"We have to be able to say we had nothing to do with it."
My final thoughts on the Telegraph "leak"
Victoria Ward, Royal Correspondent has had a very busy weekend.
After Meghan Markle released a CYA statement yesterday (which did not deny she had anything to do with the leaking of a letter she wrote to King Charles) Ward had made at least five separate edits to her original article. Read here and here for more:
We’re going on the third day of this saga and 2-3 more distinct edits have been made to the original article. Some new paragraphs added to the story. I do hope for Victoria’s sake she’s being paid handsomely for this off the clock work. Working on a Sunday is no fun. Take a gander at the edits made below: Cui bono?
“They weren’t accusing the Royal Family of racism!”
“Olive branches”
“Simmering resentment!”
They were treated “appallingly” by the Royal Family.
There was “failure to inform Harry his grandmother had died” before putting out a public statement. [1]
My, oh my! Where is my popcorn?
That’s more like it. These are the Sussexes we’ve come to know and appreciate. Equal parts indignation, palpable whining and throwing the Firm in front of a moving subway train with scant by the way of exposition or details. If King Charles and Buckingham Palace were the ones who “leaked” Meghan’s letter, they aren’t doing a very good job of making themselves look positive.
I’ve settled on what I think happened here. But first, we need to go back in time to late-2018. Then-Senior Working Royals, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, were working closely with their Press Secretary on their strategy for making sure Finding Freedom, an unauthorized biography, included all of the details they wanted:
“We have to be able to say that we didn’t have anything to do with it.”
In emails to his Communications Secretary, Prince Harry approved the topics his subordinate was going to discuss with the authors of the book, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand. Harry agreed with his Communications secretary — it was important this subterfuge stay under the radar. It was best if it was not linked to them, even though reading this, it’s very clear they were heavily involved through the entire process:
Knauf then received an email from Prince Harry that said: “Also, are u planning on giving them a rough idea of what she’s been through over the last 2yrs? Media onslaught, cyber bullying on a different scale, puppeteering Thomas Markle etc etc etc. Even if they choose not to use it, they should hear what it was like from someone who was in the thick of it. So if you aren’t planning on telling them, can I?!”
As you can see, both were eager and yearning to “get their side out there".” Which is why two years later, it was all the more galling that Meghan wasn’t honest from the onset when giving her testimony to the court about her involvement in the book.
“They did not collaborate with the authors on the book,’ said Meghan’s spokesman. ‘Nor were they interviewed for it.’ In a signed statement, Jenny Afia, her Schillings solicitor, denied on Meghan’s behalf that the Duchess had spoken to Scobie or gave authority to anyone to speak to the authors on her behalf. Meghan herself described the Mail’s allegations that she had helped Scobie as ‘false’, ‘fantastical’ and ‘a conspiracy theory’. She denied knowing how much help the authors got from her staff and denied being given the opportunity to make changes or factcheck. ‘It was not me and had nothing to do with me.” — Revenge
Eventually, with the above disclosures made public, the Duchess of Sussex was forced to admit she had “unintentionally misled the court”. She “forgot” the planning and correspondence that went into providing critical information to the Finding Freedom authors.
This history is important for the point I’m making: Ferocious statements issued from lawyers, spokespersons, and Meghan herself, do not hold much water. Particularly when it’s concerning telling the truth as to their involvement in leaking stories against his family. From my earlier column:
Yesterday was the late-Queen’s birthday, their first birthday without their matriarch and sovereign of over 70 years. Today is Prince Louis’s birthday. The Palace leaking a two year old letter which dredges back up a time in their lives they’d rather forget on the birthday of their dearly departed Queen? Two weeks before the King Charles Coronation? Having the conversation be about Meghan feeling unsupported and suicidal? Oh please. Step on their own news cycle to regurgitate old news about Meghan’s “concerns”? Give me a break. When it comes to these stories, you always have to ask: Who does this benefit and who does this make look good?
The Crown is two weeks away from the Coronation of this generation. HM King Charles in front of God, country, representatives from governments and heads of other Royal families, will take the solemn oath to become Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Plots are being uncovered to disrupt the ceremony and the Palace is dealing with ministers who are upset they cannot attend. There is so much that still needs to fall into place. No one is worrying about Meghan and a letter she wrote two years ago which left her dissatisfied and “wanting accountability”. The Royal Family had weathered the Sussexes multiple interviews, Archetypes episodes, the bombs in Harry & Meghan Netflix docuseries and the many mortifying disclosures in Spare. They came out on the other side still in power, well-liked, and hopeful for the future. Harry and Meghan on the other hand?
Finding Freedom saw disclosures helped along by the Sussexes. I feel in my gut the same things are at play here. A third party gave the news of the letter to the Telegraph with explicit approval from Meghan and/or the Sussexes. As Harry said “We have to be able to say we didn’t have anything to do with it.”
Before the story was published, the Telegraph reached out to Buckingham Palace to give them the Right of Reply.
This story was going live and Buckingham Palace was asked if they wanted to comment. This set off a chain reaction internally.
The contents of a private letter by the Sovereign being discussed openly is a huge red flag? Enter Harbottle & Lewis immediately drafting a legal letter to the Telegraph informing them they are wading into hot water.
The third party who leaked this story is told of this, feels trepidation and Victoria Ward gets going on the edits: Removing passages, striking sentences out, taking out inflammatory language.
The third party tells Meghan and/or the Sussexes that edits had to be made; the Crown is looking into legal options, this is escalating. It doesn’t take a detective to make the leap that the party who chose litigation swiftly, not to mention first, has little to do with the disclosures. Buckingham Palace does not benefit by seeing “ROYAL RACE ROW” covered in the press. So Meghan and/or the Sussexes fire off their own letter and indignant statement. The statement reads:
“The Duchess of Sussex is going about her life in the present, not thinking about correspondence from two years ago related to conversations from four years ago. Any suggestion otherwise is false and frankly ridiculous. We encourage tabloid media and various royal correspondents to stop the exhausting circus that they alone are creating.”
“Tabloid media and various royal correspondents”? Way to be specious. Why did Meghan not censure and denounce the Telegraph and Victoria Ward directly? They are the ones, after all, who did this. The Meghan Markle versus ANL lawsuit gave us valuable insight into just how seriously Meghan takes invasions of her literary privacy. This? This is an intentionally broad statement that doesn’t disparage the paper and writer that published the summary of the letter. There is no rebuke for violation of privacy. If this was truly published without her say so, knowledge or buy-in, why did it take more than 24 hours to respond? Why not say outright that you played no part in this disclosure and are disgusted that your privacy is being invaded, then close out with naming and shaming the newspaper? That’s how the Sussexes roll.
The contents of the article, including edits seven and eight that language about how they were mistreated, serves the Sussexes, not Buckingham Palace. We are supposed to be discussing the King and Queen’s visit to Scotland, Prince Louis's precocious birthday photos with his Mom. No one in Buckingham Palace is happy we are paying attention to Oprah and letters from two years ago.
In 2019, a People Magazine cover story, briefed by “five friends of Meghan” laid the groundwork for the Duchess’ lawsuit with ANL. Her “five friends” leaked the news that she’d written her father a letter. Meghan’s “five friends” were so concerned that the world wasn’t getting the “true story” about their friend. So they shared information to People about everything she was going through. In court, her lawyers said that she had “no idea” this was happening. Later proceedings and the Netflix series showed that was not the whole truth. The same thing is happening here.
Cui bono?
After three years, the Sussexes against their wishes have been downgraded from well-beloved Senior Royals to second-row, non-HRHs. They are not included in processions, not allowed on the balcony, their children’s “elevated status” (the Telegraph’s words in the article) is not being recognized sufficiently enough and they believe they have been “treated appallingly.” This leak was a reminder that they are unhappy and have at least one heavy projectile to load in the cannon: the identity of the racist royal. They got the attention they were looking for. The latest edits plunge the knife in deeper into the Royal family, and the Sussex Squad has been mobilized to defend her honor. But they were caught flat-footed when the Palace pushed back immediately. Enter the rapid fire edits and murky statements.
Cui bono? Why the Sussexes, of course. But they have to make it look like “they had nothing to do with it.” ;)
Another article today was released by Robert Mendick (Chief Reporter [oversight was necessary?]) and Victoria Ward: Meghan has “moved on”. Because, in my opinion, this did not go the way she planned. We’ll see how long this lasts.
-L.S.
[1] The messaging is all over the place. Victoria Ward broke the story in September about Prince Harry not being told his grandmother had passed away before the news went live. Like yesterday, Buckingham Palace’s lawyers sent legal letters stating this was categorically false:
“The King was adamant that the official statement must not be released until all members of the family had been informed. That was a father talking because he cares.”
Buckingham Palace lawyers presented evidence of this and the Telegraph was forced to change the headline and story to “Harry was told five minutes before”. But in an effort to mollify their #1 source, the story still had a slant of “Poor beleaguered Harry”. It seems like with this added update, their original source is sticking to his original story