In the autumn of 2017, a woman who had spent a decade learning scripts for a living was handed a different kind of script entirely. It was a binder, some accounts say pale blue, others recall cream, prepared by the office of the private secretary to the Queen. Inside were protocols covering everything from the angle at which one enters a car to the order in which one greets members of the Privy Council.
Meghan Markle, by then privately engaged to Prince Harry, was given not one briefing on these protocols, not two, but four separate sessions with senior household staff. Each session lasted between 90 minutes and 2 hours. By the fourth, aides believed the material had been thoroughly covered. Then she requested a fifth meeting.
Palace staff rearranged schedules. A senior lady-in-waiting adjusted her own diary. The meeting was set for a Wednesday afternoon. Meghan arrived 11 minutes late, asked two questions about hat protocol for Ascot, and then left 40 minutes into a session that had been blocked for two full hours. The aide who remained in the room reportedly sat for several minutes before closing the binder.
To understand why this sequence of events matters and why it reverberates through palace corridors years later, one must first understand what royal protocol actually is and why the institution treats it with the seriousness that most organizations reserve for legal compliance. The British monarchy is, at its core, a performance.
Not in the pejorative sense, but in the structural one. It functions because its rituals are performed consistently, predictably, and without improvisation. The Crown has no army it personally commands, no legislation it personally drafts. What it has is ceremony, and ceremony is protocol made visible. Every public appearance, every state banquet seating arrangement, every carefully calibrated half step behind or ahead of another royal, these are not decoration, they are the machinery.
When courtiers brief an incoming member of the family, they are not offering suggestions, they are explaining how the engine works and where one’s hands must never go. The system existed long before any individual entered it, and the system’s defenders believe it will outlast them all. Meghan Markle arrived at this system as a 36-year-old woman who had built a successful career in television, run a lifestyle brand with a devoted following, and navigated the particular complexities of being a biracial woman in Hollywood.
She was not naive. She was not uneducated. She held a degree from Northwestern University, had interned at the American Embassy in Buenos Aires, and had advocated before the United Nations. The assumption, later proven catastrophically wrong by both sides, was that a woman of this intelligence and experience would absorb the protocols quickly and welcome the structure.
Some within the household believed she would find them fascinating, the way many Americans of a certain class find British tradition charming. Others were more cautious. A former equerry to Prince Philip, speaking years later to a broadsheet journalist, recalled a quiet warning he had given at the time. He said, “The protocols are not difficult to learn.
They are difficult to accept.” The distinction, he noted, is everything. The briefings themselves were conducted primarily by Samantha Cohen, then assistant private secretary to the Queen, a highly regarded Australian-born staffer who had served the household for nearly two decades. Cohen was known for her patience, her precision, and her ability to translate centuries of tradition into practical, modern instruction.
She had helped prepare Catherine Middleton years earlier, and by several accounts, those sessions had gone smoothly. Catherine had taken notes. She had asked clarifying questions. She had practiced the sovereign’s curtsy in a private room until the movement became second nature. The Middleton briefings became the internal benchmark.
Advertisements
Not because Catherine was considered superior, but because the process had functioned exactly as designed. Meghan’s first briefing, held at Kensington Palace in a sitting room adjacent to Nottingham Cottage, began with what staff described as genuine warmth. She arrived with a notebook. She asked about the history behind specific traditions, which pleased the briefing team.
Cohen walked her through the order of precedence, who outranks whom, and how that hierarchy shifts depending on whether the Queen is present. Meghan asked why Sophie Wessex ranked where she did. The question was sharp, relevant, and showed she was paying attention. A protection officer stationed outside the door later remarked to a colleague that the laughter coming from the room suggested things were going well.
But Cohen noted something in a private memo that would prove prescient. She wrote that Meghan’s questions were focused almost exclusively on the reasoning behind protocols, rather than on the protocols themselves. She wanted to know why before she would consider how. Cohen flagged this not as a criticism, but as something to watch.
The second briefing shifted to public engagements, walkabouts, receiving lines, the management of gifts from members of the public. A former lady-in-waiting who had assisted with similar sessions in previous decades was brought in to offer practical guidance. During this session, Meghan raised the issue of physical contact.
She had seen footage of Princess Diana’s famous decision to shake hands without gloves at an AIDS ward. She wanted to understand where the current boundaries stood. The former lady-in-waiting explained that while Diana’s gesture had been powerful, it had also been a calculated deviation from protocol, not an abolition of it.
Meghan pressed the point, asking whether protocols around physical contact were guidelines or rules. The room went quiet for a moment. The lady-in-waiting, choosing her words carefully, replied that in the household, the distinction between guidelines and rules was smaller than one might assume. A staffer who witnessed the exchange later described it as the first moment where two entirely different worldviews became visible in the same room.
The third briefing covered correspondence, social media, and relations with the press. This session reportedly became tense. Meghan had been managing her own Instagram account to considerable effect. Her following was large and engaged, and she had a sophisticated understanding of digital communication. The briefing team explained that upon entering the royal family, her personal social media accounts would need to be closed.
All public communication would flow through official household channels, vetted by the communications office. Meghan asked how quickly she could expect official channels to respond to press inaccuracies. Cohen explained the palace’s traditional approach, which was often characterized internally as a policy of strategic silence. Never complain, never explain.
Harry, who was present for part of this session, became visibly frustrated. He told the briefing team that the strategy of silence had not protected his mother. The room absorbed this statement without response. A staff member present later said it was the only time during any of the briefings that protocol itself seemed to become the subject of grievance rather than instruction.
The fourth session was originally intended to be the final one. It focused on ceremonial events, state dinners, Trooping the Colour, the Christmas gathering at Sandringham. The protocols here were among the most rigid. Seating arrangements at state dinners follow a hierarchy that has remained essentially unchanged for over a century.
The timing of arrivals, the sequence of toasts, the moment at which one may sit after the Queen sits, each of these carries weight. Meghan engaged with this material, but according to two sources present, seemed to treat it with less intensity than the earlier sessions. She asked fewer questions.
She checked her phone twice. When Cohen raised the subject of the Sandringham Christmas, specifically the tradition of separate gift opening on Christmas Eve and the expectation of joke gifts rather than expensive ones, Meghan appeared surprised. She asked whether the family genuinely expected humorous presents. Cohen confirmed A staff member recalled Meghan saying that she had already purchased her gifts.
The tone in the room suggested this might become a point of friction, though no one said so directly. Then came the request for a fifth briefing. This is where the narrative fractures, depending on whom one asks. Palace sources, speaking to Valentine Low of The Times and to Robert Hardman for his biography of the Queen, have described the fifth session as evidence of a pattern.
Enthusiastic engagement followed by withdrawal. They note the late arrival, the abbreviated participation, and the early departure. Meghan’s own account, conveyed through allies and later through the Sussex’s public statements, frames the fifth meeting differently. In this version, she requested additional time because she genuinely wanted to get things right.
And the session was cut short because she had received distressing news about a press story that was about to break regarding her father, Thomas Markle. The early departure, in this telling, was not indifference but distress. What is not disputed by either side is what happened at the door. As Meghan left the fifth briefing, she passed a senior member of household staff in the corridor.
The staff member offered a polite remark, something along the lines of hoping the session had been helpful. Meghan reportedly replied that she appreciated everyone’s time. The staff member later told a colleague that the reply felt rehearsed, not insincere, but delivered in the way one delivers a line when one has already decided the scene is over.
Whether that reading was fair or colored by existing bias is, of course, precisely the question that runs through every interaction between Meghan Markle and the institution she had married into. A parallel incident during this same period sharpens the picture. In preparation for her first official engagement with the Queen, a joint visit to Chester in June 2018, Meghan was briefed on the specific protocol for entering the royal train.
The Queen’s dresser, Angela Kelly, had sent detailed instructions regarding timing and positioning. On the morning of the visit, Meghan reportedly attempted to enter the car on the wrong side. A member of staff quietly redirected her. The moment passed without public notice, but within the household, it was discussed.
Not as a catastrophic error, but as an indication that the briefing material was not being retained with the thoroughness that the institution expected. Angela Kelly, in her own memoir, would later describe a broader pattern of what she called misunderstandings, a word that does significant work in royal vocabulary. Another incident that circulated among household staff involved a disagreement over a tiara.
In the days before the wedding, Meghan expressed a preference for a specific emerald tiara. The Queen, through her dresser, indicated that a different piece, the Queen Mary diamond bandeau, had been selected. Harry reportedly became angry, telling a staff member that what Meghan wants, Meghan gets. The phrase entered palace lore almost immediately.
Whether Harry said exactly those words or something close to them that calcified into legend through retelling remains uncertain. What is documented is that the Queen herself intervened, a rare step, to confirm that the tiara decision was hers to make. The bandeau was worn. The emerald tiara remained in the vault.
A former courtier reflected later that the tiara dispute was never really about jewelry. It was about whether the protocols applied to everyone equally or whether they were negotiable for those who questioned them. One more episode from this period deserves attention because it reveals something about the institution’s own failures.
During the briefings, no one adequately prepared Meghan for the tabloid press. The protocols covered how to manage press during engagements. Where to look, how to position oneself for photographs, when to acknowledge reporters and when to keep walking. What they did not cover, because the institution itself had never fully reckoned with it, was the sheer volume and viciousness of coverage that a biracial American woman marrying into the family would attract.
A former communications secretary admitted privately that the household had no playbook for what happened. The racist undertones of headlines, the obsessive focus on Meghan’s family, the conspiracy theories that multiplied online. These fell outside the scope of any briefing binder. The protocols told her how to enter a room.
They did not tell her how to survive the room she had actually entered. The analysis that emerges from these accounts is uncomfortable for everyone involved, which is usually a sign that it is close to the truth. Meghan Markle was not, as her harshest critics suggest, a woman who refused to learn. The evidence shows she engaged, asked probing questions, and in several instances demonstrated a sharper analytical mind than the briefing framework was designed to accommodate.
She questioned systems that had operated unchallenged for generations, and some of those questions were legitimate. The protocol around social media, for instance, was manifestly inadequate for the digital age, a fact the institution itself would later acknowledge by overhauling its communication strategy. But Meghan also appears to have underestimated the weight of the institution she was entering.
The protocols were not a script she could revise. They were the architecture of a structure that predated her by centuries and that derived its power precisely from its resistance to individual preference. Her instinct to challenge, to negotiate, to ask why before accepting how, these are qualities that serve a person brilliantly in most professional environments.
In the monarchy, they register as threat. The institution, for its part, failed to recognize that its own inflexibility was not merely tradition, but also in certain specific instances, a refusal to adapt to a world that had already changed. The briefings prepared Meghan for a palace that existed in protocol manuals.
They did not prepare her for a palace that was about to be tested in ways it had never anticipated. Both sides walked into the arrangement believing the other would adjust. Neither did. The gap between those expectations is where the damage occurred. If this account has shed light on a story you thought you already knew, subscribing to this channel costs nothing.
And there are more stories like this one in preparation. The bell notification means you will see them when they go up. These narratives take considerable research, and knowing there is an audience for careful, evidence-based history is what makes the work sustainable. If the approach appeals to you, the subscribe button is there. If not, the story stands on its own regardless, and we are glad you stayed this long.
That binder, pale blue or cream, depending on who remembers, is presumably still filed somewhere in the household archives, alongside similar binders prepared for every person who has married into the family in the modern era. Catherine’s binder. Camilla’s binder. Sophie’s. Each one represents the same offer and the same demand.
Here is how this works, and you will conform to it, and in exchange, you will receive something that cannot be acquired any other way. The offer has always been non-negotiable. Some who accepted it thrived within its constraints. Some chafed, but endured. Meghan Markle did something the institution had rarely encountered.
She accepted the offer, examined the terms, found them wanting, and left. The fifth briefing, the one she requested and then departed early, whether through indifference or distress, or some private calculus that no one outside that room will ever fully understand, has become a kind of emblem. It captures, in a single afternoon, the entire arc of what followed.
