“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.

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.

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.

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.  

What do Meghan and Trump have in common? Both seem to be in the world ,of ‘alternative facts’.
she came up with a great number of rather contrived and nasty innuendos . We havent been told exactly what the question or discussion with Harry was about! Did someone say ‘I wonder what skin colour he will be’ in much the same way as ‘I wonder if he will have ginger hair’. Or did someone say ‘my god I hope he isn’t dark skinned’. A total world,of difference but Megan’s rather pointed attempt suggest racism says a great deal about her .

I am not sure whether or not Fraser has hit the nail on the head but he is totally right to say there is something deeply worrying about the state of minds of ‘the happy couple ‘. Nothing in the interview seemed right. It just didn’t add up. The very fact that they had some desire to basically moan ‘it’s not fair’ on TV raises so many questions about what on Earth was going on in their disturbed minds