Excerpt: 

There’s a particular kind of royal story that appears pretty consistently in the British press, and it always begins the same way. Someone entirely unrelated to the Sussexes does something entirely ordinary, and the British press immediately shrieks, “This is just like Meghan!” A wedding car, a dress colour, a hairstyle, a facial expression, a stray gust of wind … Anything can be repurposed into a Meghan callback if the rota is hungry enough. And the rota is *always* hungry. 

So when Peter Phillips and his new wife Harriet Sperling left their wedding in a luxury car, the Daily Mail [went with](https://archive.ph/C4e1i) … Meghan. Specifically, that it was “the same car Meghan arrived in” eight years ago. With a couple of photos of Meghan with her mother, Doria. As if the vehicle itself had been sitting in a garage, trembling with anticipation, waiting for its next cameo in the Sussex Cinematic Universe.

What’s striking isn’t just the absurdity of the comparison - though it is utterly, utterly absurd - but the consistency of the pattern. The royal family and the press may have rejected Meghan, but they have never, ever stopped using her. 

They treat the Duchess of Sussex like narrative seasoning. Sprinkle a little Meghan on top of any dull royal event and suddenly it becomes content. A wedding becomes a “moment.” A car becomes a “symbol.” A coincidence becomes a “connection.” And the public, exhausted but curious, clicks. The palace–press ecosystem has discovered that Meghan is the only figure who can reliably animate the royal storyline. And so they keep dragging her back into it, even when she is 5,000 miles away minding her business, raising her children and smooching her prince.

The monarchy has always relied on charismatic women to humanise it, then punished those same women for overshadowing the men. Diana was adored, then destroyed, then sanctified, then [recycled](https://unpacked4.wordpress.com/2026/04/03/the-monarchys-diana-rewrite-a-30-year-project-harry-wont-let-stand/) as a moral prop for the very institution that briefed against her. Fergie was mocked, exiled, then periodically wheeled out as a cautionary tale. Even Kate Middleton, in the early years (until Meghan came along to eclipse her), was alternately praised and scolded depending on how well she performed the role of silent, decorative stabiliser. Meghan simply inherited the same script, but with the added twist of racism, xenophobia, and a global digital audience that [refuses to forget](https://unpacked4.wordpress.com/2024/09/13/how-the-sussex-squad-changed-the-narrative-around-harry-and-meghan/) what it saw.

The wedding car story is a perfect example of how the machine works. The family attends a wedding. A car is needed. The press, desperate for a hook, rummages through its Meghan archives and finds a photo of Meghan stepping out of the same car nearly a decade ago. Suddenly, the car is no longer a car; it’s a relic. A reference. A ghost. The implication is that Meghan is still somehow part of the royal narrative, still tethered to the institution she walked away from. It’s a way of keeping her in the frame without admitting that the frame collapses without her.

The palace benefits enormously from this. The royals may resent Meghan, but they also need her. She is the most recognisable, most globally relevant figure that’s been anywhere near the British monarchy since Diana. She’s the only one who can generate international interest without lifting a finger. Even her absence is monetised. Her silence is spun into storylines. The family may not want her back, but they absolutely crave the attention she brings, and the press is more than happy to provide it.

🔗: https://buymeacoffee.com/jpcaonabo/the-meghan-echo-the-palace-press-keep-re-enlisting-woman-they-drove-out

The Meghan Echo: The Palace and Press Keep Re‑Enlisting a Woman They Drove Out