If you look at how open Meghan was in her two blogs, it is obvious that she committed the most cardinal of all errors for anyone in public life. She revealed too much of herself. While she thought she was gaining admirers through her openness and honesty, she was also giving potential detractors information that they would ultimately be able to use against her. I can think of few people in public life who have exposed themselves to the extent that she did. One of the cardinal rules is that you batten down the hatches when journalists or servants are present. You dole out information about yourself, about your feelings and activities, as if you are a miser being forced to make a donation to a cause for which you have no regard. If you need publicity for a valid reason, such as for a charitable or commercial purpose, you put on your glad rags and monitor every word you say. You do not tell reporters what are your greatest hopes, fears, desires, ambitions, or any of the myriad of things Meghan revealed on her two blogs. You do not write articles that are so revelatory you might as well be talking to a psychiatrist. In interviews, you project an open personality while keeping your trap shut about all but the subject you are speaking about. When you see reporters out and about, you are pleasant, anodyne, uninformative, and discreet. You do not leak stories about yourself or anyone else you know. There are, of course, such things as ethical journalists, but it does not behove you to test the water unless you are sure it’s not going to chill you to your bones. Princess Grace of Monaco, for instance, was such a close personal friend of the former women’s editor of the Evening News, Gwen Robyns, that she used to stay with her at her flat in London when she wanted to escape from palace life in Monaco. I have enjoyed personal friendships with journalists like Sue Douglas, former editor of the Sunday Express, and freelancer Catherine Olsen (Lady Mancham in private life). Nevertheless, these are the exceptions, not the rule, which was best laid down by Sir John Falstaff in Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I: The better part of valour is discretion.
Many celebrities and royals have good working relationships, as opposed to friendships, with select journalists. Before meeting Meghan, Harry was chummy with Rebecca English of the Mail and one or two others, establishing human links with them which benefited both him and them. In that regard, he was following in the footsteps of his mother. Diana used to cultivate relationships with journalists such as Richard Kay and Sir David English, Editor of the Daily Mail. These were not personal friendships, but expediencies through which she would manage her public profile. The fact that Harry was doing the same suggested a level of maturity which was commendable. Nothing is more uncivilised than a public figure who cannot treat a pleasant journalist in a friendly manner.
In the week between the Sunday Express revealing Meghan’s presence in Harry’s life, and his issuing the statement which effectively warned the press off, she woke up to the difference between the tame press she was used to in the US and Canada, and the British. Up to then, she had managed her profile with admirable dexterity. She had never had negative publicity, notwithstanding the fact that the landscape traversed by her was littered with the remnants of former relationships. The reason why was simple. Up to then, she had simply not been famous enough to warrant negative attention. This comes about only when someone has a sufficiently high profile to attract unsolicited publicity. Until the 30th October 2016, however, all Meghan’s media coverage had been solicited either by herself or through the studios. She had in reality been a column filler, the sort of semi-celebrity that journalists use to pad out the pages when there’s nothing worth reporting upon, or when they have to pay back film companies in a quid pro quo way.
Now Meghan had arrived and the press were eager to flesh out the picture. The first wave of stories had been so positive that the tabloids wanted to redress the balance with a touch of sensationalism. Their first port of call was anyone from her past who could inform them of what she was really like. To their credit, none of her formerly close friends, boyfriends, ex-husband or even family went on the record spilling secrets. They all maintained a dignified silence when they had nothing positive to say. And when they did not, they were so measured in their statements that they could not be accused of rubbishing her. In large measure, that was because Meghan has always had the good sense to associate with decent people, or, as she put it to Violet von Westenholz, ‘Is he nice?’
Even so, there was deafening silence from some of the people journalists would have expected to comment positively. This was unmistakable evidence that something was afoot. So they tried people she had known less well, people who would have less loyalty. Sure enough, there was less reticence. The picture that emerged was a mixed one. Some people, like her neighbours, had nothing negative to say, while others confided that she was ‘a piece of work’ and ‘an operator’ who was ‘ruthless’, ‘ambitious’, and practised at ‘dumping people past their sell-by date.’
It might be surprising to outsiders to learn that the British press will sit on incendiary stories. But they do, as their behaviour now proved. Harry had asked for a break
