The latest “revelations” about Queen Elizabeth II’s alleged concerns regarding Meghan Markle rely almost entirely on hearsay, gossip, and—most critically—statements attributed to a woman who is no longer alive to confirm or deny them. Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith’s account of Lady Elizabeth Anson’s warnings about Meghan’s motives hinges on selective memory, hindsight bias, and a dangerous game of ascribing personal intent without actual evidence.
Lady Elizabeth Anson, described as the Queen’s cousin and party planner, allegedly claimed that Meghan Markle “engineered” her marriage to Prince Harry and that the Queen was “upset” with Harry for bypassing the Dean of Windsor when requesting the Archbishop of Canterbury officiate their wedding. But none of these assertions are verifiable. In fact, they all fit into a tired media narrative: reduce Meghan to an opportunist, emasculate Harry as weak, and paint the Queen as heartbroken—without acknowledging the complexities of royal protocol, cultural clashes, or generational shifts.
1. The Convenient Use of the Deceased
It’s telling that these statements only emerge after the deaths of both Queen Elizabeth II and Lady Anson. Using deceased figures to validate a narrative shields the author from direct contradiction. The phrase “we think she engineered it all” is speculative, gossipy, and lacks any first-person evidence from Meghan or Harry’s conduct. Would Lady Anson have predicted Camilla’s rise to Queen Consort? Or Princess Margaret’s public controversies? The fact is, members of the Royal Family have always had complex love lives—Meghan’s marriage to Harry is hardly exceptional in that regard.
2. The Old “Brighter Than Harry” Trope
The suggestion that Meghan being “brighter than Harry” posed a threat is more revealing about internal royal insecurities than about Meghan herself. It’s a subtle admission that the monarchy is uncomfortable with strong women who do not defer silently. That Meghan had a successful career, global recognition, and political awareness before marrying into royalty only magnified this discomfort.
Criticizing Meghan for “overshadowing” Harry is rooted in outdated gender norms—where a wife must remain in the background, even if she is more articulate or composed in public. This echoes the institutional discomfort that also plagued Princess Diana and, more recently, Queen Letizia of Spain—women who, like Meghan, brought intellect, poise, and independent ambition to a system built on hierarchy and submission.
3. The Tea Story Is Weak and Gendered
The claim that Meghan wouldn’t tell the Queen about her wedding dress while having tea is as flimsy as it is loaded. Royal women are not obligated to reveal bridal secrets at tea parties, especially if the setting was informal or lighthearted. Are we now policing etiquette as a form of judgment? The idea that this moment allegedly triggered concern about Meghan’s character is absurd and reeks of narrative convenience.
4. Recycled Grievances, Not New Revelations
There is nothing substantively new in Bedell Smith’s account. These are recycled grievances from the early 2018–2020 media frenzy: Meghan is too confident, too private, too opinionated, too… American. Every criticism flows from a fundamental discomfort with her refusal to be molded. Her race, nationality, and feminist politics only magnified this dissonance in a family historically resistant to change.
5. The Real Issue: Resentment at Modernity
At its core, this article reflects a persistent attempt to frame Meghan as the villain for challenging royal conventions. That Harry supported her and sought a different path makes him “besotted” instead of “devoted.” In any other context—politics, entertainment, even business—such loyalty would be applauded.
To dismiss Meghan’s choices as “engineered” while ignoring the decades of dysfunction, infidelity, and scandal among other royal members is hypocritical. It also trivializes Harry’s agency. He was a decorated soldier, not a dazed schoolboy. Suggesting otherwise is as insulting to him as it is misogynistic toward Meghan.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this article is another chapter in the ongoing effort to control Meghan Markle’s narrative post-royalty. It uses the words of the deceased to validate living prejudices and distracts from the more pressing question: why is there still such a vested interest in vilifying Meghan seven years after her marriage?
The answer lies in a cultural unease with power that doesn’t look or behave the way traditional institutions expect. Meghan disrupted the script. And for that, she is endlessly punished in prose.
celebchai.com 