Kate Hawkesby: 'I was right not to trust Meghan Markle'

By Kate Hawkesby

NZ Herald·

19 Jan, 2020 05:27 PM3 mins to read

Photo / Getty Images

COMMENT

As much as I'd love to come on here first day back and NOT say 'I told you so...'

I have to say, I said at the time (and to much criticism and hate mail, I might add) that I didn't trust Meghan Markle.

That I thought she had agenda, that she seemed about ambition and fame, and not in it for the right reasons.

She was certainly no Kate Middleton 2.0.

Both Prince Charles and William saw that, and allegedly tried to warn Harry. He didn't listen.

I said at the time I thought the decision to marry was too rushed, that it didn't seem a mutually equal relationship. But an infatuated Prince was obsessed with an American actress, who was herself obsessed with notoriety and appeared to think "being royal" was some kind of game she could play.

But she didn't know enough about them, their traditions, their way of life, their history, British culture and what it means to be royal.

She didn't respect what it meant, nor was she prepared to hang around long enough to learn.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have given up their royal roles. File photo / Robert Kitchin

She clearly didn't heed any advice either. Tellingly, in that documentary, she talked about her friends asking her whether she knew what she was getting herself into. So it's not like she wasn't warned.

But if she felt she could power play her way out of it, then what does that say about her original motive?

It's not her I'm disappointed with the most, to be honest. Her behaviour and game plan's entirely predictable - bag a prince, court the press, get some victim clout on board with claims of people being racist or sexist or toxic against you and then pull the pin.

This whole thing, from the get go, has been about control, and when she didn't get it - as we've seen with her Dad, the media, the royal family - she walks. Cuts and runs.
It's petulant and it's short sighted.

She's quoted as saying she didn't want her son growing up in "that toxic environment", but here's the rub: He's Harry's son too.

Britain is his home country, his family's there, his cousins, grandparents, he was born into a royal family, it's his birthright.

She's chosen to cut both Archie and Harry away from that, and Harry's agreed to it.
More fool him.

This is a woman who doesn't value family.

And what might Archie have to say about all this when he's old enough? This decision she's made on his behalf?

So she gets the Duchess title (albeit with an agreement not to use it), the Prince, the royal baby, the public's sympathy, an ability to earn and control great wealth. But at what cost?