Unauthorised, unofficial and unfailingly kind to heroic couple
Oh, to have friends like Harry and Meghan! Were it not for the “close confidantes” who so willingly spilt the beans to the authors of Finding Freedom, we may never have found out about their cosy nights in watching Game of Thrones, while a heavily pregnant Duchess munched on guacamole and crudités.
Ordinarily, one would expect a pair as fiercely protective of their privacy as the Sussexes to issue a stern legal rebuke to the grotesque intrusion this book so patently represents.
Especially as they absolutely did not co-operate with the conveniently hagiographic biography by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
Yet the publication of what Scobie yesterday reiterated was an “unofficial, unauthorised biography” has strangely heralded not one whiff of discontent from a couple who have turned complaining into an art form.
Perhaps the answer to this mystery lies buried in an “author’s note” with the intriguing admission: “We have spoken with close friends of Harry and Meghan, royal aides and Palace staff (past and present), the charities and organisations they have built long-lasting relationships with and, when appropriate, the couple themselves.” The revelation certainly appears to contradict repeated suggestions by the authors and the Sussexes that they “were not interviewed and did not contribute”.
With Tom “Skippy” Inskip, Harry’s former bestie, being excommunicated for daring to advise caution in his relationship with the actress, spare a thought for those chums indiscreet enough to have divulged information on everything from Meghan peeing in the African bush to Harry mistaking smilies for ghost emojis.
Some of these friends must have got mighty close – otherwise how could they know that Meghan gave Prince William a spoon emblazoned with “cereal killer” for Christmas or that Angela Kelly, the Queen’s closest aide, handled the Duchess’s wedding tiaras “without gloves”?
The book – which features intimate details of “Bubba” Archie’s “alertness” at birth, position on the 90th centile for height, silent sleeping pose, swimming lessons and night nannies – gets so far under the Sussexes’ skin, the authors even quote “the voice inside Meghan’s head” which “kept telling her she could be doing so much more with her platform”. While “Super Meg” is variously described as “breathtaking”, “radiating calm”, “Grace Under Fire”, “indefatigable”, “never a part of tabloid culture”, “not slowed down at all by pregnancy”, “patient” and “calm”, other women paying homage to this model of female empowerment do not fare quite so well.
The Duchess of Cambridge is given short shrift for “not showing much interest in finding out who this woman was who had made her brother-in-law so happy”. Her mother Carole “harboured concerns” Meghan might upstage her sister Pippa’s wedding. Princess Eugenie, whose wedding Meghan actually did upstage by using it as the platform to reveal her pregnancy, is erroneously accused of leaking details of the Sussexes’ wedding.
Men don’t fare much better – unless they are ginger and a prince.
Trevor Engelson, Meghan’s “jealous” ex-husband, despite having never commented on the relationship, bears the brunt of the blame for their divorce for fearing she was overshadowing him. Yet who can blame the bloke when, as the book states: “In social settings, all eyes are drawn to her. She laughs a little louder, glows a little bit brighter.”
Far from being high maintenance, demanding and at times, downright rude, Meghan is “so” comfortable with forgoing luxuries and embracing natural surroundings that she “layers dryer sheets in between her clothes to keep them smelling fresh”.
Of course, Finding Freedom was always going to be a touchy-feely affair, not least when Scobie himself admits he was once embraced by the woman he dubs “Duchess Different”. As Radio 4’s Nick Robinson put it when he interviewed the authors on yesterday’s Today programme: “I’ve been a journalist for years and I have never hugged one of my sources.”
The revelation certainly appears to contradict repeated suggestions that they ‘were not interviewed and did not contribute’