Earlier this year, a royal biographer explained to a tabloid what Prince Harry and Meghan Markle needed to do in 2020 in order to turn around their negative reputation in the press. One key factor that the tabloid focused on was the rumor that the royal couple would have a second baby sometime this year, which would be “just the distraction” the Duke and Duchess of Sussex needed. Gossip Cop took a look at the report and added some much-needed information and clarifications.
Prince Harry’s Biographer On What 2020 Could Bring
Woman UK published the unsolicited advice from the author of Prince Harry: The Inside Story for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex following the royally troubled duo’s exceptionally bad year in the press. The author, Duncan Larcombe, had been following Prince Harry since the redheaded royal was a teen, and had seen the troublemaking prince through several highly publicized scandals. Included in the tally were Prince Harry’s unfortunate decision to dress up as a Nazi, his attack on a photographer, as well as his infamous strip poker incident in Las Vegas.
These events, the author argued, only made Prince Harry all the more endearing to the British public. More specifically, the author claims the Duke of Sussex was “popular with journalists,” and “invested time and effort playing to their egos,” which resulted in the prince enjoying an easygoing relationship with the press, as well as “a string of positive headlines and support.”
But something had changed by the end of 2019, a year after Prince Harry wed Meghan Markle and months after the couple welcomed their first child, Archie. Now, the author argued, Prince Harry was in danger of losing his status as “someone who’s universally remembered as the tragic 12-year-old walking behind his beloved mother’s coffin,” if he continues courting the “perception of an angry prince barking at the moon.”
It should be noted that Prince Harry is now a grown man, with an infant son of his own, and that the moment that the author references is likely one of the saddest moments of Prince Harry’s life. It’s a defining moment, for sure, but how likely is it that Prince Harry wants that one moment to continue to define his life?
Moving on, Larcombe claimed that by adopting a “negative stance towards the media,” the two made themselves “look aggrieved with a life that is laced with great privilege and wealth.” The author rattled off several so-called scandals that the couple endured in 2019, such as their £2.4 million renovation of Frogmore Cottage (which has since been paid back), as well as the time that Elton John lent the couple his private jet.
A Second Royal Baby To The Rescue?
In order to fight this perception of themselves, what the two need to do is make good on the rumors that “they’re keen to have another baby.” A source close to the couple informed the author “they don’t want Archie to be an only child and they don’t want a big age gap between the siblings.” In addition to the “distraction” of a newborn, the author suggested that “the easiest way of avoiding those negative headlines” is to not “give his critics the ammunition in the first place.”
The author was more than happy to elaborate. “This means reining in the lectures of poverty and the environment, no private jets in the new year, and avoiding laying himself open to speaking out about the ‘plights’ of life as a royal.” In conclusion, the author wrote,
Yes, it’s hard, and the public get that. But life is a hell of a lot harder for ordinary people who want a prince they can admire, adore and if they are really lucky, get to meet.
There are a number of highly telling details that the author included that give a bit more insight into why he’d think penning this article was ever appropriate. It’s interesting that he notes at the very top of the article that when Prince Harry gave the press all the access they wanted and kept a good attitude about it, he was rewarded with favorable headlines. Once he took a more “negative stance” toward the media, and the media’s treatment of his wife, that’s when Prince Harry ran into trouble.
In other words, Prince Harry needs to go back to playing the good ol’ boy and shrug away whatever negative, untrue stories that appear in the media about himself and his loved ones if he wants his status as the royal “golden boy” to return. The author essentially told Prince Harry to shut up about poverty and the environment and have a baby to “distract” himself from those issues. As an added layer of irony, the author says that “life is a hell of a lot harder for ordinary people,” right after telling the Duke of Sussex to stop “lecturing” about issues like poverty and climate change, which disproportionately affects people at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. You know, the impoverished.
Perhaps the greatest irony is a man lecturing another man about how the second man needs to stop lecturing. There’s also the nonsense about how a new baby would distract them as if the sole reason for the couple to bring a new life into the world was just to keep them quiet for a while. Why not just suggest the two adopt a dog, while you’re at it? In the time since this article was published, there’s been no announcement of a second child on the way for the couple. Now, in November of 2020, it’s clear that no new royal baby will be joining Markle and Prince Harry’s family this year, belying the rumors and innuendo pushed by the author.
Obviously, this author spent a fair amount of time studying Prince Harry’s life, but that doesn’t mean that he has any special insight into what is currently best for the British royal or his family. This paternalistic article is just further evidence to support Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s decision to step back from the limelight that being full-time members of the British royal family brings. Who’d want someone you barely know rattling off reasons why you should shut up, play nice, and have a baby to distract you from speaking on issues that are important to you? It’s a wonder they tolerated this treatment as long as they did.
Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.