It seems that Prince Harry really did want a girl just like the girl who married dear old Dad.
Contrary to her manufactured aura of saintliness, the late Diana was as calculating and manipulative as Lady MacBeth. For instance, Diana “casually” “let slip” to royal photographer Kent Gavin that Charles would not be present for William’s first day of school. Charles was apparently snowed-in at Sandringham, but of course what Diana really wanted was splash-coverage of her, the doting mother, dropping her son off to school, while uncaring Charles didn’t bother to show up. “It was a narrative she wanted to control and by leaking the story, she got exactly what she wanted.” It is even alleged that the infamous “Squidgy” phone call was a calculated PR move from Diana.
“Let it not be said that she lacked sophistication about the media, her use of it and its use of her,” Times of London editor Peter Stothard has said. Biographer Penny Junor describes her as, “hellbent on self-aggrandizement and self-justification, and ultimately, self-destruction”. Even Tony Blair, who coined the barf-inducing “People’s Princess” epitaph, dubs her a “manipulator”.
And now there’s Meghan.
The TV actor found fame in the arms of Prince Harry, a royal “spare” in every sense of the word. Together, they showed the world the brave face of bi-racial champagne socialism and decried British culture while feeding off the proceeds of empire.
But the enduring myth of their victimhood has been dealt another blow with news that Markle forgot to tell the whole truth in her legal battle with The Mail on Sunday.
The legal battle in question is Markle suing the The Mail for publishing a letter which, she claims, violated her privacy and infringed her copyright. While Markle won the initial case, the judgment is being challenged — and new information suddenly puts her claims in doubt.
Texts submitted to the court last week by the Sussexes’ then communications adviser, Jason Knauf, reveal that Markle not only anticipated the publication of the letter, but chose wording that would cast her in a favourable light against her father.
She told Knauf she had been “meticulous in my word choice” and admitted that she addressed the letter to “Daddy” because “it would pull at the heartstrings” if the letter were leaked. If true, the documents will raise questions about Markle’s credibility.
Indeed, she appears to have wanted the letter carefully vetted for public release, asking, “Please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability.”
It is possible to be clever and calculating, or naïve and victimised, but improbable to be both. It appears that Markle is more strategic than the defenders of her virtue believe, and smarter than her detractors concede.
Well, there’s intelligence, and then there’s rat cunning. Biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that Diana herself was “was not terribly bright. But she could be cunning”.
She lectures the plebs on poverty while living in a $19m mansion and wearing a ring estimated to be worth $350,000.
She traduces the royal family yet has used the title “duchess” to lobby politicians and market her moral virtue. She berates the press for violating her privacy but tirelessly promotes herself on TV, the internet, at public events and in fashion magazines as the Duchess of Sussex no less.
The hit to Markle’s credibility in court last week was preceded by a history of dubious claims, ad hominem attacks and vivid hypocrisy, which means she will not get a free ride in the free press, but has a bright future in American politics.
The Australian
Especially with her plea that she just kind of forgot briefing her publicist and asking him to vet her “private” communications, and working on plausible deniability that she was working hand-in-glove with the authors of a sympathetic biography.
After all, strategic forgetfulness has aided many a president.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD