Rather than accept the dangers inherent in their postures, Harry and Meghan decided that those who preached caution to them should be dismissed as traditionalists who simply didn’t ‘get it’. They decided that ‘tradition’ was the problem. The word tradition, as used by them, became a catch-all for any aspect of the status quo with which they did not agree. Soon they were complaining that they were being hemmed in by tradition. Tradition became a dirty word which they used to pour scorn on anyone who stood between them and what they wanted to do as they extrapolated their concept of this bright new world where they would lead everyone into the light. Both Meghan and Harry had always had excellent social skills. They shared the gift of being able to articulate their points of view with such conviction that even those who disagreed with them could not deny how heartfelt they were about the positions they adopted. They also used buzz words to annihilate their adversaries. Whether it was a hostess trying to seat them where she wanted to at her dinner table, or a courtier wanting Meghan to respect the dress code of royalty, or Harry dismissing the concerns of courtiers who were trying to rein him and Meghan in as they bombarded their staff with twenty and fifty new ideas every few days, they dismissed all concerns about potentially undesirable consequences as if nothing untoward could ever come of their good intentions, and blamed ‘tradition’ for standing in the way of ‘change’, which was another of their favourite words.
It was now apparent to everyone surrounding them that Harry and Meghan were feeling aggrieved about what they saw as unnecessary restrictions being put in their way. They were both so impassioned, so Messianic, about their need to change the world for the better, that they were soon complaining that their ‘efforts to modernise the monarchy were not being acknowledged or rewarded’, that ‘no one appreciated their talents’ or knew how to ‘exploit’ their ‘special qualities’. They openly disparaged other members of the Royal Family for their style of doing things, disdaining it as being ‘stiff’, ‘out of touch’, ‘traditional’, ‘uptight’ and ‘old fashioned’. They criticised the courtiers for being ‘hopelessly out of date and inefficient’, declaring that they weren’t ‘savvy’ like Meghan and her Hollywood colleagues, who really knew how to ‘get the message out there.’ When this criticism did not gain them the latitude to function with the freedom they desired, they looked around for who was behind the restraints being placed upon them. They concluded that ‘everyone’ in the Royal Family, with the exception of the Queen, was ‘jealous’ of them, of their popularity, their star quality, their unique gifts which, if properly exploited, could change the monarchy and the world for the better. This was taken to mean William and Catherine, and sure enough, it was only a matter of time before they started making it clear that they believed that William and Catherine were indeed jealous of them and their greater star quality.
These complaints did nothing to improve the atmosphere surrounding the couple, but some of the wording was so alien to anything royal or aristocratic, and so characteristic of someone of Meghan’s type and background, that listeners concluded that she was writing the script even though both she and Harry were voicing identical concerns. A few words, in particular, were viewed at the palace as giveaways as to who was really the architect of the dissatisfaction. Meghan and Harry were vociferous in using the word ‘exploit’ to describe the failure of the palace to capitalise upon what they described as their ‘unique’ or ‘special gifts’ and ‘star quality’. Aside from the fact that the deployment of terms such as ‘unique/special gifts’ and ‘star quality’ are redolent of Hollywood but alien to the British tongue, Harry and Meghan were using the word ‘exploit’ in a purely American way. In Britain, the word exploit has pejorative connotations that include taking undue or unfair advantage, being mercenary, or milking something to excess. Had Harry and Meghan complained that the palace were not ‘utilising’ their talents, the question of who was the source of the dissatisfaction might have been blurred, but their deployment of so many Americanisms led everyone to suspect Meghan.
Both Meghan and Harry are headstrong. There was no doubt at the palace that they were both sincere in their desire to achieve their goals, but there was also no doubt that they had become troublesome. He has always taken skilful handling. Volatile and emotional, he is very much both his parents’ son, for Charles and Diana shared explosive and at times doggedly temperamental personality traits. Meghan was equally impassioned and determined. Even in Hollywood, where pushiness is often regarded as a virtue and being called a hustler is complimentary, Meghan had acquired a reputation for being in a class of her own. While her admirers commended her for her tenacity and toughness, one producer told me that he regarded her ‘an odiously pushy, voracious piece of work’. She was ‘greedy’, had ‘far too high an opinion of herself’, and was ‘a player who has a compulsion to always push for more. If you offered her California, she’d demand Arizona as well, and, if you didn’t give it to her, you were victimising her.’ Meghan was proud of living by her mother’s advice, ‘Don’t give the milk away for free’, but she had now reached the stage in life where her old habit of requiring more and more might have outlived its usefulness as a tool for further success. Such conduct only got many people’s backs up unnecessarily, and made them question her suitability for the role of royal duchess or
