William’s blast at ‘merciless’ Meghan
How Princes are still ‘at each other’s throats’ Why Harry friends say Meghan ‘can be a 500% nightmare’
For nearly three years, the small circle of friends close to both Prince William and Prince Harry have been despairing over the searing animosity — the sheer uncompromising, bloody-minded anger — between the two Princes. But, in April, the sad news of Prince Philip’s death seemed to offer a glimmer of hope.
The family gathering for their grandfather’s funeral would bring the warring brothers together in an atmosphere of reflection. Might this be the chance for some healing to develop, wondered a few of their chums? So, without being too obvious about it, that theme of healing became an element in their friendly chats with their royal mates in the days that followed.
Their friends’ gentle nudges seemed to have had some effect that solemn Saturday afternoon as the two princes walked out of St George’s Chapel to cross the courtyard side by side — subtly brought together by Kate, who then left the pair to the brotherly exchange of words seen on camera.
Some inching towards reconciliation seemed in progress, their watching friends dared to dream — as did the whole world.
But those hopes were dashed within minutes of the siblings getting inside the castle and beyond camera vision. They started quarrelling again.
‘There they were, at each other’s throats as fiercely as ever,’ relates one long-time friend with a tired and helpless shrug.
‘The rage and anger between those two has grown so incredibly deep. Too many harsh and wounding things have been said.’
So, sadly no. There was no reconciliation, and no brotherly sit-down or ‘mini summit’ following Prince Philip’s funeral on April 17 — as was incorrectly reported by one newspaper.
William and Kate did the family rounds and said goodbye to the Queen and Prince Charles — then went home to their children.
So there’s the bad news. The conflict between Diana’s two bitterly divided sons does not seem likely to end any time soon.
BuT here are the happier tidings. The oh-so-unforgiving and unforgetting brothers are surrounded by a network of devoted friends and a few family members who are working seriously to ease the path to a truce. And their efforts are matched by deliberate and constructive initiatives being thinktanked inside the Palace.
There is a peace plan in action — several plans, in fact. But will the obstinately warring brothers take those up when they reunite next Thursday for the unveiling of their mother’s statue? It will be an almost private event, we now know. Will William and Harry start seeing sense and pay more heed to the advice of the friends they have built up over the years?
This discreet but concerned support system is made up of a blend of schoolmates, playmates, fellow revellers at ‘Club H’ (the brothers’ discotheque in the basement at Highgrove), companions from the Armed forces, royal mentors and aides who have earned special confidence over the years — plus a few older pillars of wisdom and advice among Diana’s friends.
This is the sort of web of trust and affinity that we all weave around ourselves as we progress through life — with a crucial difference.
If you study the guest lists of the grand 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, you cannot help but be struck by how many of the same names recur, for the two brothers’ social and working lives were always, until recently, exceptionally close.
Their friends made up a particularly tightly knit network until the moment of Meghan’s arrival — and when the fraternal split followed, for all its depth and bitterness, the circle of friends did not, in fact, take rival sides.
So, this offers some grounds for hope — we are not looking here at a raging, modern War of the roses. obviously, people have gravitated supportively to one brother or the other, and they have listened sympathetically to their particular royal chum. But I have not come across any evidence of friends aggravating the hostilities.
Quite the contrary. All the mutual friends I have encountered find themselves seeing both points of view — William’s defensiveness of the monarchy as he sees it, and Harry’s defensiveness of his wife.
Love versus duty. This is what makes it so painful. The friends commiserate with each other over the tragedy they are witnessing, and they frequently discuss how to heal the breach — though with an increasing sense of despair.
Sussex supporters have noted the bizarre combination of selfpromotion and self-pity that characterises Meghan, and can see why it has infuriated William.
‘Meghan can be a 500 per cent nightmare,’ some close friends of Harry are among the first to admit. ‘The never-ending Pr. She’s just so . . . American!’
on the opposite side, friends of William and Kate are willing to concede the jealousy the Cambridges once felt at being overshadowed by the megawatt younger brother and his wife.
History will reveal, they agree, how their friends William and Kate were guilty of some ‘sharp-elbowed’ tactics in seeking to keep Harry and Meghan in their place.
And what about William’s notoriously short temper? Which of the two brothers was so beside himself with rage in January 2020 that he declined to attend the family lunch arranged by the Queen before the Sandringham Summit? Both sets of friends see the case for the other side, and seek to urge compromise upon their own particular prince.
‘Homesick Harry’ has been calling uK pals mournfully in recent
weeks, since his public complaints against Prince Charles were so poorly received.
Yesterday he landed in London, in time to do his five-day quarantine before next Thursday, and those friends have been trying to point out to him the risk he is running with his stream of hurtful, personal complaints. The Palace adds its own warning shot across his bows. ‘There is sharing,’ says one senior source with emphasis, ‘and then there is over sharing.’
Who was the mother responsible for the parenting of Prince Charles that Harry has condemned? There is no way a Palace source would have contradicted Harry’s claim that he cleared the name of Lilibet for his newborn daughter with the Queen unless that contradiction had come from the very top. Her Majesty was not amused . . .
To be a royal rebel is one thing — to be a royal reject is quite another. Would Netflix renew the contract of a modern-day Duke and Duchess of Windsor?
I’m told that Harry has been telling friends he would like to reconcile, and is willing to admit some of the missteps he has made.
Then he recalls one particular insult or other, as he perceives it, that his brother or family made against Meghan, and he flares up again — ever Mr Combustible.
William’s friends similarly try to point out to him the Cambridge version of the bottom line. The
House of Windsor simply cannot afford to go on ostracising the only mixed-race members of the clan.
William has no choice, for example, but to swallow his pride and smile beside Meghan on next year’s Platinum Jubilee balcony.
According to one of my sources, it’s been pointed to him that everyone has a difficult sister-in-law. William’s response was to nod his head in sage acceptance. Then suddenly he broke out angrily. ‘But look at the way that bloody woman treated my staff — merciless!’
Both brothers have a sorry tendency to dwell in the past, feeding off old grievances, with no mother around to knock their heads together — and a father whose priorities are set elsewhere.
‘The main thing Charles wants is for the pair of them to smile on Camilla becoming his full Queen Consort [instead of Princess Consort, as officially pre-ordained at present],’ says one friend.
‘He’s fixated about it — something he never stops trying to negotiate with both of them. But they will never say “Yes” to Camilla taking the place that should have been filled by their mother.’
So that’s what the friends say — while Buckingham Palace looks on the impasse with little attempt to disguise its concern.
‘There is a crucial distinction,’ says a senior source, ‘between the family and the Monarchy. And if the interests of the two come into conflict, we know where our duty lies: to protect the institution.’
Palace courtiers are much maligned — and I say that as one who has maligned them much. But the top figures in Buckingham
Palace are working flat out to bring an end to the present emergency — and make no mistake, they view it as little less than that.
Sir Edward Young, the Queen’s private secretary, came to public attention in 2012 as the man who, with the Queen’s dresser, Liverpudlian Angela Kelly, helped mastermind Elizabeth II’s inspired ‘parachute jump’ into the Olympic Stadium with Daniel Craig/James Bond to open the London Games. Now he is organising the impressively rapid sequence of Palace responses to the damage done by the Sussexes’ session with Oprah. Within a week of the interview, BP had recruited a team of ‘independent investigators’ from one of London’s top law firms to conduct a review of Palace ‘human resources issues’ — those bullying allegations against Meghan, in other words.
Within a few more days, Young had arranged the appointment of a ‘Palace Diversity Tsar’ in a ‘listen and learn’ exercise to give more visible effect to the long-standing principles of Elizabeth II’s inclusive and colour-blind monarchy.
‘We accept more needs to be done,’ admitted a senior royal source in March, after the Oprah interview. ‘We can always improve. This is an issue that is taken very seriously across the households.’
ALONG with those initiatives, Buckingham Palace has drawn a firm line under Prince Charles’s disastrous scheme — mooted in his pursuit of a ‘slimmed-down monarchy’ — that the future royal status due to his Sussex grandchildren might be removed.
To be fair, it looks as though the Sussexes moved the goalposts on the Prince of Wales in this complicated issue of royal precedence.
When Archie was born, Harry and Meghan proudly told the world their baby needed no royal title. Charles responded by saying he would ‘consider’ altering the rules of the so-called 1917 Convention, whereby grandchildren of the sovereign automatically receive HRH status.
By the time Meghan sat down with Oprah, however, she and Harry had evidently decided they did want Archie to be a prince, and notoriously linked the prospect of their son losing his HRH to the poisonous question of how brown his skin colour might be.
Meghan presented this to the
world as racism, complaining to Oprah at the prejudice against her son, ‘the first member of colour in this family, not being titled in the same way that [Charles’s]
other grandchildren would be . . . They said they wanted to change the Convention for Archie.’
Buckingham Palace declined to comment on or get involved in these personal details, staying above the fray.
‘Under the existing rules,’ states a senior royal source, ‘Archie and his sister are
definitely entitled to full royal “HRH” status when their grandfather becomes king.’
George V’s 1917 Convention remains as solid as ever, in other words — it will not be changed for Archie. The Palace is saying that the future royal status of the Sussex children is not in jeopardy so long as the Queen is alive — meaning Archie and Lili will automatically become prince and princess when Charles accedes.
Will the new King then formally downgrade and ‘de-royal’ his only mixed-race grandchildren while he is trying to win popular support for Camilla becoming Queen?
Hardly. So, that removes the principal doubt and grievance the Sussexes presented to the world via Oprah. What Meghan wants, Meghan gets — and now she has
nothing to complain about either. Her son is guaranteed his HRH if he wants it — as is his sister, Lili.
So here are three core issues at the heart of the battle between the Princes that have been tackled stoutly by the Palace and are
on the way to resolution. We have recently learned the ‘human resources’ issues — that question of alleged bullying — are still being processed.
Harry and Meghan, I am told, have drawn up a 30-page dossier in justification of their treatment of staff, setting out precise
‘The head-butting of two immature protagonists’
details of why they parted company with certain personnel.
These are murky waters, and who can tell what resolution may be achieved?
‘We will not be providing a public commentary,’ remarks one Palace source. ‘It will take as long as it will take.’
But the main point is that the Queen’s oft-criticised courtiers are actively seeking
to find some positive outcome to the deadlock between her warring grandsons – just as the brothers’ friends are looking for ways to get them personally reconciled.
So now it’s over to William and Harry. Concerned and caring people have been working hard on the important issues — the conditions for peace are surely moving into place.
We have been too deferential towards the two brothers for too long — devoting endless column inches and chat show time to arguing through the rights and wrongs on either side.
Right at the beginning of my research for the book that became Battle Of Brothers, I emailed a close adviser to one of the Princes, suggesting that at first glance, it was a waste of time trying to work out the details of the arguments and grievances on either side.
Basically, I wrote in my ignorance — and, yes, in my arrogance — that the whole kerfuffle surely came down to the head-buttings of two still-immature protagonists who were, as they themselves have sometimes
implied, ‘the equally damaged products of a failed arranged marriage’. Victims of the history, the system — and of themselves.
To my surprise the response came back to me promptly — ‘Off the record, I agree.’
So might we perhaps shift the parameters? How about you two fractious royal highnesses considering the possibility that both of you are right, and both of you are wrong? That the time has come for two over-indulged young men to grow up and forget their differences.
Get over it for your own sakes and for ours — and become again the brothers
you’re supposed to be.
Battle Of Brothers by Robert lacey, (£9.99, HarperCollins). to order for £8.49 go to mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3308 9193. Free UK delivery on orders over £20. Promotional price valid until July 13, 2021.
Last days of Diana, see pages 38-39