A ‘no-break’ royal rule led Meghan Markle to say bluntly: I’m not myself anymore

When Meghan Markle said there was a royal rule she “couldn't break” that made her feel “like she wasn't herself anymore,” many immediately thought of grand ceremonies, prepared speeches, or intense media pressure. However, according to Meghan's later statements and analyses from royal observers, one of the rules that made her feel most constrained was something seemingly ordinary: the way meals are eaten at the royal table.

In the British Royal Family, meals are not simply daily activities. They are a strictly regulated ritual, reflecting the order, discipline, and history of the monarchy. From seating arrangements and the use of knives and forks to the speed of eating and the timing of the meal, everything follows unwritten rules that have existed for hundreds of years. For those born and raised in the Royal Family, these rules are naturally absorbed as part of life. But for Meghan Markle, who entered the Royal Family as an adult and brought with her a different cultural background, these norms became a real mental challenge.

One of the most famous rules is that the meal ends when the head of the table – usually Queen Elizabeth II when she was alive – sets down their knife and fork. Whether guests or other members of the royal family have finished eating or not, everyone must stop. This is not just a matter of politeness, but a clear expression of hierarchy. Meghan has hinted that having to constantly pay attention to the subtle movements of others to adjust her own behavior made her feel a loss of naturalness during meals.

Besides the timing of meals, the manner of eating is also very specific. Knives and forks must be held in the classic European style, without switching hands or making any noise. Unconscious gestures such as cutting food according to personal habit, placing knives and forks in the wrong position, or leaning over to talk while eating can all be considered impolite. Meghan, hailing from the United States – where meals are generally more informal and social – once stated that having to constantly monitor her every move at the table left her feeling stressed.

The atmosphere of royal banquets was also vastly different from what Meghan was accustomed to. At the table, conversation was tightly controlled, avoiding sensitive or overly personal topics. Expressing strong emotions, laughing loudly, or reacting too naturally was generally discouraged. For Meghan, who had worked in the entertainment industry and was used to more openness, such meals made her feel like she was playing a character rather than being herself.

Observers suggest that it was the constant repetition of these ceremonial meals that created the “artificial” feeling Meghan referred to. A single meal might be a novel experience, but when each day, each event, each trip followed the same rules, the pressure gradually accumulated over time. Meghan has hinted that she not only eats according to rules, but also “thinks according to rules,” adjusting both her thoughts and natural reflexes.

From a royal perspective, dining rules are not meant to be restrictive, but to maintain the uniformity and dignified image of the institution. Royal meals often take place in the presence of international guests, the media, or diplomatic elements. In this context, every small detail carries symbolic meaning. Adherence to protocol is seen as a way of showing respect for history, national role, and responsibility.

However, Meghan's story highlights the clash between the modern individual and an ancient system of rituals. For her, the meal – which should be a moment of relaxation, connection, and self-expression – became the most tightly controlled space. The feeling of not being able to eat at her own pace, to converse naturally, and to express her true emotions gradually made Meghan feel alienated from herself.

Psychologists believe that micro-level rules like eating have a significant impact on the sense of personal identity. When a person is constantly forced to adjust very basic behaviors – from how to hold a knife and fork to the speed of eating – they easily fall into a state of excessive self-monitoring. Over time, this self-monitoring can lead to a feeling of disconnect from oneself, as Meghan described: “no longer being myself.”

It's noteworthy that Meghan didn't deny the importance of etiquette, but rather questioned the degree of flexibility. She once hinted that if there had been space for individuals to breathe, to be themselves in everyday moments like meals, her royal experience might have been different. This statement was seen by many as a call for gentle change, rather than a complete rejection of tradition.

In a broader context, the story of the dietary rules reflects a deeper problem facing the British Royal Family in the 21st century: how to reconcile tradition and individuality. As society increasingly values ​​mental health and personal identity, rules once considered sacred are becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile.

This can obviously become a source of invisible pressure. Meghan, with her experience, has inadvertently become a symbol of that stress.

Public reaction to these revelations remains divided. Some argue that Meghan knew exactly what environment she was in and that complaining about dining etiquette was too trivial compared to royal privilege. Conversely, those who sympathize with her argue that it is precisely these small details, when strictly controlled, that erode a person's spirit.

Regardless of the perspective, it's undeniable that the story of the “unbreakable dining rules” has offered a rare glimpse into the inner life of the Royal Family. It shows that pressure doesn't just come from major events, but also from everyday moments placed within strict frameworks. For Meghan Markle, these seemingly simple meals became the clearest symbol of a loss of personal identity.

Ultimately, when Meghan says she's no longer herself, it's not just a complaint about cutlery or the table setting. It's a description of a long process where small but persistent rules have gradually changed how she feels about herself. That story, transcending the royal sphere, raises a more universal question for modern society: when tradition and discipline clash with the need to be oneself, what are the boundaries people are willing to accept, and when does leaving the table become the only option to preserve one's identity?