The prince, the press and the trashing of a new princess

In the final part of his series, Sean Smith explains why this dedicated human rights campaigner was forced to leave Britain

Prince Harry and Meghan attend the Endeavour Fund Awards at Mansion House in March (WireImage)

Meghan’s friends had told her she would be a target for the British tabloid press. She didn’t want to hear any negativity. She was a woman in love intent on being positive about her new relationship. Prince Harry had done his best to warn her but he too was taken aback by what followed in the days after their relationship became public. He said: “You can have as many conversations as you want and try to prepare as much as possible, but we were totally unprepared for what happened after that.”

The initial scoop at the end of October 2016 by the Sunday Express royal reporter Camilla Tominey was pleasant enough about Meghan, describing her as a “stunning TV actress, model and human rights campaigner”. In one ghastly week in hell, however, Meghan went from that to a saucy divorcee who was not a suitable candidate because of the colour of her skin.

There were many reasons to write something about Meghan on the front page of a popular newspaper. Imagine the positive headlines: Meghan in UN Women triumph; Meghan volunteers at soup kitchen; Meghan campaigns for fresh water in Africa; Meghan Markle is a self-made millionaire.

Wow, lucky Harry, you might have thought on reading any of these – this is a woman of substance, but The Sun had other ideas: “Harry’s Girl on Pornhub”, it declared five days after the first story appeared. “She can be seen stripping off and groaning,” it shrieked. The false implication was clear – Meghan Markle was a pornstar. And despite being a high achiever, this 35-year-old woman was relegated to being described as “Harry’s Girl” as if she was a teenage starlet.

Readers were informed that she was “groaning in a host of steamy sex scenes from Suits – one raunchy clip sees Meghan take off her clothes and straddle co-star Patrick J Adams in a filing area”. The journalist Tamara Khandaker, writing for the Toronto-based Vice News, put the revelation into a nice perspective when she wrote: “The clips on the website are of Markle’s appearance on Suits and wouldn’t even fit into your religious grandmother’s idea of pornography.”

Coincidentally, on the front page of The Sun there was also a picture of Kate Middleton on the red carpet showing some shapely pins, inevitably inviting comparison between our homegrown princess and the American woman of allegedly dubious moral character.

Almost every story about Meghan in the first few days seemed intent on showing her complete lack of suitability for Harry. The royal reporter for the Daily Express, Richard Palmer, set the tone. No longer was Meghan a human rights campaigner. Instead she was merely an “American actress”. He wrote: “As a Roman Catholic and the daughter of a white father and black mother, she is hardly out of central casting for princesses.”

His observations set a precedent for much worse to come. The writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch drew attention to descriptions in the Daily Mail that Meghan was “a glamorous brunette”, a “departure from Prince Harry’s usual type” and “not in the society blonde style of previous girlfriends”. Afua added: “I think what they are trying to say is that Markle, actor, global development ambassador and lifestyle blogger, is black.”

The Daily Mail wasted no time in focusing on the colour of Meghan’s skin, publishing the now notorious headline: “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother – so will he be dropping in for tea?” The “straight outta Compton” referenced a rap song by hip hop group NWA. Meghan’s mother Doria, however, lived in View Park-Windsor Hills, the so-called black Beverly Hills, well above the Crenshaw district plagued by gangs in the past.

In another article the Mail compared Meghan’s family history with that of Harry and highlighted the “stark contrast” between the two: “his includes kings, queens and earls; hers a tailor, teacher and cleaning shop worker”.

The following Sunday, exactly one week after Meghan had been first revealed as the new woman in Harry’s life, the Mail on Sunday star columnist Rachel Johnson considered the woman she described as “Harry’s Hottie” and a “showgirl”. Her gross assessment: “If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”

She also made the observation that “Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African American lady from the wrong side of the tracks”.

By and large, the negativity was relentless. Meghan was no longer just an American actor. The Daily Mirror described her tackily as, “the actress who once stripped to her knickers in the legal drama Suits for a sex scene with her screen lover”.

The Sun located her half-sister Samantha in Florida. She was 16 years older than Meghan and may or may not have been paid a vast sum to reveal that Meghan, who was not in contact with her, had a “soft spot for gingers”. Under the headline Princess Pushy, it said: “Prince Harry’s new flame Meghan Markle is a social climber; who is ‘not fit to be royal’ – according to her own SISTER.”

The Sun arguably topped everything with its headline on 7 November: “Fancy a Quick Puck”, a seedy article suggesting with no proof whatsoever that her first marriage had ended because of an affair with an ice hockey player. The headline implying they had enjoyed a quick f**k might have seemed amusing in the pub at lunchtime but was deeply upsetting to Meghan and Harry.

He had seen, heard and read enough. A day later, his communications secretary, Jason Knauf, issued a statement on his behalf condemning the wave of abuse and harassment. With careful politeness, he asked if the press who had been driving the story could “pause and reflect” before any further damage was done.

He was asking the media to politely back off. They ignored him. The leader writers and correspondents were at their most sanctimonious, playing the victim as if “strait outta Compton” and “Harry’s Girl on Pornhub” were entirely reasonable and respectful headlines. The Sun said Harry “needs to get real”.

Their royal reporter Emily Andrews wrote: “Legitimate press interest in who’s dating the fifth in line to the throne is exactly that: entirely legitimate.” She did not mention that it was her byline on the entirely illegitimate “Fancy a Quick Puck?” story.

So did Harry’s plea for a pause have any effect? Apparently not: unless two days counts as a pause. The tabloids all ran a still of Meghan from the film Knight Rider in a black bra for her role as a cage fighter. The Daily Mail showed just how seriously they took Harry’s request: “Prince Harry told this week how he was keen to protect his new girlfriend Meghan Markle, but evidence has emerged to show she’s more than a match for anyone.” Evidence? It was a still from a movie.

The newspaper’s columnist, Jan Moir, had this piece of advice for Harry: “Whatever you do, please make sure the next piece of jewellery you buy her is not, repeat not, a ring.”

Surprisingly, perhaps, one of the few positive commentaries about Meghan came from Piers Morgan, who wrote glowingly about her in his column in the Mail on Sunday. In the days long before he described Meghan as a “piece of work” and the couple as a “pair of tools”, he wrote: “Harry ignore all the poisonous rubbish you’re reading about her. Meghan Markle is perfect princess material.”

Meghan was completely astonished by the unwelcome attention or “scrutiny” as the press like to call intrusive and abusive commentary. She found it “disheartening” that so much of the scrutiny was “centred on her ethnicity”.

Prince William came out with a half-hearted statement about things three weeks later. It read: “The Duke of Cambridge absolutely understands the situation concerning privacy and supports the need for Prince Harry to support those closest to him.” It was the very opposite of a powerful endorsement. The sentence was such a pompous tongue-twister that it tied itself up in knots to ensure that it didn’t mention Meghan by name or her ongoing ordeal. Its effect was to ensure that nobody got the message. All he had to say was, “Come on guys, leave them alone”.

Realistically, the damage had already been done. The attitude of the media gave a green light to online trolls seeking to portray her as a gold-digger, ignoring that she had achieved far more than any of the other women who joined the royal family.

And she wasn’t allowed to fight back. She had already given up so much for love. She had waved goodbye to her career as an actor, her home and friends in Toronto, the familiar streets of Los Angeles, her online accounts and her lifestyle blog The Tig, her commercial endeavours and her much-loved dog, Bogart.

It all seemed a very one-sided sacrifice. That was even more apparent when an announcement was made that she was stepping away from her own charitable roles. She would no longer work with World Vision Canada or as a UN Women’s advocate. She was being stripped of her self esteem and achievements by faceless individuals promoting outdated protocol and tradition.

Meghan soldiered on for a couple of years, giving occasional glimpses of the woman of substance that she was before her arrival in the UK. 

I wanted to say the right thing and I was really nervous that I wouldn’t and I realised that the only wrong thing to say is to say nothing

On her now famous trip to South Africa, where she first revealed to the world her misery at merely surviving within the royal family, Meghan’s empowering presidential speech to the women of the Nyanga township in Cape Town ended in stirring fashion: “I am here with you as a mother, as a wife, as a woman, as a woman of colour and as your sister, I am here with you and I am here for you.”

It was a fleeting moment of vintage Meghan, but within a couple of months she was gone. Her farewell tour in February of this year demonstrated what the royal family was losing. Her visit to the Robert Clack Upper School in Dagenham was a one woman tour de force, not only for promoting her views on gender equality but also the encouragement she gave black girls just by being there – being a presence; a role model.

She accepted a customary posy from Fiona Addai, aged 11, who said: “She is black, and you don’t normally get that in the royal family and so I hope when I’m older she taught me that no matter what colour you are, I am able to do what any other person can do. She helped me believe in myself.”

The racism Meghan encountered in the UK is crystal clear and obvious as revealed in the shameful coverage in her first few days as “Harry’s Hottie”. The racist deniers – columnists and broadcasters – are white, the tabloid royal reporters are white and their editors are white. Let’s not forget 72 female MPs expressed solidarity with Meghan and basically called out the racists. The acclaimed novelist Hilary Mantel said: “I do think abominable racism has been involved. People who say that’s got nothing to do with it – well they need to check their privilege.”

The subject of racism would prove to be a key issue in 2020 following the killing of George Floyd. Meghan knew that anything she said in the aftermath would be examined word for word, but agreed to contribute a graduation address to her old school, Immaculate Heart in Los Angeles. She had second thoughts, however, after a weekend of civil unrest and public disquiet.

Callie Webb, the school’s director of communications, explained: “Meghan felt she could not ignore the news because it was so personally upsetting to her. Upon reviewing her message she grew reluctant about releasing it for fear that if it became public, she would get picked apart. We respected her decision. Well, 24 hours later, she had a change of heart and we were so pleased she did!”

It was the old Meghan, powerful Meghan. Looking purposefully to camera, she said: “I wanted to say the right thing and I was really nervous that I wouldn’t and I realised that the only wrong thing to say is to say nothing.” She listed five black victims of police shootings beginning with George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Their lives mattered, she stressed.

Incredibly, the school itself was bombarded with hate emails from individuals who, according to Webb, were “clearly consumed by hate who wrote lengthy tirades against her that also reveal a lot of ignorance”.

Fortunately the people that mattered, her young high school audience, were impressed. One, Keana Rose Hilario, said: “Watching her speech, I did tear up a bit, because of how empowering her words were. I understood that her comments about Black Lives Matter were very close to her heart, especially as a black woman who has been fighting against injustice at a young age.”

Meghan was not speaking to the schoolgirls as a member of the royal family. She is a biracial American woman addressing young people in her home country, her home state, her hometown. Perhaps we never properly grasped her identity – this supremely accomplished woman of substance who the United Kingdom has now lost.

This is an extract from ‘Meghan Misunderstood’, which is published on 12 November. Preorder here