Ken Wharfe, former bodyguard to Princess Diana, has made bold claims that the marriage between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is less of a romantic union and more of a calculated alliance built on manipulation and even blackmail. According to Wharfe, Meghan strategically used pregnancy as a means to control Harry and has reportedly gathered evidence through recorded conversations, allegedly used as leverage to ensure his compliance. He claims these actions have not only caused internal rifts but also left lasting scars on the monarchy’s reputation, as the couple’s behavior diverges sharply from traditional royal decorum.

From the beginning, Harry and Meghan’s relationship raised eyebrows within royal circles, Wharfe notes. Their whirlwind engagement and rapid marriage stood out in contrast to the usual careful approach to commitment within the royal family, where such decisions typically take years, not months. Prince William, for instance, reportedly advised Harry to move more slowly, cautioning against such a quick commitment. But Harry distanced himself, ignoring William’s advice, which Wharfe views as an impulsive decision signaling deeper issues. In the aftermath of their marriage, rather than adjusting to the responsibilities and restraints of royal life, Wharfe describes Harry and Meghan as behaving like spoiled celebrities, making grand demands that seemed more focused on self-promotion than the values the monarchy upholds.

Since then, the couple’s actions have attracted a barrage of criticism for undermining royal protocols while seeming to manipulate public perception. Wharfe suggests that Meghan has been using the media to cast herself as a victim, a narrative that has resonated with some but frustrated others. Meghan’s insistence on private jets, luxury accommodations, and other signs of perceived entitlement have reportedly inflamed tensions, as these preferences appear at odds with royal expectations. Allegedly, Meghan’s control extended to becoming pregnant, strategically aligning herself with Harry through family ties, thus supporting her stance as a figure to be protected from the scrutiny of both the public and the palace.

Rumors of blackmail have further complicated the picture, with allegations that Meghan has repeatedly threatened Harry with divorce and public disclosure if he fails to meet her demands. Wharfe paints a portrait of a toxic relationship, where Meghan’s power over Harry, established through private recordings and implied threats, has kept him locked in an uncomfortable and unfulfilled position. He claims the royal family’s own response has subtly hinted at disapproval, such as denying the couple financial support and restricting their use of the Sussex Royal brand, moves which underscore their discomfort with Harry and Meghan’s public statements and actions.

The fallout from these tensions extends beyond family matters. Wharfe argues that the couple’s ongoing criticism of the royal family has severely damaged the monarchy’s global image, with Harry and Meghan perceived as profiting off a victim narrative. Their attacks on the institution could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for others to exploit similar grievances for personal gain. Wharfe further suggests that Meghan may have used her public advocacy for social justice causes like anti-racism and wokeness as a front, ultimately seeking to weaken the royal family from within. The implications of such an infiltration, he suggests, raise profound questions about the monarchy’s future and resilience amid growing public scrutiny.

Ultimately, Wharfe’s revelations portray Harry and Meghan’s relationship as one that may not be rooted in love but rather calculated ambition. For the monarchy, he argues, the implications of their actions are far-reaching, eroding public trust in an institution that has long prided itself on stability and integrity.