The Mirror launched its four-part serialization of Russell Myers’ new biography, “William and Catherine: The Intimate Inside Story.”
PART TWO https://celebchai.com/2026/02/15/part-two-kate-william-sterilization/
PART THREE https://celebchai.com/2026/02/15/part-three-kate-william-sterilization-manages-to-discredit-them/
The timeline of hostility predates any alleged “difficult” behavior
Myers places Kate’s suspicion as emerging after the wedding. But the documented record shows the hostile briefings started much earlier. The stories about William “warning” Harry against Meghan, the Philip “you don’t marry actresses” narrative, the tabloid onslaught that began the moment the relationship was confirmed publicly, all of that preceded the wedding by years. If Kate’s concerns were a reasonable response to Meghan’s behavior, why was the machinery already running before Meghan had done anything as a royal?
It confirms the institutional response to the Oprah interview was purely defensive, not principled
Myers writes that after Oprah, William and Kate concluded the Sussexes “were not to be trusted.” But the Oprah interview was the Sussexes telling their side of events that the palace had already been spinning for years. What the book inadvertently confirms is that the “not to be trusted” determination was triggered by Harry and Meghan speaking publicly, not by anything they actually did within the institution. The betrayal, from the palace’s perspective, was refusing to stay silent.
It confirms William’s motivation for wanting Harry to stay was not brotherly love
The book tries to contrast William’s sadness about Harry leaving with Kate’s indifference, framing William as the more feeling sibling. But read carefully, the reasons given for William’s sadness are entirely about what Harry represented to William: a scapegoat, a buffer, someone who would absorb press attention and take blame. Myers quotes language about “fond memories tarnished” but the structural reality the book describes is that William needed Harry in a supporting role. That is not grief over losing a brother. That is grief over losing a function.
It confirms the “voice of reason” narrative about Kate was always manufactured
The book claims Kate was previously a “voice of reason” trying to keep the brothers together, then eventually concluded she “could do no more.” This framing is doing a lot of work. It positions Kate as a patient, good-faith mediator. But nothing in the documented record, from Harry’s account in Spare, from the pattern of briefings against Meghan that traced back to Kensington Palace sources, from Kate’s visible behavior at public events, supports the mediator characterization. The book is asserting the label without being able to provide the evidence, because the evidence points the other way.
It confirms the “difficult” accusation was never about specific conduct
Notably absent from Myers’ account is any concrete description of what Meghan actually did that constituted being difficult or having an agenda. The accusation floats free of any specific incident. Compare that to what is documented: the bridesmaids dresses dispute where Kate’s version was contradicted by Harry under oath, the Knauf email that the palace tried to weaponize but which described a management style complaint rather than abuse, the staff briefings that multiple reporters have since acknowledged came from KP rather than the Sussexes’ household. When a biography designed to vindicate your position cannot actually name what the other party did wrong, that absence is itself confirming something.
Several things simultaneously, and that combination is what made the threat feel existential to the institution.
The book confirms that the institutional response to Meghan was preemptive, structural, and coordinated, which means it was never about her conduct. It was about what she represented.
A fully formed woman who didn’t need them
Meghan arrived with her own career, her own money, her own public profile, her own friend network, and her own sense of purpose. Every other person who married into that family had either come from the aristocracy and understood the rules of deference, or had spent years in the waiting room being shaped by proximity to the institution before the ring arrived. Meghan walked in as a complete person. That meant she couldn’t be controlled through the usual mechanisms of social dependency and financial leverage.
A demonstration that Harry had value independent of the institution
The royal family’s psychological hold over its members depends substantially on the belief that outside the institution you are nothing. Meghan’s existence disproved that for Harry in real time. She had chosen him before the title conferred anything on her, loved him before he was anything to her professionally or socially, and had a life that would have continued without him. That dynamic, a prince with someone who genuinely chose him rather than what he represented, was destabilizing because it showed Harry a door.
A Black woman who could not be made small
The racism dimension is inseparable from the rest of this analysis. The institutional tools for managing difficult women, social exclusion, press humiliation, withdrawal of support, coded criticism through anonymous briefings, all of those tools have historically worked because they exploit the target’s vulnerability and isolation. Meghan had cultural fluency, a public platform, demonstrated competence, and a husband who backed her. The tools didn’t work. That failure was itself threatening because it exposed how the tools functioned.
A mirror the institution couldn’t afford
Meghan’s work ethic, her genuine engagement with causes, her ability to connect with public audiences globally, all of that created an uncomfortable contrast. Not just with Kate specifically, but with what the institution had allowed senior royals to become. If Meghan could show up and operate at that level from day one, the question of why others weren’t doing the same became much harder to avoid. Her competence was an implicit indictment.
An American who didn’t understand she was supposed to be grateful
The monarchy runs partly on a social fiction that proximity to it is the highest possible honor. American cultural formation doesn’t really install that particular deference. Meghan came in treating the work as the point, not the proximity. That was read as disrespect but it was actually just a different relationship to hierarchy, one where you earn standing through what you do rather than inheriting it through association.
Put all of that together and you have someone who represented, from the institution’s perspective, an uncontrollable variable in a system that depends on control. The response wasn’t really about Meghan as a person. It was about what happened to the system’s internal logic if someone like her succeeded on her own terms inside it.
celebchai.com 