Yet many of the very people who were now perplexed by Meghan’s failure to adjust to her royal role had initially been optimistic about her inclusion in the Royal Family. ‘We misjudged her,’ one courtier told me. ‘We thought she was more open-minded than she is. She’s bright, but she’s not as clever as she thinks she is. She’s so up her own bum-bum that she miscalculates at every turn. She has a real gift for making enemies of people who want to be her friends.’ An attitude like that is not a winning formula unless, of course, victory lies in failing to adjust, in which case it is the best tactic to employ.
By the time Meghan’s pregnancy had been announced, it was obvious in court circles that she was not growing into her role, but was expecting it to change for her. In short, she was not acquitting herself as successfully as her supporters, this author included, had hoped she would. There is always a transitional phase between hope and despair. In the early days, everyone hoped that Meghan would learn and adjust. They still did not understand that she might actually have no need to adjust. They still thought that she was ‘in for the long haul’ as a fully paid up member of the Royal Family. To many of the courtiers, who believe that their jobs serve a valuable purpose in national life, it was inconceivable that any newcomer to the Royal Family would treat such an august position as just another career move, of no more importance than a secretarial job or a role in a cable television show. This attitude was so beyond their contemplation that even when the evidence began mounting up that this is precisely how Meghan approached her royal role, they simply could not absorb the fact. They therefore continued to function in a state of suspended disbelief, and thrashed around for explanations as to why the duchess was not adjusting.
One canny courtier, however, summarised Meghan’s underlying problem to me once the palace discovered that Meghan had gone to the States to consult with her agents and representatives there. If being a royal duchess was just a career move, as now seemed possible, that would explain why she could not and/or would not make the necessary adjustments to fulfill her royal role satisfactorily. ‘A priest who’s an atheist is always going to be problematic to the Church. The Duchess of Sussex doesn’t have the subtlety, sophistication or self-restraint to be another Talleyrand: she’s more like Princess Diana.’ This courtier did not consider her to be a formidable adversary. He thought that she was ‘too naive and unsubtle an operator to be truly effective. She’s so obvious that she’ll tie herself in knots rather than follow the clear lines of the turncoat Bishop of Autun. He was as self-interested as she is, but he had self-restraint and a solid enough self-regard to put success above applause. I don’t see Meghan Markle doing that. Nor did Princess Diana. ’
In my not-so-humble opinion, this analysis misread the skill and subtlety of both Meghan and Diana. Just because they had the gift of being able to project their feelings with the commensurate reward of gaining followers did not mean that they lacked self-restraint. On the contrary. It seemed to me that they both had a winning combination of self-restraint allied to self-projection, and by discounting one of those two elements, their detractors were underestimating them. Since their critics acknowledged that both women were wily, it seemed to me paradoxical that they would be judged only on their superficial actions, rather than on their underlying motives and ultimate achievements. Their goals, after all, were neither straightforward nor obvious, and since their journeys took place with much subterfuge and double-bluffing on their part, why fail to acknowledge their skill in playing canny hands successfully? Could it be that they were more skilful than was thought?
If Meghan and Harry’s agenda was to elevate themselves using their royal status for their own material and political gain, there was no way Meghan could sustain the way of life of a British royal. The patrician world is tough. It is one which Diana rebelled against and had contrived to leave behind prior to her death. She was in the process of doing what was then known as ‘a Jackie’ when she had her accident. Both Diana and Jackie Kennedy had left the heavy hitting Establishment circles whence they originated, to drift off into the more salubrious climes of the ocean-going yachts and private planes of the super-rich. Both were happy to leave behind the ostensible but limited and self-sacrificing glamour of a great position for the freedom, comfort and true glamour of a richer and easier way of life. Both of them had had enough of the sacrifices that go along with grand positions, of the self-restraint, self-abnegation and discipline which are fundamental. They were happy to swap the delights of real wealth for the countless dull and worthy occasions that so heavily outweigh the occasional glamorous red carpet events that so mislead the public into believing that royalty and world leaders lead enviable lives when, in fact, dull duty is more often the case. Diana, Princess of Wales used to complain about how excruciatingly tiresome she found ‘yet another lunch with yet another boring mayor,’ and, while Jackie tried to explain away her flight into Onassis’s world as providing her children with the safety only great wealth can guarantee, the truth was simpler: She loved the freedom, comfort and self-indulgence of great wealth. So too did Diana. She happily jettisoned over a hundred patronages following her separation, freeing
