The Duchess of Sussex was interviewed for a Vanity Fair article published in 2017. She talked about her correspondence with Mrs. Clinton. However, Vanity Fair’s fact-checkers had raised questions about the story’s veracity, and the answer was reportedly written by her father, Thomas Markle.
During her interview with Sam Kashner, an employee for Vanity Fair, Meghan spoke about her speech at the UN and her success as an 11-year-old against Procter & Gamble.
As a child, Meghan wrote to the company and Hillary Clinton to complain about a slogan that promoted dish soap, saying, “Women across America are fighting greasy pots and pans.”
She insisted it should be changed to “People all over America”. P&G bowed to thousands of protests and eventually changed the line.
Later in life, Markle – who is now a UN ambassador – reflected on the ad during a speech at UN Women. “Two boys from my class said, ‘Yes, that’s where women belong, in the kitchen,'” she recalls. Markle said she felt “shocked and angry” and “so hurt.”
Vanity Fair published the article, but dropped the story of its philanthropy at a young age due to issues the fact-checkers were unable to verify.
Meghan is said to have complained about the ‘Wild About Harry’ article because she was not presented in the way she wanted, said royal expert Tom Bower.
Within hours of the article’s publication, Meghan would have called her PR agency.
She reportedly described Buckingham Palace’s anger at “Wild about Harry”.
READ MORE: Queen’s grandfather would ‘turn around in the grave’, royal expert claims
PR firm Sunshine Sachs said Meghan should have had her comments about Harry removed and asked why the focus wasn’t on her philanthropy and activism?
Commissioned by The Times, royal expert Tom Bower said: “How could she hate a shameless puff? Then her feelings were explained. Of course she hated the title “Wild about Harry” because she promoted her philanthropy.
“She was just so furious that her fight with P&G was left out.
“Kashner opposed the disclosure that Vanity Fair fact-checkers had questioned its accuracy and, after consulting with P&G and advertising historians, concluded that they could not prove the entire story.
“They also couldn’t find any evidence, as Meghan claimed, that she got an answer from Clinton.”
He added: “Unknown to Kashner, Thomas Markle knew that Clinton and P&G had not responded to Meghan. The success of her ‘campaign’ was fictional, invented by an adoring father”.
Meghan is said to have called Kashner after the article was published and said: “I thought this could be a real friendship. I don’t think that can happen now”.
“She complained because she wasn’t presented the way she wanted,” Kashner recalls. “She demanded that the media do what she expects. I felt manipulated.”