When Harry Met Meghan (Part 2)

What’s on my mind? Who is Meghan Markle? Does anyone really know? Does she? 

This, we know for sure: As a second-tier actress on what has been described as a TV soap opera, Markle married “up.” While still in her role as “Rachel Zane,” Markle caught the eye of the late Princess Diana’s younger son, Prince Harry, whose brother William is second-in-line to the throne. On her May 19, 2018 wedding to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle became “Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Sussex,” a princess of the United Kingdom, Countess of Dumbarton, and Baroness Kilkeel.

Unfortunately, the life of a newly minted senior member of the royal family was not to the Duchess’ liking: The couple had been married less than two years when in January, 2020, they announced their decision to “step back” from the monarchy.

Earlier this month, in a two-hour interview with media superstar Oprah Winfrey, Oprah asked: “Everybody knows that you weren’t just marrying a family. You were marrying a 1,200-year-old institution. You were marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?”  

And then they were off, with Markle whinging: “I didn’t grow up knowing much about the royal family. It wasn’t part of the conversation at home.” Saying she did no research into the royal family, Markle added: “I’ve never looked up my husband online … I didn’t fully understand what the job was ... What does it mean to be a working royal?” 

This is like returning a jar of peanut butter to the supermarket, complaining: “I didn’t know it contained peanuts.” 

Is Meghan Markle a victim or a villain? A shape-shifter or a shifty-eyed opportunist? Digging into her past and present over many days has confirmed an uneasy feeling I’ve had for months: Meghan Markle is giving a performance on the world’s stage. She’s uncomfortable in her own skin. She’s insecure. 

Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah cemented that feeling: Several of the answers Markle gave Oprah didn’t ring true. More about that in an upcoming post.

Will Harry and Meghan’s disaffection with the monarchy erode that institution? Or will it be Britons’ disaffection with this troubled couple that brings the monarchy down? 

Maclean’s magazine called Meghan and Harry’s interview with Oprah “the crisis of the century.” I hardly think so. 

Wouldn’t Princess Diana’s tell-all TV interview (“There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded …”) have qualified as a more serious crisis for the Crown?

Wasn’t the Queen’s slowness to lower the Palace flag after Diana’s death - a flashpoint for Britons arguing the monarchy should be abolished - a greater crisis? 

Didn’t Charles’ wire-tapped whisperings to Camilla (aka 1993’s Tampongate) trigger a crisis of confidence in the Crown, and a crisis of monumental proportions in the morality of a future king?

Is one woman and her besotted spouse’s laundry list of complaints about their privileged lives an argument for toppling the monarchy? It is not. The history, traditions, and “glamor”of the institution bring considerably more income into the country than the Crown takes out. Just as the monarchy needs Britain, Britain needs the monarchy.

Queen Elizabeth II has steered the royal ship of state through oft-troubled waters for 69 years. Her grace, intelligence, grit, understanding of history, and keen political instincts have earned her the respect that is her due. God save the Queen.

 

If Markle and Harry intentionally threw a hand grenade at that ship, they won’t sink it. Editorials will be written; voices will be raised; changes will be proposed when the Queen dies, but the monarchy will survive. 

It will survive a divorced American actress just as it survived the far greater crisis a divorced American socialite posed, 80 years ago. Tomorrow, more about the jaw-dropping parallels between Meghan Markle and Wallis Simpson. 

© Nicole Parton, 2021