New book recounts alleged warning signs in Meghan Markle’s 2018 Australia tour, says veteran correspondent

Meghan Markle’s eventual exit from the British royal family, announced in 2020, had earlier “warning signs,” according to Simon Vigar, a veteran royal correspondent, who recounts what he describes as strain during the couple’s 2018 royal tour of Australia. In coverage of the publication, Vigar’s new book points to events around the tour as evidence of cracks in Markle’s relationships with members of palace staff, presenting the episode as an inflection point long before the couple’s later break from official roles.

The account centers on the 2018 tour, which included stops across Australia and other regions in the Commonwealth. According to the report describing the book, Vigar argues that difficulties with staff were not confined to the later period of Markle and Prince Harry’s reduced royal responsibilities, but instead emerged during the planning and execution of high-profile appearances tied to the tour.

Vigar’s characterization, as presented in the Fox News report, is that interactions involving palace personnel became increasingly strained as Markle navigated logistics and expectations during the tour. The book’s framing ties the alleged staff friction to a broader pattern, suggesting that operational and interpersonal problems existed well before the public dispute escalated and before the couple’s 2020 decision to step back from senior duties.

The report situates the book within ongoing public interest in how the Sussexes managed royal obligations and internal relationships while they were still active in official capacities. After the couple announced their intention to step back from senior roles, the focus expanded to questions about working practices, authority lines, and communication inside the royal household, issues that Vigar’s account now links to earlier tour experiences.

While the report attributes the “warning signs” interpretation to Vigar’s book, it does not provide direct documentary evidence in the description beyond the correspondent’s perspective. As with many royal-beat accounts, some details remain contested in broader public discussion, and the book’s claims should be understood as the author’s reporting and interpretation rather than independently verified adjudications within the report.

For audiences, the publication adds a new entry to the documentation of the Sussexes’ tenure, offering a timeline that moves the conversation earlier than the widely remembered 2019 to 2020 period of announcements and negotiations. For the broader media ecosystem, the book also illustrates how royal coverage continues to rely on correspondence, recollection, and insider access as stories about high-profile institutions continue to be re-litigated in later releases.

The practical next step for readers is to review the book itself to assess the full narrative, including the author’s sourcing and what specific episodes he cites during the 2018 tour. The Fox News write-up serves as a preview of the central argument, while the book’s detailed account will determine how particular claims are substantiated and contextualized beyond the headline narrative.