Meghan and Harry

by Lady Colin Cambell

  There was also the misconception that Meghan had been the victim of racism and snobbishness. Snobbishness was simply ridiculous. Sophie Rhys-Jones and Catherine Middleton had also been middle class girls, and they had successfully made the transition to royal, so Meghan’s equally middle class background could not be the problem. Nor was racism. In fact, Meghan’s race had militated in her favour, so it was a cause of grievance throughout Britain that the fulsome welcome she had been given initially could be converted through ignorance of what had really gone wrong into accusations of racism against any of the many segments of the populace who had welcomed Meghan with open arms and hearts. Her failure to settle happily in Britain lay not with her race, but with her refusal to adjust to a new way of life: one whose lack of financial reward had left her distinctly unimpressed.

  It should have been a simple matter for people on both sides of the Atlantic to acknowledge that a mature woman like Meghan, set in her ways and happy with herself, was almost inevitably going to have difficulty adjusting to a new environment with radically different values and expectations from those she was used to. To accuse the British of prejudice because of Meghan’s failure to assimilate would be as unfounded as accusing her of being maliciously motivated in her refusal to do so. The fact that she did not, could not, and would not, did not make her malign, any more than Britain’s inability to adjust its values, customs, traditions and expectations to her convenience makes us, the British people, racist. Had Meghan been a fully Caucasian blue eyed blonde who behaved exactly as she did, she would have elicited an identical response. It would most likely have been quicker and harsher in tone too, for obvious reasons.

  The issue of racism being used unfairly to explain away Meghan’s failures caused outrage in Britain. There was a growing consensus that she and Meghan had an obligation, not only to the Royal Family and the monarchy but to the British people themselves, who had welcomed her so warmly, to call time on the red herring. The fact that the couple was allowing accusations of this nature to muzzle justifiable criticism of their actions was interpreted as ruthless cynicism on their part. It did nothing to gain them supporters, and in fact lost them a great deal of respect, for the one thing a nation which prides itself on fair play could not accept was being accused of guilt it did not possess. If Meghan did not know the old British condemnation ‘That’s not cricket’, Harry should have. His silence did nothing to commend him.

  How best to deal with a couple who were so intent on getting their own way, irrespective of the cost to his family, the nation, and the institution of the monarchy, now exercised the Royal Family. One of the European royals told me that the Queen, the Prince of Wales and Prince William had, from the very beginning, been ‘bending over backwards trying to come to some accommodation’ with Meghan and Harry. ‘They’re still trying. I would imagine they’re going to be trying for a very long time, for what the Sussexes want is really incompatible with constitutional monarchy,’ hence why a time limit of a year had to be put in place following the Queen’s meeting with Harry, Charles and William to see how their commercial activities panned out. Moving forward, ‘It’s going to be a long and arduous process of trial and error, with most of the flexibility coming from the Royal Family and most of the demands and complaints coming from the Sussexes.’

  ‘Right now, the royals feel they’ve been betrayed by the Sussexes.’ Harry and Meghan’s conduct since making that initial announcement of stepping down has had unnecessarily adversarial overtones. I was told that William was furious with both Harry and Meghan for having used her friends to disparage the Queen as a ‘naysayer’ and for accusing them of acting spitefully when the family has been doing no such thing. The family’s declared and sole posture had been, and continues to be, finding a way forward that allows the Sussexes to make as much money as they want without damaging the Crown.

  No one enjoys being accused of victimisation when nothing could be further from the truth, but equally, the family understands that there are ‘human dynamics at play,’ as the European royal explained. ‘They understand that when we speak about the Sussexes, we’re really saying Meghan with Harry, the compulsively limerenced and therefore useful idiot, tagging along saying yes, yes, yes to everything she proposes - no matter how much it hurts him or the family.’

  The royals have found themselves in an impossible situation. They do not deny Meghan’s right to pursue her life as she sees fit. They accept that it would be unreasonable of them to expect a woman of nearly forty years old who cannot make the adjustment from one way of life to another to sacrifice her comfort for their wellbeing. ‘It’s really too sad, but the Royal Family know that this sort of thing happens to millions of families all over the world. They hope people will understand and have compassion for their dilemma - and Harry’s. They’ve embarked upon what is effectively serious damage control.’

  This royal explained that the Sussexes’ initial announcement of stepping back, was exactly what many in the British press and many at the palace deemed it to be: ‘a power grab. It was meant to bounce the Royal Family into accepting what they cannot accept. They (Meghan and Harry) tried to hardball the Family.’

  There were strong feelings at the palace that the announcement was also ‘an impertinence and shows just how out of touch with reality the Sussexes are. Really, who in their right mind would issue a statement declaring that they are collaborators of the Queen? It confirms how utterly self-important, even delusional, the [couple] is. The Queen is the Sovereign. She is the Head of the Family. She is their SUPERIOR. Superiors do not collaborate with inferiors. They collaborate with EQUALS. The Queen’s only equals are other Heads of State. As an Army officer, Harry knows only too well that his Sovereign is his Commander-in-Chief. All military people respect the chain of command. As a royal, he knows that the grandson of the Sovereign does not have parity with the Sovereign.’

  The realisation that Meghan is such a strong character and so self-confident that she regards herself as the equal of any other living individual, irrespective of who they are or what their position is, and that she feels sufficiently empowered by her self-belief that she will take on anyone, including the Queen, and regard herself as fully entitled to negotiate with anyone, including the Queen, as if they are equals, had begun to sink in. While such an attitude is regarded as admirable in many circles in the United States, within the British Establishment, it was viewed as cringeworthy folie de grandeur. The royal explained, ‘In no way, shape or form would Harry ever consider himself the Queen’s equal. I give no rewards for guessing who considers herself on a par with the Queen. I cringe with embarrassment on behalf of that young man. How he could ever have allowed that woman to issue such a statement, using his name, is beyond me.’

  It is here that we see how the typical American viewpoint of everyone being equal converges with the viewpoint of the anti-monarchists in the United Kingdom. They too regard everyone as equal, and cannot understand why the position of head of state should be hereditary. They want it open to all, and republicans have even suggested that David Beckham would make a better head of state than Queen Elizabeth II. What they fail to understand is that even when the hereditary element has been removed, equality is only a notional concept, for the head of state in a republican or even a Marxist society, occupies a unique position within that state and is generally acknowledged to be a thing apart from all other citizens. The fact that Meghan had no respect for her own president will have enhanced her belief that the position of head of state is therefore just another position, and that she, being an avowed activist, has a perfect right to challenge it as and when it is in her interest to do so. To people who admire empowerment, there can be no doubt that Meghan has grown into a fully empowered woman who respects no one person or position as much as she respects her right to forge her own path. The fact that she now took on Queen Elizabeth II was awe-inspiring, to say the least. She deserved acknowledgement for having decided to treat the monarch as just another individual with wh
om she deals, but this attitude caused astonishment in many British circles, not the least of which was the press, who soon saw just how potent and resourceful Meghan could be when she puts on her thinking cap. Hard on the heels of ‘stepping back’, she and Harry issued a statement declaring that they would be suspending the Rota system. This was like lobbing a live grenade into the media arena.

  Alluded to earlier in this work, the Rota system which had been in place for decades was viewed by both the press and the palace as the fairest and most practical way in which these two organs of British national life could co-exist to each other’s mutual benefit. By appointing one journalist and/or photographer out of a pool of other journalists representing the seven leading newspaper companies in the country, both the Royal Family and the press were assured of mutually beneficial coverage with the maximum guaranteed for minimal output of manpower, by the sole representative(s) passing on content to all their other colleagues.

  The Rota has always worked well because only accredited journalists have access. This assured the royals of having reputable representation and a measure of control that was acceptable to both sides. Journalists who indulged in dubious or unethical conduct would lose their accreditation, while the royals accepted it is the right of the press to criticise fairly, so the system has always had a degree of impartiality which works well for both the Royal Family and the press.

  It should be remembered at this juncture that the British royals, like all other public figures in Britain, accept that our media are more robust and critical in their scrutiny than any other national press. Everyone understands it, most public figures accept it and come to terms with it, even though we all struggle through the negatives at one time or another. Public figures who bemoan their lot too loudly lose respect from both their peers and the press, because most public figures in this country appreciate the importance of a free press.

  Although Harry and Meghan maintained that they too respected the media’s right to call them to account, their every action contradicted these assertions which were viewed by those they were trying to muzzle as both hypocritical and meretricious. Indeed, the couple’s own assertions suggested that their interpretation of objective press coverage was a faithful repetition of any instruction they provided, with the journalist plumping out his piece with purely positive or adulatory comments. In essence, they wanted the British press to perform the way the American does when covering celebrities. With the exception of hard news interviews, which are conducted by journalists who are encouraged to write as they see fit, PRs write the script for celebrity coverage and newspapers and magazines in the US either follow it or alter it with the consent of the subject and/or his/her press representatives. This is the system Meghan Markle got used to as a minor celebrity who was insufficiently newsworthy for journalists to take an independent line with. It had been something of a shock for her, when she was confronted by the way the British press functioned, to realise that her views could be challenged, her behaviour scrutinised. It was obvious that the Sussexes’ refusal to continue with the Rota system was their determined attempt to impose American style journalism upon the more robust British press. Since they couldn’t exclude representatives of the companies they were litigating against, and since Meghan and Harry’s policy was to eliminate anyone who displeased them, their alternative was to replace the Rota system with one of their own invention. ‘Meghan takes her role of being a force for change seriously,’ the journalist Alexis Parr said. ‘But the change is always in her favour and, where the press is concerned, to the detriment of its freedom of expression.’

  This certainly seemed to be the case. But Meghan and Harry were not prepared to merely replace an impartial system with one partial to them that they could control more easily. They were building towards an even more draconian remedy, for Harry has a rabid and irrational hatred of the press, blaming it as he does for his mother’s death, while Meghan had developed a hysterical antipathy towards their criticisms of her, declaring them to be based upon racism, sexism, misogyny, jealousy, envy, and anything else but fair comment. Her self-belief was so solid that she simply could not wrap her head around the fact that some of their criticisms might have merit.

  Harry and Meghan now availed themselves of the opportunity to demean their opponents and present themselves as victims. They accused reputable organs of the British press of being hypocritical liars and cheats who were maliciously twisting and turning their actions. They declared that it was ‘their wish to reshape and broaden access to their work’ and that they would ‘invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage.’ To the British press this was hypocritical cant, for they were restricting access, banning all mainstream reporters, choosing instead only tame journalists who would report their activities in ways that pleased them. Or, as Harry and Meghan put it, ‘credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events.’ Which really meant, North American style coverage, in which we inform you, you faithfully repeat our words, puff us up, or you’re out on your ear.

  It is hardly surprising that the mainstream press were incensed by this ploy to deny them the access which till then they had had as a right by long-established practice. But Meghan is bright, and she had come up with a way of thwarting her opponents such as no other royal had ever done. To people who want to control their publicity, she had turned herself into something of a heroine overnight.

  I am reliably informed that Meghan and Harry feared, with good reason, that the British press could otherwise sabotage their well thought-out strategies for boosting themselves financially as well as reputationally. They were worried that the media might point out the potentially adverse effects their commercial activities could have upon the welfare of the monarchy. This might lessen their prestige in the US, weaken their brand, and scupper business opportunities. They therefore needed to defuse the power of such comments before they were even made. The most effective way would be if they could present themselves as victims of a vicious and unjust media. They also needed to take total control of the narrative. Stories must not emanate from independent and uncontrollable sources, but from themselves solely. Only then could they control the outflow of information while creating a hiatus between the breaking of news and commentary on their initiatives.

  This was pure media management. Doubtless Sunshine Sachs was behind it. None of this was new of course, as any student of history knows the shaping of public opinion is as old as the hills. The two acknowledged geniuses in the twentieth century were Hitler’s brilliant Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, and Diana, Princess of Wales. It therefore came as no surprise that her son Harry and his media savvy wife would display an aptitude. What was surprising, however, was the total lack of boundaries. They were not only being innovative, being real ‘forces for change’ to use Sussex-speak, but were behaving with a vigour and ruthlessness that was truly astonishing, not only to the press and public, but to the palace as well. Undoubtedly, they were being well advised by real experts. Unless the press were very careful, or Meghan and Harry miscalculated terribly and did something which was so offensive that the general public would lose all sympathy with them, their tactics were intended to keep the British press on the back foot. In doing so, they would negate the media’s ability to scrutinise, thereby weakening criticism of them because the press would no longer be fashioning the narrative but trailing it.

  What Meghan and Harry had set out to do was turn the tables on the press, so that the public would end up thinking that valid press criticism was simply carping, even when the press was really fulfilling its responsibility to the nation by fairly and accurately commenting upon their desire to alter treasured national customs and institutions which the vast majority of the British public did not want changed.

  Having come up with such effective exclusionary tactics, Meghan and Harry also made it clear in their announcement what
sort of press commentary they would hereafter regard as acceptable. They required ‘objective’ reporting. They also looked ‘forward to continuing their use of social media and believe that their updated media approach will enable them to share more, with you, directly.’ This struck the British media as yet more hypocritical cant, and every journalist I spoke to believed that their policy will always be to control access so tightly, and to impart information so guardedly, that the only picture the public will ever see is a heavily curated one.

  Nevertheless, Harry and Meghan’s promulgations received support in the United States, where there was the perception that they were the victims of the British press rather than vice versa. Those positive reactions showed that there was indeed both a real cultural and a generational divide. Despite Americans treasuring their First Amendment rights, they did not recognise the dangers the Sussexes were posing to free speech in Britain. The British, which in this instance includes the Canadians, did. The young on both sides of the Atlantic took Meghan and Harry’s two announcements at face value. They felt that the couple should have a chance to lead their own lives as and how they saw fit. If they wanted to chuck the royal way of life and make money, let them. This sentiment was not shared by the more mature segment of the population, who felt that the royal couple was being greedy, selfish and self-indulgent. Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall had stumped up the better part of a million pounds for Meghan’s clothing since she had married his son. Their large house on the Queen’s Windsor Estate had cost the taxpayer £2.4m to renovate. Neither of them was exactly overworked. In fact, they had a pretty good deal. Why should they be allowed to be royal when it suited them and private citizens when it did not? Why should they be both in and out, as they wanted to be, undertaking the occasional royal engagement when it was in their interest to do so, but otherwise being supported by the tax payer while they went about making fortunes for themselves? When had more and more ceased to be enough?