concerned, 2019 ended on a high note for Meghan and Harry. They had announced that they were retreating from public view to spend six weeks away on a much needed break, which would be, in keeping with their previous demands for privacy, entirely private. Although one or two publications were ungracious enough to point out that Meghan had spent most of the year off, that Harry’s schedule had not been exactly onerous either, and that their interpretation of privacy seemed at odds with their endless postings on their stylish website, the rumblings were focused more on their failure to be with Prince Philip than anything else.
Buckingham Palace cleared up the mystery of where the couple had retreated to by announcing that they were spending the festive season ‘enjoying sharing the warmth of the Canadian people and the beauty of the landscape.’ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau then tweeted, ‘Prince Harry, Meghan, and Archie, we’re all wishing you a quiet and blessed stay in Canada. You’re among friends, and always welcome here.’
To celebrate the Festive Season, Harry and Meghan cut out the hated tabloids and communicated directly with their followers, posting on the Sussex Royal website an informal black and white photograph as they squatted in front of a heavily decorated Christmas tree smiling joyously at Archie, who was gazing directly into the camera. Beneath the ducal coronet was the message: ‘Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from OUR FAMILY to YOURS.’
The problem, with taking command of their media coverage as forcefully as Meghan and Harry had done, was that they didn’t only make adversaries of the people whose livelihood they threatened, but they also exposed themselves more than would otherwise have been the case had the palace press office been handling their publicity. Since it was obvious by now that Meghan herself was the sculptress moulding the clay - she is well known to micromanage everything - and since her fingerprints and Americanisms were over virtually every one of their postings, the press began drafting in experts to find out what the hidden meanings were behind the pronouncements and even the body language.
Some of the interpretations were positive. For instance, the British communications and body language expert Judi James noted that their pose in their Christmas card demonstrated ‘the tight affection between Harry and his wife as they sat on the floor in mirrored poses.’ She also suggested that Harry and Meghan’s configuration made them seem to be ‘rather lost in their own trio of love’. She thought that their positioning gave out the message that they were ‘equals’, in contrast to the Cambridges’ Christmas card, which was more traditional, with William at the centre of it.
To the extent that the Cambridges do have a traditional marriage, while the Sussexes have a woke one, she was right. Where things might have got confusing is that royal and aristocratic wives are traditionally the powers beh
ind the thrones. They wield their might quietly; they do not flaunt it. But pushovers? I have seen very few in my lifetime. Most of the men have far more respect for their wives, and defer to them rather more frequently than outsiders might imagine, or might be apparent to those who do not understand the traditional world. And most of the women are far better able to shape their destinies, and those of their families, than many a feminist might imagine. In a way, these traditional wives have long since had the power feminists have been hankering after since Women’s Lib came along, and they continue to wield it to this day.
Diana Wales, for instance, exercised tremendous influence in her marriage. Her mistake was to think that she could dominate Charles so completely that she would change him into the man she wanted him to be, after which he would meekly follow in her wake. Rather than lose his identity totally, he withdrew from their relationship, which happened right after Harry’s birth. But even then, Diana continued to be a force to be reckoned with. She was an extremely strong personality, and the sons of strong mothers usually choose strong women for their wives, which is what both William and Harry did.
Insofar as Catherine Cambridge is concerned, those who underestimate her do so at their peril. Her sister Pippa used to go out with Billy, the son of my great friends Alan and Patrea More Nisbett, and so they had an insight into both sisters long before they became as famous as they now are. Catherine may be sweet and traditional but she has always been highly intelligent with a strong character. She does not function at a fever-pitch of hyper-enthusiasm like Meghan, nor is she a dominating personality, but still waters run deep. To imagine that she is downtrodden in her marriage or anywhere else would be a mistake. She, rather than William, is the more effusive partner. She is also very competitive, especially in sport, and makes no pretence of wanting to win, even against her husband. To suppose that they are anything but equals would be delusional.
Meghan, on the other hand, plays a variety of roles with Harry. On the one hand, she is the ultimate authority on all topics. She is the driving force in their union, but he happily heads in the direction she leads. She is a mixture of the little woman, big mama, leader, faithful follower, siren and nanny. Unlike Catherine, who has equanimity, she vents furiously, casting herself in the role of victim when she faces opposition of any sort, then switching to Boadicea hurtling in her spike-wheeled chariot towards the opposition when that works more effectively. Because Harry is less stable, less intelligent, more emotional and more immature than William, Meghan has him coming and going as she panders to the Alpha male, the little boy, the spoilt brat, the wounded and vulnerable man/child who is still working through childhood issues. Catherine and William’s relationship has always been healthy. They are equals in human terms, while some people regard Meghan and Harry’s as fundamentally unequal.
After the bombshell announcement of Meghan’s lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday, the press and the palace became aware of the extent to which she and Harry intended to use their online postings to connect directly with their followers by cutting out the press. One journalist told me that she and most if not all of her colleagues had come to the conclusion that the royal couple was shamelessly hawking their own brand of propaganda. Once the press came to that conclusion, they pored over each and every posting of the Sussexes to try to figure out what their agenda and endgame were. No one was naive enough to take anything they said or did at face value, for the media had come to realise just how canny and wily Meghan and Harry were.
Because Harry is not particularly intellectual and Meghan’s modus operandi only hinted at her underlying game plan, their postings now became a rich source of inquisition. Their Christmas card was a case in point. While the intended message was that Meghan and Harry had a gloriously happy marriage of like-minded equals, the photograph itself showed that Meghan was first amongst equals. Who the leader is in any relationship is always relevant where any couple is concerned, but when you are dealing with a member of the British Royal Family and his American actress wife who might be inducing him to reject his heritage to keep her happy, who leads and who follows becomes fundamental. Since the British press were vested in the dynamics of the relationship in a way that the foreign press could never be, who was dominant and who submissive became a matter of genuine national interest. The giveaway in the Christmas card was the focal points. All photographs or paintings have only one true focal point. If something has two, it is either a bad painting or a doctored image. In the photo the Sussexes had posted, the natural focal point was Archie. By rights, Harry and Meghan’s images should therefore have been equally blurred, for they were equidistant from their son. But in their post Harry’s face is expectedly out of focus, while Meghan’s is unexpectedly and astonishingly in focus. This was one picture that was worth a thousand words. The message could not have been clearer. Archie and Meghan being the focal points while Harry was not, there were logical conclusions to draw. Both the British press and the internet commentators drew them.
Once that message was picked up, the posting of the Christmas card rebounded, garnering criticism in Britain even though Meghan and Harry had obviously invited only approbation. She was therefore wise to cut herself out of the picture in the next posting, their New Year’s message on Sussex Royal, which showed only Harry holding Archie beside the water on Vancouver Island, where they were staying in a $14m house lent to them by a benefactor.
Rather less wise was the accompanying text: Wishing you all a very Happy New Year and thanking you for your continued support!’ While this sort of language might have been acceptable in America, in Britain it was not. Royalty does not thank the public for its continued support. Only politicians and traders do. Yet again, the cultural discordance was blighting but also shedding light on the Sussexes’ message.
To a discomfitingly large segment of the British populace, many of whom would have liked Harry and Meghan to be enjoying the popularity they had possessed at the beginning of their marriage, it now seemed that he, who used to be able to do no wrong publicly, could no longer do anything right. This was borne out within a matter of days when the couple returned to Britain from their Vancouver Island bolthole, leaving Archie behind with his nanny. In breach of diplomatic protocol, they posted on Instagram that they had visited ‘Canada House in London to thank the High Commissioner Janice Charette and staff for the warm hospitality during their recent stay in Canada. The Duke and Duchess have a strong connection to Canada.’
This created a new precedent, and one moreover which would make life impossible for everyone if, every time royalty visits a country, it and the host embassy or high commission has to grind to a halt for a thank you courtesy call. Of course, the true purpose of Harry and Meghan’s visit was to ingratiate themselves with the Canadians and, in so doing, whip up public support in that country for their supposed move to Canada, even though their stay there was never intended to be anything more than a stop-gap measure to get Meghan back to her origins in California. However, the press and general public did not yet knew of this or any other planned move; and, since neither the royals nor the diplomats posted to the Court of St James’s wanted to be railroaded into having unnecessary courtesy calls, this became yet another instance of Harry and Meghan being out of kilter with what was expected of them as a royal couple. Despite this, their visit did gain them publicity, so to that extent it was a worthwhile exercise.
By this time, the British press and too large a segment of the British public were coming to the conclusion that the couple was playing some obscure game of single, double and triple bluff whose purpose was obscuring by their dazzling public smiles and private contortions what was patently a self-created mystery. When Meghan then posted the ‘secret’ visit she had made on her own to London’s Hubb Community Kitchen prior to dropping in with Harry at Canada House in London’s Trafalgar Square, it did not have the effect they desired, namely that she would be praised for being so philanthropic and charitable that she squeezed in visits of encouragement to
the needy between courtesy calls on diplomats. This was condemned as a cynical grab for attention.
Because it was obvious to observers that Meghan was sculpting her and Harry’s public image into a likeness she wanted their admirers to see, the split reactions being generated through their internet postings forced the conclusion that they were playing exclusively to their supporters in the gallery, while ignoring everyone else in the theatre of life.
Meghan and Harry Page 35