Analysis Prince Harry is a Freudian dream It's hardly surprising that the Royal Family has its own Oedipus complex BY Giles Fraser . What do Prince Harry and Hamlet have in common? (Photo by Samir Hussein/Samir Hussein/WireImage) Giles Fraser is a journalist, broadcaster and Rector at the south London church of St Mary’s, Newington March 11, 2021 giles_fraser March 11, 2021 Filed under: Don't missFreudHarry and MeghanMeghan MarkleOprah WinfreyPrince HarryPsychoanalysisSexShakespearetruth Share: How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today? “Your truth”. That phrase slipped off Oprah’s tongue with such ease during her interview with Meghan and Harry. But on this apparently simple construction hangs a question that has divided us with an explosion of animosity: how many truths can there be? With the new world once again pitted against the old, I find myself reminded of the words of another Royal confidante, those of Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. “To thine own self be true,” he advised his son. This sentiment seems to encapsulate so much of what is philosophically at stake in this interview, with the Prince and the Princess expressing “their truth”, a truth that was as much a function of the need to be true to who they are, as it was a reference to objective reality. Put aside for one moment the on-going debate about their claims concerning Royal racism, for it seems to me that there is a troubling tension between two meanings of truth going on here: being true to yourself, something we have come to call authenticity, and truth as an empirical statement of fact. The former was largely conceived by Rousseau and is often known as “expressivism” — the idea that, as the philosopher Charles Taylor describes in his magisterial Sources of the Self, “the moral or spiritual order of things must come to us indexed to a personal vision.” And this is where we divide. For some their “personal vision” is a hallmark of truth; for others it is very much a reason to be suspicious of it. Here, too, it’s worth returning to Hamlet — not least because it is impossible not to be struck by the parallels between its title character and Prince Harry. For Freud, Hamlet represented an archetypal example of the Oedipus complex: a kind of childhood compulsion where a son develops an unconscious sexual desire for his mother and a sense of rivalry with his father. Joseph Schwartz, in his definitive history of psychoanalysis, Cassandra’s Daughter, sees this “sexualisation of the mother-son relationship” as “part of the dynamic of the Victorian patriarchal family”. He continues: “This family romance is dominated by an absent authoritarian father who, arriving home, asserts his own needs over his children’s by making overt or covert sexual demands on his wife. The wife, resentful of abandonment by her husband and of his authoritarian attitudes, lavishes attention on her son. And the son, perceiving rivalry for the mother’s affections expressed in sexual terms, responds in kind.” It is hard to read these words and not be reminded of the relationship between Charles and Diana, a woman “resentful of abandonment by her husband and of his authoritarian attitudes [who] lavished attention on her son”. More from this authorPrince Harry is a Freudian dreamBy Giles Fraser If Freud has taught us anything, it is that we may not always be the best judges of who we really are, let alone what really drives us. That is the very point of the unconscious; we are run by forces that we do not always properly understand, which are often repressed, working away in the background without us being fully aware of them. And if this is the case, then the problem with “my truth” is not just that it can fail to describe objective reality, but — and this is crucial — that it may fail, just as much, to describe subjective reality too. That is not to say whether we should or should not believe Meghan or Harry. Instead, Freud’s work simply demonstrates that phrases such as “my truth” are not always helpful, either objectively and subjectively. It presumes too quickly that there is little more to inner truth than simply what you feel. But as the psychoanalytic experience so often demonstrates, “my truth” also requires a kind of discipled critical vigilance — the sort of push-back provided by a skilled analyst. All of us are complex creatures; we are often a mystery, even to ourselves. And being at the intersection of Royalty and celebrity no doubt makes one’s life confusing in ways that are unimaginable to most of us, especially given that both are objects of considerable projection. It cannot be a coincidence that the stories that Freud most associated with the Oedipus complex — Oedipus Rex and Hamlet — are stories about princes. None of this would matter so much were it not for the fact that the “truth” expressed to Oprah has the capacity to undermine one of the constitutional foundations of this country. It is one thing to sit on a couch in front of a therapist and work out your issues in private. I have done so myself and recommend it. It is quite another to sit in front of millions of people, giving a half-interview, half-therapy session conducted by an unchallenging friend and neighbour, and for others to take this on face value. The stakes are far too high to allow “my truth” to go unchallenged. At the end of Hamlet, most of the protagonists lie dead; the court in ruins. “To thine own self be true” may have a nice ring to it. But it remains very poor advice. Share: Join the discussion I totally agree that Prince Harry is ‘damaged goods’, but MeGain isn’t exactly playing with a full deck either. He met her, was rather smitten, and this girl played it for all it was worth. She wasn’t very good in ‘Suits’ and basically her career was washed up (think of all the major roles she had after ‘Suits’), but when he hoved into view she saw an opportunity, as any girl would, and went for it. If you listened to the interview the moans really didn’t amount to much and the whole thing was riddled with outright lies. For example the implication was that the Palace did nothing for them, and yet the Queen herself asked a very experienced member of staff, Samantha Cohen, to join their staff. I beleive she has described it as working for a pair of teenagers. The pair of them were simply impossible to deal with and expected everything on their own terms – neither of them would listen. And as time wore on the worse it got. It was a very toxic mixture: this damaged, resentful man combined with a failed actress on the make. She was quick to play the ‘race card’ saying that the reason why Archie wasn’t a Prince was because of his colour, which is a complete and utter lie and if she doesn’t know this he certainly does. As to the racist remark I doubt it was made as such or intended as such. As she makes much of her race I would have thought hair, eye and the skin tone would have been natural remarks to make – ‘Oh he is not fair like his father, but has more your colour’. Maybe tactless, but not malicious, and that was Harry’s justification for calling a fellow cadet at Sandhurst ‘P*kki’. That was plainly racist, but he doesn’t see that. He is a oaf. The portrait that emerges of these two is vastly different to the one they are busy trying to paint. And perhaps we should look at actions more than words. He obviously has very strained relations with his family, isolated from them as he is in California – easier to manipulate. He seems to have no one, as I hear he has dumped most of his old friends. She has no relationship with her father, who is not a well man. One has to wonder where is this much vaunted MeGain ‘kindness, compassion etc’ ?? She has no relationship with her half sister, whom she says she hasn’t seen in 20 years, but it is obvious she can’t count – it was 2013 dear which is less than 10. I think the half sister is wheelchair bound, so a little ‘compassion’, a little ‘kindness’ would probably go a long way. But I suppose there is no advantage in being so to such dregs. I think all in all these two are toxic, narcissistic and just plain nasty. The Royal Family should keep them at a distance and certainly not welcome them back into the fold. In stock market terms they are undoubtedly a ‘sell’, and while there might be a bit of ‘dead cat bounce’ they are really a busted flush. Let us have done with them. It is difficult to feel that Princess Diana ‘lavished affection’ on her sons, when most months of the year she was whizzing round the globe with the latest boyfriend. That he was one of so many lovers can only have been humiliating for the two young princes, her children. Clearly they were not her chief object of interest and concern. It is difficult to feel sorry about Harry and Meghan’s stipulated woes when they are two millionaires interviewed by a billionairess, all empathising teary-eyed with each other about their sufferings from racism (in the Sussexes’ case one remark made by one person, possibly not malignly) and neglect (i.e. everyone who was dancing attendance on them all the time failing to weep with them and counsel them and obtain psychotherapy for them when newspapers criticised them). These terrible afflictions have been laid upon the lives of two people super-wealthy and ultra-privileged, who have not earned their fortunes and who do not need to worry about money nor even open doors or drive cars for themselves ever again (if they don’t want to), in a country where 40 millions have lately lost their jobs owing to the Covid Pandemic lockdowns. So much about this pair of ‘victims’ is dishonest in a manner very characteristic of the Victimhood Culture. The Duke and Duchess declare their need to be free from intrusive media coverage, desire a normal uninvaded family life; and accordingly go on TV to reveal their inmost family troubles to an audience of 100 million. Harry says his chief concern is to avoid the same fate overtaking his wife which destroyed his mother. So he and his spouse give a highly inflammatory interview, effectually denouncing the Royal Family, on primetime television – which Princess Diana did and which caused her to be hounded by paparazzi for the rest of her days. Meghan moans about Archie their son having no special title; but that is the fate of Princess Anne’s grandchildren (indeed of her children effectually); because it was decided a while ago by the Royal Family, very sensibly, to cut back on the number of titles in their midst which otherwise were going to proliferate absurdly as each generation married and gave birth. The United Kingdom has never had a culture, like (say) Poland’s, where multitudes are counts and countesses. But then of course, what is the truth of this mere objective reality (something the Sussexes could have found out with a question or two at the start of their marriage) by comparison with the importance of THEIR truth? I think their giving this interview is like bee-stings. They hurt the victims they sting (the British Royal Family), perhaps do those victims real damage; but it destroys the bees which inflicted them. Don’t forget that if it’s not racist, it’s transphobic, anti-feminist or homophobic. The strange thing is that as soon as these ‘phobias’ had achieved their aims, which was some time ago and laws were changed to accommodate prejudice against these ‘isms’, and there was nothing left to fight for, each group simply upped their demands. To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user. It's simple, quick and free. Sign me up
I totally agree that Prince Harry is ‘damaged goods’, but MeGain isn’t exactly playing with a full deck either. He met her, was rather smitten, and this girl played it for all it was worth. She wasn’t very good in ‘Suits’ and basically her career was washed up (think of all the major roles she had after ‘Suits’), but when he hoved into view she saw an opportunity, as any girl would, and went for it. If you listened to the interview the moans really didn’t amount to much and the whole thing was riddled with outright lies. For example the implication was that the Palace did nothing for them, and yet the Queen herself asked a very experienced member of staff, Samantha Cohen, to join their staff. I beleive she has described it as working for a pair of teenagers. The pair of them were simply impossible to deal with and expected everything on their own terms – neither of them would listen. And as time wore on the worse it got. It was a very toxic mixture: this damaged, resentful man combined with a failed actress on the make. She was quick to play the ‘race card’ saying that the reason why Archie wasn’t a Prince was because of his colour, which is a complete and utter lie and if she doesn’t know this he certainly does. As to the racist remark I doubt it was made as such or intended as such. As she makes much of her race I would have thought hair, eye and the skin tone would have been natural remarks to make – ‘Oh he is not fair like his father, but has more your colour’. Maybe tactless, but not malicious, and that was Harry’s justification for calling a fellow cadet at Sandhurst ‘P*kki’. That was plainly racist, but he doesn’t see that. He is a oaf. The portrait that emerges of these two is vastly different to the one they are busy trying to paint. And perhaps we should look at actions more than words. He obviously has very strained relations with his family, isolated from them as he is in California – easier to manipulate. He seems to have no one, as I hear he has dumped most of his old friends. She has no relationship with her father, who is not a well man. One has to wonder where is this much vaunted MeGain ‘kindness, compassion etc’ ?? She has no relationship with her half sister, whom she says she hasn’t seen in 20 years, but it is obvious she can’t count – it was 2013 dear which is less than 10. I think the half sister is wheelchair bound, so a little ‘compassion’, a little ‘kindness’ would probably go a long way. But I suppose there is no advantage in being so to such dregs. I think all in all these two are toxic, narcissistic and just plain nasty. The Royal Family should keep them at a distance and certainly not welcome them back into the fold. In stock market terms they are undoubtedly a ‘sell’, and while there might be a bit of ‘dead cat bounce’ they are really a busted flush. Let us have done with them.
It is difficult to feel that Princess Diana ‘lavished affection’ on her sons, when most months of the year she was whizzing round the globe with the latest boyfriend. That he was one of so many lovers can only have been humiliating for the two young princes, her children. Clearly they were not her chief object of interest and concern. It is difficult to feel sorry about Harry and Meghan’s stipulated woes when they are two millionaires interviewed by a billionairess, all empathising teary-eyed with each other about their sufferings from racism (in the Sussexes’ case one remark made by one person, possibly not malignly) and neglect (i.e. everyone who was dancing attendance on them all the time failing to weep with them and counsel them and obtain psychotherapy for them when newspapers criticised them). These terrible afflictions have been laid upon the lives of two people super-wealthy and ultra-privileged, who have not earned their fortunes and who do not need to worry about money nor even open doors or drive cars for themselves ever again (if they don’t want to), in a country where 40 millions have lately lost their jobs owing to the Covid Pandemic lockdowns. So much about this pair of ‘victims’ is dishonest in a manner very characteristic of the Victimhood Culture. The Duke and Duchess declare their need to be free from intrusive media coverage, desire a normal uninvaded family life; and accordingly go on TV to reveal their inmost family troubles to an audience of 100 million. Harry says his chief concern is to avoid the same fate overtaking his wife which destroyed his mother. So he and his spouse give a highly inflammatory interview, effectually denouncing the Royal Family, on primetime television – which Princess Diana did and which caused her to be hounded by paparazzi for the rest of her days. Meghan moans about Archie their son having no special title; but that is the fate of Princess Anne’s grandchildren (indeed of her children effectually); because it was decided a while ago by the Royal Family, very sensibly, to cut back on the number of titles in their midst which otherwise were going to proliferate absurdly as each generation married and gave birth. The United Kingdom has never had a culture, like (say) Poland’s, where multitudes are counts and countesses. But then of course, what is the truth of this mere objective reality (something the Sussexes could have found out with a question or two at the start of their marriage) by comparison with the importance of THEIR truth? I think their giving this interview is like bee-stings. They hurt the victims they sting (the British Royal Family), perhaps do those victims real damage; but it destroys the bees which inflicted them.
Don’t forget that if it’s not racist, it’s transphobic, anti-feminist or homophobic. The strange thing is that as soon as these ‘phobias’ had achieved their aims, which was some time ago and laws were changed to accommodate prejudice against these ‘isms’, and there was nothing left to fight for, each group simply upped their demands.