New Biography About Meghan Markle And Prince Harry Will Cause ‘Lasting Damage’ In Royal Family

New Biography About Meghan Markle And Prince Harry Will Cause ‘Lasting Damage’ In Royal Family

A new biography about Meghan Markle and Prince Harry has been described as “one-sided”, with an insider saying it will cause “lasting damage” within the royal family.

Journalists Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand’s 347-page book details private parts of the Sussexes’ lives, including the couple’s frustrations at life behind palace walls and fallouts within the Firm.

The tell-all book is billed as the “truth” behind their decision to quit their royal duties of the start of the year, a move that shocked fans and relatives.

Well placed sources have told how ‘Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family’, paints a “very one sided account” that “will leave lasting scars” on the couple’s relationships with senior royals.

They tell the Mirror: “It’s sadly hard to imagine a world where this won’t do lasting damage to many of the personal relationships explored in this very one sided account.”

Many questions have also been asked about how much involvement Meghan and Harry had in the book, which is filled with praise about their attempts to find a path in the family.

Scobie and Durand claim they did not have interviews with the couple but instead spoke to “more than 100 sources, with access to the couple’s inner circle…..(with) everything corroborated with at least two sources”.

They write: “We have spoken with close friends of Harry and Meghan, royal aides and palace staff (past and present), the charities and organisations they have built long-lasting relationships with and, when appropriate, the couple themselves.

“In many instances, we have granted sources anonymity to allow freedom to candidly provide direct quotes without their names being attributed (either due to the sensitivity of roles or to protect careers).”

A palace source said: “One may indeed wonder who those two sources are.

“It’s fair to say there is a great deal of skepticism over the involvement of the book’s two primary subjects.”