Esther Krakue, a writer and broadcaster, recently shared her candid thoughts on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, emphasizing what she perceives as a “clear lack of self-awareness” within the couple. Krakue’s remarks provide a critical perspective on the ongoing saga of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their complex relationship with the public and the royal family.

Krakue begins by addressing a report suggesting that Meghan Markle doesn’t understand why people don’t admire her. While she stops short of labeling Markle as narcissistic, Krakue asserts that both Meghan and Harry appear puzzled by their lack of public favor. She attributes this to their surroundings and the people they interact with, suggesting that the couple views their departure from royal duties in a simplistic, binary manner. According to Krakue, they seem to believe that leaving the royal family automatically positioned them as adversaries to the media and the public, rather than reflecting on their own actions and attitudes.

The cultural clashes Meghan faced upon entering the royal family were, in Krakue’s view, mishandled by both Meghan and Harry. She suggests that their approach alienated them from royal staff and the broader British public. Krakue argues that integration into the royal family required time, investment, and a willingness to adhere to established protocols—something she believes the couple was unwilling to do.

Krakue further elaborates on the couple’s desire to maintain a public profile while crafting their own media narrative. She posits that Meghan and Harry sought to remain in the spotlight but on their own terms. However, she underscores that public favor and media cooperation are not granted automatically; they require effort and a degree of reciprocity, which she feels the couple failed to grasp.

The broadcaster also touches on rumors about Harry holding Meghan back from confronting King Charles, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence but acknowledging the persistent speculation about bad blood between the Sussexes and the royal family. Krakue notes King Charles’ desire to see his grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet, and the complications arising from Harry’s ongoing legal battles over security arrangements in the UK. Despite Meghan’s previous positive remarks about King Charles and the late Queen, Krakue points out that the overarching narrative has been marred by allegations and tensions.

One of the more dramatic descriptions of Meghan, as an “agent of poison,” is dismissed by Krakue as overly sensational. She acknowledges the cultural and attitudinal clashes between Meghan and the royal institution but criticizes the notion that Meghan alone was to blame. Krakue argues that Prince Harry’s negative assumptions and forceful approach to integrating Meghan into royal life played a significant role in the couple’s contentious split from the family.

In Krakue’s view, Meghan’s strong-willed, American approach clashed with the traditional, hierarchical structure of the royal family. She believes that Harry, rather than guiding Meghan through the complexities of royal life, reinforced her alienation by not adequately preparing her for the role. This, she asserts, precipitated the acrimonious nature of their departure.

Ultimately, Krakue’s commentary underscores a need for self-reflection on the part of Meghan and Harry. She suggests that understanding and addressing their own behaviors and decisions could have altered their public perception and possibly eased their transition out of royal duties. Krakue’s insights offer a nuanced critique, highlighting both cultural misunderstandings and personal missteps that have shaped the Sussexes’ journey.