A royal insider account is offering fresh insight into Meghan Markle‘s early relationship with King Charles. In a new book, the author alleges the king privately referred to the Duchess of Sussex by an unusual nickname. The revelation comes amid renewed attention on the events leading up to Prince Harry and Markle’s royal exit.
‘Tough’ Meghan Markle was nicknamed this by King Charles, reveals book
In “William & Catherine: The Intimate Inside Story,” author Russell Myers claims King Charles privately referred to Meghan Markle as “Tungsten,” a comparison to the metal known for its strength and resistance under pressure. According to the book, the nickname was meant to acknowledge the 44-year-old’s perceived resilience and strong personality during her time as a senior royal.
The biography alleges that Charles initially held a warm impression of Meghan following her 2018 marriage to Prince Harry. Myers writes that the then–Prince of Wales reportedly found her “engaging,” “polite,” and “clearly in love with his son.” The author claims there were no early signs of tension from Charles’ perspective. Myers added that the 77-year-old was, at least initially, fond of her presence within the family.
However, the book also suggests Meghan Markle faced challenges adapting to royal expectations and traditions, per OK Magazine. It claims “repeated attempts” by Catherine and Sophie to help her adjust to royal life “were not responded to.”
Myers further writes that relationships within the royal circle grew strained over time. According to the author’s account, Prince William and Catherine reportedly became concerned about what they perceived as differing priorities between the Sussexes and the rest of the family. The book claims the Princess of Wales, in particular, “saw the inevitability of the parting of ways.”
The biography also revisits the emotional fallout surrounding the couple’s exit. It alleges that Prince William was “intensely saddened” by the growing distance between him and his younger brother. Furthermore, Myers suggests that the longstanding differences between the roles of “heir and spare” may have contributed to tensions long before the public split.
Originally reported by Zahrah Patel on Reality Tea.
