Queen Elizabeth II, Meghan the Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry stand on a balcony to watch a flypast of Royal Air Force aircraft pass over Buckingham Palace in 2018. Photo / AP
OPINION:
Sometimes you have to wonder if Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is a Hamlet fan. Of all the Bard's works, there could not be one that should resonate more with the Duchess, after all, it's the story of a tortured royal who just wants the truth about the machinations of the king and queen to come out.
At one point, while doing some plotting, Hamlet revels in the fact a foe is about to be "hoist with his petard", that is, they will end up a victim of their own scheme.
There cannot be a more apt expression today than that one when it comes to the interview that the Duchess has given New York magazine's The Cut, with the 6500-word story constituting one massive petard (which is a small explosive device) of her own making.
So many of Meghan's lines manage to be unintentionally hilarious and gobsmacking: Meghan saying she had been told that South Africans "rejoiced in the streets" when she joined the royal family "the same (they had) when Mandela was freed from prison;" or her saying "there are little girls that I meet and they're just like, 'Oh my God, it's a real-life princess'" or when she tells interviewer Allison P. Davis, "Your eye contact is good. You're, like, looking into my soul."
(An honourable mention must go to Prince Harry who, according to Meghan, commented when he saw the two palm trees outside their $20 million plus Montecito mansion told her, "My love, it's us," a line so lame even the self-published romance writers of Amazon would steer clear.)
But what is most astounding about this new story is not the self-aggrandisement or the revelation that Harry now spends his days worrying about the house's pipes or fixing their neighbour's sprinklers but two clear-cut instances of Meghan and reality parting ways.
The first instance comes when Davis enters the deeply fraught territory that is the Sussexes' relationship with the press.
"There's literally a structure by which if you want to release photos of your child, as a member of the family, you first have to give them to the Royal Rota," Meghan said, referring to the restricted and controlled pool of official photographers and journalists who cover the royal family.
Davis writes: "Usually, the photos would be on media outlets before she could post them herself. That didn't sit right with Meghan, given her strained relationship with the British tabloids ... and especially since she would soon have a child of her own to protect."
"Why would I give the very people that are calling my children the N-word a photo of my child before I can share it with the people that love my child?" a "still ruffled" Meghan says.
Having read that last line approximately 17 times, what it sounds like is the Duchess implying that the media has used this despicable, vile word to describe her kids.
Except, of course, that has never, ever happened as far as I am aware.
Of course, there were instances, especially at the beginning of Harry and Meghan's romance, when some British media outlets used racially charged language when covering the Los Angeles native (who can forget Rachel Johnson, sister of Prime Minister Boris, referenced her "exotic" DNA?). However, I think if any newspaper, magazine or website had ever used such an unthinkably disgusting word as the N-word it would have immediately made global headlines and would have rightly triggered a tsunami of complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
So too in this instance, Harry and Meghan would have rightly led the chorus of voices calling out such heinous language.
The second instance comes during another conversation about privacy and the press.
Davis writes: "Earlier in our conversation about her goals for the life she's creating here, she'd remarked upon how, if Archie were in school in the UK, she'd never be able to do school pick-up and drop-off without it being a royal photo call with a press pen of 40 people snapping pictures."
"Sorry, I have a problem with that. That doesn't make me obsessed with privacy. That makes me a strong and good parent protecting my child," Meghan is quoted as saying.
Again, this sounds horrifying: The rapacious press lying in wait for a small child who only wants a busy day of gluing their fingers together and learning why we don't eat organic, vegan finger paint.
Except, this is not what happens to tiny HRHs. Far, far from it.
As Richard Palmer, the Daily Express's royal correspondent put it on Twitter: "I'm afraid Meghan is a fantasist if she believes this would be a daily occurrence in the UK."
Or as the Daily Mail's Dan Wootton, who has long been highly critical of the couple, posted: "The lies in this interview are extraordinary. Meghan claims there would be a royal press pen with 40 photographers each time she took Archie to school. Rubbish!"
I’m afraid Meghan is a fantasist if she believes this would be a daily occurrence in the UK, where the @IpsoNews code has strict rules about treatment of children in education. https://t.co/eGWgxQ0DVM
— Richard Palmer (@RoyalReporter) August 29, 2022
In the past five years not a single, solitary image of Prince William and Kate taking any of their three children to school or preschool has ever been published in the press, despite the fact the duo do the school run every, damn, day. (Very occasionally some shots taken by the public crop up on social media, but these only demonstrate just how low-key they keep things when out with their kids, not a press pen in sight.)
Since 2017 Prince George has attended Thomas' Battersea (sister Princess Charlotte joined him there in 2019) while since 2021 their little brother Prince Louis has been a student at Willcocks nursery school.
All of Fleet Street knows where to find William or Kate and their kids every Monday to Friday at exactly the same time.
And yet, again, never once has a photo of a harried Kate hustling her kidlets out of a vast Range Rover appeared on front pages or a shot of William trying to wedge his youngest son into a Bluey anorak while not dropping the 17th century coronation orb the tot wants to bring in for show and tell appeared online.
This comes down to both the arrangement that exists between Kensington Palace and the press to leave royal kids alone and the IPSO guidelines which specifically detail protections for children.
On two occasions, when George started school and then later when his sister Charlotte joined him, very carefully staged photo shoots took place with the shots taken by a single, chosen photographer and with one single, chosen journalist covering each event. When George, Charlotte and Louis start at their new school, Lambrook in Windsor, next month there is every chance we may get a similar meticulously choreographed photo.
(Let us also pause here and consider that here we have Meghan arguing that she wants to shield her children from the press when they are coming and going from school ... and yet she takes Davis with her to collect her son Archie from preschool.)
Who needs consistency I suppose when one has so much truth to tell and healing to talk about?
Given the slew of legitimate grievances that Meghan and Harry have against The Firm, why not stick to just the facts?
This all calls to mind previous instances which have sent eyebrows sky high such as when Meghan told Oprah Winfrey last year that the couple had actually wed three days before their multimillion-dollar wedding (the Archbishop of Canterbury awkwardly shot that down). Or when she said had not seen her passport between "joining that family" and arriving in north America despite the fact she had made trips to the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the US among others during that time. (The Queen is the only member of the royal family who does not need a passport.)
Last year, Meghan apologised to a court in the UK for making a misleading statement after forgetting she had authorised an aide to brief the authors of biography Finding Freedom.
What I just can't understand, what truly puzzles me, is why a smart, educated woman (and the only self-made millionaire to have ever joined the royal family) feels the need to augment what is already a tale of suffering or to veer on occasion away from reality.
So too, why agree to an interview that would come out on the eve of the 25th anniversary of her mother-in-law Diana, Princess of Wales' death and which, some might argue, hijack public attention?
Let's give the last line to Hamlet's own mother Queen Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years' experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles
Washington Post: The mindset should be - less fuss, more fun with company.