Amid escalating tensions between Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, and the British Royal Family, allegations have surfaced claiming Meghan has ‘brainwashed’ Harry. These assertions, reportedly made by Queen Camilla to a confidant and shared in a new biography by Tom Bower, have been vehemently refuted by the couple’s spokesperson, labeling them as a ‘deranged conspiracy.’
Renowned biographer Tom Bower’s latest book delves into the ongoing rift within the Royal Family, presenting a narrative where Queen Camilla allegedly expressed these sentiments about Meghan’s influence over Harry. However, this narrative has been swiftly countered by Harry and Meghan’s representatives.
In a statement released on Saturday, the spokesperson for the Sussexes criticized Bower’s claims, accusing him of crossing from critique into an unhealthy obsession. The statement highlighted Bower’s controversial stance, remarking, “This is someone who has publicly stated that the monarchy depends on actually obliterating the Sussexes from our state of life,” suggesting a bias in his narrative.
Further addressing the issue, the spokesperson remarked on Bower’s professional pursuits, stating, “He has made a career out of constructing ever more elaborate theories about people he does not know and has never met.” This comment underscores the couple’s stance against Bower’s speculative storytelling.
The spokesperson concluded by advising those interested in factual information to seek it elsewhere, implying that Bower’s work caters to those drawn to conspiracy and drama. As the public watches this royal drama unfold, the Sussexes remain firm in their rejection of such speculative claims.
‘Those interested in facts will look elsewhere – those seeking deranged conspiracy and melodrama know exactly where to find him.’
In a dramatic account of the breakdown in relations between the couple and the Royal Family, the book claims tensions were spiralling just weeks after Harry and Meghan returned from their honeymoon in the summer of 2018.
Bower alleges that a supposedly conciliatory teatime meeting between Harry and his brother culminated in Meghan snapping at Prince William: ‘If you don’t mind, get your finger out of my face.’
The clash came amid mounting concern within the Royal Family that Harry was changing under Meghan’s influence, even swapping his mobile phone number in secret.
‘Meghan’s brainwashed Harry,’ Camilla is said to have told a friend as the dispute intensified.
‘Both evidently saw Meghan as a threat rather than an ally,’ Bower wrote in Betrayal: Power, Deceit and the Fight for the Future of the Royal Family, which has been serialised in The Times and is set to be published later this month.
The remark said to have been made by Queen Camilla allegedly reflected fears within the family that the once carefree prince had become estranged from his relatives and the life he had led prior to meeting Suits actress Meghan.
William had harboured doubts about Meghan long before the couple’s wedding, warning Harry that the relationship was moving too fast, it’s claimed.
‘It’s gone too quickly,’ the future king is said to have told his younger brother about his budding romance.
A stinging claim said to have been made by Queen Camilla that Meghan Markle had ‘brainwashed’ Prince Harry has been dismissed as a ‘deranged conspiracy’. Pictured: Queen Camilla and Meghan Markle in May 2018
The clash between Meghan and Harry came amid mounting concern within the Royal Family that Harry was changing under Meghan’s influence
His misgivings were reportedly shared by William’s wife Catherine, the Princess of Wales, who Bower claims was also wary of Meghan’s influence.
According to the book, both William and Kate believed Harry – who struggled following the death of his mother Diana and had battled issues with drink, drugs and his mental health – was particularly vulnerable.
While Meghan’s ambition captivated Harry, the family regarded her as a potential destabilising force.
The author claims that William and Catherine suspected Meghan was unhappy about the limits of Harry’s future within the monarchy, and ‘regretted’ the fact that she would probably never become queen.
Instead of accepting the traditional role of the royal ‘spare’, Harry pushed back against palace control and distanced himself from his old circle of friends.
The prince, who had been known for his boisterous, boozy, fun-loving ways, became ‘possessed by seeking revenge’, Bower writes.
Since the Sussexes quit royal duties and moved to California in 2020, they have become isolated from Britain while Meghan has focused on building a commercial brand in the United States.
At a recent Netflix event promoting its upcoming shows, Meghan’s new lifestyle series With Love, Meghan, reportedly failed to receive a mention from the streaming giant’s head of content.
Bower also recounts how the couple attempted to boost their public image during devastating wildfires in California by visiting a Pasadena soup kitchen and sharing footage of the trip on social media.
But critics accused them of staging a publicity stunt, with Hollywood film-maker Justine Bateman branding the couple ‘ambulance chasers’ and ‘disaster tourists’.
Elsewhere in the book, Bower focuses on media coverage of Harry and Meghan at the Invictus Games, the international sporting event for wounded veterans founded by the prince in 2014.
The author refers to the event as ‘the Meghan Games’, a description that has been dismissed as ‘disappointing’ and ‘disrespectful’.
A spokesperson for the Invictus Games Foundation told the Daily Mail: ‘The Foundation exists to support the recovery and rehabilitation of wounded, injured and sick service personnel and veterans from around the world.
‘Attempts to question the legitimacy of competitors or diminish the experiences of those living with both physical injuries and invisible wounds such as PTSD are deeply disrespectful to the men and women the Games were created for.
‘The focus should remain where it belongs – on the courage, recovery and camaraderie of those who have served.’
Another Invictus source described Bower’s description of the event, which brings together wounded military personnel, as ‘offensive’.
Accusing Bower of showing a ‘mind-boggling lack of understanding and compassion’ for servicemen and women, they added: ‘How dare he. Shame on him.’
In a response to Harry and Meghan’s reaction, Bower told The Mirror that the couple had ‘shoddily continued to monetise their status and attack their family.’
He said: ‘Unfortunately they have chosen to continue to exploit their relationship for their personal and financial advantage.
‘I sincerely feel that both Sussexes have caused such irreversible damage to our royal family for their own profit that their silence would have been hugely welcome.’
Of his criticism of the Invictus Games, Mr Bower added: ‘Regarding Invictus, I wrote that it is a truly noble cause for genuine heroes. However what I saw in Vancouver and Whistler last year failed to live up to the expectations created by the organisers.’
