Meghan Markle’s next move laid bare though questions remain over ‘her level of commitment’

As Meghan Markle turns 43 on Sunday she has surprising new options. A poll for Newsweek in May has shown her popularity has increased in the United States to the same level as King Charles and improved on the ratings she had earlier in the year.

Kamala Harris, President Biden’s successor as Presidential nominee, is a woman of colour, with a liberal record when serving as the Senator for California.

She echoes Meghan’s views on gender and racial equality and abortion. Harris even posted support on X, then Twitter, for Meghan’s stance on mental illness in 2019.

The animosity between the Sussexes and the Republican candidate ex-President Donald Trump is enormous. Meghan avoided Trump on his state visit to Britain. She has called him “divisive” and a “misogynist”.

Trump has suggested that Meghan would likely leave Harry and launched attacks on him as well.

America is largely a political gerontocracy and Meghan is only in her forties. She will have an opportunity to test the political waters in the coming weeks and months. If she is as dedicated to public service and helping others, as she has always claimed, now is the time to show it.

She will undoubtedly endorse Kamala Harris very soon and that could provide a springboard for a political career of her own.

However, the bizarrely short space of time that she remained a senior working royal puts a question mark over her level of commitment to a cause.

She and Harry married in May 2018, expressed disillusion with their roles on tour in South Africa the next year and blindsided the Queen whilst announcing they were stepping back in January 2020. There have also been rumours that this was planned all along.

Since the Sandringham Agreement forced them to step down, they embarked on the equivalent of a ruthless guerilla war against the royals, especially on Oprah, in a six-episode Netflix documentary and in Harry’s memoir Spare and in the interviews he gave promoting it.

The plus side of this is the undeniable international profile it has given them. If she were to run for Congress it is, however, unclear how Americans would respond to her use of the title of Duchess of Sussex.

Also, their children, Archie and Lilibet, have the option of taking the titles of princess and prince as they are the monarch’s grandchildren. This is automatic under the 1917 decree of George V. On Oprah, the Sussexes falsely claimed they had been denied this.

However, titles might not appeal to the egalitarian instincts of the vast majority of Americans.

One of the Sussexes successes in the past year was their three-day visit to Nigeria. They had two excuses, her discovery of Nigerian ancestry and its link with Harry’s Invictus Games.

They will shortly be visiting Colombia, their hosts claiming that their Archewell Foundation is “renowned for its global leadership in fostering a safer online environment”, which is clearly greatly exaggerated.

However CBS is airing a rare joint interview with Harry and Meghan on online safety on her birthday.

Meghan’s new lifestyle brand, American Riviera Orchard, is gradually being revealed. However, she has received very few A-list endorsements so far and she needs this to change.

Serena Williams is an iconic figure who is a close friend and who hosted the ESPYs, where Harry recently received the Pat Tillman Award for Service. Over 76,000 people, including Pat’s mother Mary, protested against him receiving it. This will discourage others from giving the Sussexes awards in the future.

Their $100 million contract with Netflix is pivotal, especially after their loss of Spotify. Meghan’s cooking programme has been completed, the fans will undoubtedly love it, but will it get the audience the streaming service is aiming for?

The saying “charity begins at home” does not apply to the Sussexes.

With the exception of Meghan’s mother, Doria, she is estranged from the rest of her family, including her 80-year-old father, Thomas, though his behaviour has been appallingly ill-judged.

Then there is the rift between them and the royal family, to the extent that they were evicted from Frogmore Cottage, their base in Britain, after Harry’s memoir was published.

They are hypocritical on privacy issues, as the satirical sketch in South Park showed and were the objects of mockery after they were involved in a “near-catastrophic” car chase in New York for two hours in May last year.

Their charity, Archewell, is surviving financially, but not thriving. In a report in the current People magazine, which is close to the Sussexes, a former employee claims Meghan wants Harry to concentrate on the future, rather than on cases against the British press linked to his past.

It is unsurprising that the royal family do not trust the Sussexes. However, an area where there is surely room for manoeuvre and is currently, as sources in People point out, a bitter bone of contention, is that of security, which Harry apparently believes his father could

arrange.

He has offered to pay for it, which was rejected as it was never practical. However, his claim for automatic police protection for him and his family when in Britain has gone to the Court of

Appeal. He is haunted by Diana’s death and there is an extremist threat too. If they qualified in the “other VIP category”, it might lessen the tension with the royal family.

In the ITV documentary last week Harry discussed his relations with his family yet again, since the King and Princess of Wales are fighting cancer, this was surely another example of bad judgement.

Meghan is an American citizen. Her future obviously lies in the United States. Their interviews attacking the royal family and their ruthless monetising of their royal connections may well return to haunt them. However, she does now have the chance to carve out a serious career in public life. The question is, will she take it.

Richard Fitzwilliams is a royal commentator, film critic and public relations consultant who has given over 1,500 interviews on television. He was Editor of The International Who’s Who, the standard work of its type, from 1975 to 2001.