There is said to be an ongoing and malicious campaign against Meghan Markle and Prince Harry - and it's alleged that palace insiders are the culprits. Photo / Getty Images
There is said to be an ongoing and malicious campaign against Meghan Markle and Prince Harry - and it's alleged that palace insiders are the culprits. Photo / Getty Images
Comment: During her reign in the 16th century, Queen Elizabeth I built up a vast network of hundreds of spies and informers dubbed the "watchers" who used codes, invisible ink, and disguises to undermine her adversaries and enemies.
King Louis XIV kept the vast court of Versailles under surveillance and used spies to intercept mail. Courtiers clued on to the fact their missives were being opened so started using codes; Louis retaliated by hiring the best cryptographers of the day.
The days of such dastardly palace intrigues involving quite so many quills and quite so much invisible ink may well be over but according to a new book, Machivallian machinations are still part of palace life.
In October, longtime royal biographer Robert Lacey published Battle of Brothers, his take on how Prince William and Prince Harry's relationship broke down in recent years, this title joining the ever growing list of books delving into how the Sussex fairytale fractured so badly.
And one of arguments he puts forward is that not only did the palace spectacularly fail to capitalise on the potential of Meghan but that some forces behind palace gates actually went out of their way to "brief" the press against Harry and the former Suits actress.
In Brothers, Lacey makes the case that the hidebound palace machine had essentially no idea what to do when Meghan Markle married Harry and became the Duchess of Sussex, the first bi-racial American divorcee to become a senior member of the royal family … ever.
His read is that presented with a charismatic, whip smart woman with prodigious drive, the pinstriped mandarins of the royal establishment flubbed the incredible potential her 'recruitment' presented, instead shunting her off for a dull roster of Union Jack-heavy, hat-required outings.
"Trooping the Colour; attending the opening of the Mersey Gateway Bridge; Ascot races; the hundredth anniversary fly-past of the RAF … Meghan's post-marriage schedule of engagements – sometimes with Harry and sometimes on her own – was as safe, predictable and mildly boring as (the Queen's private secretary Sir Edward) Young himself," Lacey writes.
Given what we know of Meghan, the only self-made millionaire in the house of Windsor, was she ever likely to acquiesce to a career of bridge openings and race outings?
Exactly.
However, faced with a woman brimming with verve and ideas, and who seemingly had no compunction about rolling her sleeves up and taking on projects of her own volition (such as the hugely successful Grenfell cookbook and her guest editorship of British Vogue) the forces, dubbed by Diana, Princess of Wales as the 'Men in Grey' allegedly bristled at her renegade approach.
Lacey who, speaking to Vanity Fair recently, argued that "there does seem to be evidence of the palace briefing against Harry and Meghan".
"The Sunday Times ran a piece recently quoting royal sources close to the palace saying that Meghan and Harry violated the agreement with the royal family when they made comments about the American election when actually they were very careful in what they said.
"I'm afraid it seems a decision has been taken to cast Harry as the scapegoat and to justify the solitary emergence of William in the new generation."
In fact, in Brothers, Lacey time and again points to a palace culture where press leaks, or the threat of press leaks, were a regular feature of royal life.
At one point he writes that Harry "was even more suspicious of the palace aides who handled the family's emails – their contents seemed to get leaked so frequently to the press".
At another, with Harry and Meghan in Canada in late 2019 and considering some sort of change to their official role, the Duke was "worried that the news of their plans might leak if he put too much in writing".
Later, when the Sussexes returned to London in early January 2020, Lacey reports that fear of "press leaks" about their intention to step back as full-time working members of the royal family was one reason why they pulled the pin on their bombshell announcement so abruptly, a move that allegedly "blindsided and hurt" the Queen.
Even now, per Lacey, "Harry still believes that certain palace courtiers are still speaking against the couple to the media, and have taken William's side over his."
Now before anyone chalks this down to something resembling paranoia on the part of the distinctly anti-tabloid Prince, if you look back at the Sussex years, a curious number of stories that painted the couple in a bad light did end up on front pages.
For example, in November 2018, the world first learned of the allegations that Meghan had ended up in something of a strop after her first choice of tiara was denied, at which point Harry allegedly indulged in a spot of princely footstomping, telling staff, "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets."
Given all of this incident would have (if true) taken place inside the very innermost sanctum of royal life, how did it end up splashed across newspapers around the world?
Likewise, the same month, it was first reported that Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, had allegedly been left in tears ahead of the Sussexes' wedding.
Whose loose lips let that particular (alleged) contretemps reach the ears of the press and why?
In January this year, in the wake of Harry and Meghan's abrupt quitting, the Sunday Times reported that William had told a friend: "I've put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can't do that any more; we're separate entities.
"I'm sad about that. All we can do, and all I can do, is try and support them and hope that the time comes when we're all singing from the same page. I want everyone to play on the team."
The obvious question here being, quite how did the Times get wind of such a private reflection?
The same month, the Times also reported, "Sources say Prince Harry fears that details of his plans to move to Canada were leaked by someone close to either Charles or William. But others point the finger of blame at Meghan's American PR team, who are said to be close to the journalist who wrote the story."
Perhaps the biggest unknown here is not how royal secrets wind up in the press but how so much doesn't …
It's important to keep context in mind here because there is a long and less-than-salubrious tradition of different royal houses regularly 'feeding' the media.
Rewind to the '90s when the War of the Wales' was in full tabloid swing and both Charles and Diana's teams were allegedly briefing friendly journalists with abandon.
Take for example Diana, Princess of Wales' 30th birthday in 1991. Diana biographer and friend Tina Brown, paints a picture of the alleged tit for tat Fleet Street argy-bargy ahead of the big day.
First, in the lead up, came an especially well-informed piece by Andrew Morton in the Sunday Times suggesting she would be spending her milestone birthday alone at Kensington Palace.
There is said to be an ongoing and malicious campaign against Meghan Markle and Prince Harry - and it's alleged that palace insiders are the culprits. Photo / Getty Images
"Charles's camp, furious, retaliated with a leak that the Prince had wanted to give his wife a bang-up party but she had refused the offer," Morton wrote.
"Diana, in turn, let it be known that Charles was going to invite only his stuffy Highgrove friends."
Then, in 1992, not only was the Wales' union imploding but the Duke and Duchess of York's marriage was also hitting the skids.
Per Brown, "A friend of the Prince's strategically leaked it to The Sun that Charles would use the time formerly spent on polo to see more of the boys during their summer holidays."
Likewise, at another stage she writes that "it was clear from the atmosphere at St James's Palace, where Charles's court was based, that there was no lover she could take, no public role she could conceive that would not be leaked, briefed against, or sabotaged by the Prince of Wales's team".
The point here is that when it comes to the royal family, there is an allegedly long and far from edifying culture of tactical leaking.
"There's no discipline," one courtier complained to Tim Shipman of The Sunday Times earlier this year. "Everything leaks and then everyone engages in swearing and shouting and blames each other."
But back to Harry and Meghan. Given what they were allegedly up against – a porous palace and shadowy forces using the media to marshall against them – is it any wonder they wanted out?
These days the various royal houses might be bastions of 21st century technology, all-Tweeting, all-Instagramming social media savants deftly navigating the digital byways, however, if the claims of leaking about the Sussexes are to be believed, perhaps not so much has changed since the days of Elizabeth I.
