Finding Freedom: Royal palace fights Meghan Markle, Harry claims

If Harry and Meghan thought the royal family was going to quietly sit back and not respond to Finding Freedom, they are sorely mistaken.

Military history is part of the curriculum at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst so let’s hope Prince Harry was paying attention when the War of the Roses was up on the blackboard.

For more than three decades, two competing royal factions, each intent on possessing the English throne, fought a bloody and protracted battle that resulted in extensive carnage and losses on all sides.

While no one’s head has ended up on a spike recently, that particular chapter in royal history does bear a certain similarity to current events.

Today, there is another royal war brewing. At stake here – same as back when the Lancastrians and Yorks were tearing across the fields of England, trying to rip each other limb from limb – is control. Back then it was about control of the crown; these days, it is about control of the narrative.

RELATED: Prince Harry fears come true

RELATED: Huge double standard in Meghan mansion

A modern-day royal war involves fewer heads on spikes and more snippy one upmanship. Picture: Phil Harris/AFP

Earlier this month Finding Freedom, a new biography about Harry and Meghan the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, hit the shelves. Here, or so the book’s marketing spiel went, was the real story of the Sussexes’ journey from trans-Atlantic love birds to royal exiles. Finally, the curtain was going to be pulled back on the slings and arrows that the couple had to endure.

The reality was less breathtaking exposé and more predictable paean to Harry and Meghan.

The pair, or so this particular retelling of events claimed, were left with no choice but to try their hand at a new life where their talents and zeal would not be stymied by fusty courtiers more interested in shoring up the image of two future kings than learning about the power of the hashtag.

While Freedom lacked any of the wallop of previous bombshell royal biographies such as Andrew Morton’s Diana: Her True Story or Tina Brown’s The Diana Chronicles, it still managed to paint a particularly unflattering portrait of the house of Windsor.

Prince William was a “snob” after referring to Meghan as “that girl” during a fraternal tete-a-tete; Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, likewise, failed to meet the unspoken demands of the sisterhood by not calling Meghan enough; and Charles was “extremely focused on his public image and there have been times Harry has felt that has taken precedence over everything else”.

(A quick caveat: Neither Harry nor Meghan were interviewed for the book however the authors’ note does say: “We have spoken with close friends of Harry and Meghan, royal aides and palace staff (past and present), the charities and organisations they have built long-lasting relationships with and, when appropriate, the couple themselves.”)

RELATED: Book put new target on Kate’s back

The royal family are stealthily fighting back at the Meghan and Harry book. Picture: Tolga Akmen/AFP

Some biographies draw a line under particular chapters and establish an accepted version of events. But if the Sussexes or their supporters thought that Freedom’s flattering, sympathetic take on recent royal history would seamlessly become gospel, and would go uncontested back in Blighty, they would have been sorely mistaken.

This week, two reports surfaced in London that amount to what could be read as a stealthy palace fightback.

First, “well placed royal sources” hit out at claims that Charles’ relationship with his sons has been “hot and cold” with a “Buckingham Palace insider” telling the Mirror’s royal editor Russell Myers that rumours of a rift between the Prince and his sons was “complete nonsense”.

The same report also took aim at Freedom author Omid Scobie’s claim made during a promotion interview that Charles “quietly supported Harry and Meghan’s decision” to launch legal action against the Daily Mail’s parent company.

A palace insider told the newspaper: “Not only is this book incredibly one-sided for various gripes from Harry and Meghan, claims of breakdowns in the relationship with his father and him supporting their various legal cases are entirely false.”

RELATED: Meghan and Harry are playing with fire

Palace insiders deny there is friction between Princes William, Charles and Harry. The trio are shown here in 2014. Picture: Chris Jackson/Getty Images

Likewise, sources close to the future king told the Mirror, that Freedom’s assertion that “Charles is extremely focused on his public image and there have been times Harry has felt that has taken precedence over everything else” was “wholly untrue”.

Last but not least, the source said that Freedom’s claim that the photo shoot for Charles’ official 70th birthday portrait in 2018 had been a “nightmare” due to family tension was “poppycock”. (Let us all pause for a moment and enjoy the deployment of such a wonderfully PG Wodehouse-esque word.)

Charles’ 70th birthday shoot which looks so jovial was called a nightmare in the book. The palace calls poppycock! Picture: Chris Jackson/Clarence House via Getty Images

Next up, it was Richard Kay in the Daily Mail’s turn. He took to print this week to dive into Tiaragate, the ongoing saga about whether Harry and/or Meghan allegedly threw a tantrum over her wedding tiara. In Freedom, the authors say that the furore wasn’t over which diamond-encrusted topper Meghan would wear but instead claim the Queen’s dresser Angela Kelly didn’t make the tiara readily available to her in the lead-up to the big day.

According to Scobie, Harry called his grandmother and said: “I don’t know what the hell is going on. This woman needs to make this work for my future wife.”

(Harry has denied raising his voice to his grandmother.)

Kay was quick to point out that phrase – “this woman” – bore an uncanny resemblance to the phrase (“this girl”) that William had allegedly used to describe Meghan and which Harry, per Freedom, took such offence over and which is said to have sparked a rift between the brothers.

According to Kay” “It’s claimed the Duke of Sussex used the phrase to refer to the Queen’s most trusted confidante – with shocking double standards over snobbery.”

The same story also included a particularly catty comment from “an intimate source” who told Kay: “Harry and Meghan asked about another tiara which was not on the shortlist.” According to the source: “They probably googled it and thought it was one they would like.”

Meghan Markle’s wedding tiara was the cause of much drama. Picture: Aaron Chown/WPA Pool/Getty Images

At first glance, these stories might just seem like tit-for-tat, below-stairs gossip, but look again. Here we have established royal writers with extensive contacts quoting insiders and palace sources hitting back at some of Freedom’s most damaging claims about the royal family.

A coincidence? Unlikely.

See, the thing is that unlike back in the 15th century when the Yorks and Lancasters were busily trying to chop off each other’s heads while clanking around in heavy armour, these days, royal battles are fought far more covertly. Instead, intra-family squabbles and skirmishes are played out in the press and PR wars are fought via proxies.

With the publication of Finding Freedom, and its casting of Harry and Meghan as victims of an unfeeling palace machine who did little to protect or help the couple, it seems unlikely that the book’s damaging depiction of royal life would be let slide.

The royal family is an institution built on the core tenet of self-preservation, especially of the monarch and those in the direct line of succession. At some point in the next decade a vast, once-in-a-generation seismic shift is going to take place when Charles ascends to the throne. With each passing day, the stakes are only getting higher.

Thus, on one side we have the Sussexes who, despite starting their new life in California, replete with high-powered agents and a spiffy mansion that boasts 16 toilets, still seem unable to let go of the hurts and frustrations of the past.

Meghan and Harry found freedom in the US but can’t seem to forget past family skirmishes. Picture: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP

And on the other, a palace intent on protecting the public standing of the next two kings.

The result? Based on the events of the last week, with neither side willing to cede any ground in the fight for public approval, a protracted battle fought via news headlines and feeding titbits to sympathetic journalists seems to be on the cards.

The War of the Roses went on for 32 long and bloody years. I’m starting to wonder if the brewing Sussex vs Windsor showdown might end up dragging on for about as long.

That particular war ended when the Lancastrian Henry Tudor defeated King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth.

Uncannily, this weekend is the 535th anniversary of the battle and the moment when King Henry VII (or so legend goes) was crowned right there on the battlefield.

While Henry might have ultimately been the conquering hero, his triumph came after a huge amount of havoc and losses on both sides. His victory came at a steep cost.

Half a millennia later, that’s a lesson the current royal family could do well to learn – and fast.

Daniela Elser is a royal expert and writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.