This, of course, was precisely what the courtiers and family did not want. They didn’t want Meghan and Harry chucking out the babies with the bath water when, in their view, those babies were the future of the monarchy and the country. They were only too aware that only a small percentage of the country shared Meghan and now Harry’s perspective. The monarchy needed to represent that vast swathe of people whom Meghan especially looked down upon for being traditional, old fashioned, politically unenlightened, sticks-in-the-mud. But then, Meghan’s focus had never really been on Britain, but on the United States, and gradually she had induced Harry to share her vision.
No one knows precisely when Meghan decided that Britain would not work for her. Some of her old friends believe that she never had any intention of making the transition from the US to the UK. They posit that she is the archetypal businesswoman who saw the opportunity a takeover of Harry Incorporated presented. Being dished up with a handsome and eager prince whom she found physically and personally attractive, who was so keen to please her that he slotted into the role of adoring poodle without her even needing to train him up, was too good an opportunity to miss. They postulate that she walked into this with her eyes wide open, with no intention of fitting in. If Britain wouldn’t mould itself to suit her, she would bide her time, complain about how unappreciated she was, and move back to the US with the added benefit of royal status - with or without her husband.
This, of course, is pure speculation. What is not is the fact that Harry and Meghan tried to strike out on their own by setting up their own household independent of all the other palaces, when they split from William and Catherine prior to Archie’s birth. ‘Going rogue’ is what such ambitions are known as in palace circles. To say that their attempt was greeted with incredulity would be to minimise the disbelief felt at the palace. A prince told me that he is sure that Lord Geidt, the Queen’s former Private Secretary who was shoved out in 2017 by the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, but still has the Queen’s ear, was behind the move blocking Harry and Meghan from going ‘completely rogue’. He argued for their office relocating to Buckingham Palace, where the Queen’s advisors could keep an eye on them. ‘Otherwise they’d have been like two cars hurtling down a dirt track with no brakes, kicking up dust in everyone’s eyes,’ the prince said.
From Harry and Meghan’s perspective, all they wanted was the freedom to indulge their tastes and values and, where they thought appropriate, to update the monarchy. They actually complained vociferously to all and sundry that their ‘special talents’ were not being used, that they weren’t ‘appreciated’ enough, and that, left to their own devices, they’d be ‘real forces for change’. They simply could not understand that it was unreasonable to expect any newcomer to any institution to be given the freedom to enact change the way Meghan and now Harry proposed. Insisting on being given the licence they wanted was a recipe for change, all right, but not change the way they originally intended, and certainly not change the palace wanted.
In the meantime, the turmoil continued both privately and publicly. No sooner did the furore over Meghan’s baby shower in New York die down, than she found herself caught up in yet more controversy. She and Harry moved out of Nottingham Cottage at Kensington Palace into Frogmore Cottage amidst fury at the cost of the refurbishments. These came to some £2.4m and were being paid for by the state. Their critics wanted to know why taxpayers should absorb the cost when they were being given free accommodation. One could equally have taken the view that since Frogmore Cottage is a state-owned building, the state should pay to keep it updated, though the outlook that would have covered all bases, and which is what the Grosvenor Estate used to utilise with its grace-and-favour leases, was that Meghan and Harry should be responsible for the full cost of repairs and refurbishment in return for living there gratis. This, however, was an age-old dilemma, and Harry and Meghan viewed the criticism that came their way as unfair, for who wouldn’t opt for the state paying for their refurbishments given the chance?
Within a month of Archie’s birth, Meghan burst back onto the scene, displaying the remarkable aptitude she has for generating interest. A very slender and flat bellied Duchess of Sussex turned up at Wimbledon to watch her friend Serena Williams play tennis. She was accompanied by Genevieve Hillis and her other Northwestern girlfriend, Lindsay Roth. Both women were appropriately dressed, as were the men and women who accompanied the trio. The rebellious Meghan, however, struck a blow of sartorial freedom by defying yet more British traditions as she breached two of Wimbledon’s cardinal rules. She was wearing jeans, which are banned, and a hat, which is never worn. She had actually taken the same hat, or an identical looking one, to Wimbledon the year before, when she sat with Catherine Cambridge. Then she had been perspicacious enough to keep it in her lap, but this time, she had it planted firmly on her head.
Although Meghan either did not know or did not care, there is a reason why women do not wear hats at Wimbledon. They have the potential to block the view of the person sitting behind the wearer. It is therefore considered ‘poor form’ to wear hats. But Meghan’s attachment to the hat suggested that she was living out some sort of fantasy of what California girls do when they
