In Prince William and Catherine Middleton's engagement interview, William famously said that while the pair appeared calm, "We're like sort of ducks, very calm on the surface with little feet going under the water."
The phrase occurred to me again the other day when I saw yet another anti-Meghan screed from the Sun's Royal reporter, the New Zealand-born Dan Wootton.
Wootton, who is openly gay, is what Popbitch in its recent issue called "such good pals" with the Cambridge's press secretary, Christian Jones.
What role might Jones and the Cambridges be playing in the recent run of negative press about the Sussexes?
The phrase occurred to me again the other day when I saw yet another anti-Meghan screed from the Sun's Royal reporter, the New Zealand-born Dan Wootton.
Wootton, who is openly gay, is what Popbitch in its recent issue called "such good pals" with the Cambridge's press secretary, Christian Jones.
What role might Jones and the Cambridges be playing in the recent run of negative press about the Sussexes?
Keeping the kids away
William and Kate may not be the smartest people in the world, but they're also not the dumbest.
Along with Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, they seem to have had Meg's number early on, and William famously encouraged Harry not to marry her, or at least wait until he got to know her better.
They've done a good job of keeping their children away from Meg as well; apart from Meg's surprise appearance at last month's polo match, the only time they have been photographed with her is at formal family events and at Meghan's own wedding.
(There was a rumor at the time that the Cambridge kids had been kept so insulated that George asked at the wedding "Who's that lady with Harry?" I have never seen this rumor confirmed; as I recall, it came from a lipreader who had been watching the footage.)
The birthday greeting
Will and Kate have also done their very best not to be photographed with Archificial, the Sussexes' mysterious son.
While they were not able to avoid appearing in Archie's baptism photo - the one with metadata showing it was taken on May 8, only two dates after Archie was supposedly born - they look stiff and uncomfortable.
(Internet sleuths have since taken the photo apart, suggesting it was Photoshopped. I'm neutral about that myself, but the odd metadata suggests something is off.)
One image that is certainly not Photoshopped is the footage of the Cambridges and the Sussexes together on Christmas Day 2018.
This was the day that William "scarfed" Meghan, doggedly directing his attention towards rearranging with his scarf to avoid interacting with her. The insult was obvious enough to create a new entry on the Urban Dictionary.
How telling that the Cambridges (or their press secretary) would choose images from that day for Meghan's birthday greeting on August 4.
Even in chilly Britain, celebrating a summer birthday with a photo of everyone in thick winter coats is unusual.
(The always-bitchy Duke of York Instagram account saluted Meghan's birthday with an unflattering photo of Meghan looking heavy. It's a bad photo of Harry as well - the angle makes it look like he has an extra bone sticking out of his skull. And it's the wrong size for Instagram, but apparently Andrew's people didn't care.)
Feet beneath the water
Anyway, it sounds like the Cambridge duck feet may again be swimming rapidly beneath the water when it comes to removing Meghan from the Royal Family.
Along with Charles, they have the most to lose from Meghan's devaluation and commercialization of the monarchy.
Unlike Charles, they may still have enough energy to do something about it.
It's also interesting that Christian Jones appears to be the weapon of choice. Jones was originally hired to work for both the Cambridges and the Sussexes; Meghan famously paraded him around a restaurant in Notting Hill shortly after he came on board, having called the paparazzi in advance.
Jones seems to have gotten to know Meghan well enough to be resistant to her charms; when the courts of Cambridge and Sussex split, he went with the Cambridges.
Will he be an active participant in Meghan's defenestration? He's one to watch, at least.
If nothing else, silent approval
Royal reporters are careerists; most stay in the job for a decade or more.
The last thing they want is to be on the palace's bad side, because that can mean a withdrawal of access to even the simple stories and events they need to please their editors (and readers, but of course it's the editors who sign the paycheques.)
It seems extremely unlikely to me that longtime Royal reporters like Camilla Long of the Sunday Times, whose article this Sunday was brutal, would be going as far as they do without at least tacit approval from the palace.
Charles may or may not be offering that approval, but William almost certainly is.
-----------
Edited on August 10 to add:
In a video interview on August 9, Wootton says:
"(Harry) will sit in that publicly funded mansion - because it’s not a cottage, it’s a £2.4million mansion refurbished by us on taxpayers money - he’ll watch the TV coverage and he’ll flick through the newspapers and look at all of those articles online about him, cursing his staff.
"Rather than actually addressing the fact that much of the negativity towards the couple is coming from within the Royal Family.
-----------
Edited on August 10 to add:
In a video interview on August 9, Wootton says:
"(Harry) will sit in that publicly funded mansion - because it’s not a cottage, it’s a £2.4million mansion refurbished by us on taxpayers money - he’ll watch the TV coverage and he’ll flick through the newspapers and look at all of those articles online about him, cursing his staff.
"Rather than actually addressing the fact that much of the negativity towards the couple is coming from within the Royal Family.
“The Royal Family and staff of the Royal Family are the ones that are very often leaking these stories to the press.”
Top candidates from my point of view: Prince Andrew plus Williams press secretary Christian Jones and Lord Geidt's BP team.
Longshot candidate: Camilla.
Comments
On the heels of these last comments, I'd like to suggest another Nutty Challenge Topic: Narcissists: Are they Born or Made?
Out of all of Meghan's clan, Doria has received the best press (it's a low bar) but the comments are generally positive. I only found out recently that she'd been in prison for seven years while Meghan was in her school years. Is this confirmed? 7 years is a long sentence for a non-violent crime. Minor drug offenses or prostitution or even a spot of housebreaking wouldn't garner 7 years, unless she was in a third strike situation or guilty of major dealing or GBH or something like that.
I've read that she's a degreed social worker. It's possible to turn one's life around after prison, but I'd say those people are in the definite minority. Not sure I believe she's got a master's degree necessary to become a LSW. She might teach yoga to senior citizens at the community center. I've read also that she's in a longterm relationship with a white female partner and they live in a nice house--the partner's house. Shades of her daughter's pattern of dating higher earners who can provide her with top notch lodging.
If she truly said that to Meghan, then I'm not going to defend her any more. The father who was demonized and who is no longer acknowledged in any way by his princess made some spectacular mistakes while raising his children, but he was there for Meg while her mom was in jail, and gave her everything within his means to give her.
Together, both Thomas and Doria created this monster. Would MM have turned out the same even if Tom and Doria had been a suburban couple with a stable marriage who stayed together and provided needed discipline to MM as well as love? Or would she have been like she is no matter her upbringing or circumstances due to a glitch in her developmental wiring? The place where a conscience should be is missing, and if one does not grow one of those in early childhood, one never does.
Meghan is irretrievably broken, if half of what is said of her is the truth. Who screams and rages like a banshee because she can't get certain avocados or tries to injure staff by throwing crockery with scalding beverages inside? In addition to NPD, she's got Antisocial Behavior Disorder. How could a person like this charm and manipulate and attract friends and lovers even in the short-term? In the short time she's been in our view, we've seen her acting like a maniac--what do the people that actually know her see?
Nobody this self-absorbed and oblivious to others' feelings or needs would even make a satisfactory prostitute--nothing in her is wired up to be capable of giving.
In short, Hazza: WHY???
I haven't got any insights. She reminds me a lot of Hitler . . someone so awkward-looking and relentlessly single-minded and extreme, his level of charismatic persuasiveness over normal citizens should not have been possible . .and yet, he achieved it, and so did Meg.
It really boggles my mind. Because if half the stories attributed to her and about her are true, she belongs in a facility for the criminally insane, not at the top echelons of royal society, ruining weddings and the reputation of a venerable house.
So . . who or what created the Markle? Nature? Nurture? Both? Her whole family is made up of low, shady, morally bankrupt individuals with criminal tendencies, but Meg has a special je ne sais quoi all her own.