Andrew Morton, the writer who got Diana to tell "Her True Story" about her in 1992, has analyzed the first year of Markle's royal life, parallel to that of Harry's mother.
The social perception of Meghan Markle as she enters the final stretch of her pregnancy divides more than Brexit. In recent weeks, the escalation between Markle's detractors (tabloids and the most controversial man in England, Piers Morgan, who have renamed her Duchess Difficult) and allies (such as George Clooney or Sarah Ferguson) has escalated. And everyone compares her to the same figure: Diana of Wales. A reference that the Duchess herself accepted at the time, according to one of the men who knows the most about the royals, and especially Diana: Andrew Morton.
The man who shook the British monarchy at its lowest moment with the biography Diana: her true story has published an extensive analysis in the Telegraph, where he claims that Meghan has failed in the strategy that was supposed to win her the love of the people: copy the manual of Diana of Wales, adapted to the 21st century.
Or, rather, that despite having played perfectly by Diana's rules, the public has jumped on her just as much. Morton points out several of the milestones in which Markle has played her cards. Starting with the friendly stylistic duel with Kate Middleton, peppered with constant references to the wardrobe and accessories of William and Harry's mother (something that Middleton has also been able to exploit for years while ensuring her own image). But, above all, when undertaking the vital leap to which she has adopted perfectly. Morton says Diana told him that her first year of royal life left her "exhausted," but he lists Markle's incredible accomplishments in her new life.
Someone with no previous experience in a royal house with inscrutable traditions has carried out more than 100 acts on the official agenda, has always put himself at the service of the queen - he will soon visit Morocco with Harry on an official trip at the request of Elizabeth II -, has He quickly adopted the mission that Harry inherited from his mother, with frequent charitable contributions. While he accepts various royal patronages, one of the occupations that brings the Windsors closer to the people without losing tradition. All this without losing good spirits, carrying a pregnancy, and with extreme dedication to people. With unscheduled appearances among the most disadvantaged, which are so reminiscent of Diana's escapades.
In general, a first year in which both followed similar paths: infernal agenda, brave adaptation to the rhythms of an institution with millennial inertia, refuge in the affection of the public in public events and a certain sector of the press agitating an opinion public against. One of the big differences, yes, is in Harry's absolute and unconditional support. But, even so, Morton points out, Markle and Diana have another element in common: helplessness.
One of the tolls that Meghan had to pay to join the Windsors was giving up her social networks and the Internet, where she ran a successful lifestyle publication -The Tig-. All the hate that Markle receives from the Internet now has no source of reply and, more importantly: no one helps her. One of the Windsors' golden rules is not to deny false stories. The adage is old and solemn: "if we denied one, we would have to deny them all", something unheard of for a Hollywood personality, who has to constantly see how every aspect of his life, even the letter he sent to his father, the last flare in this constant burning of their public figure, are subject to the scrutiny of the masses.
Andrew Morton remembers that Diana Spencer never got used to being Diana of Wales - also because she was younger and less famous originally than Meghan - and, above all, she never got used to "no one [among the Windsors] ever saying to me '!' good job!' or give me some sign of encouragement." Morton, a long-time confidant of Diana's sorrows, believes that Meghan has "failed" in her efforts to emulate her absent mother-in-law. But not because she has not managed to approach the impossible figure of the most famous royal of the 20th century. But because, he theorizes, we are no longer facing a Diana 2.0, but rather the last bars of the first version of Meghan Markle. A new type of royal full of self-confidence, capable of surviving this constant discharge of "waste" - as Sarah Ferguson calls the toxic environment of digital networks and tabloids - and from whom "we have not seen anything yet."
