Meghan Markle 'isolated both sides of family' says sister

When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters. Sometimes they’ll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer. Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The Princess of Wales was at the centre of controversy when her tell-all BBC Panorama interview saw her disclose private details about her crumbling marriage to Prince Charles. During the landmark conversation, Diana admitted “there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded,” in reference to Charles’ purported infidelity.

The Duke and the Duchess of Sussex have been compared to the late Princess after their bombshell interview with Ms Winfrey saw them make serious allegations regarding the Royal Family.

However, according to a royal expert, the couple are not as relevant as Princess Diana when it comes to their position in the Firm.

Harry and Meghan had relinquished their royal duties by the time their interview aired, which according to royal author Pauline Maclaran also differentiates their circumstances to Diana’s.

She told E! News: “I don’t think the [Meghan and Harry] interview can be really rated in a similar way to the Diana interview, which really turned the public very much against the royal family here.

“When Diana did her interviews, that was after they had suffered many other things during that period, so that was a sort of culminating scandal or the culmination of a series of scandals, really.

“This time, I think it’s just not quite the same and particularly because Harry and Meghan had already left.”

The ‘Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture’ co-author also pointed out that Diana was married to the heir to the throne and had given birth to a future King by the time her interview with journalist Martin Bashir made headlines.

She said: ”Harry and Meghan are slightly more peripheral.

”Diana was central in that she would have been expected to be queen had she stayed married to Prince Charles and is more connected with the immediate heir to the throne.

“So, his whole personal life being revealed and hers, it was in a sense a lot more sordid as well, with all the details about love, betrayal and the ‘three of us in the marriage’ and all these things, whereas the Harry and Meghan is different, really, in that respect.

“Harry is not an immediate heir to the throne and they have left.”

DON’T MISS
Queen stays silent on Piers Morgan’s claims about Royal Family [INSIGHT]
Meghan and Harry heading in same ‘trajectory’ as Princess Margaret [ANALYSIS]
Piers Morgan rants at Meghan and Harry on US TV [VIDEO]

The expert added: “Meghan hasn’t been around as long as Diana and she’s not the mother of future kings.”

During the explosive CBS special, Meghan claimed that an unnamed royal raised “concerns” about their son Archie’s skin before he was born.

Buckingham Palace issued a rare statement in response to Meghan and Harry’s interview by promising to “address” the couple’s “concerning” allegations.

Source: Read Full Article