Rio Tinto, the $160 billion global mining giant, has successfully resisted an activist investor's push to review its dual-listed structure, with shareholders overwhelmingly voting against the proposal. The London-based hedge fund Palliser Capital had sought to unify the company's listings under a single Australian entity, arguing that the current structure is outdated and could unlock significant value for shareholders. However, less than 20% of the votes cast at the annual general meetings supported the review, falling short of the threshold required under UK corporate governance rules to mandate further consultation.

The outcome represents a significant victory for Rio Tinto's board, which had strongly opposed the proposal, citing potential tax costs in the mid-single digit billions of US dollars and asserting that unification is not in the best interests of shareholders or the company as a whole. The board's stance was supported by a wide consultation with shareholders, who ultimately agreed that the dual-listed structure should remain in place. This decision underscores the challenges activist investors face when attempting to sway large, established corporations with complex global operations.

Palliser Capital's campaign had drawn parallels with BHP's decision to move its primary listing to Sydney in 2022, following pressure from activist investors. However, Rio Tinto's shareholders, particularly those holding UK-listed stock which comprises about 77% of the investor base, showed little appetite for change. The Australian-listed shares, trading at a premium of about 25%, reflect the tax advantages available to Australian shareholders, a factor that may have influenced the voting outcome.

The rejection of Palliser's proposal also highlights the broader debate about the future of London's stock market, which has seen several high-profile companies consider or execute moves away from the UK. Despite these challenges, Rio Tinto's decision to maintain its dual-listed structure signals confidence in the current setup, at least for the foreseeable future. The company's ability to fend off the activist campaign may serve as a case study for other corporations facing similar pressures, demonstrating the importance of board-shareholder alignment in corporate governance decisions.

Recent revelations have shed light on the early reservations held by a close confidante of the late Queen Elizabeth II regarding Meghan Markle's relationship with Prince Harry. Lady Elizabeth Anson, a cousin of the Queen and a respected figure within royal circles, reportedly expressed doubts about the sincerity of Meghan's feelings for Harry, suggesting that the former actress might have 'engineered' their romance. These claims, brought to light by royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith, highlight the tensions that existed within the royal family prior to the couple's 2018 wedding.

According to Bedell Smith's account, Lady Anson, who was known for her close relationship with the Queen and her role as a royal party planner, initially found Meghan to be 'full of charm' and 'intelligent and thoughtful' upon her engagement to Harry. However, as the wedding approached, Lady Anson's perspective shifted, leading her to question whether Meghan was truly in love with Harry or if she had orchestrated their relationship for personal gain. 'We hope but don't quite think she is in love. We think she engineered it all,' Lady Anson is reported to have said.

The biographer also recounts Lady Anson's concerns about the dynamic between Meghan and Harry, noting that Meghan's intelligence and strength could overshadow Harry's more subdued personality. 'Meghan is clearly brighter than Harry, but she has to be careful not to overshadow him,' Lady Anson allegedly remarked. These comments reflect the broader unease within parts of the royal family about the couple's compatibility and the potential challenges their union might bring to the monarchy.

In response to these claims, a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has declined to comment, while a source close to the couple dismissed the allegations as 'just gossip.' Nonetheless, these revelations offer a glimpse into the private discussions and concerns that surrounded one of the most talked-about royal weddings in recent history, underscoring the complexities of integrating a Hollywood actress into the centuries-old traditions of the British royal family.