"THE ROYAL FAMILY DID EVERYTHING TO ACCEPT MEGHAN"
Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith reflects on the separation of Harry and Meghan from the British royal family and admits that what has surprised her the most has been the "unhappiness" of the couple.
Biographer and former Vanity Fair collaborator Sally Bedell Smith has been following the British royal family for twenty years - speaking with members of the family's closest circles, reviewing its archives and analyzing the evolution of the monarchy - in addition to writing down the best-selling biographies on Princess Diana, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles. So, on January 8, when Smith read the statement from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, in which they announced that they were leaving their positions as senior royals in the royal family - published after months of internal debates but before the couple had finished making a plan with the crown - he was not entirely surprised.
"I've had the fly behind my ear for a while, since the fall of 2018," Bedell told Vanity Fair over the phone in January over a cup of tea. “If we think about it now and see how it was his progression from the division of the houses of William and Harry, to the exit of the foundation or, in the particular case of Meghan, with his growing frankness and his effort to create his own role. If you look at the end of the couple's African tour, and in that ITV documentary last fall, we realize how unhappy they were both. "
There were details of the final decision that, however, did disturb - and even worry - the royal historian. When this controversial royal twist has happened, he looks at Meghan's struggles gaining access to the royal family, wondering how the queen's grandson will make money now that he has thrown away the palace plans.
Why was Harry and Meghan's decision surprising?
What was surprising to me is that level of unhappiness, and that they decided to give it all up after two years of marriage. I was in Windsor in May 2018 (at her wedding) ... and talking to people close to the royal family (it was clear that) they had really turned to accept Meghan. The fact that they included an African-American bishop to give the wedding homily, in addition to the gospel choir ... there were many symbolic elements in terms of the fusion of two very different cultures. (The queen also broke tradition by inviting Meghan on Christmas 2017 with the royal family even though she and Harry weren't yet married.)
I thought the most important thing the queen had ever done was to see, very wisely, that Harry is well loved all over the world, in places like the West Indies, Africa, India and all the former Commonwealth countries that were colonies. It gave her three positions in the Commonwealth, which is a very close and well-loved institution, as well as one of the most important in her legacy. That alone I think indicated how much I wanted them to have an important role.
I remember thinking that - because Meghan's mother was in Los Angeles and she had grown up there - they could spend two months a year in California, the same way that the Queen spent a couple of winter months in Sandringham and Prince Charles in Scotland . But I guess what really surprised me was Harry's decision to leave the royal family and leave England for good.
What does the queen's swift management of Meghan and Harry's departure say about the monarchy?
The queen's approach to monarchy is what one of her private secretaries, Robin Janvrin, beautifully described as the 'Marmite theory' of monarchy, which deals with evolutionary change. Marmite pasta, which you love or hate, has a red, green and yellow label that is familiar to anyone. But if you compare today's Marmita jar with one that has been on a shelf for 50 years, you will see that it is very different. The jar has evolved so gradually that no one has noticed; and the monarchy has changed in the same way, very progressively over time.
The queen has shown that she can modify that approach if she encounters a great challenge. Diana's death was a very hard blow, and she did what she felt she had to do as a grandmother, which was to take care of William and Harry and prepare them for the great public test that was their funeral. But at the same time, she moved quickly to tell her advisers to come up with a funeral plan that was tailored for Diana. As Mr. Chamberlain told me at the time, "we did it in five days" and it was all orders from the queen. Despite having a gradual approach, she is much wiser and more flexible than people realize. She did the exact same thing after the Panorama interview (in which Diana told Martin Bashir about her husband's infidelity). She acted very, very quickly to tell Diana and Carlos that they should get divorced.
How had Harry's plan as a long-term royal been mapped out by the Palace… - despite information that Harry felt estranged from the royal family - and with the help of the prince herself?
Palacio was well aware of what had happened to Prince Andrew and did not want that to happen to Harry. (When Carlos, Ana, Eduardo and Andrés had to fulfill their tasks, they all left. Andrés was in the Navy, he married Fergie and when he left the Navy he did not have a defined role and perhaps he lacked the imagination to devise one for himself So he jumped from one thing to another, almost without supervision. He got into trouble because he has never had very good judgment).
But they thought everything so that Harry would have a safe place in the royal family, his role, his responsibilities and interests, passions that he could pursue ... something meaningful for him to do for decades ... and he was a participant in all that. He was very comfortable with everything.
How has Prince Charles created a role for Harry as a senior member of the royal family since 2012?
We cannot forget that Harry has been an essential part of Prince Charles's plan for a reduced monarchy, since the jubilee of 2012. Charles insisted that the only people on the balcony of Buckingham Palace be himself and Camilla, accompanied by Guillermo, Kate and Harry. And if Harry had had a woman, she would have been there too. The unfortunate thing about everything that has happened is that it really leaves a hole in Carlos's very prepared plan for a reduced monarchy, based on the heart of the family, because Harry was an essential part of the truth. People say that Harry is not next in line to the throne, which is true. But what they forget is that George, Charlotte and Louis are not going to be active members of the family for 15 or 20 years. So Carlos and Guillermo have counted on Harry to be, in effect, third in line to the throne.
Why do you think Meghan and Harry could have waited to make their announcement, despite the fact that 'The Sun' newspaper had information on the internal discussions?
The Sun must have caught something, but they had fragmented information that was not that different from other types of things that had also leaked on matters related to the royal family. It was something they could have easily overruled or issued a nondescript statement from Buckingham Palace saying, "These roles are always a work in progress," to try to smooth things over.
What Harry said Sunday night was that those discussions had happened, something the queen also confirmed. So they have clearly been trying to respond to what Harry and Meghan wanted. And it was really the fact that they rushed in with their statements and telling some plans that were not yet fully drawn, which caused the whole crisis. I think if they had figured it out, this could have been done in a much more elegant way.
Why was the queen's statement so unexpectedly personal?
If you read between the lines of the queen's statements, the personal nature of them is very rare. (The Queen's description of Harry as her "grandson" was one of the release's many personal touches.) You could say that she was quite aware of the fact that - Harry in particular and Meghan - were in a very vulnerable emotional position. It sure remembers Diana and how emotional and unpredictable she was. This was the queen's chance to show her empathy with the fragility of her situation and her vulnerability.
How, despite her responsibilities, has the queen had a grandmother-grandson relationship with Harry?
They have spent time together many, many times. After Diana's death and the boys' stay at Eton, he was just down the hill from Windsor Castle. They would go up to the castle to have tea and the queen spent a lot of time with both of them. She went to Windsor every weekend and could see them quietly when she had no public engagements. So yeah, she adopted a very special bond as their grandmother. And I also think she tried to instill in them their responsibilities as members of the royal family and what service and duty mean.
Why was the sheer speed with which the couple's relationship progressed a disadvantage for Meghan?
Guillermo and Kate were together for eight years and dealt with their engagement for two years, she very carefully introduced Kate into real life. She learned how to handle the activities they enjoy. When they were at St. Andrews, she spent time in Scotland, at Balmoral Castle. She could have spent a while simply assimilating what real life was like ...
If you look back, something similar happened with the Queen Mother (there were two years of transition to royal life before she married George VI), and she was a member of the British aristocracy. Her family descended from royalty and she knew what the royal family was like. Still, it took her two years, because she understood that marrying a member of the royal family - and this is as true today as it was 100 years ago - meant to a large extent giving up your personal freedom. When you enter the royal family - it provides countless advantages in exchange for your official duties and charitable work - you have to give up many things that could have meant a lot to you and dedicate yourself to an institution that is more than a thousand years old.
Meghan may not have seen it in those terms. It is the 21st century and it is something very unusual (compared to other royal wives) for a professionally successful woman to put aside all that large part of her life to marry Harry. Now it seems that she regrets that she had to leave him to do what she was expected to do in the royal family, something that had nothing to do with what she was used to doing.
Prince Philip had to give up his career in the Navy and it was a great sacrifice for him. He could have risen through the ranks and become an admiral because he had great leadership abilities, but he resigned. He really had no choice. He was already married, but he knew he would have to.
Why could it cost Harry to get by on his own?
That is an issue that I think might be of concern, which is, what can Harry do? We can imagine what Meghan will do. They could set up a production company. She's smart. She has worked on television series. She has worked in movies. You know how it works. Is smart. Has experience. But Harry was trained as a helicopter pilot. That is your professional training. He didn't go to college. It could be a motivational speaker. You can speak in a truly passionate way about the causes you believe in. But other than that, it's not clear to me that I'm going to do anything significant.
I think that is the real problem for him, what is he capable of doing professionally? Now, look, we live in a world where people with no professional skills become influencer on Instagram. The Kardashians are famous for being famous, but I think Harry is above that. And that's not what would make him feel good ... or what would make people feel good about him and the family he belongs to.
What's at stake for Meghan and Harry now?
I believe your future happiness; their ability to earn a living according to the lifestyle they were used to; if they are going to be able to withstand the scrutiny of the press and the paparazzi, which is going to be much more difficult for them to control. They will not have the backing of a great institution that can come and say "this is wrong, leave them alone." Just what we've already seen in Vancouver (paparazzi photographing Meghan and Archie) ... all bets are on the table ... TMZ just around the corner. There will be some kind of privacy law in the Canadian province of British Columbia, but if you live in Toronto or Los Angeles, you are going to be much more exposed.
