Meghan Markle's Training As A Royal Included Staged Kidnapping, Book Claims

Meghan Markle went though intense training on curtsying, surviving kidnapping, and many more protocols when she was about to join the royal family, according to the new book "Finding Freedom."

Royal correspondents Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand's biography about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is already out. The publication made several revelations about Prince Harry and Markle, including the training she had to go through before she could marry into the royal family. Kate Middleton also had to go through the same training after her engagement to Prince William.

"Set to undergo the same informal training Kate had embarked upon following her engagement to William — a series of instructions that covered everything from how to most gracefully exit your chauffeured sedan while wearing a pencil skirt to when to curtsy to members of the family several rungs up the hierarchy from you — Meghan was connected to a team of experts," the authors wrote as quoted by The Telegraph.

Markle also underwent a security course with the SAS. All the members of the Firm, except for Her Majesty, took the course, according to the book.

"The training - which all senior member of the royal family except the Queen have completed at SAS headquarters in Hereford - is preparation for all high-risk security scenarios including kidnapping, hostage situations and terrorist attack," the authors wrote.

It was an intense training with the duchess taking part in a staged kidnapping to test and practice her skills in getting away from a terrorist.

“Meghan took part in a staged kidnapping, where she was bundled into the back of a car by a ‘terrorist,’ taken to a different location and then ‘saved’ by officers firing fake guns (the kind used in Hollywood filming) for realism,” the book’s authors revealed per Us Weekly.

The book is very detailed in a sense that it covered even Markle’s designer clothes, the food they eat and her yoga poses. However, Valentine Low, a journalist for The Times, wasn't very impressed with the publication. He said some of the details were "plain wrong" and there were also curious omissions.

"They could have done so much, which is why their departure was such a loss. They deserve a better account than this," he wrote.