Why the Royal Family can't cut the Sussexes off

Although numerous polls of the British people suggest they'd like to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lose their HRH titles and funding from the Duchy of Cornwall, cutting the Sussexes off entirely is impossible, and the Royal Family knows it. 

It's impossible because Harry is vulnerable and could end up in a gutter - quite literally - without the support of his family. 

(As the Prince William character says of his family on the TV comedy series The Windsors, "These people are like budgies. Let them out of their cage and they'll be eaten by the first animal they see.") 

And it's impossible because social media makes it impossible to control information that might be released about the Royal Family by Duchess Meghan. 

True information, false information, it doesn't matter.

Meg can just make it up, release it on social media, and someone will believe it. 

Since the bananas

Social media has been a key player during Meghan Markle's two-and-a-half years of acknowledged connection to the Royal Family.

She first hinted at her relationship with prince Harry with an Instagram photo of two bananas cuddling; when she closed her lifestyle blog The Tig six months later, it was seen as a sign that the relationship was getting serious. After the engagement, Meghan closed her Instagram and Twitter accounts, something her supporters later described as the former actress being "muted" and "losing her voice."

In the run-up to the May 2018 marriage, social media in the form of the Daily Mail comments was the first sign that the British public was not entirely behind Harry's choice of bride. 

Meg "clapped back" with a team of PR posters paid to defend her on the DM comment boards, along with some vicioius Twitter bots and perhaps some pseudonymous Twitter accounts of her own. She also seems to be the person behind anonymous messages to the notorious anti-Meghan Tumblr blogger Skippy.  (A few anti-Meghan bloggers were doxxed, although Skippy was not one of them.) 

Meanwhile, the Meghan's Mirror Instagram and Twitter offered lightning-quick information on where to buy whatever Meghan was wearing that day. So quick, as a matter of fact, that they must have had advance notice of what would be worn, likely by someone who would receive an affiliate fee. 

Very confident in her abilities

Ultimately, Meg was allowed to start an official Instagram account again, the much-derided @SussexRoyal, which has been used to trumpet the Sussexes' achievements and offer lukewarm birthday greetings to members of the Cambridge family. 

Meg feels confident in her social media abilities, so confident she apparently writes much of the @SussexRoyal text herself without the benefit of a copyeditor. 

She also appears to enjoy do-it-yourself Photoshop, as displayed on the Sussexes' bizarre last-minute Christmas card.

Why is is this important?

Because social media is Meghan's insurance policy for the future. 

Deference to the Royal Family

When Edward VIII, then Prince of Wales, met Wallis Simpson in 1931 and they became lovers,  the British public knew nothing about it. 

Foreign newspapers wrote freely about the developing romance between the prince and the then-married American socialite, and Brits abroad delighted in cutting out clips and mailing them to family back home, but British newspapers did not report on the situation out of deference to the Royal Family.

US newspapers arriving in London had articles about the situation removed with scissors. In the case of Time Magazine, pages were ripped out. 

The public only learned of the nascent constitutional crisis involving the not-yet-coronated King in 1936, when a local Bishop mentioned it in a sermon. After that, the gloves were off. 

No photos of Royal children

The British media still shows some deference to the Royals today, such as the de-facto ban on publishing candid images of the Royal children, whether they are taken by paparazzi or the public. 

Various older Royals are also rumored from time to time to be having extramarital affairs, but this is also kept out of the papers unless some event forces the question, such as the theft of then-married Princess Anne's letters to her lover Tim Lawrence. 

(Super-injunctions also help enforce this deference, the "articles removed with scissors" of the 21st century.)

But social media shows no deference. Anyone can write anything, and it's up to the public to decide whether or not the statements are credible. 

Credibility and rumor

The rumor of an affair between William and Rose Hanbury was invented by a blogger in Utah who has never met anyone from the Royal Family and was inspired by photos she had seen in the Daily Mail; they were given additional weight by a Soho House habitué and Meghan pal named Giles Coren who said "everyone knows" about the affair. (Coren, ironically, was recently bullied off Twitter after making a distasteful joke about a gay journalist.)

But "a lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots," as Churchill once said. 

Some members of the public still believe the thin gruel of the Rose rumors (Enty lawyer at CDAN is one of them). Certainly Meg's fans enjoy adding rose emoji's to Tweets taunting Duchess Kate. 

How much more power would such a rumor have if it came from the Duchess of Sussex?

What she could say

Rumors of an affair are one thing, but the Duchess of Sussex could also cause havoc with innumerable other types of accusations - and they don't even have to be true. 

Creating quotes or otherwise suggesting that members of the Royal Family are racist, sexist, or homophobic is an obvious tactic, and given Meg's hatred of the Cambridges, they would be her number-one target. How delicious to damage the heir to the throne by crediting him with some vicious statement that would always be believed by at least a few people. A little mud always sticks.

She might also Photoshop embarassing images and release them, or cast aspersions on the Cambridge children, and true or false, whatever she said would follow them for decades. 

Meg's a viper. She doesn't have to win, as long as other people lose. 

Social media makes it possible, and unfortunately makes it very easy. Some people will believe anything, particularly when they want to. 

They need something they can take away

This is why the Royals must always keep Meg onside, at least nominally. They need to have something they can take away - an ongoing income, a title - if she misbehaves. They cannot leave her with nothing, because they will then have no leverage over her.

The only other alternative, if I may be so bold as to say it, is to neutralize her. 

(Sensitive souls should look away now.) When I say "neutralize", Ari Behn, Andrew Burkle, and Jeffrey Epstein come to mind. 

Controlling information about herself

Ironically, despite the growing power of social media, Meg seems obsessed with controlling what the traditional media say about her.

Her lawsuit against the Daily Mail is ongoing, as is Harry's lawsuit against some newspapers involved in an ancient phone-hacking scandal. The Duchess has long worked with People Magazine to promote her side of the story. 

And on their personal website, the Sussexes say they would like to remove themselves from the Royal Rota of traditional-media reporters in favor of "grassroots media organizations and young, up-and-coming journalists." 

In other words, small-potatoes types who will be so flattered to meet us that they'll write what we want. 

Hey Sussexes  - you can cut off the Royal Rota's access to your events, but you can't prohibit them from writing about you. And if you don't have anything to trade, they're likely to be harsh. 

Traditionally Royal reporters temper their stories in order to maintain access. If you've already removed access, why should they bother? 

The Gayle King interview

There's been some suggestion that the Sussexes are planning an interview with Gayle King, who has been responsible for two previous (low-rated) specials on the pair. 

Are the Royals worried about this? A little, perhaps, but Gayle King is an establishment journalist and a somewhat responsible gatekeeper. She'll let Meg say, "I never really felt welcome in Britain" and suggest that Meg is unpopular because she is (a little bit) Black. 

But she won't let Meg go full-throttle. She won't let Meg say crazy, damaging, or demented things about Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis.

Social media will. Let go from the Royal Family, Meg will waste no time re-establishing her accounts (there are suggestions that the "Meghan-ish" accounts popping up means she already has) and becoming an ongoing thorn in the side of the Royals at a vulnerable time, during the transition from a beloved monarch to a plummy and unpopular successor. 

The Royals will pay her off, or they will pick her off. We'll see which.