Boris Johnson’s “Manly Pep Talk” Failed to Keep Prince Harry in the UK

In a recent revelation from his memoir Unleashed, Boris Johnson claims Buckingham Palace officials asked him to give Prince Harry a ‘manly pep talk’ in an effort to convince him to stay in the UK and remain within the fold of the royal family. As Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s departure from royal duties—problematically known as “Megxit”—sent shockwaves through the British establishment. Johnson’s role highlights the strategic involvement of the royal family, government, and media in controlling the Sussexes’ decision to leave. This piece explores Johnson’s involvement, the royal family’s calculated use of influential figures, and how the Sussexes’ exit highlights deeper issues of media manipulation and power dynamics.

The “Manly Pep Talk” to Prince Harry

In January 2020, just weeks after Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, the royal family sought his help to intervene in the escalating crisis surrounding Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s decision to step down from royal duties. Johnson was asked to meet with Harry privately during a UK-Africa investment summit in London’s Docklands. For 20 minutes, Johnson attempted to persuade Harry to reconsider his decision, but to no avail.

Embed from Getty Images

According to Johnson’s account in Unleashed, he was skeptical from the start and described the meeting as “totally hopeless.” Despite this effort, the following day, Prince Harry flew to Canada to reunite with Meghan and their son, Archie, solidifying the couple’s break from royal life. This “manly pep talk” conversation reflects the royal family’s efforts to keep Harry within the institution, but it also highlights their unwillingness to truly address the deeper concerns driving Harry and Meghan away—namely, their treatment by the media and the lack of support from the institution.

The Royal Family’s Strategic Use of Boris Johnson

This interaction between Boris Johnson and Prince Harry sheds light on the royal family’s use of governmental figures to maintain their public standing. The monarchy has long relied on its institutional power to influence both the media and the government. By seeking Johnson’s help, the royals were not just reaching out for personal mediation; they were leveraging their influence within the political establishment to control the narrative.

This aligns with the strategy outlined in Harry’s memoir Spare, where he detailed how the family’s plan was first to isolate him during key discussions. Next, influential figures—like Johnson—talked him out of leaving. Lastly, the Royal family offered the couple an exit plan designed to be so unappealing they wouldn’t take it. These tactics reflect a pattern of control within the institution, one where power is maintained by using external figures like Boris Johnson to exercise pressure.

Furthermore, as we explored in a previous article about the smear campaign against Meghan Markle, the royal family has frequently worked hand-in-hand with the British media to shape public perceptions. The media’s relentless smear campaign against Meghan, combined with the family’s inability or unwillingness to defend her, created an environment where leaving became the couple’s only viable option. The involvement of Boris Johnson in trying to stop “Megxit” further illustrates how deeply embedded these power dynamics are within both the royal and political spheres. Johnson’s role was not merely to persuade Harry—it was part of a larger institutional effort to retain control.

Boris Johnson’s Views on Harry and Meghan’s Work

Despite his role in this failed mediation attempt, Boris Johnson has praised the Sussexes for their contributions to the UK. He acknowledged Prince Harry’s impactful work with the Invictus Games and Meghan’s advocacy for women and girls’ education in developing countries. A friend of Johnson’s said he believed the couple was a great asset to the UK and that it was a “real shame they were leaving when they were doing such great work.”

However, while Johnson can now publicly recognize the Sussexes’ value, his government did little to address the media’s relentless abuse of Meghan Markle. In fact, when more than 70 prominent women signed a letter condemning the media’s treatment of Meghan for its “outdated, colonial undertones,” Johnson was notably absent from the list of supporters. And let’s not forget—he worked for the royal family, an institution that was actively working against the Sussexes behind the scenes. The irony is glaring. Johnson’s silence during their most vulnerable moments and his newfound willingness to comment now shows just how deeply flawed and ineffective the system is—and how utterly useless Johnson proved to be in that moment. Perhaps he should have directed that “manly pep talk” toward the royal family instead.

Johnson, who had long been comfortable with controversial and inflammatory rhetoric himself, watched as the British media vilified Meghan, particularly in racially charged ways. Despite knowing the importance of the Sussexes’ contributions, Johnson remained silent on the toxic environment created by the media—an environment that, according to Prince Harry, played a significant role in their decision to leave the UK. This silence from both the government and the royal family reinforced the very toxicity that Harry sought to escape.

Prince Harry’s Concerns for His Wife’s Safety

Prince Harry has spoken openly about the threats faced by him and his family, particularly by Meghan. In an interview, he expressed his fear that these threats could manifest into real-world violence, saying, “All it takes is one lone actor, one person who reads this stuff to act on what they have read.” His fear were echoed by Neil Basu, the former head of UK counter-terrorism, who confirmed that Meghan faced “serious, credible threats” from far-right extremists while living in the UK.

These threats were so severe that several individuals (including ex-police) had been prosecuted for their actions. Harry has made it clear that the dangers posed by media narratives were a driving factor behind their decision to leave the UK. He revealed that he cannot bring Meghan back to the country due to the constant threats against her safety.

The Impact of Media Narratives on Personal Safety

The negative media coverage directed at Meghan Markle and Prince Harry has gone far beyond damaging their reputations—it has posed serious threats to their safety. Prince Harry has consistently warned about the dangers of unchecked sensationalism in the press, noting that it only takes one person to act on the false, inflammatory stories they read. Harry’s fears for Meghan’s safety stem from the painful knowledge of his mother’s fate, a stark reminder of how media narratives can incite hatred and violence.

The term “Megxit” is a perfect example of how the media unfairly targets Meghan. Coined by the British press, it is a portmanteau of “Meghan” and “exit,” playing on “Brexit,” and places the blame squarely on Meghan for the couple’s decision to step back from royal duties. The reality, as Prince Harry has made clear, is that the decision was a joint one. Yet, the focus on Meghan in “Megxit” rather than Harry reveals a deeper bias, as it reinforces the narrative that Meghan is to blame for disrupting royal traditions. This term has become a rallying cry for detractors, perpetuating misogynistic and racist undertones that frame Meghan as the primary cause of the couple’s departure from royal life.

The media’s role in spreading this narrative has had real-world implications. British tabloids have weaponized a photoshopped image of Meghan, originally from an Invictus Games event, to tarnish her reputation. This almost six-year campaign of negative press directed at Meghan has not only aimed to damage her public image but has also heightened concerns about her safety. Just as Diana’s life ended tragically due to media overreach, Harry’s fears for Meghan are a sobering reminder of the dangerous impact that unchecked media narratives can have.

Legal Actions Against the Media

Prince Harry has undertaken numerous legal battles against the British media, aiming to hold them accountable for their role in perpetuating harmful and defamatory narratives. His lawsuits, including a major privacy case against Associated Newspapers Limited (Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday), centre around the publication of private letters and invasions of privacy that fueled public scrutiny. These legal cases are not just about defending his family—they are part of a broader stand against media overreach and the abuse of public figures.

Embed from Getty Images

Harry’s legal efforts have led to some victories, but they also represent his determination to challenge the media’s power in shaping public opinion and driving harmful narratives. His actions symbolize a pushback against the system that has allowed such violations of privacy to go unchecked, not only for himself but for others who may face similar treatment.

Media Accountability and the Role of the Press

Prince Harry’s calls for media reform underline the urgent need for responsible journalism, particularly in an age where sensationalism often takes precedence over truth. While the press has a duty to report on public figures, it must also recognize the ethical boundaries that safeguard personal safety.
Harry often highlights the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario, which perfectly captures the impossible position he and Meghan face. No matter how they respond—whether through silence or legal action—the media continues to perpetuate harmful narratives that generate public scorn and endanger their safety.

In December 2022, Jeremy Clarkson sparked outrage when he published a column in The Sun, fantasizing about Meghan being paraded naked through the streets while crowds hurled excrement at her. His words drew widespread backlash, with Harry later addressing the impact of such comments during an ITV interview in January 2023.

Harry’s legal battles with the press go beyond personal grievances; they represent a broader struggle for media accountability. The Sussexes’ departure from the UK was a direct result of the unrelenting scrutiny and harassment they faced, escalating into a larger fight for privacy and dignity. As public figures continue to endure intense media pressure, the role of the press in spreading harmful narratives must be critically examined and reformed to strike a better balance between press freedom and personal safety. Perhaps Boris Johnson should be offering a “manly pep talk” to the media, but given his long-standing career within it, such hope seems doubtful—especially considering the cozy relationship between the royal family and the press.