Queen Camilla gave her estranged step-daughter-in-law Meghan Markle an ominous message when the two women came face to face last week, an insider has claimed.
The 78-year-old Queen joined her husband, King Charles III, 77, at Highgrove House on Friday afternoon to meet with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, for a private hour-long gathering.
The meeting marked the first time Meghan and the children had travelled to the UK to see Harry’s side of the family in four years, while Lilibet had only previously met the King and Queen on one occasion.
According to a palace insider, although the reunion was an emotional milestone for the family, Camilla used the opportunity to make one thing abundantly clear to the 44-year-old former Suits actress: there could be no leaks if there was to be any hope of rebuilding relations.
“Camilla stuck to Charles like glue, not giving Harry any chance to guilt-trip his father, but her true mission was to put Meghan in her place and establish a new set of rules should they continue renewing relations,” a source told New Idea.
“She made it clear that this was for Archie and Lilibet, but if there were any leaks about their meeting, the door would be closed forever.”
The insider added that while “no one believes Meghan will be able to stick to the agreement”, the Sussexes “are well aware this is a ‘test of their loyalties’.”
The 78-year-old Queen consort, whose relationship with the Sussexes is understood to remain strained following their departure from the royal family in 2020, was reportedly informed of the Highgrove meeting at the last minute and “rushed” from her nearby Ray Mill House residence to be present.
According to reports, not even the Prince and Princess of Wales were made aware the reunion was taking place.
“Charles wanted Camilla to be there for moral support and because she has been a pillar of strength for him throughout all the drama with Harry, and she dropped everything,” a source told Vanity Fair.
“She told no one, not even her family. She just got in the car and headed over. They were all on a mission to keep the meeting as watertight as possible.”
Before the reunion, which Daily Mail reporter Alison Boshoff claimed had been at least a year in the making, it was reported Buckingham Palace had imposed strict conditions if the Sussexes wished to meet with the King.
Boshoff, who allegedly has connections within the Sussex camp, claimed before the trip that Harry and Meghan’s meeting with Charles would be “strictly private” and involve “no cameras, no subsequent Instagram posts, no revelations in interviews afterwards.”
She also reported there would be no “commercial activity” during the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s UK visit.
According to Vanity Fair, the Sussexes have so far honoured the strict confidentiality agreement surrounding the reunion, with sources claiming no photographs, details or personal accounts of the meeting will be made public.
Sources close to Harry said he was delighted the meeting finally went ahead after uncertainty over whether it would happen, with keeping his promise of discretion to the King seen as a crucial first step towards rebuilding trust between the Sussexes and the Royal Family.
“They were at Highgrove for an hour or so, but don’t expect to hear anything about what was said,” the source said.
“That was the promise Harry made to his father. It’s critical because this is the first time the families have met in four years. Harry was very pleased it happened because everything was up in the air.”
Meghan was expected to accompany Harry to London and attend Invictus Games engagements in Birmingham last week, but is understood to have stayed away due to ongoing security concerns after the Home Office declined to restore the Duke’s taxpayer-funded police protection for the trip.
Harry has previously made it clear he would not bring his family back to his home country without adequate security.
Last year, he said he “can’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK” if they did not have taxpayer-funded protection.