Britain Is Repeating Princess Diana’s History With Meghan Markle

  • Meghan Markle was first welcomed, then reviled, by the British public.
  • The same accusations that are currently being thrown at the Duchess of Sussex were once thrown at her mother-in-law, Princess Diana.
  • Although fictionalized, “The Crown” ably draws the parallels between the two women.

“She’s a money-hungry, social-climbing gold-digger who wanted nothing more than to take the British royal family down.”

This phrase, in its various incarnations, has been uttered about Meghan Markle, usually from the pits of the stomachs of the collective British public, and usually filled with more bile than they’ve ever hurled at anyone else.

But, as the hit Netflix show “The Crown” demonstrates, Britain is repeating history — because thirty years before Markle went through it, her mother-in-law Princess Diana went through the same trial by fire.

The Meghan Markle Criticisms Should Sound Familiar

By now, we’re all aware that Meghan Markle gets venom-filled columns written about her on a daily basis. The way some journalists — and Piers Morgan, who is more Lewis Prothero than Sir David Attenborough, though certainly, he believes otherwise — talk, you would think that Markle was single-handedly responsible for everything from the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the 2008 financial crisis.

And all she did was marry a minor royal. The hate-filled jealousy that gets spewed her way is almost always from women who wish they could shoot their shot with Prince Harry, or men (like Piers Morgan) who got rejected by her.

But, although depicted in a fictionalized format, “The Crown” proves that this criticism of Meghan Markle should sound familiar to anyone with a half-brain in the heads.

Clive Irving, a royal biographer, told The Standard that the British royal family tends to get extremely jealous and vengeful when one of their members — especially one that isn’t born into the family — gets too loved by the public, and works overtime to take them down, as evidenced by their treatment of Princess Diana.

Of all the royals, she [Princess Diana] was by far the shrewdest in understanding that her power to deal with the [rest of] the royals lay in having the media on her side. There was a Diana bias in all the coverage from the beginning. The Crown gets this exactly right, without overdoing it — after all Charles is as complex as any Shakespearean prince.

And if you don’t believe that they’re doing this with Meghan Markle, take a look at the headlines. The video below gives a preview of what’s to come.

How Quick They Are To Defend Their Own While Feeding ‘Others’ To The Wolves

More than one press outlet — including this one — has pointed out that Meghan Markle gets roasted alive in the British press, while Prince Andrew skates on by unscathed (even though he’s allegedly done far worse). The British public, too, has grown tired of spittle-filled hit pieces on the Duchess of Sussex while the nonce known as the Duke of York gets undeserved deference.

Meghan Markle
This is not an uncommon sentiment. | Source: Twitter
Meghan Markle
Even the British press are starting to wonder why we’re so quick to defend Prince Andrew while throwing Meghan Markle under the bus. | Source: Twitter

But it’s also interesting to note that in the revisionist rewrite of history, Princess Diana is called horrible names that have no basis in reality, while Camilla Parker-Bowles — a life-long adulterer who subsequently married the man she so openly and disgustingly cheated with — gets subsequently lionized in the British press.

Yet, the British public seems to know they’re being had — because they were quick to criticize “The Crown” actress portraying Parker-Bowles because she’s too attractive to play the Duchess of Cornwall.

Meghan Markle
I see no lies told. | Source: Twitter

So, in summary: Prince Harry has watched, first-hand, how the same press that attacks his mother, his wife, and his child stands idly by — and outright lionizes — his accused pedophile uncle, his social-climbing sister-in-law, and his adulterous step-mother.

No wonder Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped back from their duties. Who can blame them?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of

17 thoughts on “Britain Is Repeating Princess Diana’s History With Meghan Markle”

  1. “All she did was marry a minor royal.” Are you kidding? This is a woman who from the get-go had difficulties complying with royal protocol. But the worst of it is the scheme she and Harry cooked up to ditch the royal family yet attempt to profit off their royal ties. She simply could not go along with the program. The worst of it, even today, she can’t keep her big mouth shut with her non-stop spouting off of her flaky,Hollywood ,left-wing woke politics. She doesn’t get it. We don’t want to hear it. Liberals! We can’t stand you!!!!

    This is a woman who is very, very hard to like. When you have a beloved family member that marries someone and then you never see them again, you know they have married a control freak. That’s the first thing controlling people do— cut ties with family and friends of their spouse. It is a despicable thing to do. And Harry should be ashamed of himself for going along with all this.

  2. I feel the venom towards Meghan is the fact, as you stated, she married a minor Royal yet proceeded to act like she was the head honcho. That grates on people when no respect is shown to the institution you married into. Also it’s kinda like comparing chalk with cheese as they are 2 very different women with 2 very different stories and life experiences when they married into the Royal Family.

  3. Oh yeah they stepped back from their duties but still want the perks! Maybe I’ll see if I can do that in my job. NOT. Rachel saw one thing about Harry. Millions of dollars to line her and mommy’s bank account. Her mommy taught her how to fleece someone real well

  4. The Crown is fiction. The story, the dialogue & more are made up. Have you not heard the actors & script writer even admit that themselves? It really is offensive to the memory of Diana to compare that grifter to her. Markle has nothing in common with Diana, except they both married British princes.

  5. No: Meghan Markle is trying to repeat Diana’s history. But it won’t work, because she simply doesn’t have the appeal that Diana had – even when she is no longer with us.

  6. Saying MM & Princess Diana are the same in any way is comical. Princess Diana was born into aristocracy. She had a difficult childhood by her own accounts. She was also a profoundly mentally ill girl, who had not had a relationship with a man, and was in no way prepared to marry anyone…let alone the Prince of Wales. MM is a bit long in the tooth to call her a girl, and with 3 marriages under her belt, was well aware of what marriage entails. And by her account she was well aware of her role within the Royal Family & what to expect. The only thing I can say that is similar between the two, is that they both courted the press. But you can’t control the press. I realize you want someone to take their eyes off MM and put them on Prince Andrew…but to date he hasn’t actually broken the law…because if he had charges would be pressed. He’s disgusting to be sure, but to date not a criminal.

  7. First thing, The Crown is fiction sculptured to suit primarily an American audience so truth is not required. So bringing this program into a discussion about what is and what isn’t real or relevant is as argument or truth completely vacuous.
    And Diana. Obviously loved by a nation and probably across the world but as with many individuals as time goes on their legend becomes greater and they reach diety status even if they are just like everyone else and full of as many faults as they have virtues. I’m not taking away from her I’m just saying that perhaps some balance about her is required. Much smarter than Markle she got the press on side so we pretty much only got the good story.
    Lastly drawing comparisons between Diana and Markle is just so totally irrelevant. Markle knew 100% what getting into the Royal family meant. This is an intelligent (some could say self-obsessed schemer) person who had a self declared desire to be a princess and given her obsessions with things she would have done her research. She slipped up though when she found out she wouldn’t be a princess but a lowly duchess. Even the so called Sussex Squad won’t ( can’t ) deny that every step she has made since arranging her date with Harry has been calculated.
    She has let herself down and rightfully attracted the ire of the public because she has treated not the Royal Family but the subjects of that family with utter contempt. She has made herself a big target. She’s been so obsessed about promoting herself over her hapless husband and his family that she has dropped her guard and shown not just her inability to read the marketplace but show any ability to relate to the causes and people that she pretends to “care” for. Put the obvious PR disasters aside because they will become legendary and just look at the number of woke and trendy causes she hilariously lectures us lowly people about then moves on from if she didn’t get the “likes” she expected. Her historical lack of commitment to anyone or anything will also become legendary.

  8. Oh Bernadette, You just repeatedly kept spewing venomous nonsense without basis or proof. You call Kate a social climber then it would make Meghan the Queen of gold digger. At least she can claim that she is the Queen of something right so that should at least make her happy.

    There is no comparison between Diana and Meghan. Diana was loved by the pubic but Meghan is not. Diana was the most famous woman in the world but Meghan is not. Diana was the most popular member of the royal family but Meghan is not. Diana was a young naive bride but the middle aged divorcee Meghan was not. Diana was a pioneer in charity, landmine and AIDS awareness while Meghan is no pioneer. Diana had humility but Meghan has none. So you trying to compare the incomparable seems to highlight your simple mindedness.

    PS: Harry has no attractive qualities that even if he comes with a package of a million dollar, I doubt that there will be a takers. I certainly am not lining up myself.

  9. I disagree. Diana had little “inside” knowledge of what she was marrying into. Meghan knew exactly what she was marrying into —-Meghan had Diana’s “tell all” book on her bookshelf.

  10. Bernadette all I can say is you must be on Meghan’s payroll. Meghan had a plan BEFORE she married harry. She idolized Diana so she is using the SAME tactics to make herself a VICTIM so harry will “protect” her. Meghan is a twice divorced woman who has been around the block MANY MANY times and knows how to use people-hence the weak prince for the title she never earned. She has never been a victim only a first class USER!

  11. I’m positively surprised how you managed to disprove your often stated claim that the press hated Meghan merely because she was biracial. In fact, every single woman marrying into the royal family is in for a rough ride, including Diana, Sarah Fergusson, Kate Middleton, Sophie Wessex and Meghan. The British tabloid press gives them all a hard time. However, comparing a media-savvy actress in her 30es, who read Diana’s biography during her teens, to a naive, damaged teenager of 19 years is, unfortunately, too far a stretch to be believable. To say nothing of the fact that Diana actually managed to carve out a role for herself in the family with her charities. So as far as I’m concerned, the only thing she and Meghan have in common is having married a prince. As have Sarah Fergusson, Kate Middleton and Sophie Wessex.

  12. Meghan is no repeat of Diana’s history. Obviously, if you judge historical events on what Netflix Entertainment you may be live this. But alas, real history is not like in the movies.
    And what has Prince Andrew to do with Meghan?
    Fact is, American Authorities never let their own people being judged abroad.
    Let tell you this history of Anne Sacoolas, the wife of an American diplomat who killed in a hit and run accident a British young man (a 19 year old). She immediately fled the UK claiming diplomatic immunity. She was never judged for killing that young man.
    Or another case in Eastern Europe, In Romania. A well-known musician, Teo Peter, was killed in a traffic accident in December 2004 by 31-year-old U.S. Marine Staff Sergeant Christopher Van Goethem, serving at the U.S. embassy in Bucharest, while driving drunk. Like Sacoolas, he was swiftly dispatched to the States and never faced Justice.
    That is what American Authorities do when their official kills people abroad.
    So why are you expecting British Prince Andrew, who did not kill anyone, be extradited? For what exactly, he was a witness, not the defendant?
    Maybe Americans should clean their act before raising claims against foreign citizens.


Leave a Comment