Real reason Meghan did Ellen interview

When the histories are written of the Presidential run of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex (or Meghan Markle, or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor), there is every chance today’s date will be recorded as the day that she kicked off her political career in earnest.

This morning, Meghan appeared on the Ellen show, her first TV interview since sitting down with Oprah Winfrey for the Sussexes’ explosive outpouring in March this year.

This time around, the tone and tenor was markedly different.

Gone were the serious doe-eyes and quivering lips to be replaced by big smiles and the particularly insipid strain of forced japery the talk show is known for. Up for discussion: Dodgy haircuts, the TV studio’s parking lot and dogs. Riveting, profound stuff.

But that’s not the point of Ellen, or the reason why any self-respecting adult with an IQ in the triple digits would subject themselves to this trial by ‘humour’.

This outing was about one simple thing: Launching Meghan the Proto-Politician on the American people.

The intervention of the wife of the sixth in line to the throne into the political bloodstream has become a regular occurrence of late with her campaigning for paid parental leave, including cold calling senators to press the point, creating furrowed brows and clucking tongues in both Washington and London.

Political website Axios has reported that the cross-aisle negotiations on paid leave “hit a speed bump” after Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand gave the duchess the private mobile numbers of other high profile female Senators so she could personally lobby them.

Meanwhile, royal insiders were also left seeing red by these calls, with one royal courtier labelling the move “outrageous” while another has told The Times, “The Duchess of Sussex doesn’t have the right to have a more powerful voice [on the issue] than any other mother in America. She should not be playing in politics.”

Unfortunately for this unlikely trans-Atlantic alliance of disapproval, Meghan appears to not so much be backing down but seriously ramping up her efforts and rhetoric.

Sitting across from Ellen, Meghan wheeled out what sounded suspiciously like lines from stump speech.

“As a mom of two I will do everything that I can to make sure we can implement [paid family leave],” she promised.

“People truly forget that or don’t even know it’s one of only six wealthy countries in the world that does not mandate and have a federal paid leave program,” she said at another point.

“I will do everything I can to make sure we can implement that for people.”

Could it be any plainer where the former Suits star’s ambitions lie than if she had turned up with a box full of #Meghan2028 bumper stickers and her own campaign-branded lectern?

There is a firmly established pipeline between Ellen’s California-beige armchairs and the top tier of Democratic politics.

Then-Senator Barack Obama turned up in 2007, and ran for President in 2008.

Now Vice President Kamala Harris was on the show in 2018 and announced her run for the Oval Office the following year.

It was Beto O’Rourke’s turn in September 2018 before he confirmed his tilt at the top job in 2019. On April 13th, 2019, Pete Buttigieg popped up on TV with Ellen.

The next day he officially revealed he was running for the White House.

As both a Senator and as a Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton has time and again been a guest.

For Meghan, today’s Ellen appearance can be read as a strategic move, that is, as a palate cleanser of sorts in terms of her public image and a swift means of changing the prevailing Meghan narrative from victim of the cruel, racist palace to that of a relatable, fun mum who just cares. So. Darn. Much.

That reorienting of her brand, from ‘Duchess done wrong’ to relatable working woman, will be crucial if she wants to tap into the grassroots Democratic powerbase.

That the Duchess of Sussex might be planning a tilt at elected office has long been speculated upon, and this Ellen interview now joins an ever-growing list of politically-hued outings and interventions.

In February, she spent an hour meeting with California Governor Gavin Newsom, she has been interviewed by The 19th, a woman-focused political site, and last year took part in an event put on Michelle Obama’s nonpartisan organisation When We All Vote. (Meghan also interviewed the former First Lady when she guest-edited British Vogue in 2019.)

Last year, when she and husband Prince Harry appeared in a video for Time magazine, their comments were widely read as an endorsement of Joe Biden.

In September, the Sussexes rolled into New York with an entourage for a series of meetings at places like the WHO and the UN where they self-importantly swept in and out carrying folders where they discussed everything from climate action, to women’s economic empowerment, youth engagement, mental health, and Covid vaccine equity.

Then in October she penned an open letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer on the issue of paid parental leave, saying “I’m not an elected official, and I’m not a politician. I’m writing to you at this deeply important time – as a mom – to advocate for paid leave.”

Appearing at the New York Times Dealbook Summit this month, Meghan defended her activism, calling parental leave a “humanitarian issue.”

Senator Gillibrand, she of the intemperate phone number sharing, has said she planned to invite the Queen’s granddaughter-in-law to a regular bipartisan dinner with female Senators and that “she wants to be part of a working group to work on paid leave long term and she’s going to be.”

One possible route for Meghan, should she have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in her sights, is the possible retirement of California Senator Dianne Feinstein who will be 90-years-old when she is next up for re-election in 2024.

One mooted path would be for Meghan to run in her seat and then set herself up for a 2028 run for the Democratic nomination for the White House.

Handily, Californians have a certain fondness for stars-turned-pollies, with Ronald Reagan nabbing both the Governorship and the Presidency before Arnold Schwarzenegger took over the state’s top job in 2003 and held it until 2011.

Another possibility, raised by a Republican operative in the Spectator recently, could see Meghan making a play for the Presidency much sooner: “If Joe Biden declines to seek re-election, she should simply decamp to Iowa, cultivate the common touch and try to persuade activists in the land of corn that she can revive the Obama model of combining vague progressivism with megawatt celebrity,” the strategist has said.

For the palace, Meghan running for office would be a diabolical, hugely fraught turn of events.

There is the question of titles, for one thing.

If she did launch her campaign as the Duchess of Sussex, it could force the Queen’s hand and to step in on this front. (While it would involve an act of Parliament to strip the couple of their Sussex title, a more realistic scenario would be the palace putting pressure on the duo to retain but no longer use their Sussex titles as they did last year with their HRHs).

And if Meghan was elected? Queue a fresh minefield for the royal family to navigate.

In this scenario, could she and would she still be invited to take her place on the Buckingham Palace balcony alongside the Queen, a woman whose position demands a ruthless degree of political neutrality, for family occasions such as Trooping the Colour?

In the meantime, it will be fascinating to see what role Meghan might play or try and carve out for herself in the lead-up to next year’s midterm elections.

So, could she actually win the Presidency?

I suppose, if the last few years has taught us anything it is that polarising yet charismatic former TV stars can go all the way in the American political system.

Hail to the Chief and the Duchess? Don’t bet against it yet.

Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia’s leading media titles.

Originally published as Meghan Markle’s Ellen DeGeneres appearance a sign of her political goals