X Close

Prince Harry is a Freudian dream It's hardly surprising that the Royal Family has its own Oedipus complex

What do Prince Harry and Hamlet have in common? (Photo by Samir Hussein/Samir Hussein/WireImage)

What do Prince Harry and Hamlet have in common? (Photo by Samir Hussein/Samir Hussein/WireImage)


March 11, 2021   3 mins

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”.

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.


Giles Fraser is a journalist, broadcaster and Vicar of St Anne’s, Kew.

giles_fraser

Join the discussion


Rejoignez des lecteurs partageant les mêmes idées qui soutiennent notre journalisme en devenant abonnés payants.

Subscribe

To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

341 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Rogers
Paul Rogers
3 years ago

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. “
Spot on. Good article. It is this very thing that makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Therapy-by-TV is a hideous and dangerous thing.
My own children lost their mother at the age Harry and William lost theirs. Cancer, not car crash, but still a massive loss. They have (touch wood) maintained some sense of reality despite their father’s departure into alcoholism for a while.
This will all blow over soon and we will not care. The Twatterati will become bored and the rest of us will have had our perceptions of a ruinous American gold digger hardened.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

Nice contribution – and agree fully that this disingenuous sideshow will be forgotten by the time pubs open – or if not – when last orders is called.

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Barton

Please! Do respect their privacy . . .

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

Lol

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

This is going to end very badly… All they can do is keep selling more of themselves and upping the ante to keep the media interested because each pronouncement will draw less attention than the last. Strange that they complained about press intrusion then hawk the petty details of their lives to the highest bidder.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Strange, but hardly surprising – 90% of famous people tend to be like this. Press intrusion can mean actual harrassment, but usually it’s just a cover for people presenting the wrong kind of truth.

Wasn’t it around their spectacular environment hypocrisy that people started to get annoyed? Not so much “let them (plebs) eat cake”, more “let us stuff our faces with cake whilst lecturing the plebs on how bad cake is”.

David Morley
David Morley
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

Not so much “let them (plebs) eat cake”, more “let us stuff our faces with cake whilst lecturing the plebs on how bad cake is”.

brilliant

Geoff Cooper
Geoff Cooper
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

..’from the cabin of a private jet at 30,000ft.’

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Geoff Cooper

There’s a lot of that about. David Attenborough’s attitude appears to be that of a critic, with an added layer of judgmentalism: “I jet around the world so you don’t have to, and if you don’t have to jet around the world, you should jolly well stay at home (and cycle to work).”

cheryljohn
cheryljohn
3 years ago
Reply to  David Brown

Old Jane Goodall is the same, after a quick lecture to the plebs she was asked what she is doing about the problem, she answered (with a bit of pride thrown in) that she flies 365 days a year to spread the message.

Bob Green
Bob Green
3 years ago
Reply to  David Brown

Most over rated voice over artist of all time. Lets hear it for the camera operators and technicians

Michael Cavanaugh
Michael Cavanaugh
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

“The opposite of love is not hate but indifference . . . “

David Brown
David Brown
2 years ago

= lovelessness

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

We will all be tuning into Oprah again in 18 months time to see Meghan dish the dirt on Harry as divorce proceeding start. You do not need much imagination to work out what the allegations will be.

Gill Clough
Gill Clough
3 years ago

My thoughts exactly!

Bob Green
Bob Green
3 years ago

I watched their first ever TV press conference, it was in a garden somewhere.
Harry’s body language said “This isn’t going to last” in capital letters, as Megan twittered away.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

ITV,ch4 The Grauniad still treat Meghans ”Falsehoods” as Truth!..Sigmund fraud

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

Well done all of you

Sue Sims
Sue Sims
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

Paultogarogers: Commiserations on your loss – and thank you for sharing your own story in a fashion that contrasts so markedly with the narcissistic self-indulgence of that interview.

Mud Hopper
Mud Hopper
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

‘Forgotten’ by this morning, thankfully, albeit, and sadly, for more sinister reasons.

Martin Adams
Martin Adams
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

Congratulations to all who have contributed these comments, starting with paultolgarogers and his perceptive, and (I suspect) prescient, analysis.

A Fallon
A Fallon
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rogers

Well done on being there to bring up your lovely family without your, not doubt beloved, partner in life and while battling your own challenges. Be strong.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Oprah coined that “your truth” business. It keeps messy facts from crashing and burning a good tale. And think how many really entertaining stories you can tell if the facts don’t matter. We can all have our own truths!
The problem comes in rather quickly though as it has in this case with claim after claim made by Harry and Meghan being de-bunked. And they don’t have to answer for any of this because they were only telling “their truth”. It sounds like the Queen already knows the central claim about someone questioning Archie’s skin to be bogus. But she put it very nicely.
I do feel bad for Harry because I don’t think he had any ability to detect what was going on, whatsoever. While I think they should lose their titles, I sort of hope for his sake that they do not. Meghan doesn’t seem the type to stick around for an ex-royal and he has nothing else to peddle.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
sharon johnson
sharon johnson
3 years ago

I can’t see Harry and Meghan sticking together for the long haul.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  sharon johnson

Personally, I think it is cruel to speculate on this openly. I don’t like this pair at all but I still hope for them that their relationship survives.

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

To be honest, for his sake, I hope it doesn’t. Although, if he hasn’t woken up from his sleep walk when she leaves, he will be devastated. Let’s hope the family will welcome home the prodigal son.

Richard Brown
Richard Brown
3 years ago

And then the highly-paid lawyers will pounce. Not to mention the tut-tutting Oprah.All over again.

Alfred Prufrock
Alfred Prufrock
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Brown

Its a pity Oprah is American she would make a fine pantomine dame. Watch out Harry she’s behind you

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago

You may be onto something – there are some superb banter images circulating showing the ex-Arsenal footballer Ian Wright in drag, that look exactly like Oprah.
Knowing “Wrighty’s” excellent sense of humour, he’ll appreciate it 🙂

Last edited 3 years ago by Ian Barton
Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

No wonder American Politicians especially Democrats(revere No indepth questions from OW),Wouldn’t UK MPs, MSP love soap Oprah to ”Interview” them..Timmy mallett could be more incisive..

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

LOL!

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

She certainly looks like someone’s sister

J A Thompson
J A Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Brown

If he initiates the divorce, rather than her, then it will be racism. Come to think of it, even if she initiates it, one of the grounds will probably still be racism.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  J A Thompson

He will never divorce her, it will have to be her initiating. But she has effectively cut him off from his family, which is what we are often told abusers do to their victims. She doesn’t have family relationships other than her mother and she doesn’t want him to have any either.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago

Very plausible

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

Spot on. He is plainly in an abusive relationship.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

Divide and conquer. Classical really.

Jerry Jay Carroll
Jerry Jay Carroll
3 years ago
Reply to  J A Thompson

Haven’t you noticed that everything is racist today? It’s like gum stuck on your shoe only worse.

goughpj
goughpj
3 years ago

Agreed….ypu feel positively nervous around anyone who has any shade of skin that isnt white in case you make any sort of remark that could be misconstrued. Shoukdnt be like that.

Pam Saunders
Pam Saunders
3 years ago
Reply to  goughpj

When my two ‘mixed race’ (am I allowed to say that?)grandchildren were expected, our family excitedly and unashamedly awaited to receive with love whatever combinations of mix would manifest, and we’re not afraid to talk about it. I’m from a generation when the sex of a baby was not known until birth…. I don’t recall it being called ‘sexist’ for a family to ponder on the baby’s gender, or whose, nose, eye colour etc. either. … What a Shame

sue_bradley1
sue_bradley1
3 years ago

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.

Allie McBeth
Allie McBeth
3 years ago
Reply to  sue_bradley1

Particularly so in the case of Stonewall, who seem to be inventing and encouraging grievance, no doubt to keep them in jobs.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Brown

And one more world shattering interview

Jay Williams
Jay Williams
3 years ago

Having welcomed a prodigal son a couple of years ago I can tell you it is incredibly difficult. Those who stuck around and grew into thoughtful adults supporting aging parents find the whole process distressing as settled lives are messed up by the need to shift the family dynamics. The grandkids generously try to be supportive but discover that the Prodigal returner is still the same psychologically the age that they left but wants to be of the middle generation. Confusion!
What I can’t understand is why anyone would read the tabloids knowing that they will be written about, truthfully or not, but certainly sensationally. Am I going to return to this post to find out if I get any likes. No I’m not. I just wanted to be part of the conversation.

Walter Brigham
Walter Brigham
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williams

Has Jay Williams left Flipboard? Will the trolls follow. I’m not sure how to react.

Terry Mushroom
Terry Mushroom
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williams

Jay, as an older son, your reply moves me because I like to think I I understand a little of the pain behind it.
Whether H understands or not, the cruelty of his very public attack on his family will go very deep indeed.
It’s all very, very sad.

Last edited 3 years ago by Terry Mushroom
James B
James B
3 years ago

They will

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

The Family Would,but Public wont,he has stated at least 3x on Media tapes he hates the Uk,The Press and by My truth ”The Public?” However he has done good work Stopping poaching in Africa,maybe he will find fulfillment there?..

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I hope it goes as wrong as possible, only then will they have a chance to learn what gopes around comes around.

Jayne Lago
Jayne Lago
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

He should leave for his own sanity, she will eventually eat him for breakfast. This is a woman remember who has been married before, was prepared to do whatever it takes to become famous, and had a fair few years acting in soaps! Note, she says she didn’t have the confidence to cope!
Also I would like to know if she had counselling when she arrived in Canada. Remember what the reason was that Harry had to get her out of the Uk! I have had many years of mental health circumstances as my father and others in my family suffered for a considerable time. Mental health issues do not disappear over night, it takes a long time with lots of support, medication and counselling, so I presume that was the first thing they did upon arrival in Canada!

Last edited 3 years ago by Jayne Lago
Jill Armstead
Jill Armstead
3 years ago
Reply to  Jayne Lago

Children complete the trap. It is very unlikely she will allow access to the children if he leaves. And she will spill the beans on every last bit of pillow talk. Hoist by his own wotsit. Incarceration without relief.

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I agree with you in principle, but have to add that this pair should not have said any of these things ‘openly’; first, because of the damage it has done to Harry’s family and country, secondly, because it is a spectacular contradiction of a desire to live authentic private lives, and finally, surely NO ONE with a modicum of self-respect (and children) speaks of such matters to go on the record for evermore, available to millions, even billions, of people.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Colin Elliott

It’s also a downright contradiction of their professed desire to “bring more kindness and compassion into the world”. What a huge joke. I simply draw my own line at wishing the people I dislike and/or criticise ill. I didn’t like Trump at and thought it was his own fault he caught covid-19. But I wished him a speedy recovery all the same.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Nil chance of that. Literally nil. She’s too repulsive, and he’s too thick to avoid stepping on all the eggshells. It won’t last 5 years, and he’ll end up like Prince Andrew.

Penny Heater
Penny Heater
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Yes agree. Plus any schadenfreude would be overshadowed by the inevitable accusation that the pressures of ongoing press intrusion caused the break-up. Then off we go again….

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  sharon johnson

I think we all know that she’ll be off sooner or later, probably sooner. As the ever prescient and correct Mr Trump said of Harry with regard to Meghan:
“I wish him luck. He’ll need it’.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
David Stuckey
David Stuckey
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Trouble is Mr Trump has trouble grasping the concept of irony, what with three wives, and his current one being slightly less than enamoured of him!

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  David Stuckey

Trump divorced his first and second wives. Neither wanted the divorce. So kind of different,

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  David Stuckey

Although he has good relationships with his ex wives and his kids so that is slightly unfair. Also – if anyone knows about marriage breakdowns it’s him so he is speaking from experience!

Andrew McDonald
Andrew McDonald
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Maybe, maybe not. But none of us on this website (I guess) know either of them from Adam, personally, so why do we feel obliged and indeed entitled to speculate about how long they will stay married? They’re not on our payroll any more.

J A Thompson
J A Thompson
3 years ago

The entire issue is that they have unremittingly criticised our entire nation ever since they quit. If they had done as they said they wanted, retired to a quiet life, I think most of the nation would have been disappointed but supportive. However, they started with the racist slurs as soon as their feet touched foreign soil and it ceased to be that they had chosen to leave and became that they had been driven out.
If someone repeatedly insults you, it is very difficult to stay silent or sympathetic.

Last edited 3 years ago by J A Thompson
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  J A Thompson

I don’t feel they have insulted me at all – and I think I’m part of the nation. They’ve criticised the press, media and Royal Family. Not the entire nation.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Harry is ON Tape as having said he hates The Free Press and the UK…that is the Whole Nation

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

My Favourite Trumpism, Wit NOT his usual clomping statement,with Biden sticking his nose in Ulster,EU, Vaccinations &Trump organised upping the Rollout) Biden)he likes her(Meghan)Maybe she’ll be VP instead of NO delegates Kamala Harris?

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Alfred Prufrock
Alfred Prufrock
3 years ago
Reply to  sharon johnson

Me too. It will end far worse for Harry. He has burnt bridges with his family and will never be quite forgiven. His former aristo and military type friends will think this woke stuff nonsense and he will end up in sort sort of well appointed twilight world. She will not want to stay married to some pathetic yes man husband and will dump him for a rich Hollywood type.

Bob Green
Bob Green
3 years ago
Reply to  sharon johnson

…….except to somewhere warm and sunny with 5* hotels.

Last edited 3 years ago by Bob Green
Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago

It sounds like the Queen already knows the central claim about someone questioning Archie’s skin to be bogus. But she put it very nicely.”
I thought the statement issued by Her Majesty was a masterpiece. But ‘very nicely’ will do just as well !

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago

But likely it would be the best thing to ever happen to him

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
3 years ago

I agree with you about Harry – he seems to be permanently dazed, like a patient under a chemical cosh. But I wonder whether Meghan is any better really – she seems to be so completely absorbed in the values and conventions of a public, showbiz life that she is not fully in control of her actions, or at least unable to understand their impact in the normal world.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

Meghan is undeniably the smarter of the two and it’s clear who is wearing the kilt as another thread said. But Harry seems happy to be led, it may be what he has always needed. His great uncle was the same, and Simpson wore the pants in that relationship as well. Some men are just happier that way. Harry seems very dependent on Meghan.

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago

It seems to be a trend that the ‘other child’ goes off the rails compared to the one who gets to be king/queen. Are they merely trying to establish self-worth in circumstances where they are structurally unnecessary?

Sue Sims
Sue Sims
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

That’s an interesting insight – though it doesn’t work, of course, with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson, as the former was the eldest son and did become king, though obviously not for very long.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Sue Sims

Reason Wallis Simpson WAS dumped,was 1) She member of American nazi Party with tyler kent 2) MI5 were worried Secret cabinet papers Would fall into hitler’s hands. Especially after October 1937 Simpson-Edward V111 feted on visit by ALL top nazis

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Wallis Simpson was unacceptable because she was a divorced woman, that’s why Edward had to abdicate if he wanted to marry her. Edward had his own connections and sympathies with n@zis even before Wallis.

taddeo1212
taddeo1212
3 years ago

Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor, was not a grade-B duchess extorting her in-laws..

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

I’d say she was pretty grade B and she lived off her in-laws from the day they got married.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

And 2 ex husbands & possible Von Ribbentrop

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Edward had the same sympathies. It was her divorced status that made her unacceptable as a queen.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

Interestingly enough, some letters were found a few years ago written by her to a former lover. In them she complained how after all the excitement of obtaining a royal husband had died down, she soon found out he was dreadfully boring. However, since she’d been the one to tear him away from his family, she couldn’t bring herself to divorce him. She ended up living the rest of her life feeling completely unfilled.

goughpj
goughpj
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

I read Wallis Simpsons autobiography. She came across as a quite well educated intelligent woman ..and although she enjoyed being in the Royal social circle she knew how badly she would be received…it was Edward who pressured her into marriage. I think he found her sexually less threatening as I gather he had homosexual tendencies. Wallis was not the predator that Meghan is.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Cunning,Manipulative,Money grabbing,Exploiting Males for Canadian passport,soon dropped doesn’t equal smart ,Apart from ignoring her step family isn’t ”smart” vile..Modern being in Public Spotlight is dangerous ,Glad I live ”Quiet life”

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Obviously not everyone would agree as to whether she is smart. There’s room for all opinions. Mine is that she is exceptionally smart.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

Then she needs to get a grip!

Jayne Lago
Jayne Lago
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

She understands alright!

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

Does she realise that she’s not meant to be acting in this, her latest role?

Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
3 years ago

Don’t feel bad for Harry. What Meghan has inflicted on her in-laws, he has inflicted on his family. There comes a point where “he’s deluded” no longer cuts it as an excuse.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan Weil

I would only feel badly for him if Meghan cuts out if they lose their titles. Where would he go and what would he do? He has no skills, no occupation, no means of support other than family money.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Not stritctly true he does/did value Army camaraderie ,Set up Invictus Games ..He probably Would have been happier with chelsy,rather like Charles with Camilla?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

I didn’t say he didn’t value anything. I said he has no skills and no occupation as well as no means of support other than family money. He clearly valued his military service. Just not as much as living in Montecito with Meghan. Chelsy didn’t provide the fuel he needed for victim status. Meghan does.

Dorothy Slater
Dorothy Slater
3 years ago

I think Meghan absolutely told her “truth” – she is a manipulative ambitious woman who played every card in the deck and played it with America’s answer to royalty Oprah who has launched the careers of many a truthteller such as Drs. Oz and Phil. The best part of the interview was her being ticked off because Archie isn’t a prince. I would be happy to be a Duchess with all of the perks that go with it.
I feel very sorry for Harry who obviously needs a woman like her in his life for whatever reason. I wish them well and hope we never have to hear from them again.
The real problem for me is that all of my aging friends are becoming more and more Woke. They fell for Meghan’s self pity party hook line and sinker leaving me with, another topic that I dare not bring up. So it is back to conversations about COVID and vaccine.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Dorothy Slater

Yes, Meghan told her truth. It’s just a shame that it wasn’t the truth.

Samantha Brooks
Samantha Brooks
3 years ago
Reply to  Dorothy Slater

I’m with you..haven’t joined the woke brigade and have no intention of doing so now.
Meghan is an open book, and Harry has bought into her narrative.
Oprah and Meghan have just used each other to bolster their ever growing ego. I never liked Oprah and found her to be quite disingenuous, which suits her..let’s reel in all the stupid people, and pretend I’m genuinely interested in their plight, as I amass my billions. Meghan really wants that power and wealth over people…I think round one goes to Oprah though…Meghan was played completely, and Harry is like a rabbit in headlights.

Jerry Jay Carroll
Jerry Jay Carroll
3 years ago

Harry needs a different strong woman to put him right. The Duchess of Humbug isn’t good for him and he’ll figure that out the new woman enters his life.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

He needed someone who could help him create a life for himself. His father didn’t do that and his mother wasn’t there to do that. Interestingly, neither was Oprah’s and yet she created quite a life for herself, didn’t she? But Harry doesn’t have the inner strength to do that plus it was always all about William. He needed a smart woman, one who knew how to bring out his good qualities rather than his petulance.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

‘YOUTH’? They are middle aged. A bit of a Freudian slip on Oprah’s part, using behavior rather than a calendar to judge their age.

I detest hearing of them and hate to see the pages on them I have to scroll past – I find them repulsive! Please Unherd, less on these wan***s and more on the coming financial Armageddon.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Yes, I know they are not young. Although Harry is emotionally young if not young in actual age.

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
3 years ago

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.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Not on board with the first 2 paragraphs of your comment but I am with the rest of it. The final paragraph in particular is excellent.

Johnny Sutherland
Johnny Sutherland
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I concur with all of it.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

I am absolutely on board with the first 2 paragraphs

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

As usual, the Babylon Bee hits the nail on the head:
Meghan And Harry Request That Everyone Please Respect Their Privacy And Also Make Sure To Tune In To ‘Keeping Up With The Markles’and
“Meghan Markle Inspires Millions Of Young Girls With Message That No Matter How Famous, Rich, And Powerful They Are, They Will Always Be Oppressed”
The best punishment for those two would be for the world to completely ignore them.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

I adore the Bee!

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

and a big Dollar$ Devaluation?…

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Meghan seems to simultaneously want us to believe she is a strong, empowered, independent woman and a poor little victim – but from everything I have observed and which was confirmed by this interview, she has a tendency to self-aggrandisement, she’s self-absorbed (the interview was almost wholly about her, Harry just came on at the end like a bag handler) and has zero capacity for resilience in the face of criticism. She said ‘death by a 1000 cuts’ – so nothing was particularly bad, she just couldn’t cope with the scrutiny that comes with being part of an ancient, world famous and taxpayer-accountable institution. She couldn’t cope with duty and it was clear she didn’t want to swap California sunshine and lattes with her friends for a windswept factory in Leeds or ribbon cutting at a school. The Queen is all about public service, Meghan would appear to be all about self-service with a virtue-signalling froth. And as someone who apparently did zero research beforehand about what she was getting into (I don’t believe that for a second), her ignorance is her own failing no-one else’s. I am AMAZED that being such a fragile little thing, she has lasted so long in the ruthless world of Hollywood. Or perhaps that’s just it – she has – and has become keenly aware of how well victimhood sells and is the key to her future income and fame. She is either the worst kind of narcissistic social climber or an idiot child. Either way, you have to congratulate her on how far she has managed to get and how completely and utterly she has swallowed Harry whole. Poor guy sees her as the Diana he CAN save and I see almost zero individuality in him now. Everything he says is in her voice. What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Great comment, Cheryl. Meghan is no naive ingenue – this is a woman who is whip-smart and canny and who realised that pain & suffering (real or imagined or ruthlessly exaggerated) is a hard currency that can be exchanged for money and power. It’s a more expensive and desirable commodity among the younger generations than duty and sacrificing yourself to/being part of something greater. God help us.

Last edited 3 years ago by Katharine Eyre
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

seconded

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Excellent follow-up comment.

goughpj
goughpj
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Qv Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair..

Pauline Ivison
Pauline Ivison
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Brilliant comment, thank you.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Excellent analysis.

Bob Henson
Bob Henson
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

A stunning analysis Cheryl, can I post it on Facebook?

John Nutkins
John Nutkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Excellent post!

Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago

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.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Well said

Simon Flynn
Simon Flynn
3 years ago

.
Agreed, other than the need for some spacing and paras.
.

Hector Mildew
Hector Mildew
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Flynn

There are five paragraphs. How many more do you want? Did anyone else find Andy Yorks’ comment difficult to read?

John Rodger
John Rodger
3 years ago
Reply to  Hector Mildew

Nope.

David Menashy
David Menashy
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Thanks, the best “summing-up” I’ve read on this…

Jay Williams
Jay Williams
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Remember Chelsy: the girl who wouldn’t ? She saw the life they live and said “no thanks” It makes me wonder if that was why Harry was in so much of a hurry to marry Magan. And why, if it is true that he fell out with his brother who questioned the haste. Old saying “marry in haste, repent in leisure”

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Jay Williams

Wise.Words…I’m still Waiting in leisure..

Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Although see Craig Brown’s delicious dismemberment of the half sister’s book for another take on that particular relationship…

Grahame Codd
Grahame Codd
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Quality. I agree 100%. Everyone I know would agree with your observations. They have zero comprehension of the damage caused- the diameter of the ripples (or waves) across the pond. What will Archie say when he gets to 18 yrs of age? When he questions why he has no relationship with any member of his family on either side? Will he turn and ask MM “what happened “? Harry should ditch her and save his soul – rejoin the Armed Forced, get involved with Invictus Games and old mates carry out some publid duties and regain the love and support of the GB people. She is a manipulative self-absorbed woman who will never be satisfied. Harry cannot win.

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

I find their choices difficult to understand, in that they are isolating themselves from past or future friends in the UK (and if he hasn’t dumped his friends, some of them may now be inclined to dump him), in exchange for friends in the states. Maybe she has good friends there, I don’t know, but given the kind of emotional language used by people like her and Winfrey (forever ‘sharing’ things with each other), how can you tell true friends from false? Or are they reconciled to playing the lead parts in their own drama from now on?

John Nutkins
John Nutkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

A precise and cogent analysis – and spot on.

Mike Bell
Mike Bell
3 years ago

I think a simple, post-modernist explanation makes more sense (both here and in the Piers Morgan affair this week).
Most of us (including Piers) subscribe to a thinking process which dates back to the Enlightenment. It is sometimes called ’empiricism’. You look at a phenomenon and try to explain it using evidence. In this case, many (older) people will ask the question: “if that was said about Archie’s skin, was it racist?” We’d then try to find evidence, for instance, balancing it with the counter-argument of how welcoming the royals and the British were to Meghan.
The post-modernists (Meghan, Harry, BBC, Alex Beresford, most young university-types…) subscribe to a quite different thinking process (paradigm?). They see the world as a series of power struggles with the disadvanated (mostly women and non-whites) as victims BY DEFINITION. (People may be unaware of their victimhood and need to be ‘educated’.)
So, when Meghan looks at her experience, her brain is programmed to interpret everything that happens through that filter. She has no choice (they all do it). Instead of facts and evidence, they focus on ‘lived experience’ and then present that as evidence (it’s a really cunning trick that many do not notice).
So, dear old Piers is under the illusion he is having a rational discussion with Alex based on the empirical traditions, while Alex is answering from the post-modern. Piers does not notice he is not in a conversation, that even to question the post-modern view is to be labvellel racist, sexist etc.
There is no solution till enough people notice what is happening, call it out and gather like-minded people.

Jack Ingham
Jack Ingham
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bell

The power struggle is always who owns the capital and who has the most authentic and legitimate-looking branding. That changes over time. Cigarette companies don’t tell people “smoking cures your asthma” any more. The monarchy no longer has divinely ordained right-to-rule from god. People wince when Prince Phillip asks if certain folk are still “chucking spears”. That doesn’t sell any more. Old news. Get with the program.
Harry & Meghan have completely outflanked the monarchy here, either way they win.
If they’re telling the truth, well then they’re vindicated.
If they’re lying, then the monarchy’s public image department can’t respond effectively and aren’t up to the job.
If Piers Morgan can’t even argue his way out of his situation, back up his opinions and and feels he has no option but to quit because he has the “the woke mob” cop-out, then he’s clearly an overrated idiot and doesn’t deserve his job.
The crumbling artifice of the monarchy isn’t fit enough to survive in the wild with big corporate beasts stalking around ready to devour their lunch.

Jos Haynes
Jos Haynes
3 years ago
Reply to  Jack Ingham

Except that I and most of the people I know value the monarchy over the likes of Microsoft

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

What’s the monarchy ever done for us?

Jack Ingham
Jack Ingham
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Stolen the land and then rented it back out.

michael harris
michael harris
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Made sure you haven’t been topped by some mad presidente.

Jack Ingham
Jack Ingham
3 years ago
Reply to  Jos Haynes

Peoples values are driven by their wallets, not a tenable connection to some quickly-disappearing national identity. The Royal family lives on inherited wealth and status, there’s nothing earned about it whatsoever. It’s anathema to modern capitalism.
What do people want? Modern software or a family that lives on public money and goes around waving in public?

Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
3 years ago
Reply to  Jack Ingham

Piers has been angling for a job on one of the upcoming “anti-woke” news channels for months. He’s just done an excellent job burnishing his credentials.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  Jack Ingham

The fact that you interpret the world in terms of consumer preferences, which may themselves be dependent on no more than advertiser-crafted appearances (‘legitimate-looking branding’) says more about your value-system than it does about the issue.

Last edited 3 years ago by Wilfred Davis
Jack Ingham
Jack Ingham
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

I personally don’t actually care what happens to the monarchy, Netflix or Harry and Meghan, frankly. And it doesn’t actually matter what I think.
I’m just describing how the modern world works.
And how the monarchy has always worked actually. All the pomp and ceremony, castles and grand estates. The coats of arms and the regalia. The ostentatious displays of their deserved position. All propaganda. All corporate spin when you boil it down.
If you think the monarchy is somehow going to stay relevant, I’m not sure how you could justify that. Suppose it’s just painful for people to see this institution, a beacon of stability throughout their life that we’re fond of, being outmanoeuvred in the name of private gain.
Like the NHS. Or most of England, come to think of it…

eleanorhazleton
eleanorhazleton
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bell

Many moons ago, while studying philosophy, I remember learning that ‘People should not go from the particular to the general’

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bell

What I can’t understand is this great compulsion to go on air with millions watching to portray oneself as a victim (making sure one is very well dressed and made up first).
I suppose it makes them feel at one with the many true victims, and therefore at peace with oneself, and content with one’s miserable life.

J Bryant
J Bryant
3 years ago

“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.”
I don’t know about the Oedipus complex, but Harry is certainly driven by subconscious needs, imo.
I remember the image of him and his brother at their mother’s funeral. They looked like such sad, vulnerable little boys. Harry’s brother seems to have grown up into a somewhat bland but reasonably well-adjusted man. Not so Harry, imo. Whenever I see him I’m instantly reminded of that image of the sad little boy. Even though he is quite a robust man with a solid military career behind him, there’s an element of loss in his expression.
I have the strong sense that, deep in his subconscious where all the important stuff resides, there’s a lonely little boy desperately seeking a reassuring hug from his mother. Unfortunately, he’s looking in the wrong places to satisfy that need.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  J Bryant

I agree. I also think being the spare was very hard on him. And Meghan certainly wasn’t going to play second fiddle to Kate Middleton.

clements.jb
clements.jb
3 years ago

It suggests a soaring ambition if one is not prepared to be second fiddle to a / the future Queen…

Chris Dale
Chris Dale
3 years ago
Reply to  clements.jb

“soaring ambition” is a polite description of her apparent intentions

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  clements.jb

Understudies have been known to step up.

Alison Houston
Alison Houston
3 years ago

What about the next bit: “And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man”?

You take the idea of being true to yourself as the idea of being authentic, in order to build your argument, but it also means not fooling yourself, being honest with yourself. It can only be interpreted as being authentic ‘who you really are’ if you ignore the rest of the quote.

“ Be honest with your self, do not attempt to deceive yourself in order to ease your guilty conscience, or make excuse for your ambition which you realise you have not the strength of character to live up to, in terms of doing your duty in return, then you cannot pretend you had a legal wedding three days before your public one, that your son would be a prince if he were white enough or that he would be entitled to security paid for by the general public.”

Kasia Chapman
Kasia Chapman
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

Freud has a lot to offer despite his lack of scientific credentials in the realm of human psychology. His ideas may seem strange to those uninitiated but once you start reading up you will realise that he is the only one who offers explanation for the irrational, bizarre, and unexpected behaviour. Thank you for bringing him back.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Kasia Chapman

Carl Jung was more prescient,he also said ”Sigmund is like a Woman,he cries when he can’t get his own way!” now i’ll be accused of misogyny/..

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

Thank you for reminding us of the completion of this quotation, and for your reflections on it.

This has prompted me to a quick search on the internet, revealing a variety of interpretations that have arisen in succeeding generations.

Giles Fraser has pointed up a modern sense of ‘your truth’, ‘being authentically you’: the solipsistic universe-revolves-around-the-self that contemns both objective reality and consideration of others.

I had always understood the quotation as meaning something like ‘be true to your conscience’, which rests on an internalisation of the ethics of your community: unwavering awareness of one’s duty to others.

However, my search suggests that the original meaning of ‘true’ was ‘beneficial’, so the quotation begins with a meaning along the lines of ‘be sure always to act with regard to your own interests‘. It may flow from this that one avoids being a burden to others, but it does begin with Number One.

Where any of this leaves Harry and Meghan, I’m not sure.

Last edited 3 years ago by Wilfred Davis
Jonathan Weil
Jonathan Weil
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

“True” in that context makes most sense as meaning “faithful/honest”, as in a true as opposed to an untrue spouse (cf Othello, “your true and loyal wife.” … “Heaven doth know thou art false as hell.”) The fact that it’s set up in opposition to being “false to any man” suggests this reading rather than the “beneficial” one. Don’t deceive yourself, and you won’t deceive others. Where poor old Polonius reveals his unworldliness is in the certainty of “as night follows day”. Not deceiving yourself may be a necessary condition for not deceiving others, but it sure ain’t sufficient on its own — as Hamlet himself demonstrates.

Last edited 3 years ago by Jonathan Weil
George Glashan
George Glashan
3 years ago

In 5 years time we will be treated to the spectacle of a divorcee Price Harry climbing his own grandmothers balcony dressed as Batman and unfurling a Fathers4Justice banner in an attempt to see his own kids again.

Diana Durham
Diana Durham
3 years ago

I think Oprah should shoulder some personal responsibility for meddling in matters she is not able to understand. Is all the hurt and damage worth yet one more feather in her celebrity cap?

Douglas Roxborough
Douglas Roxborough
3 years ago
Reply to  Diana Durham

I can’t stand Oprah Winfrey, but any interviewer worth their salt would jump at the chance to get these two muppets to pontificate on their show. More exposure for Oprah means more fame and money, which in turn encourages more “celebrities” to take part in her highly un-interrogative interviews. I’d like to see them interviewed by Andrew Neill. This sycophantic interview doesn’t mean a great deal, and proves nothing. I’ll be amazed if any of the allegations made by Meghan are ever proved to be true.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Oprahhas sold ”Interview” to 70 countires making between $70-100 Million dollars,not bad .any wokes i’ll interview for that!

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago
Reply to  Diana Durham

But we can wholly understand her motives. Those of Meghan, and especially Harry, escape me entirely.

Martin Woodford
Martin Woodford
3 years ago

The term “your truth” must have been coined by a very slick lawyer. They are the weasliest of weasel words. It gets the programme off the hook of libel, while allowing interviewer and interviewee to feely libel the target in a way that cannot be challenged. There are two things that really surprise me about all of this – the first is the way that so many people have readily and unquestioningly accepted Meghan and Harry’s ‘truths’ as self evident truth . Of course there are many who will believe it because they want to and those who’d believe anything anyway. Meghan knows how to press the right button – the R button – to get the shocked reaction. But for a mentally unstable (as she herself admits) fantasist with a record of public family argument to say what she has said is no surprise, it’s just so surprising that so many choose to unhesitatingly swallow it.
The second is more surprising in that Harry, immature and easily lead though he is, has so easily tossed aside any sense of duty – the duty that surely he must have learned in the Army and as a member of the Royal Family – supported and cosseted as he was.  To come out and speak the way he did against his family, his country and the institution of monarchy is beyond comprehension or redemption.  He must know there can be no way back.
Now the challenge these two have is while looking like thoroughly disloyal and feeble minded people, is how to continue to make money out of their only asset – ‘their truth’. Their ‘truth’ has a life, before people get bored with it and others’ truths, if they tell them, erode their credibility further. The only way to keep ‘their truth’ alive and continue to earn from it, it to release further stories, the more salacious the better.

goughpj
goughpj
3 years ago

Yes, the Army was a very happy time for Harry it would seem. It provided leadership and a raison d’etre. He was daft to allow Meghan to cut him off so completely…and I dont know how he will live with himself when he finally wakes up to what he has done to everything he has been brought up with.

George Glashan
George Glashan
3 years ago

Poor Mr Markle has just traded a second stringer role in the The Firm for a second stringer role in the Markle Mafia. Pity poor Harry hes always the bridesmaid, never the bride.

taddeo1212
taddeo1212
3 years ago

Sincerely, I think that the Freudian language is too convoluted in this case.  Prince (so-called) Harry is a poodle, Meghan Markel’s poodle. They now extort the Royal Family in public. The next step is to extort them behind the curtain with the threat of even worse scandals. Megan Markle and her poodle are now melting the money from the estates of Princess Diana and the Queen Mother.  Money in California melts fast in the air.

delchriscrean
delchriscrean
3 years ago

I didn’t watch “the interview” but have become very concerned and depressed about the whole situation where an individual viewpoint can be taken as a universal truth and hardly challenged. Thankyou for your valuable insights.

It is almost unavoidable for me not to think and try to rationalise what I have heard in reports and a couple of things keep repeating themselves to me….

The first is that with maturity you learn that it is often not what happens but your response to it that causes problems, especially if that response is influenced by what you expect or even want to believe. So it is easy to find racism in an innocent remark, or valid point of concern, if you do not take into account the character of the person in question and/or the context of the conversation.

The second is that when you get married you form a team with your spouse and work through things together. You do not expect your mother-in-law, or any other inlaw, to participate in your developing relationship…why was this lady (who must have extensive experience researching roles) using Google to find the words to the national anthem and seeking help to learn how to curtsy when she is married to a prince…does he not know? Did he go off on an extended absence and leave her all on her own? If there is to be criticism for her feeling alone and unsupported surely he must be first in line? I know the royal family is different but even if you compare it to marrying into a wealthy family, I still believe it is up to a husband and wife to support each other and find (and accept) their place in the family unit together. But maybe the surest way to keep a couple together is for them to unite against a common (perceived) enemy and this is as much about their own disfunctional relationship as anything else.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago

If anyone says ‘my truth’ I immediately take everything they say with a large pinch of salt. I never understimate the human capacity for self-delusion, aggrandisement or outright faleshood. Especially when it comes from a woke sleb using one of the latest buzz phrases. Hollywood is not known for churning out rational, well-balanced individuals or for attracting them.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Same, my eyes glaze over when I hear that phrase. Unfortunately, it’s used as a deflection of criticism on many college campuses.

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Reply to  Cheryl Jones

Then, please tell us the Palace “other truth”.

Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
3 years ago

Meghan seems to simultaneously want us to believe she is a strong, empowered, independent woman and a poor little victim – but from everything I have observed and which was confirmed by this interview, she has a tendency to self-aggrandisement, she’s self-absorbed (the interview was almost wholly about her, Harry just came on at the end like a bag handler) and has zero capacity for resilience in the face of criticism. She said ‘death by a 1000 cuts’ – so nothing was particularly bad, she just couldn’t cope with the scrutiny that comes with being part of an ancient, world famous and taxpayer-accountable institution. She couldn’t cope with duty and it was clear she didn’t want to swap California sunshine and lattes with her friends for a windswept factory in Leeds or ribbon cutting at a school. The Queen is all about public service, Meghan would appear to be all about self-service with a virtue-signalling froth. And as someone who apparently did zero research beforehand about what she was getting into (I don’t believe that for a second), her ignorance is her own failing no-one else’s. I am AMAZED that being such a fragile little thing, she has lasted so long in the ruthless world of Hollywood. Or perhaps that’s just it – she has – and has become keenly aware of how well victimhood sells and is the key to her future income and fame. She is either the worst kind of narcissistic social climber or an idiot child. Either way, you have to congratulate her on how far she has managed to get and how completely and utterly she has swallowed Harry whole. Poor guy sees her as the Diana he CAN save and I see almost zero individuality in him now. Everything he says is in her voice. What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

There can be several sides to a story…different people experience/perceive things in different ways and THE truth must be found by listening to all of them and reflecting on it, calmly, rationally.
The way “your truth” is being bandied around in certain situations, however, makes me think that it also means “alternative facts like that awful Donald Trump spewed out but it’s OK when we do it because we’re the good people.”

Chris C
Chris C
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Yes, there’s a link between “Trump’s truth” (aka ‘alternative facts’) and “Meghan and Harry’s truth”. Narcissism in both cases.

Susan Osterwoldt
Susan Osterwoldt
3 years ago

An interesting analysis, however I think it’s worth considering the whole concept of an incredibly privileged pair, trying to portray themselves as victims (and in some circles succeeding).
 
I listened to a brief commentary by JD Vance, author of the book “Hillbilly Elegy”, where he spoke a bit about the victimhood culture in the United States, but in particular how it is being used by the rich and powerful to make the concept of “noblesse oblige” sound like something from the past. One would think that it makes sense that to whom much is given, much is expected. And Meghan pays lip service to this with her talk of compassion, etc. But, once you portray yourself as victims, as they most definitely have, then you become someone who is “owed” things, rather than owing anything. And a society that allows this attitude to flourish among the powerful, this society will cease to be a functioning society ultimately. 
 
I live next door to the United States, so it is easy to find examples of this thinking, among the political and the celebrity classes. I hope it is less prevalent in UK society.
 
I agree, this will not end well. My sympathies are with the British Royal family, but I can well imagine that they are a bit mystified how to deal with someone like Meghan.  

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago

They should ignore her, neither confirm nor disavow anything she says.

Michael L
Michael L
3 years ago

Everything I know about this couple (Harry & Meghan) I have learned against my free will.

Last edited 3 years ago by Michael L
Jill Armstead
Jill Armstead
3 years ago

This unhappy couple have sold their souls to the media and there is no escape. There can be no reconciliation where there is no trust. Every private conversation with the Queen will be sure as eggs sucked out of him by Oprah, therefore no confidences will be shared.

Duncan Mann
Duncan Mann
3 years ago
Reply to  Jill Armstead

Yes, I’ve considered this too. If every utterance from any member of the royal family is to be filtered and recapitulated through the prism of “Meghan’s truth” in future, it makes it impossible for them to have any meaningful dialogue. It’s worse than that, insofar as the inevitable consequence of this – the cessation of meaningful contact between the royals on either side of the Atlantic will then be interpreted as a lack of support by Meghan. They have burned their boats, despite HMQ’s assertion that Harry will remain a much loved member of the royal family.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

Unfortunately “their truth” is revealed to be what normal people call either “their lies”, “their mis-rememberings” or at best “their mistakes”. Also unless you are using Freud like Astrology to demonstrate an example of pseudo science there is really no need to mention him at all. I think the reason oprah/megan/harry didn’t wheel out the Lyotard/Foucault notion that “there is no such thing as truth” is simply because they couldn’t understand it. Plus literacy is waycist, innit? Holding a subjective ontological belief as true is fine in some areas of knowledge: Chelsea are the best football team, Led Zep the best rock band etc are examples. However, if you know the name and identity of the one true God be prepared to back that “truth” with force. The only thing we learned from the bilious interview is that meganharry are unemployable in the real world. Their cache in lala land, hollyweird etc is bankable for now but ephemeral. “You may be their pride and joy, but they’ll find another toy, then they’ll take away your crown [Don’t] pick me up on your way down.