“Prickly” pair Prince Harry and Meghan Markle “had so much potential” but threw it away according to a royal expert.
The Sussexes had the world at their feet after they tied the knot at their spectacular royal wedding in May 2018.
The whole world seemed to rejoice as the loved-up pair stepped out to see the legendary crowds that packed the streets.
But royal commentator Robert Hardman – who recently released his book Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story – says that the public adoration may have continued if they hadn’t stepped away from their royal duties.
Speaking on GB News, Mr Hardman branded the pair “pretty prickly”, “resentful” and “easily offended”.
He said: “I mean, when you look back on that sunny day in May 2018 and that sense of promise, all they were going to be doing for the Commonwealth.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced they would be stepping down as senior working members of the monarchy in January 2020.
They relocated to Montecito in Los Angeles and signed million dollar deals with streaming giant Netflix and Prince Harry released his controversial memoir Spare.
But Mr Hardman said Harry and Meghan must change their outlook if they want to be back in the royal fold.
He said: “The whole kind of royal machine, if you like, is a team effort and I just think it’s very sad because Harry and Meghan had such potential.
Instead, he said that Harry is too focused on being “miserable” about his life as a royal.
He added: “Fundamentally, I think everyone’s so sad, I think they’re beyond being angry.
“Everyone would like to see some sort of rapprochement.”
Meanwhile, the tensions between leading members of the Royal Family continue – with the naming of Prince Harry and wife Meghan’s daughter recently making global headlines.
According to Mr Hardman’s book the late Queen Elizabeth was “as angry as I’d ever seen her”, after the Sussexes stated she had been “supportive” of them using the nickname Lilibet that was very personal to her.
Speaking on Good Morning Britain on Wednesday, January 17, Mr Hardman was keen to emphasise that it wasn’t the naming itself that had upset Her Royal Highness but the “handling” of it.
He said: “It was the way it was handled. It was the fact that she was presented as having given her blessing for something that had already been presented as a fait accompli.”
