How Meghan Markle's Biggest Bombshell Failed to Detonate

Meghan Markle's account of a racially charged comment from an unnamed royal about her unborn child was the most explosive element of her bombshell interview—yet two years on it has fizzled out.

The Duchess of Sussex was asked by Oprah Winfrey about her decision not to name the individual and warned: "I think that would be very damaging to them."

Her words sparked a years-long guessing game over who was responsible and two-and-a-half years later a name emerged, by accident, in the Dutch language version of Omid Scobie's book Endgame.

The name, which has not been confirmed, was King Charles III. However, it has not been damaging to him, as polling showed this week.

Redfield & Wilton, on behalf of Newsweek, asked a representative sample of 1,500 Americans how they viewed royals, including Charles and Kate Middleton, who was said in Dutch Endgame, to have been present for the conversation.

And far from seeing their popularity plunge, both were liked by Americans more on December 8 than they were in September, before the names were published.

Other royals, including Harry and Meghan, also got a boost, suggesting publication of the names simply did not have the impact Meghan originally predicted, rather than that the public approved of, or agreed with, the comment.

Yet the Oprah interview was damaging, in the sense that Piers Morgan lost his job after saying he did not believe Meghan's account of feeling suicidal hours after broadcast.

There are, however, reasons why Meghan's incendiary account sent shockwaves through Britain, America and the world in 2021 but has lost its force in 2023.

King Charles and Kate's Popularity Spikes Despite Naming

The king and Princess of Wales were named in connection with the scandal on November 28 and Newsweek's polling took place more than a week later on December 8.

Charles experienced a mega 17-point upward swing in his popularity compared to polling by the same agency in September after he was liked by 32 percent and disliked by 15 percent, giving him a net approval rating of plus 17.

The king was liked more by Gen Z (42 percent) than his own generation, with 21 percent of over 59s approving of him.

He is also more popular among Democrats (39 percent) than Republicans (29 percent) based on how respondents voted in 2020.

Kate also got a five-point bump in her net rating from plus 33 to plus 38, after 47 percent of Americans said they liked her compared to 9 percent who disliked her.

Reasons the Monarchy's Reputation Survives Intact

There is both a simple explanation, that the identities have not been confirmed and therefore some may be skeptical as to their accuracy, as well as a more subtle, complex one.

Eric Schiffer, chair of Reputation Management Consultants, recently told Newsweek: "[The naming] will not punch through unless they're willing to put it in the U.S. version and the other versions. If they are, then yes, now there's something that they can hold on to."

However, there is more going on than that. The atmosphere in both Britain and America has been very different in 2023 compared to March 2021 when Meghan first aired her allegation.

Back then, any criticism of the duchess felt like a denial of serious allegations relating to mental health and racism, two of the most sensitive issues in public discourse.

However, as time passed the protective blanket that America threw over Meghan began to slip away and when Harry's book, Spare, was published, complete with an account of getting frostbite on his penis, it was replaced by ridicule.

There were stand-up comedy routines and roasts on South Park and Family Guy while progressive activists, naturally hostile to the very institution the couple criticized, were among those taking aim at Harry.

Most problematic of all was the way Harry muddied and confused the issues relating to the very race-related allegation that dominated the public reaction to Oprah, neutering it in the process.

Racial Discrimination and Meghan's Allegation

The exact circumstances and context behind Meghan's allegation have never been completely clear in that she gave her interpretation of the remark made without stating the remark itself.

Oprah asked Meghan: "You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn't want to make Archie a prince. What are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because of his race?"

"I can give you an honest answer," Meghan replied. "In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time...  so we have in tandem the conversation of 'He won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title' and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born."

Oprah asked whether Meghan meant "they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem?" and the duchess said: "If that's the assumption you're making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one."

Harry gave a little more detail, summarizing the question asked as: "What will the kids look like?"

However, there is nothing in that form of words to show viewers why Meghan felt it was motivated by concern over whether a "too brown" family member would be a "problem," or whether it was a more simple form of curiosity.

However, the situation was further blurred when Harry stated in January 2023 that neither believed it to be an allegation of racism, but rather unconscious bias.

The prince said: "No I didn't [accuse the royals of racism]. The British press said that. Did Meghan ever mention that they're racist?"

He added: "The difference between racism and unconscious bias, the two things are different."

His account is hugely problematic not least of all because racial discrimination is defined in law in Britain under the Equality Act and the account Meghan gave appears to fit that definition, irrespective of whether it was conscious or unconscious.

The key element of Meghan's account was not only the existence of a comment on skin tone, she also linked that comment to the discussions about denying her children prince or princess titles and police protection.

According to U.K. regulator the Equality and Human Rights Commission: "Race discrimination is when you are treated differently because of your race in one of the situations covered by the Equality Act.

"The treatment could be a one-off action or as a result of a rule or policy based on race. It doesn't have to be intentional to be unlawful."

It is possible such laws might not be enforceable against royals as they do not have the status of employees, but the definition remains a useful tool for analyzing what constitutes race discrimination.

Meghan's account of the concerns followed a direct question from Oprah about whether disagreements on titles and security were motivated by race.

The royal family's role in Britain, in part, is to lead by example, showing other areas of society how to be and do good.

And therein lies the major problem with Harry's statement that it was not racism in January 2023.

There are only two possibilities: if Meghan's account of "concerns" that it might be a "problem" if her child's skin were too dark are accurate and explain why there were discussions about police protection and titles, then that sounds like a straight-forward case of what would be race discrimination in a normal business.

And Harry therefore risks asserting the right of out-of-touch white employees to use "unconscious bias" as a get-out from allegations of discrimination. As the EHRC states: "It doesn't have to be intentional to be unlawful."

When viewed through the prism of U.K. equality law, Meghan and Harry seemingly cannot both be right.

Then there is the question of what really happened. Queen Elizabeth II responded to the Oprah interview by saying "some recollections may vary" while Prince William told journalists shortly afterwards that the royals were "very much not a racist family."

That was initially interpreted as a rebuttal of Meghan's allegations but, bizarrely, Harry now appears to agree, at least in so far as stating it was not racism.

Meanwhile, Endgame states Charles wrote to Meghan to clarify that no "ill will" was intended in the remark.

In other words, Harry's account appears to clash more with Meghan's than it does with William's or indeed with the description in Scobie's book of Charles' letter.

At the same time, we still do not know the full context to the comment, the emotion with which it was made, the atmosphere in the room, what was said immediately before and after.

There is therefore very little for the public to cling to and Harry and Meghan have since indicated they have moved on from projects that look back to the past, suggesting they too will not return to it.

Therefore, what was once the biggest bombshell and one that Meghan was quite right to say could have been very damaging has now fizzled.

There is still a risk though for the monarchy—which is that it may not remain that way forever.

The public forgets a lot. For example, there is only really one line of Princess Diana's bombshell 1995 interview that has survived the test of time: "There were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded."

Since it was the biggest line at the time, Meghan's account of concern may well also be the one line that gets remembered from this era of royal warfare.

And when future generations return to it, just as they have to Diana's story, they may well simply snap back to the version Meghan gave and the atmosphere that existed in the days after Oprah.

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.