The article appears as absurd as one would anticipate, reflecting their desperation to recast Megan as an innocent angel, a portrayal that contradicts the extensive evidence to the contrary.
The article begins with a critique of the term "megxit" and the displacement of blame. The author takes issue with the derogatory nature of this term, asserting that it unfairly holds Megan responsible for the situation. The article proceeds to argue that Harry was discontent within the royal family long before meeting Megan in 2016, suggesting that the desire to leave was always there.
The writer highlights statements from various sources, including the Mirror, which reported that plans to split the royal households were in motion long before Megan's arrival. They assert that blaming Megan is unjust when there was an established plan for Harry and his future spouse to have their own household. This narrative overlooks the fact that the problem was not Harry and Megan wanting to leave their royal roles but how they chose to depart and publicly criticize the royal family.
The article also references an article from 2022 in The Telegraph, where Bryony Gordon stated that Harry wanted to break free from the "crazy cult of royalty" from childhood. However, the assertion that Megan gave him the courage to leave and made it happen is met with skepticism. The article concludes by arguing that people's opinions should be their own, and they should stop blaming the woman, emphasizing Megan's purported innocence.
The editor's note at the end reiterates that it's not their place to judge but stresses the importance of challenging the narrative that blames Megan. The writer argues that Harry and Megan had the right to leave the royal family and suggests that people's negative perceptions are based on the couple's subsequent actions.
Ultimately, the article revolves around the narrative that shifts blame away from Megan and asserts that it was Harry's desire to leave the royal family all along, a viewpoint that disregards their behavior and public statements. It also raises questions about the couple's attempts to control the narrative and their interference with free speech.
