Royal denialism has been the order of the day for a decade when it comes to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. First it was denialism about the racism and anti-Americanism Meghan faced from the press and the royal institution, then denialism about the depth of Prince Harry’s love for Meghan (“he won’t marry her”), then a complete misread of what Harry and Meghan would do after being smeared, attacked and harassed post-marriage. But nothing has been quite like the royal denialism of the Sussexit, the terms of which were designed to force Harry back to the UK, broke, divorced and humbled. The royalists’ psychotic efforts to destroy the Sussexes have blown up in their faces and done permanent damage to the monarchy. But there’s denialism about that too, with few even willing to acknowledge that the damage exists. Well, Catherine Mayer is one of the few people willing to say it, at least.

As Meghan Markle celebrates her 45th birthday, one royal author argues the Duchess of Sussex’s exit from royal life caused “very serious damage” to the monarchy.

“I believe that the rupture in the family that saw Meghan and Harry go to the United States has done very serious damage to the monarchy,” Catherine Mayer, who penned “Divide & Rule,” told Fox News Digital. “But to say that is not to say that I blame them for what happened,” she said. “It’s often taken as a criticism: ‘Look what they’ve done to the monarchy.’ I think this has been very painful for everybody and for the institution, but you need only look at the latest polling on the popularity of the monarchy to see that it is losing ground.”

Mayer argued that, according to U.K. polls, the royal family has lost popularity primarily due to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was stripped of his princely title following his controversial relationship with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. However, she believes that “undoubtedly,” the Sussexes had an ability to connect with younger populations in a way that’s “not really there with the rest of the family.”

“The only ones who can potentially do it are Kate and William, and they’re more of a small ‘c’ conservative in their approach,” said Mayer, referring to the Prince and Princess of Wales.

“They’re young, but they’re in their 40s,” she said. “Their children are really young. And there’s nobody in between George and his parents, William and Kate, to capture the imagination of younger audiences. Harry and Meghan are basically the same age, but they had this appeal, a much broader appeal, and that’s been lost now.”

Royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner echoed that view, noting that family divisions remain unresolved despite recent signs of reconciliation.

“I feel there are major cracks in the royal family over Meghan and Harry, especially between King Charles and Prince William, who I believe are at loggerheads over the couple, culminating in the recent private meeting at Highgrove, leaving William blindsided about the meeting. Now, with Harry able to use Buckingham Palace again when he returns, it could be a breakthrough for Meghan and a heart-piercing wound for William.”

“In my book, I also examine the bullying allegations made against Meghan,” said Mayer. “One of the problems was that they surfaced at exactly the time of the 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview. I think that made a lot of people suspect this was done to undercut anything Meghan might say in the interview. I’d actually been hearing about friction in the palace for a very long time before the story surfaced. As I explain in the book, that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re talking about bullying, but we’re definitely talking about real friction there.”

“We’re talking about people who were very bruised by the experience, which includes her as well,” Mayer continued. “But the fact is, there were real frictions between the brothers, William and Harry, as well as between the women and within the palace system. I don’t think Meghan really understood that the monarchy will always give preference to the monarch and the immediate heir. And its members get very nervous when somebody feels bigger and more glamorous than the institution…The last thing they wanted to do was make her into some big star,” Mayer added.

Turner noted that Meghan hasn’t been the only one to experience struggles with “The Firm.”

“Outsiders are accepted, provided they do not become more powerful or overshadow family members,” he said. “In my time, Charles used to hate being overshadowed by Princess Diana at walkabouts. I believe this was part of the reason for the breakup. I feel palace employees and members of the royal family could see Meghan’s charm was making her into another Diana in waiting.”

[From Fox News]

It might sound like “water is wet” to all of us, but think about how difficult it’s been for more royal commentators to admit any of this: the palace feared Harry and Meghan’s popularity and charisma; Meghan had and has Diana’s magnetism and ability to overshadow everyone; William and Kate are dull, fussy charisma-vacuums; the Sussexes leaving the UK and living well in America has broken every royalists’ brain. That being said, Mayer’s analysis still has issues: “I don’t think Meghan really understood that the monarchy will always give preference to the monarch and the immediate heir.” That too has been a consistent talking point, that it was somehow Meghan’s fault for not understanding that she was going to be treated like garbage because she married the “spare.” How about blaming the institution for treating people like garbage? How about blaming the institution for waging these dangerous campaigns against women who happen to marry into the institution?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.