Meghan Markle's conspicuous absence from meetings with former President Donald Trump during his visits to the UK has fueled speculation about her political leanings and future ambitions.

According to Michael Cole, a seasoned royal correspondent, Markle's decision not to engage with Trump, a figure she has openly criticized, underscores a deeper political narrative that might hint at her own aspirations within the political arena.

Cole, in a discussion on GB News with host Martin Daubney, emphasized Trump's admiration for the late Queen Elizabeth II and his perception that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have shown disrespect towards the royal institution.

This sentiment, according to Cole, is partly rooted in political differences, with Markle's disapproval of Trump being well-documented. Her unwillingness to meet with Trump during his state visits was seen as a snub, potentially signaling her broader political stance and future intentions.

Markle's political views came to the fore in 2016 during an interview on "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore," where she criticized Trump's presidential campaign and expressed support for Hillary Clinton. These comments, made a year before her engagement to Prince Harry, have since resurfaced, framing her as a figure unafraid to voice her political opinions.

Trump's reaction to Markle's criticisms has been mixed. Initially, he expressed surprise at her comments but later acknowledged her role within the British royal family. His stance shifted over the years, with Trump expressing more direct criticism towards Markle and Prince Harry, particularly in the context of their actions post-royal exit.

The former president's latest remarks, where he stated he wouldn't offer protection to Prince Harry, citing a betrayal to the Queen, highlight the ongoing tension. These comments came amidst discussions about Prince Harry's eligibility for a U.S. visa, following admissions of past drug use in his memoir, "Spare."

The Department of Homeland Security's defense that the book's revelations are not "sworn testimony" has added another layer to the complex dynamics involving the Sussexes and their interactions with political figures.

As Markle navigates her post-royal life, her political inclinations and potential ambitions remain a topic of intrigue. While her past comments and actions suggest a certain ideological stance, whether this translates into a formal foray into politics remains to be seen. Cole's insights suggest a watching brief on Markle's evolving public persona, one that might eventually cross from royal engagements to the political stage.