Meghan Markle viewed royal life as restrictive during her brief stint as a working duchess.

According to Daily Express, royal biographer Tom Quinn claimed the Suits star viewed the monarchy as "a kind of prison." In his book Kensington Palace, Quinn said that the "initial glamor" of being royal "wore off," leaving Meghan "horrified."

One builder told Quinn that Meghan and Prince Harry turned Frogmore Cottage into a "Californian condo."

Meghan seemed annoyed at the living arrangements, stating, "I don't want to retire to rural obscurity."

"Meghan realized that living there would be like living in the Russian steppe," a source told Quinn. "Its remoteness made Kensington seem like the center of the universe."

Throughout their relationship, the Sussexes complained about paparazzi, but Quinn argued that settling into Frogmore Cottage didn't shift the public's interest.

"As Meghan and Harry quickly discovered, their flight to Windsor did not mean an escape from the world's enquiring eye; instead, it revealed to that world a lack of foresight," Quinn wrote.

@gleamygleamyglamglam

The LIE that Her Royal Highness Princess Meghan the Duchess of Sussex said royal life was inauthentic and she hated wearing pantyhose is just untrue. She simply stated that wearing pantyhose was inauthentic for HERSELF. 🤦🏽‍♀️ I think Meghan was trying to show the difference between being a duchess as a working royal and not and being able to wear what she likes. As a working royal she had to uphold certain dress rules. #meghanmarkle #meghansussex #princeharry #royalfamily

♬ original sound – Shajuana

Years after returning to California, Meghan joked about how different her life was in the U.K.

"I had to wear nude pantyhose all the time," Meghan told The Circuit when asked about her time in the royal fold. "Let's be honest, that was not very myself. I hadn't seen pantyhose since the '80s, when they came in the little egg? That felt a little bit inauthentic, but that's a silly example."

"But it is an example of when you're able to dress the way you wanna dress, and you're able to say the things that are true, and you're able to show up in the space really organically and authentically, that's being comfortable in your own skin. And that's, of course, had different chapters in my life," Meghan continued. "But right now, no, I don't feel, I don't feel that I need to prove anything."

@lastinglooks

Meghan Markle explains why she never wore color in the UK. 🇬🇧 #meghanmarkle #harryandmeghan #harryandmeghannetflix #meghanmarklefashion #fashiontok #lastinglooks #fyp

♬ Smiles & Sunsets – ultmt. & Hz.

In Harry & Meghan, Meghan hinted at trying to avoid taking attention away from her in-laws.

"Most of the time that I was in the U.K., I rarely wore color. There was thought in that," Meghan said in the documentary. "To my understanding, you could never wear the same color as Her Majesty [Queen Elizabeth] if there's a group event, but then you also shouldn't be wearing the same color as one of the other more senior members of the family."

Prince William and Prince Harry's feud started years before Spare was published.

"I think the moment that we realized that there were tensions between the brothers was after I printed a story in Vanity Fair about William just urging Harry to take his time because they were engaged," royal expert Katie Nicholl told The Sun.

"Of course, William had taken many years before he proposed to [Princess Catherine] because he wanted her to be his wife. He wanted her to be able to know that this was what she wanted for her life, too," Nicholl said, referring to the Waleses' decade-long courtship.

Nicholl said the beginning of the end for the siblings was when Harry was offended by William's protective approach.

"And I think, you know, what was meant to be well-intended brotherly advice landed really badly with Harry," Nicholl said. "And I think it was the start of the real unravelling of their relationship."

"I mean, Harry really, it really hurt him that he felt he didn't have his brother's backing over Meghan," the biographer continued.

Harry and Meghan's whirlwind romance began in 2016, before getting engaged one year later. The duchess later suggested she felt rejected by the royal family and British media, leading to them stepping back from their senior-level roles.

William has avoided discussing his rift with Harry publicly, but his rumored concerns about the Sussexes seem to have come true.

"I think that William was, you know, like any brother, was probably just keeping an eye out for him by saying, do you think this is happening rather quickly?" Nicholl shared. "What do you really know about this girl? Should you not spend some more time getting to know her? Which had a bad reaction."

"He was really, really unhappy about that. He couldn't reconcile himself about that," she added. "Post then, it's just been a gradual unravelling of the relationship. I'd been told that at Christmas, when Harry and Meghan went to stay with William and Kate."

@thisisheart

Prince Harry says a "constructive conversation" needs to happen in private… 👀 #princeharry #princewilliam #kingcharles #royalfamily

♬ original sound – Heart

While Harry has returned to the U.K. to see King Charles III, the duke and his sibling have yet to reunite.

"There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family," Harry told the BBC. "I would love reconciliation with my family. There's no point continuing to fight anymore, life is precious."

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's strange behavior is coming back to haunt him.

According to Andrew Lownie's book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the Yorks, the disgraced royal allegedly exhibited odd behavior toward women in his school days — and even in his older years.

MORE: Follow Wonderwall on MSN for more top news

Mountbatten-Windsor allegedly targeted women

Mountbatten-Windsor allegedly tended to "annoy, provoke and humiliate women and girls" at social gatherings and official events with practical jokes, Lownie wrote.

"A strong and juvenile characteristic of his is to take advantage of his position to humiliate others who may not be able to respond," the writer claimed.

A source told the author, "His [Mountbatten-Windsor]'s idea of fun is to get guests at parties to close their eyes then place an open tube of mustard between their outstretched hands and get them to clap. The spectacle of someone receiving a faceful of mustard gives him great joy."

What did Mountbatten-Windsor allegedly do?

In the book, Lownie recalled the former Duke of York messing with a media personality at a professional gathering.

"At a society event in 1992, he unzipped broadcaster Tania Bryer's evening dress the full length of her back," the writer explained.

People recall run-ins with Mountbatten-Windsor

According to writer Craig Brown, Mountbatten-Windsor was an embarrassment at events when he was a teenager.

"The only time I ever encountered Prince Andrew was more than 40 years ago, at a large house party in Scotland. I was 19 years old, so he would have been about 17," he told Daily Mail in 2019.

"Over breakfast, three pretty girls who were sharing a bedroom told the rest of us that the Prince had barged into their room in the early hours of the morning, saying: 'There's a ghost in my room, so I'm going to have to sleep here,'" Brown added.

"Needless to say, they booted him out and for the rest of his stay he was that stock figure of English comedy, popularized by Benny Hill, the pompous oaf whose lascivious moves make him a laughingstock," the author said. "Prince Andrew was young then and he is old now, but, judging by the recent events, he has yet to learn his lesson."

Mountbatten-Windsor's disgrace

King Charles III officially removed Mountbatten-Windsor's titles and evicted him from Royal Lodge over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the misconduct allegations against him.

"I'm sure he's feeling humiliated and, by all accounts, angry. You have to remember that he has consistently protested his innocence," royal correspondent Jennie Bond told The Mirror. 

"Therefore, he feels wronged. But the reality is he now has just a few weeks left before he has to leave Royal Lodge, which has been his home for more than 20 years," she added. "One thing he could do to show some remorse (for, at the very least, his bad judgment in befriending Epstein) is to cooperate with the Congressional committee and tell them what he saw and what he knows. At the moment, though, that seems unlikely."

Sarah Ferguson might be ready to tell all about the royals.

According to a source, the disgraced Duchess of York wants to get back at King Charles III after being stripped of her titles and evicted from Royal Lodge over her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

MORE: Follow Wonderwall on MSN for more top news

Ferguson has an 'appetite for revenge'

A source told Daily Express that Ferguson has an "appetite for revenge" and is "not happy" over His Majesty's decision to kick her and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor out of their home.

Despite divorcing in 1996, the 66-year-old and her ex-husband resided at Royal Lodge together for nearly 17 years and only paid "peppercorn rent."

Ferguson 'needs' cash

TalkTV host Mark Dolan thinks Ferguson is out of options and might have to reveal the family's secrets to make money.

"She feels that she's been thrown under the bus, that it was Andrew's ill-advised relationship with the disgraced ex-financier and therefore, she's got the record to set straight," the media personality told Sky News Australia.

"She needs the cash, and it's very possible that she will sign a million-dollar deal to spill the beans. The big problem is for Charles because this whole scandal threatens to taint his entire reign as monarch," he added.

A potential interview could 'cause trouble'

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams feels publications are chomping at the bit to get a sit-down with the mother of two.

"She is bad news and what she said might not be believed, but it [a potential TV interview] really would cause trouble," he told Daily Express.

"These are just rumors, of course," he continued. "There is little doubt that if Sarah Ferguson consented to some sort of kiss-and-tell interview, there would be plenty of takers and they would pay her substantial sums."

Ferguson's 'toxic' brand

Not only was Ferguson removed from royal life, but she was also dropped by numerous charities, and her children's book was scrapped.

"This is yet another indication that she is now considered a toxic brand," commentator Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital.

"Charities have dropped her, and friends are distancing themselves. She has a bleak future in England," the journalist said.

Charles is looking out for Beatrice and Eugenie

Despite Ferguson and Mountbatten-Windsor being banished from The Firm, Charles is ensuring their daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, remain in the royal fold.

"Whatever people might think of Andrew, the girls are kind, hardworking and want to help if they can," a source told Vanity Fair. "The monarch is fond of his nieces and doesn't want them to suffer because of their father's downfall."

Luna Silver's professional porn debut crashed Pornhub's comment section in ways the platform had never seen. But it wasn't her performance that made thousands of viewers lose their minds.

Five years ago, when most adult performers looked like they'd been airbrushed into existence, Silver posted her first studio scene. Within hours, the comments exploded into a digital warzone. Users attacked everything from her unshaved legs to her facial features, which they deemed "too masculine." The vitriol was so intense that moderators had to intervene.

Silver, alone in her apartment, read every single word. "But I'm glad I did that as I developed a really thick skin and it's only made me better, and now I read comments and opinions and laugh," she says.

What started as amateur content posts on Reddit rabbit holes became an unexpected masterclass in resilience. The platform's anonymous users didn't hold back. They dissected her appearance with ruthless precision, particularly fixating on her body hair and features that deviated from mainstream porn aesthetics. Most creators would have quit, but Silver leaned in.

She realized something the industry hadn't: engagement is engagement. Every hate comment boosted her algorithm. Every "why does she look like that" thread sent curious viewers to her profile. The people who despised her appearance couldn't stop talking about her, and her view counts skyrocketed.

Within months of weaponizing her critics, Silver hit $10,000 in a single month from her own content. For context, she'd previously worked in corporate fintech and never approached that number. She did it without a production company, without conforming, and without changing a single thing about her body.

"The freedom is what I'm grateful for," she says.

The same "flaws" that made Reddit users rage-type became her signature. Her masculine features? Now a selling point for fans tired of cookie-cutter content. Her body hair? A deliberate middle finger to an industry built on artificial perfection.

The thick skin she developed reading those early comments isn't just armor anymore. It's her competitive advantage.

Princess Diana's life might have been saved if she hadn't sat down for her infamous 1995 Panorama interview.

According to journalist Andy Webb, disgraced reporter Martin Bashir created a web of lies to scare the late Princess of Wales into speaking out against the royal family.

MORE: Follow Wonderwall on MSN for more top news

What lies did Bashir tell Diana?

To secure an interview for the BBC, Bashir allegedly told Diana a laundry list of falsehoods about King Charles III, Queen Elizabeth II and other members of The Firm.

The ex-reporter fraudulently told the mother of two that her then-husband was plotting to have her, as well as his alleged mistress and now-wife, Queen Camilla, killed.

Bashir also allegedly used fake documents to try to prove that Charles got Prince William and Prince Harry's nanny pregnant, which was untrue.

In another wild claim, he made Diana believe her former mother-in-law was going to abdicate within six months.

Bashir's 'control' over Diana

Webb thinks that if Diana hadn't been paranoid about the claims, she wouldn't have lost her life in a car crash after being chased by paparazzi.

"He [Bashir] grooms her, he gaslights her, he terrifies her and you can even say you get to coercive control because what he wanted her to do was sit in front of the Panorama TV camera," he told Australia's Herald Sun.

"What happened to Diana is so lurid, so amazingly cruel, yet it is also kind of fascinating," Webb continued. "When you look at the scandalous stuff, the betrayals, the murder plots, all of this stuff, I just know that this is truly, truly historical."

Inside Diana's decision to speak with Bashir

Bashir was not the most notable person who wanted to speak with Diana about life behind the palace walls.

"People chasing Diana at that point included, even 30 years ago, a younger Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters, who was then the doyen of the A-list interview, David Frost, people like that," Webb told the publication about journalists who wanted an exclusive sit-down with the princess.

"As a result of the lies Bashir told, Diana got rid of the people around her whom she trusted who had her best interests at heart, most important of all, her private secretary Patrick Jephson, he's gone within weeks of the Panorama interview, she gets rid of her chauffeur," the royal expert said.

What could have been

Webb strongly feels Diana would be alive today if Bashir and the BBC had not lied to her face.

"Diana would be 64 years old, she's got her five grandchildren, and for her family, it's that knowledge, if the BBC had done what they clearly should have done, even on that basis of the simple duty of care to notifying on what had happened (with the interview) her life would have followed a different course," he said.

"If Bashir hadn't done what Bashir did, things would have been very, very different, of course they would," Webb added. "What his bosses knew quite quickly was that Bashir had commissioned forged documents, they knew that he had passed these documents off as real, and they knew Bashir had lied about what he had done three times when asked about it."

Jennifer Aydin is starting a new chapter.

The reality star speaks exclusively with Wonderwall.com about her departure from The Real Housewives of New Jersey, her new "TV Gold" podcast, getting support from Teresa Giudice and Dolores Catania, maintaining her confidence through it all and more.

Keep reading for the highlights from our chat…

MORE: Follow Wonderwall on MSN for more top news

Friendships with Teresa Giudice and Dolores Catania

Giudice and Catania were on hand to support Aydin at the launch of her "TV Gold" podcast at her home in New Jersey.

"It's the one good takeaway from [Real] Housewives," Aydin says of her close bond with her former costars.

"Or maybe 'one of many,' I should say — but definitely one that's worth noting. I walked away with some good friends. They're really amazing," she adds.

Departure from 'The Real Housewives of New Jersey'

Aydin recently announced she's moving on from RHONJ after six seasons on the Bravo show.

"The whole unknown was so frustrating," she says, referencing the still-undecided fate of the Garden State franchise. (It's unclear which — if any — former cast members will star on the upcoming 15th season, which has been dramatically delayed.)

"People thought maybe I was not being forthright. I really didn't know," she continues. "All the signs were there. God speaks to you in whispers — you have got to read the signs. So I'm like, 'Why am I holding back from saying what I think?' When people were asking me, 'Hey, are you coming back?' Even my family would ask me, 'What's the deal?' I'm like, 'I don't know.' But you truly set your own destiny."

Launching the 'TV Gold' podcast

Aydin's latest venture was a long time in the making.

"I've been getting ahead of myself excited because I think I spoke about this podcast first sometime last year, and it's really taken this long to get here," she says.

"At some point, I was rushing to get to this point because I didn't want the year to be up before I achieved my goal. I'm glad that I was able to do something like this in my own time. It's going to be an hour a week. Who knows, I may do more than that eventually. But we're going to start slowly and see where it goes," she adds.

Where she gets her confidence

"You have got to love yourself first. If you don't love yourself, then you have to ask yourself, 'What can you do to get yourself to a place where you can love yourself?' You are your own worst deterrent," Aydin says.

"There is no one out there who can take you away from where you want to go, but you," she continues. "You have to have the drive, the force, and no fear of it moving forward. You are always going to be judged and criticized. You have to take in life and everything that comes with it."

Most AI SEO optimization tools are selling you expensive snake oil. They promise revolutionary results but deliver generic reports you could create yourself in five minutes. Businesses are burning thousands of dollars monthly on these glorified calculators that completely ignore what actually matters: your real rankings, actual traffic patterns and what your competitors are doing right now.

The Great AI SEO Gold Rush

Everyone's jumping on the AI bandwagon. SEO agencies are slapping "AI-powered" labels on basic tools and tripling their prices. It's wild. The truth? Most of these tools are running the same tired scripts from 2015. They're just wrapped in a shiny AI package now.

Marketing departments everywhere are falling for it. They see "artificial intelligence" and immediately think they're getting cutting-edge technology. Instead, they're paying premium prices for keyword density checkers and meta tag analyzers that belong in a museum.

What These Tools Actually Do (Spoiler: Not Much)

Here's what your fancy AI SEO tool probably does. It counts your keywords. Checks if you have H1 tags. Maybe it tells you your meta descriptions are too long.

Revolutionary stuff, right?

These tools completely miss the forest for the trees. They don't look at your current search rankings. They ignore how long visitors stay on your pages. They have no clue what content is actually driving conversions.

Want to know the real kicker? They don't even analyze your competition properly. You'll get a generic "competitor analysis" that lists domain authority scores and estimated traffic. Meanwhile, your competitors are ranking above you using strategies these tools can't even detect.

The Expensive Deception Game

SEO agencies love these tools for one reason. They justify astronomical fees. "Our proprietary AI system analyzed your site and found 247 optimization opportunities." Sounds impressive. But dig deeper and you'll find 200 of those are telling you to add alt text to images.

Small businesses are getting hit the hardest. They're paying $2,000 monthly for "AI-powered SEO services" that amount to automated reports and generic recommendations. The same suggestions you'd get from a free Chrome extension.

The deception runs deep. These companies create fancy dashboards with dozens of metrics. Graphs everywhere. Numbers jumping around. It looks sophisticated but means nothing without context.

Your bounce rate is 65%? That might be perfectly normal for your industry. But the AI tool flags it as critical because it only knows generic benchmarks.

Why Real SEO Analysis Requires More Than Algorithms

True SEO optimization needs human intelligence. It requires understanding your specific market, your unique customers and your actual business goals.

No AI tool can tell you why visitors leave your pricing page. They can't explain why your blog post about "blue widgets" converts better than your post about "premium widgets." They definitely can't predict how Google's next algorithm update will impact your specific niche.

Real analysis looks at user behavior patterns. It examines which pages keep people engaged. It studies the exact search queries bringing qualified traffic. It investigates why certain competitors consistently outrank you for money keywords.

These aren't things you can automate with a script. They require actual investigation and critical thinking.

The Red Flags to Watch For

Spot the scams before they drain your budget. Any tool promising "instant AI optimization" is lying. Real SEO takes time and testing. There's no magic button.

Be suspicious of vague metrics. "SEO score" means nothing. "Optimization percentage" is made up. Real results come from rankings, traffic and conversions.

Watch out for tools that never mention your actual performance data. If they're not analyzing your current rankings and traffic, they're shooting in the dark.

Question any service that won't explain their methodology. "Proprietary AI algorithms" usually means "basic rules we don't want you to know about."

Moving Forward Without the Hype

The AI SEO tool industry will keep growing. The marketing will get slicker. The promises will become more outrageous.

Don't fall for it.

Invest in understanding your actual SEO performance. Learn what metrics matter for your specific business. Build optimization strategies based on real data, not algorithmic guesses.

Sometimes the best technology is human intelligence combined with genuine data. Stop paying for artificial intelligence that delivers artificial results.

Your business deserves better than expensive reports that state the obvious. It needs real analysis, strategic thinking and optimization based on what's actually happening on your website.

The next time someone pitches you an AI SEO tool, ask them one question: Can it tell me why my visitors aren't converting? When they start talking about keyword density instead, you'll know exactly what you're really buying.