William And Kate’s Book Focuses On “Toxic” Sussex Exit, While The Waleses’ Royal Epstein Links Go Unaddressed

Talk about reheating stale nachos. The captains of the ‘save-a-royal-from-scrutiny’ brigade have arrived, ready to serve Meghan Sussex as the scapegoat once again for public consumption. Russell Myers has a new book to sell, a biography about Prince William and Kate Middleton, yet the excerpts meant to polish their image instead paint the couple as strikingly hostile toward their biracial in-law. In turn, the backlash has revived online speculation about past remarks concerning baby Archie’s skin tone.

The Princess of Wales had less interest than Prince William in trying to stop the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from walking away from royal life, believing Prince Harry quitting his role was ‘inevitable’. … In the third part of our exclusive serialisation of the new tell-all biography, it is revealed how Kate later believed the Sussexes were ‘not to be trusted’ in the wake of their controversial Oprah Winfrey interview. … Following Harry and Meghan’s wedding, she and William felt the Sussexes ‘had an agenda’, with their behaviour more than just being ‘difficult’. – The Daily Mirror, excerpt from the serialisation of Russell Myers’ biography William & Catherine The Intimate Inside Story

The Narrative Of Distrust Versus The Record Of Associations

The Mirror’s excerpt asks readers to accept a chain of private emotions as established truth. We are told the Princess of Wales saw Harry’s exit as “inevitable,” later viewed the Sussexes as “not to be trusted,” and believed they carried “an agenda” that proved “difficult.” None of these claims arrives with named sources, dates, or documents. They arrive as character judgments packaged as revelation. The language leans on feeling rather than evidence, which invites scrutiny about why such definitive conclusions appear only when a book needs attention.

Meghan entered royal life with established experience in public speaking, international charity work, media interviews, and fashion partnerships. Presenting her as dependent on guidance from someone routinely described by commentators as “Duchess-Do-Little” and “work-shy” is a condescending rewrite. The claim functions as image management rather than documented support, especially when it appears through anonymous sourcing instead of verifiable accounts. You only have to look at People magazine’s so-called royal sources, who couldn’t even agree on who wrote Kate Middleton’s cancer speech.

Then comes the claim of “exhausting demands” on staff. That accusation runs straight into the public conversation about royal work hours and visible engagements. Lower yearly engagement numbers for the Waleses often pass with little noise, while emails or diary habits linked to the Sussexes get picked apart for days. The double standard stands out. One couple’s activity gets branded excessive, while the future King and Queen’s lighter schedule gets framed as sensible.

Perhaps Meghan would have done much better with Princess Anne’s household, whose staff have no complaints, which has allowed Anne to already complete over 31 engagements this year. Despite Kate, Princess of Wales, completing fewer than 10 royal engagements so far, this book claims that staff working for Meghan felt overwhelmed.

The Story Meghan Asked Them to Fix

What stands out is that Prince Harry already wrote about this moment in Spare. He described the private meeting where Kate admitted the press stories saying Meghan made her cry were not true. Meghan accepted the apology, but she asked the obvious question: if everyone knew the story was wrong, why didn’t the Palace correct it publicly?

That’s the key issue. Meghan wasn’t trying to stir drama for the sake of it. She was frustrated that a damaging headline spread around the world while the people who knew the truth stayed silent. According to Harry’s own words, the problem wasn’t a private disagreement; it was the refusal to fix a public lie.

So when later reports claim Kate felt “let down” because Meghan corrected the record in the Oprah interview, it raises eyebrows. Two covers, two narratives: tabloids spread the Meghan-Kate crying claim worldwide, while the Palace challenged or corrected only select Tatler details.

There’s also the question of opportunity. Senior royals had major magazine profiles and media platforms where they could have set the record straight themselves. Instead, legal action was taken over certain details while the central claim about Meghan remained untouched.

Seen in that light, Meghan publicly addressing the issue doesn’t read as an attack. It reads as someone finally defending herself after waiting for others to do the right thing — and realizing they weren’t going to.

Distraction Optics And The Andrew Contrast

The timing of these book excerpts does not look accidental. Each time Prince Andrew’s past or his Epstein associations drift back into public conversation, a fresh round of negative Sussex headlines suddenly takes centre stage. The pattern feels deliberate. Harry and Meghan become the lightning rod while the more uncomfortable subjects fade into the background. Instead of transparency, the public receives recycled character critiques wrapped as new revelations.

That framing sits awkwardly beside earlier commentary suggesting William and Kate would rather live beside Andrew than Harry and Meghan. Andrew’s legal controversy with Virginia Giuffre ended in a costly settlement backed by family resources, and questions about financial transparency never truly disappeared. Against that reality, branding the Sussexes as uniquely “untrustworthy” sounds like selective outrage.

Outrage is a luxury these taxpayer-funded royals, especially William and Kate, no longer have the credibility to display. That ship has sailed and crashed straight into the Epstein iceberg. Rehashing old grudges while the royal family faces a reputational crisis of this scale only highlights how detached both the institution and its media allies appear.

The optics also fail William and Kate themselves. The excerpts meant to defend them end up exposing pettiness. Describing staff as “exhausted,” admitting Harry’s departure felt “inevitable,” and leaning on anonymous trust judgments do not project strength or dignity. They project irritation. Instead of reinforcing leadership, the narrative paints a picture of resentment and thin skin. The result backfires. The attempt to control the story ends up widening it. Rather than restoring polish to the Waleses’ image, the strategy highlights contrast, raises fresh doubts, and drags Andrew’s shadow right back into view.

Timing Public Reaction And The Andrew Shadow

The royal reporters are attempting to revive old grievances while the institution faces one of the most damaging reputational crises in decades. Recycling Sussex storylines does not restore credibility. It signals avoidance. The bullying allegations against Meghan have circulated for years without substantiation, yet they resurface with familiar regularity whenever pressure builds elsewhere. Words like “abrasive” and “toxic” read like a long-running smear protected by an establishment quick to shield its own.

They also stand in stark contrast to the fact that Meghan faced a formal internal palace HR investigation over bullying claims, while no equivalent internal inquiry was publicly announced regarding Andrew’s conduct.

At the same time, unresolved questions linger around royal associations and charitable vetting. William’s Earthshot partnerships have drawn scrutiny over donor backgrounds, and critics continue to ask why those conversations receive softer treatment than personality critiques aimed at a couple who left years ago. The contrast fuels the perception of selective accountability. If the goal is public trust, then transparency about funding, partners, and judgment matters more than reviving character attacks.

There is also a practical question of priorities. Proxy media wars offer headlines but deliver little substance. The Sussexes stepped back from royal duties long ago, yet their names still power cycles that produce more noise than results. The public looks for measurable outcomes, visible work, and clear standards applied evenly. Repeating the same tune does not answer those expectations. Delivering tangible progress might.

Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images Embed from Getty Images