‘I Knew Her A Bit Before She Met Harry’: Piers Morgan Explains The Fall Of Meghan And Harry In The U.K. | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Amanda Prestigiacomo.

    Journalist and commentator Piers Morgan explained the fall of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry culminated after a "weird series of events," including the exposure of the couple's climate alarmism hypocrisy.

    Morgan sat down with Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro for this week's Sunday Special. The pair once memorably battled it out over the Second Amendment before becoming friends.

    "I knew her a bit before she met Harry, and she seemed perfectly normal, albeit like most L.A. actresses I've met," Morgan told Shapiro. "But she seemed fine and I believe, normal."

    Then came "a weird series of events."

    "One was the wedding, where she suddenly fell out spectacularly with her father, who we now know had brought her up on his own for quite a few years," Morgan continued. "It all seemed a bit sort of brutal and weird because he was just a guy out of his depth - couldn't handle the media, he was being bothered by paparazzi."

    Morgan noted that the British people initially loved the couple, emphasizing the size and taxpayer-funded expense of their wedding.

    "But then over the next few months, there's a series of what you could call the missteps, or you could call them classic examples of brazen woke hypocrisy, two people wanting to position themselves, for example, as eco-warriors."

    While the pair preached to the people about minimizing their eco-footprint, Meghan and Harry seemed unable to follow their own rules.

    "'We want you to all watch your carbon footprint' - they would say this in speeches, and then they catch Elton John's private plane like a taxi service, or she would preach about poverty in a tweet from their royal Twitter account on the same day she had a half a million dollar baby shower in New York, here, with a bunch of celebrities and flew back on Amal Clooney's plane," Morgan outlined.

    "And so this went on and it was one after another," he said. "And because of the hypocrisy element, the British media in particular were very critical, very scathing, saying, hang on a second, you don't get all the palaces and the servants and the privileged life for this, you have to toe the line. You have to do the job, which involves, often, quite dreary duties as a member of the royal family."

    Meghan in particular didn't "seem to understand this," he said. "She thought that actually being a member of their family was wearing a tiara, getting a fabulous wedding, and then doing what the hell you like. So they began to just do a lot of stuff which annoyed people."

    When the pair earned what Morgan framed as "thoroughly deserved" criticism, they pinned it on the media and played victim. Harry's hatred of the media, stemming back to the loss of his mother, and his likely resentment of his older brother as heir, ultimately fueled the victim narrative.

    "That all began to blow up again, as did his resentment of his family and the fact that William, his older brother, is the heir to the throne and he isn't," Morgan said. "So William will be king. Harry won't. And then you put it all together, and then you get 'Megxit,' where they leave the country, they leave the royal family."

    Shapiro noted that Morgan early on saw the troubles ahead, and though he was ridiculed for it, his take "aged like fine wine."

    "If you remember my exact phrase that apparently was so 'problematic' was, I wouldn't believe Meghan Markle if she read me a weather report," Morgan recalled. "And that has really stood the test of time."