Main Edition
US
FR
The “Montecito perspective”(Netflix)
Harry and Meghan divide opinion very much along the lines of whether one believes we have obligations beyond our control. I still remember a Christmas family row, me a stroppy teenager, that concluded with me insisting: “I didn’t ask to be born into this family.” No one ever does, of course. Which is why the putative obligations one has to one’s parents — “honour thy father and mother” in old money — cut against the grain of contemporary liberal choice-led values.
The history of how this idea of individual choice came to dominate our moral landscape is complex and interesting. What began as a worthy cry of individual freedom against exploitative elites — the state, the medieval church and so on — greatly exceeded its intended power, eventually becoming a weapon that could bend reality around the will of individual choice. These days, for example, I can be a woman simply if I choose to be one, irrespective of any biological givenness. Philosophically, this means there are no givens that human will cannot and should not be able to overcome. Truth requires a possessive pronoun, making it submissive to individual will: my truth. All that matters is the choosing. There is only one core moral situation and that is when I point to something and say: “I want it”. The paradigmatic setting for moral reflection has shifted from kneeling in the church pew to standing in the shopping aisle.
Capitalism inevitably plays an important part in this story. The soft Left critique is that capitalism is poor at redistribution and poor at cleaning up after itself — that it doesn’t price in its effects on the environment. On the plus side, it has lifted billions out of poverty and has liberated hitherto oppressed individuals from the restrictions of traditional moral values — the power of the “pink pound”, for instance. In this way, capitalism is a kind of solvent against the weight of tradition: the dollars in my pocket free me to be whoever I want to be, whatever I want to be. Dalit billionaire Rajesh Saraiya is no longer untouchable. How can we not cheer such liberation? My wallet says that I don’t have to abide by your values. For “choice first” liberals, this is all to be counted on the positive side of the register.
We could call this the “Montecito perspective”, but Marx explained it best: “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.” The Netflix Queen, luxuriating in her ghastly Californian mansion, is a surprising example of precisely what Marx described — her exaggerated bow to the monarch making a mockery of the respect that such a gesture is designed to articulate.
This is why the “Montecito perspective” contrasts so directly with the “Buckingham Palace perspective”, which is what makes the whole Harry/William drama so much more than a mimetic rivalry between siblings. They are archetypes of two fundamental and bitter political adversaries: very roughly, tradition and the ethics of the market, old world power and new world power, England and America. People will keep on making programmes about Harry and Meghan not because they are intrinsically worth watching, nor because they provide us with any new information about their perfectly ordinary romance, but rather because they reference a very primitive kind of disagreement about the nature of moral reality. Harry and Meghan are compelling in their own way because they are absolute true believers in the kind of moral vision they propound. In direct contrast, many believe that what they think of as being good is the very thing we now need saving from: an ethics indistinguishable from narcissism. The crack between us reaches down to the very bottom.
From the Palace perspective, we are born into a network of relations to which we are obligated from before we take breath. William would use words like “duty” and “service”, a crucial aspect of which is the belief that my life is not all-about-me. It’s not about my will or my having chosen something. Not even about my own personal happiness. I live in the service of something greater than myself. As today’s episodes reveal, while William was somewhere up the M1 opening yet another Community Centre or Homeless Project, Harry was in the departure lounge, giddily breathing into his mobile phone: “We are on the freedom flight.” Little wonder so many of us saw his abdication of responsibility as a betrayal of duty, to both his family and to his country — which, given the nature of the obligations he was born into, amount to the same thing.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
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.
SubscribeI think people might have been sympathetic to Harry finding the burden of obligation too heavy to bear and retiring to enjoy a private life. What is less forgivable is the attacks on his family to generate wealth to enable him to indulge his material and narcissistic desires.
Quite. Their descent is pure Macbeth. Their betrayal – made worse by naked greed (monetising mendacious accusations of both family and nation) – is ugly for neither raycist royals nor us now raycist Brits can answer back. In the end it is about manners. This shrill couple pocket Netflix loot to spread venom about a family and a nation that welcomed Meghan in. Remember how Prince Phillip was dying when they began their lie for profit offensive? They represent and express a set of rotten values we have long been taught to despise – spoiled, narcissistic, accusatory, disloyal, unfair, hypocritical and serial mendacity.
I can answer back! They are both selfish individuals who only think of themselves & care not who they hurt in their pursuit of their own agenda. ie, the wishful greatness of them.
An interesting aspect of the Royal family is that they create a sort of ‘national community’ for the UK. They observe and honor national traditions and encourage the cohesiveness in their acknowledgment of good works. And it works on the whole. In this day and age when people yearn for a sense of belonging more than ever, the Royal family serves a much needed focus and service. It’s a shame Harry & Meghan didn’t see it that way. They can not and will not be able to create community for anyone as they are too selfish and inwardly focused. Their ‘country’ is themselves.
Yesterday l caught a glimpse of Meghan’s pantomime dame curtsey and the following gales of mocking laughter from her. I was personally offended. She is making a mockery of our country and our traditions built over 1,000 years of history from the days when a king led his men into battle to defend the realm, to the dedicated service of our late Queen to the benefit of many nations.
Harry had the grace to look rather uncomfortable at this performance and so he should. A bow or curtsey is a mark of respect and not in any way demeaning.
An old-fashioned word came to mind – guttersnipe.
Dictionary definition –
n. 1) A low-life classless buffoon who fancies him or herself above all others. 2) A person who feels that they can act on their own whims without regard to consequences to themselves or others. 3) One who thumbs their nose at polite society.
l sincerely hope the King and the Prince of Wales rise above all this and do not feed their publicity machine. It will soon fade without sustenance, just as Harry will be occasionally remembered as that chap who was once a prince of this realm.
Believe me, those who know can assure you that ‘ Lower-Middleton” is not much better….
Who is that then? And what vague aspersions you make. What is Cate Middleton’s particular offence? This sounds simply like pure unadulterated snobbery and disdain on your part -‘Lower’. Of course there is always someone on here effectively by making the other side’s arguments for them!
gopped the bait good n proper!!!
ahhh… I actually know them… you, I imagine, do not.
Really? It’s just a shame that your opinion is not matched by thousands of other people, or some definitive facts. Just looking at the actions of both, it would appear that Catherine and William have the ability to do good works and not whine. It’s just a shame that they appear to be happy with their lot and just get on with it. Where harry and his wife cannot just get on with their lives, are permanently unhappy and blame the Royal Family and the Press for that, but have a permanent thread attached to the old job and still want the benefits while behaving like spoiled brats and collecting at their alter! Oh, and please don’t reply because I can see right through it!
Dream on via The Daily Mail!
Dream on via The Daily Mail!
Really? It’s just a shame that your opinion is not matched by thousands of other people, or some definitive facts. Just looking at the actions of both, it would appear that Catherine and William have the ability to do good works and not whine. It’s just a shame that they appear to be happy with their lot and just get on with it. Where harry and his wife cannot just get on with their lives, are permanently unhappy and blame the Royal Family and the Press for that, but have a permanent thread attached to the old job and still want the benefits while behaving like spoiled brats and collecting at their alter! Oh, and please don’t reply because I can see right through it!
gopped the bait good n proper!!!
ahhh… I actually know them… you, I imagine, do not.
Who is that then? And what vague aspersions you make. What is Cate Middleton’s particular offence? This sounds simply like pure unadulterated snobbery and disdain on your part -‘Lower’. Of course there is always someone on here effectively by making the other side’s arguments for them!
Demimondaine sprang to mine.
Mark, are you alluding to the word prostitute?
Mark, are you alluding to the word prostitute?
Believe me, those who know can assure you that ‘ Lower-Middleton” is not much better….
Demimondaine sprang to mine.
The Royal Family is only a symbol of national unity for those who take superficial media presentations for reality. King Charles as head of a church, really? Camilla as Queen Consort? All these people are descended from Germans and Greeks, even the name of the dynasty had to be changed. A ramshackle structure pumped up by Disneyland pomp and circumstance. I suspect the Queen refused to retire to delay Charles from becoming King. In the meantime the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7 and its poor are freezing in the dark and suffering from that Dickensian ailment, chilblains.
Such bitterness affects your judgement.
It is Harry and Meghan, and posters like this Walter who are old fashioned these days. Out of touch, reheating unappetising cliches that were stone cold well over 60 years ag0 about personal self-fulfilment, being on ‘a journey’ and for the Walters’ a sort of world view based on ‘Anyone Except Britain’.
It is Harry and Meghan, and posters like this Walter who are old fashioned these days. Out of touch, reheating unappetising cliches that were stone cold well over 60 years ag0 about personal self-fulfilment, being on ‘a journey’ and for the Walters’ a sort of world view based on ‘Anyone Except Britain’.
How naive as well as ignorant. You obviously didn’t take too much notice of the late Queen’s funeral. It was very clear that huge numbers of people had the greatest respect for her not only as an individual but as a symbol of the nation. That respect is entirely different from having a favourite film actor, for example, a difference that Meghan Markle for one, as the epitome of a ‘woke’ self centred modern person, who is at the same time motivated mainly by money, is probably incapable of understanding.
The Royal Family is descended from rather a large number of ancestors, as indeed we all are, if you think about it. That isn’t really the point. If enough people hold allegiance and respect for the monarchy, that is what counts. ‘You suspect’ – the Queen actually believed in her vows, terribly unfashionable isn’t it? – which is why she would only have abdicated in the most extreme circumstances, for example of poor health.
Britain has its problems, but overall had been a beneficent force in the world. And today almost every one of the best run European countries are constitutional monarchies. Ah, if ONLY we could have President Macron, or Biden or Trump as the head of state as well as government, all would be well!
Are you German by any chance? Your own modern state was – probably given its history – could ONLY have been – set up under the tutelage of the Americans and British. But I’m always dismayed at how many Germans I speak to fundamentally don’t seem to care much whether they are come under the Chinese as opposed to the American orbit. As long as they can sell stuff and posture about environmentalism etc. That seems to indicate a pretty skin deep attitude to human freedom and even their own nation, or even given China’s record, the environment itself.
But perhaps unfortunately it is the case that the British monarchy will be coming under more and more strain given the huge culture clash of cultures between those who have some respect for tradition and many metropolitan uber liberals who always think we can ‘remake the world anew’ in the sweet light of human reason with no difficulty at all. The experience of the Bolshevik Revolution, Maoism, Nazism ought to argue against that, but hey, we don’t need to learn anything from history do we?
yes agree – all this hate for one person MM is pathetic (‘narcissism’ being the most over and misused word of the current zeitgeist) and demeans us all. Of course the royal family and all it ‘traditions’ need to go and all our artefacts stolen from other countries need to go back to their rightful owners. Good for H & M may they yet bring down the monarchy and all who sail in it!
Of course, lets all celebrate her career of grifting, lies, and general mean mouthing, and his too. Becasue after all they have called out the Royal Family. Of course its never been done before, has it? The thing about Markle is her total lack of integrity, and only pushing the cause becasue she can and has benefited financially in a very big way. Yet it appears, charity did not begin at home, and she is yet to demonstrate how to do good in the world. Harry in the meantime is still trying to be better than Saint Diana, in his own head anyway.
Of course, lets all celebrate her career of grifting, lies, and general mean mouthing, and his too. Becasue after all they have called out the Royal Family. Of course its never been done before, has it? The thing about Markle is her total lack of integrity, and only pushing the cause becasue she can and has benefited financially in a very big way. Yet it appears, charity did not begin at home, and she is yet to demonstrate how to do good in the world. Harry in the meantime is still trying to be better than Saint Diana, in his own head anyway.
Correct Walter. I detect there is a sane man in you judging by the minuses you have received. Nice to know there are at least two of us who think along the same lines. It never ceases to amaze me how the truth stirs up hatred in others. The Royal Family pantomime will continue for some time to come yet. Why do the British people have to pay anything for them to survive? They are unbelievably rich. They should make their own way. Do they really need so many expensive gowns, houses, servants et cetera? I marvel at it.
Do presidents require anything less? So may start, being not quite ‘unbelievably’ rich, very few end that way… we pretend to deplore corruption, but we vote for it every time. We get what we deserve!
Actually Elizabeth Shannon, they pay their own way and some. They contribute an enormous amount of money to the economy. But lest not let facts get into the discussion. Did you know that the British can vote them out, anytime they like.
and revenue from The Royal Estates
and revenue from The Royal Estates
Do presidents require anything less? So may start, being not quite ‘unbelievably’ rich, very few end that way… we pretend to deplore corruption, but we vote for it every time. We get what we deserve!
Actually Elizabeth Shannon, they pay their own way and some. They contribute an enormous amount of money to the economy. But lest not let facts get into the discussion. Did you know that the British can vote them out, anytime they like.
Such bitterness affects your judgement.
How naive as well as ignorant. You obviously didn’t take too much notice of the late Queen’s funeral. It was very clear that huge numbers of people had the greatest respect for her not only as an individual but as a symbol of the nation. That respect is entirely different from having a favourite film actor, for example, a difference that Meghan Markle for one, as the epitome of a ‘woke’ self centred modern person, who is at the same time motivated mainly by money, is probably incapable of understanding.
The Royal Family is descended from rather a large number of ancestors, as indeed we all are, if you think about it. That isn’t really the point. If enough people hold allegiance and respect for the monarchy, that is what counts. ‘You suspect’ – the Queen actually believed in her vows, terribly unfashionable isn’t it? – which is why she would only have abdicated in the most extreme circumstances, for example of poor health.
Britain has its problems, but overall had been a beneficent force in the world. And today almost every one of the best run European countries are constitutional monarchies. Ah, if ONLY we could have President Macron, or Biden or Trump as the head of state as well as government, all would be well!
Are you German by any chance? Your own modern state was – probably given its history – could ONLY have been – set up under the tutelage of the Americans and British. But I’m always dismayed at how many Germans I speak to fundamentally don’t seem to care much whether they are come under the Chinese as opposed to the American orbit. As long as they can sell stuff and posture about environmentalism etc. That seems to indicate a pretty skin deep attitude to human freedom and even their own nation, or even given China’s record, the environment itself.
But perhaps unfortunately it is the case that the British monarchy will be coming under more and more strain given the huge culture clash of cultures between those who have some respect for tradition and many metropolitan uber liberals who always think we can ‘remake the world anew’ in the sweet light of human reason with no difficulty at all. The experience of the Bolshevik Revolution, Maoism, Nazism ought to argue against that, but hey, we don’t need to learn anything from history do we?
yes agree – all this hate for one person MM is pathetic (‘narcissism’ being the most over and misused word of the current zeitgeist) and demeans us all. Of course the royal family and all it ‘traditions’ need to go and all our artefacts stolen from other countries need to go back to their rightful owners. Good for H & M may they yet bring down the monarchy and all who sail in it!
Correct Walter. I detect there is a sane man in you judging by the minuses you have received. Nice to know there are at least two of us who think along the same lines. It never ceases to amaze me how the truth stirs up hatred in others. The Royal Family pantomime will continue for some time to come yet. Why do the British people have to pay anything for them to survive? They are unbelievably rich. They should make their own way. Do they really need so many expensive gowns, houses, servants et cetera? I marvel at it.
Yesterday l caught a glimpse of Meghan’s pantomime dame curtsey and the following gales of mocking laughter from her. I was personally offended. She is making a mockery of our country and our traditions built over 1,000 years of history from the days when a king led his men into battle to defend the realm, to the dedicated service of our late Queen to the benefit of many nations.
Harry had the grace to look rather uncomfortable at this performance and so he should. A bow or curtsey is a mark of respect and not in any way demeaning.
An old-fashioned word came to mind – guttersnipe.
Dictionary definition –
n. 1) A low-life classless buffoon who fancies him or herself above all others. 2) A person who feels that they can act on their own whims without regard to consequences to themselves or others. 3) One who thumbs their nose at polite society.
l sincerely hope the King and the Prince of Wales rise above all this and do not feed their publicity machine. It will soon fade without sustenance, just as Harry will be occasionally remembered as that chap who was once a prince of this realm.
The Royal Family is only a symbol of national unity for those who take superficial media presentations for reality. King Charles as head of a church, really? Camilla as Queen Consort? All these people are descended from Germans and Greeks, even the name of the dynasty had to be changed. A ramshackle structure pumped up by Disneyland pomp and circumstance. I suspect the Queen refused to retire to delay Charles from becoming King. In the meantime the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7 and its poor are freezing in the dark and suffering from that Dickensian ailment, chilblains.
Even their children have been hurt. They have been denied a relationship with their cousins, and all the other “royal” youngsters of their age.
.
Jacqueline, we are all, every single one of us, selfish individuals Who are they hurting?.
An interesting aspect of the Royal family is that they create a sort of ‘national community’ for the UK. They observe and honor national traditions and encourage the cohesiveness in their acknowledgment of good works. And it works on the whole. In this day and age when people yearn for a sense of belonging more than ever, the Royal family serves a much needed focus and service. It’s a shame Harry & Meghan didn’t see it that way. They can not and will not be able to create community for anyone as they are too selfish and inwardly focused. Their ‘country’ is themselves.
Even their children have been hurt. They have been denied a relationship with their cousins, and all the other “royal” youngsters of their age.
.
Jacqueline, we are all, every single one of us, selfish individuals Who are they hurting?.
how do you know he is lying?
We don’t “know” he’s lying, in this instance. But between the pair of them they’ve been caught telling at least a dozen tales that have been shown to be lies.
At which point, it might be more sensible to suggest that the burden of proof now rests on those who imagine they might be telling the truth.
Easy example in one: “I didn’t know Beyoncé knew who I was!” Forgetting that they had very publicly met in line at a function where H tried to get voiceover work for M, right in front of B. Doh! Stories often don’t match with these two.
His lips were moving.
His body language for one thing, coupled with our own recollection of events of only four or five years ago. HE knows he’s lying and it shows.
He lied about the facts around when his mother’s death was told to him, and how it was done, that has been well documented.
A bit like Nicola Sturgeon, whose another big *my truth* believer, you can search for benign excuses as to why he did this in each case as it emerges, but even then it casts doubt over other things he is saying.
He lied about the facts around when his mother’s death was told to him, and how it was done, that has been well documented.
A bit like Nicola Sturgeon, whose another big *my truth* believer, you can search for benign excuses as to why he did this in each case as it emerges, but even then it casts doubt over other things he is saying.
We don’t “know” he’s lying, in this instance. But between the pair of them they’ve been caught telling at least a dozen tales that have been shown to be lies.
At which point, it might be more sensible to suggest that the burden of proof now rests on those who imagine they might be telling the truth.
Easy example in one: “I didn’t know Beyoncé knew who I was!” Forgetting that they had very publicly met in line at a function where H tried to get voiceover work for M, right in front of B. Doh! Stories often don’t match with these two.
His lips were moving.
His body language for one thing, coupled with our own recollection of events of only four or five years ago. HE knows he’s lying and it shows.
But they are going to save the world with their decency!
I can answer back! They are both selfish individuals who only think of themselves & care not who they hurt in their pursuit of their own agenda. ie, the wishful greatness of them.
how do you know he is lying?
But they are going to save the world with their decency!
He’s not merely airing his family’s dirty laundry, he’s auctioning it off.
Never has the expression “he’d be willing to sell his grandmother to get ahead” been more appropriate – indeed Harry seems to have adopted it as a mantra.
They promised not to merch their royal connections. My goodness, Netflix made itself appear a very tawdry and cheap brand by associating with these two. How embarrassing for both couples (Netflix chairman and the Meghan Harrys) at Montecito galas.
They promised not to merch their royal connections. My goodness, Netflix made itself appear a very tawdry and cheap brand by associating with these two. How embarrassing for both couples (Netflix chairman and the Meghan Harrys) at Montecito galas.
True. If he’d just said “All the media focus on me and my wife is putting a strain on my marriage, so I’m going to step back from front-line royal duties for the forseeable future. I hope to start getting involved again later on, when the interest in us has calmed down a bit,” and then actually spent his time in quiet semi-retirement, I think most people would have been sympathetic.
He could even have had a conversation – you know when both people participate in person – with the Queen about it, and tried to negotiate works as you have said. Instead he and the wife made demands, and when they were not met, they pulled the pin and as he put it ‘FLED’ the country!! That’s hilarious! It was a giant dummy spit from an entitled twerp!
He could even have had a conversation – you know when both people participate in person – with the Queen about it, and tried to negotiate works as you have said. Instead he and the wife made demands, and when they were not met, they pulled the pin and as he put it ‘FLED’ the country!! That’s hilarious! It was a giant dummy spit from an entitled twerp!
It is a pity Philip is not around to arrange another accident
Harry & Megan have ironically already destroyed themselves.
Harry & Megan have ironically already destroyed themselves.
Giles Fraser has written another excellent article. His comments shed light on something not discussed in article but plenty elsewhere: the question of H&M choosing a “private life”. While a Netflix series seems superficially to scream about the couple’s hypocrisy, maybe the “private life” sought by them is more accurately described by Giles Fraser as a life rejecting the “public” duties and obligations of living within a polis, a community, a family. One is reminded of the etymology of the word “idiot”-from the Greek idiotes, literally “private person” (as opposed to taking part in public affairs). The literal idiocy of their moral position is well set out in Fraser’s article.
If they really wished to live privately, making a documentary series & ‘wailing about how wrong everyone was to us’ is NOT the way to do it!
When Harry met Megan it was like a ‘perfect storm’ of sorts. He was insecure, not terribly bright and vulnerable. She, by all indications, was needy in her own way – avaricious, narcissistic and yes, manipulative. When she latched onto him, it was over. She brought out the worst in him and he in all his insecurities let her do it. It’s a modern tragedy of sorts about human weakness and fallibility. The sad part is that these two now have to live in this little hole they made for themselves, far, far away from where they could have made a difference and perhaps even an impact on the world. They are very small people indeed.
What an utterly malicious comment! No wonder H&M are afraid of the press and English public opinion. No word about how the Royal Establishment shielded Edward after child sex and allows Charles and Camilla respectability after gross immorality and tampongate, and hides the fact that Kate’s mother targeted William in an unsavoury safari. And one racist lady in waiting probably hides many others, like cockroaches. Anybody who thinks of this family as Disneyland has not followed Diana’s fate and the Queen’s initial refusal to mourn her. H&M had ample reasons to leave the firm.
He could have left ‘the firm’ with more grace then. Instead he has behaved exactly in the manner that you describe the rest of them behaving. If we are to have it that members of the British monarchy are as flawed & fragile as the rest of us, then what is your point? Of course they are. And H&M embody that frailty in their own way. The only difference is that they have chosen a path that absolutely reveals their narcissism as well as their avarice. Sure, they must have good qualities too, but if they meant to set themselves above all the rest with this vulgar display of petty childishness, it isn’t doing the job.
This is satire I presume?
Except he hasn’t.
Your own malice is burning as brightly as a glow-worms fundament, while your ‘facts’are compete drivel. Edward did nothing with a ‘child’ and neither did Andrew. Would you mourn someone you may have disliked? Who said the Queen did not mourn? Just because she did not join in the emotional incontinence which followed the death does not mean no mourning took place. As for the rest of your vicious twaddle… well perhaps some therapy would lay to rest some of that bile.
The fact that you have resorted to ad hominem and write emotional incontinence tells me that it might be you who is full of bile.
The fact that you have resorted to ad hominem and write emotional incontinence tells me that it might be you who is full of bile.
Once again, spot on Walter. Keep writing, these people need to hear the truth – they live in a fairytale world.
The royal family are not shielded in any way, as long as they do their constitutional job and shut the f**k up. It was after all what they agreed to do when they got their jobs back after the civil war. They are officials not politicians, and much better liked for that.
He could have left ‘the firm’ with more grace then. Instead he has behaved exactly in the manner that you describe the rest of them behaving. If we are to have it that members of the British monarchy are as flawed & fragile as the rest of us, then what is your point? Of course they are. And H&M embody that frailty in their own way. The only difference is that they have chosen a path that absolutely reveals their narcissism as well as their avarice. Sure, they must have good qualities too, but if they meant to set themselves above all the rest with this vulgar display of petty childishness, it isn’t doing the job.
This is satire I presume?
Except he hasn’t.
Your own malice is burning as brightly as a glow-worms fundament, while your ‘facts’are compete drivel. Edward did nothing with a ‘child’ and neither did Andrew. Would you mourn someone you may have disliked? Who said the Queen did not mourn? Just because she did not join in the emotional incontinence which followed the death does not mean no mourning took place. As for the rest of your vicious twaddle… well perhaps some therapy would lay to rest some of that bile.
Once again, spot on Walter. Keep writing, these people need to hear the truth – they live in a fairytale world.
The royal family are not shielded in any way, as long as they do their constitutional job and shut the f**k up. It was after all what they agreed to do when they got their jobs back after the civil war. They are officials not politicians, and much better liked for that.
Cathy, I take it that you know both Harry and Meghan intimately then? Otherwise how would you know these things?
Well said. There lack of positive actions of any sort is why people dislike them. They just ‘want’ not ‘do’.
What an utterly malicious comment! No wonder H&M are afraid of the press and English public opinion. No word about how the Royal Establishment shielded Edward after child sex and allows Charles and Camilla respectability after gross immorality and tampongate, and hides the fact that Kate’s mother targeted William in an unsavoury safari. And one racist lady in waiting probably hides many others, like cockroaches. Anybody who thinks of this family as Disneyland has not followed Diana’s fate and the Queen’s initial refusal to mourn her. H&M had ample reasons to leave the firm.
Cathy, I take it that you know both Harry and Meghan intimately then? Otherwise how would you know these things?
Well said. There lack of positive actions of any sort is why people dislike them. They just ‘want’ not ‘do’.
I guess Meghan really never was part of a wider family community, which is often so essential for experiencing your first sense of belonging. From what I understand, she hardly saw her older half siblings, lived as a single child either with her mother or father. In the Netflix series her mother once talked about her own mother and sister. Where were they in Meghan’s life? It seems the whole part of her mother’s extended family was left out. Also where was her mother’s family at the wedding? It seems she chose mostly VIPs as “ersatz family”, just showing off her new royal connection. This should have already set off alarm bells that she would not be happy to live in the second row within the restraints of the Royal Family, dutifully opening community centres and schools. “Doing good” in the celebrity world often means going to glamorous award ceremonies, praising your existence as a feminist black woman and not the oh so grinding and extremely boring daily charity work without praise and often in anonymity
Perhaps she wanted to be the star, but Kate already had that role?
Beauty is as beauty does.
Perhaps she wanted to be the star, but Kate already had that role?
Beauty is as beauty does.
Well, they are certainly living grand for private life. As they were leaving they received millions. How else could a C actress in a few low rent movies/series pay for mansion digs and all that travel? If stripped of royal ties, Harry certainly didn’t have money either, just another military worker. And yet, there they are living in luxury.
Outstanding choice – less work, more profit!
If they really wished to live privately, making a documentary series & ‘wailing about how wrong everyone was to us’ is NOT the way to do it!
When Harry met Megan it was like a ‘perfect storm’ of sorts. He was insecure, not terribly bright and vulnerable. She, by all indications, was needy in her own way – avaricious, narcissistic and yes, manipulative. When she latched onto him, it was over. She brought out the worst in him and he in all his insecurities let her do it. It’s a modern tragedy of sorts about human weakness and fallibility. The sad part is that these two now have to live in this little hole they made for themselves, far, far away from where they could have made a difference and perhaps even an impact on the world. They are very small people indeed.
I guess Meghan really never was part of a wider family community, which is often so essential for experiencing your first sense of belonging. From what I understand, she hardly saw her older half siblings, lived as a single child either with her mother or father. In the Netflix series her mother once talked about her own mother and sister. Where were they in Meghan’s life? It seems the whole part of her mother’s extended family was left out. Also where was her mother’s family at the wedding? It seems she chose mostly VIPs as “ersatz family”, just showing off her new royal connection. This should have already set off alarm bells that she would not be happy to live in the second row within the restraints of the Royal Family, dutifully opening community centres and schools. “Doing good” in the celebrity world often means going to glamorous award ceremonies, praising your existence as a feminist black woman and not the oh so grinding and extremely boring daily charity work without praise and often in anonymity
Well, they are certainly living grand for private life. As they were leaving they received millions. How else could a C actress in a few low rent movies/series pay for mansion digs and all that travel? If stripped of royal ties, Harry certainly didn’t have money either, just another military worker. And yet, there they are living in luxury.
Outstanding choice – less work, more profit!
“… sympathetic to Harry finding the burden of obligation too heavy to bear and retiring to enjoy a private life” – absolutely. And going on with their charities and whatever. The weird peculiarity of these days seem to be total intolerance from individuals who demand tolerance, in the loudest forms possible. ‘Disrespect’ to, or should I put it ‘assumed disrespect’ to Meghan’s mixed race (btw, how is one even supposed to know that, if the person, any person, does not look coloured, if it’s ok to ask that?) heritage did not stop her mock the traditional ‘curtsy to the Queen’ (most ironically a clip with her doing that ‘nice and clean’ in the Suits has appeared).
Another example of weird attitudes would be the critics who claim President Zelensky had no respect for the White House, appearing in his traditional outfit (dapper, though). Thus displaying total disrespect to the fact he was representing a war-torn country, heavily destroyed by Putin’s dreams of brotherhood.
Another example of weird attitudes would be the critics who claim President Zelensky had no respect for the White House, appearing in his traditional outfit (dapper, though). Thus displaying total disrespect to the fact he was representing a war-torn country, heavily destroyed by Putin’s dreams of brotherhood.
Quite. Their descent is pure Macbeth. Their betrayal – made worse by naked greed (monetising mendacious accusations of both family and nation) – is ugly for neither raycist royals nor us now raycist Brits can answer back. In the end it is about manners. This shrill couple pocket Netflix loot to spread venom about a family and a nation that welcomed Meghan in. Remember how Prince Phillip was dying when they began their lie for profit offensive? They represent and express a set of rotten values we have long been taught to despise – spoiled, narcissistic, accusatory, disloyal, unfair, hypocritical and serial mendacity.
He’s not merely airing his family’s dirty laundry, he’s auctioning it off.
Never has the expression “he’d be willing to sell his grandmother to get ahead” been more appropriate – indeed Harry seems to have adopted it as a mantra.
True. If he’d just said “All the media focus on me and my wife is putting a strain on my marriage, so I’m going to step back from front-line royal duties for the forseeable future. I hope to start getting involved again later on, when the interest in us has calmed down a bit,” and then actually spent his time in quiet semi-retirement, I think most people would have been sympathetic.
It is a pity Philip is not around to arrange another accident
Giles Fraser has written another excellent article. His comments shed light on something not discussed in article but plenty elsewhere: the question of H&M choosing a “private life”. While a Netflix series seems superficially to scream about the couple’s hypocrisy, maybe the “private life” sought by them is more accurately described by Giles Fraser as a life rejecting the “public” duties and obligations of living within a polis, a community, a family. One is reminded of the etymology of the word “idiot”-from the Greek idiotes, literally “private person” (as opposed to taking part in public affairs). The literal idiocy of their moral position is well set out in Fraser’s article.
“… sympathetic to Harry finding the burden of obligation too heavy to bear and retiring to enjoy a private life” – absolutely. And going on with their charities and whatever. The weird peculiarity of these days seem to be total intolerance from individuals who demand tolerance, in the loudest forms possible. ‘Disrespect’ to, or should I put it ‘assumed disrespect’ to Meghan’s mixed race (btw, how is one even supposed to know that, if the person, any person, does not look coloured, if it’s ok to ask that?) heritage did not stop her mock the traditional ‘curtsy to the Queen’ (most ironically a clip with her doing that ‘nice and clean’ in the Suits has appeared).
I think people might have been sympathetic to Harry finding the burden of obligation too heavy to bear and retiring to enjoy a private life. What is less forgivable is the attacks on his family to generate wealth to enable him to indulge his material and narcissistic desires.
We would forgive H&M’s adolescent and egoistical flight to “freedom” if they could spare us the “woe is me” narrative as well as the endless effort to break the very entity that gave them their wealth, platform, connections, etc.
That last point is the most grating. it feels like these vulture are hell bent on destroying the RF because “if we can’t have it (the trappings, the glory, the esteem,…), nobody should”.
My point is, only a small part of the public reproaches them their desertion of their royal engagements and responsibilities. What most cannot abide is the bitterness and venom towards it, in order to validate (in their eyes, through ours) their selfish choice.
What I can’t stand is the constant attention seeking, hypocrisy and the pretence that they’ve got the wisdom and authority to lecture the rest of us on how to live our lives. And the nonsense and drivel they come out with.
And the lies.
Wearing the “linked not ranked” bracelet given to her by Gloria Steinem, yet swanning around as a duchess. Praising all their flights as two lovers torn apart, while pleading to save the world from carbon emissions. Anyway, the Dem party rewards people like this, so these two are going to be around for ages.
Harry & Meghan come across as two adolescents. Everything’s emotional and very little seems rational. It’s rather cringey in that they are technically adults, being 37 and 41….
Indeed cringey! And that they will be teaching their children it’s good to follow in their footsteps.
Indeed cringey! And that they will be teaching their children it’s good to follow in their footsteps.
And the lies.
Wearing the “linked not ranked” bracelet given to her by Gloria Steinem, yet swanning around as a duchess. Praising all their flights as two lovers torn apart, while pleading to save the world from carbon emissions. Anyway, the Dem party rewards people like this, so these two are going to be around for ages.
Harry & Meghan come across as two adolescents. Everything’s emotional and very little seems rational. It’s rather cringey in that they are technically adults, being 37 and 41….
Exactly.
Do we still have punishment for treason in uk?
I guess they chose physical banishment from the Kingdom, but something more should be done.
At least stripping them of their titles…
They absolutely should be stripped of any titles. What the hell are they for anyway?
They absolutely should be stripped of any titles. What the hell are they for anyway?
I wonder if they will attend the Coronation?
What I can’t stand is the constant attention seeking, hypocrisy and the pretence that they’ve got the wisdom and authority to lecture the rest of us on how to live our lives. And the nonsense and drivel they come out with.
Exactly.
Do we still have punishment for treason in uk?
I guess they chose physical banishment from the Kingdom, but something more should be done.
At least stripping them of their titles…
I wonder if they will attend the Coronation?
We would forgive H&M’s adolescent and egoistical flight to “freedom” if they could spare us the “woe is me” narrative as well as the endless effort to break the very entity that gave them their wealth, platform, connections, etc.
That last point is the most grating. it feels like these vulture are hell bent on destroying the RF because “if we can’t have it (the trappings, the glory, the esteem,…), nobody should”.
My point is, only a small part of the public reproaches them their desertion of their royal engagements and responsibilities. What most cannot abide is the bitterness and venom towards it, in order to validate (in their eyes, through ours) their selfish choice.
I would basically describe myself as a liberal who believes that individual choice governs (or can govern) most matters. There are certain objective truths that cannot be subject to individual choice (i.e. biological sex) and still other truths on which there may be different perspectives. With regard to the latter, one may fairly use the phrase “my truth” to mean “my side of the story” (although the Montecito pair use it to put forward a false narrative full of factual loopholes, then get out the victimhood card to try and stop anyone questioning it and throw a tantrum when people don’t buy into their “truth”).
I see the Harry vs. William face-off through the prism of individual choice. They were both born into a very strange and specific situation, but, essentially – either of them could have chosen to say “no thanks” to the duty which is pressed upon them by accident of birth.
And – because the lives of the Royals are so often symbolic of the lives of their subjects – it is this choice (full freedom vs. the binds of obligation) that millennials like myself find ourselves grappling with in a world where so much choice is on offer. Harry and William are simply acting it out on the royal stage. Do we:
a) shake off all societal/familial obligations to give ourselves over entirely to our own wishes and needs (the “Harry” option), or
b) understand the value of societal/familial obligations and choose to submit yourself to them (the “William” option).
Harry may be able to say on quite a superficial level that he is “free”, but it is my personal view that he will never be happy. Complete freedom, unmoored from “bonded servitude” requires a very strong personality to build a new identity independent of society/family and remain stable outside of those structures. Harry doesn’t have that strength himself – he relies on Meghan to provide it. Whether that it going to go well long term is something I won’t speculate on, and to be honest I don’t give two hoots. Harry is no longer part of the family, so why should I?
William cannot claim to be “free”, but he understands that the strictures imposed by societal/familial obligations provide structure and stability: a shared framework with common rituals and celebrations which glue a society together and give people an essential feeling of being part of something greater. That is a source of happiness.
The Harry option leads to a society which is no longer a society – it is a collection of isolated individuals who say they are free but many of them will be lonely and deeply unhappy – staring at their Smartphones in their own tiny flats, scrolling through social media thinking that this is “life” and my followers are real “friends”.
The William option might seem fusty and backwards, but it involves people coming together to celebrate, form bonds through carrying out shared rituals and being part of something larger. It involves a true “society”.
Everyone should be able to choose for themselves (but then stick with that choice, accept the consequences and don’t whinge forever).
I tend towards the William option. The Harry option is the way of danger.
The bizarre thing is that Harry clearly doesn’t recognise that he’s “shaken off all societal/familial obligations to give ourselves over entirely to our own wishes and needs”. I think you’ve captured it perfectly. But Harry and Meghan seem to believe that everything they’re doing is for the benefit of society as a whole and that without their selfless leadership and guidance we’ll all be lost …
It also brings to mind David Goodheart’s “somewheres and anywheres”. Harry’s gone from being a somewhere like William, to ay anywhere. In my experience, most people move the other way as they grow older. Before I start an argument, this is not a blanket criticism of anywheres (I used to be one !).
“But Harry and Meghan seem to believe that everything they’re doing is for the benefit of society as a whole and that without their selfless leadership and guidance we’ll all be lost…”
Narcissistic delusions of grandeur. It’s hard to watch, but somehow I’m incapable of looking away. In German, you have an excellent word for such situations: “Fremdschämen“. It’s a bit like cringing, but it involves you watching someone behave in such an insane way that you actually feel ashamed FOR them
That sounds like David Brent or Alan Partridge – I can hear Alan mispronouncing the word now ! Nothing amusing (or harmless) about the Harry and Meghan show though.
M surely did some embarrassing David Brent/ Dad dancing there! Who knew a woman could do Dad dancing?
M surely did some embarrassing David Brent/ Dad dancing there! Who knew a woman could do Dad dancing?
What a superb new word for English! It just fits the situation.
Yes, but, unfortunately, they are winning awards for it.
Until the awards organisations realise how badly that devalues their prestige.
…but look who’s giving out the recent award, a Kennedy, who has not done much with her own life, and was once married to the (accused) sexually inappropriate Governor of NY Cuomo. I had a brief interaction with her a few decades ago, very haughty herself and full of self-importance, not so different from Meghan herself.
Until the awards organisations realise how badly that devalues their prestige.
…but look who’s giving out the recent award, a Kennedy, who has not done much with her own life, and was once married to the (accused) sexually inappropriate Governor of NY Cuomo. I had a brief interaction with her a few decades ago, very haughty herself and full of self-importance, not so different from Meghan herself.
That sounds like David Brent or Alan Partridge – I can hear Alan mispronouncing the word now ! Nothing amusing (or harmless) about the Harry and Meghan show though.
What a superb new word for English! It just fits the situation.
Yes, but, unfortunately, they are winning awards for it.
Ha!
I should have read your comment before adding my own.
Harry and Meghan in expounding that what they are doing is ‘for the greater good of society’ had to create a delusion of self-importance and grandeur as that’s the only way they could rationalize their new capitalist adventures.
Peter, the thing is, as far as I understand it, Harry can go back if he chooses.
“But Harry and Meghan seem to believe that everything they’re doing is for the benefit of society as a whole and that without their selfless leadership and guidance we’ll all be lost…”
Narcissistic delusions of grandeur. It’s hard to watch, but somehow I’m incapable of looking away. In German, you have an excellent word for such situations: “Fremdschämen“. It’s a bit like cringing, but it involves you watching someone behave in such an insane way that you actually feel ashamed FOR them
Ha!
I should have read your comment before adding my own.
Harry and Meghan in expounding that what they are doing is ‘for the greater good of society’ had to create a delusion of self-importance and grandeur as that’s the only way they could rationalize their new capitalist adventures.
Peter, the thing is, as far as I understand it, Harry can go back if he chooses.
Wonderful analysis.
Beautifully written, do you write professionally? I used to be able to rustle up a mean paragraph or two, but life’s stresses have more or less finished my brain off. However, I couldn’t have done this – the thoughts and comparisons – just perfect – thank you.
No, not professionally. But I do write on the platform Medium for fun. Thanks for the compliment.
No, not professionally. But I do write on the platform Medium for fun. Thanks for the compliment.
The ‘Somewheres’ v ‘Anywheres’ conflict neatly exemplified.
But harry didn’t shake it off, did he? He and his wife proceeded to throw very large stones, over and over again. Put themselves in the limelight, and then proceed to blame the press for anything and everything they blamed the RF for?? The behavior of quite mentally ill people OR self entitled dicks.
The bizarre thing is that Harry clearly doesn’t recognise that he’s “shaken off all societal/familial obligations to give ourselves over entirely to our own wishes and needs”. I think you’ve captured it perfectly. But Harry and Meghan seem to believe that everything they’re doing is for the benefit of society as a whole and that without their selfless leadership and guidance we’ll all be lost …
It also brings to mind David Goodheart’s “somewheres and anywheres”. Harry’s gone from being a somewhere like William, to ay anywhere. In my experience, most people move the other way as they grow older. Before I start an argument, this is not a blanket criticism of anywheres (I used to be one !).
Wonderful analysis.
Beautifully written, do you write professionally? I used to be able to rustle up a mean paragraph or two, but life’s stresses have more or less finished my brain off. However, I couldn’t have done this – the thoughts and comparisons – just perfect – thank you.
The ‘Somewheres’ v ‘Anywheres’ conflict neatly exemplified.
But harry didn’t shake it off, did he? He and his wife proceeded to throw very large stones, over and over again. Put themselves in the limelight, and then proceed to blame the press for anything and everything they blamed the RF for?? The behavior of quite mentally ill people OR self entitled dicks.
I would basically describe myself as a liberal who believes that individual choice governs (or can govern) most matters. There are certain objective truths that cannot be subject to individual choice (i.e. biological sex) and still other truths on which there may be different perspectives. With regard to the latter, one may fairly use the phrase “my truth” to mean “my side of the story” (although the Montecito pair use it to put forward a false narrative full of factual loopholes, then get out the victimhood card to try and stop anyone questioning it and throw a tantrum when people don’t buy into their “truth”).
I see the Harry vs. William face-off through the prism of individual choice. They were both born into a very strange and specific situation, but, essentially – either of them could have chosen to say “no thanks” to the duty which is pressed upon them by accident of birth.
And – because the lives of the Royals are so often symbolic of the lives of their subjects – it is this choice (full freedom vs. the binds of obligation) that millennials like myself find ourselves grappling with in a world where so much choice is on offer. Harry and William are simply acting it out on the royal stage. Do we:
a) shake off all societal/familial obligations to give ourselves over entirely to our own wishes and needs (the “Harry” option), or
b) understand the value of societal/familial obligations and choose to submit yourself to them (the “William” option).
Harry may be able to say on quite a superficial level that he is “free”, but it is my personal view that he will never be happy. Complete freedom, unmoored from “bonded servitude” requires a very strong personality to build a new identity independent of society/family and remain stable outside of those structures. Harry doesn’t have that strength himself – he relies on Meghan to provide it. Whether that it going to go well long term is something I won’t speculate on, and to be honest I don’t give two hoots. Harry is no longer part of the family, so why should I?
William cannot claim to be “free”, but he understands that the strictures imposed by societal/familial obligations provide structure and stability: a shared framework with common rituals and celebrations which glue a society together and give people an essential feeling of being part of something greater. That is a source of happiness.
The Harry option leads to a society which is no longer a society – it is a collection of isolated individuals who say they are free but many of them will be lonely and deeply unhappy – staring at their Smartphones in their own tiny flats, scrolling through social media thinking that this is “life” and my followers are real “friends”.
The William option might seem fusty and backwards, but it involves people coming together to celebrate, form bonds through carrying out shared rituals and being part of something larger. It involves a true “society”.
Everyone should be able to choose for themselves (but then stick with that choice, accept the consequences and don’t whinge forever).
I tend towards the William option. The Harry option is the way of danger.
“Monarchy is not glamour and power; it is bonded servitude”
As his grandfather felt when his brother skipped town – he was a reluctant king; overcame his stuttering and did a sterling job.
Harry, like his uncle David are weaklings, controlled by their emotions.
Good article, but it will be the last I will read about these two ingrates.
Completely my view. This betrayal of one’s own family, attended by mockery of someone who was an influence for good in my and millions of other lives, has meant that I wish, in addition to not bowing to watch the Netflix “documentary”, to read no more about this vexed and vicious bauble.
“Monarchy is not glamour and power; it is bonded servitude”
Utter tosh : anyone can leave. What they cannot do is leave the job and keep all the glamour and power – which is what the D of Windsor and the D of Sussex think they can do.
Completely my view. This betrayal of one’s own family, attended by mockery of someone who was an influence for good in my and millions of other lives, has meant that I wish, in addition to not bowing to watch the Netflix “documentary”, to read no more about this vexed and vicious bauble.
“Monarchy is not glamour and power; it is bonded servitude”
Utter tosh : anyone can leave. What they cannot do is leave the job and keep all the glamour and power – which is what the D of Windsor and the D of Sussex think they can do.
“Monarchy is not glamour and power; it is bonded servitude”
As his grandfather felt when his brother skipped town – he was a reluctant king; overcame his stuttering and did a sterling job.
Harry, like his uncle David are weaklings, controlled by their emotions.
Good article, but it will be the last I will read about these two ingrates.
Is it really accurate to call them a couple, with the implication that they arrive at decisions together, equally? It seems pretty clear to me that Harry remains nothing more than a child, and that Meghan – his replacement mother – has found in him the perfect vehicle to pursue her quest for international fame. It is quite staggering to me how many people still cannot see this.
She certainly seems as self-absorbed and narcissistic as his mother
She certainly seems as self-absorbed and narcissistic as his mother
Is it really accurate to call them a couple, with the implication that they arrive at decisions together, equally? It seems pretty clear to me that Harry remains nothing more than a child, and that Meghan – his replacement mother – has found in him the perfect vehicle to pursue her quest for international fame. It is quite staggering to me how many people still cannot see this.
BREAKING NEWS:
This just in – The Duke & Duchess of Sussex have filed a Gross Breach of Privacy suit against …. …. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
The pair have embarked on a worldwide publicity tour to promote the fact that they just want some privacy, and have further amplified that point by releasing a 6 part documentary, bemoaning that every facet of their lives is being made known to the public.
In the much-publicised Netflix series we get to see the couple enjoying quiet, intimate moments together, …. accompanied by a photographer, cameraman, sound recordist, 3 lighting engineers, 4 production assistants, director, 2 assistant directors, producer, 2 make-up artists, 3 stylists, 4 nannies, 5 dog sitters and a fluffer.
The message they want to send is just how much they hate the intrusion into their lives – and to get that idea across we see Harry & Meghan touring US cities on an open-top bus, emblazoned with their names and images, bellowing at onlookers through loudhailers “Stop staring at us! We just want to be left alone – Hey, you there! Don’t ignore me, I said I just want some privacy.”
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex are claiming substantial damages for the harassment and emotional trauma they have brought on themselves. In order to meet the (likely to be eye-watering) costs of the case Harry & Meghan have announced they will sell the film rights to their story – (working title: Di Hard: With A Vengeance, or possibly Get Rich or Di Tryin’) just as long as their company, Archehole, produces it and Meghan gets to star in it.
Brilliant! Love Archehole.
Ha. That idea was distilled down into a Babylon Bee entry a few days ago of Elton John announcing the launch of his “Three Year Leaving Twitter Tour”.
A Fluffer, Sir, there may be Ladies present and not a few Gentlemen of a nervous disposition.
Tell any ladies present that the fluffer is just on call to plump up any throw-cushions that might appear in the back of shot.
As to the Gentlemen of a nervous disposition, they should be politely invited to Man-Up.
The rest of us know that the fluffer is on hand to ensure that Harry’s tumescent sense of self-entitlement is always ‘camera-ready’
I too misunderstood the term, ‘fluffer’. My excuse is that I was once of the ribald and licentious soldiery. My bad!
I too misunderstood the term, ‘fluffer’. My excuse is that I was once of the ribald and licentious soldiery. My bad!
Tell any ladies present that the fluffer is just on call to plump up any throw-cushions that might appear in the back of shot.
As to the Gentlemen of a nervous disposition, they should be politely invited to Man-Up.
The rest of us know that the fluffer is on hand to ensure that Harry’s tumescent sense of self-entitlement is always ‘camera-ready’
Paddy, thank you. Now I get why everyone appears to detest them.
Brilliant! Love Archehole.
Ha. That idea was distilled down into a Babylon Bee entry a few days ago of Elton John announcing the launch of his “Three Year Leaving Twitter Tour”.
A Fluffer, Sir, there may be Ladies present and not a few Gentlemen of a nervous disposition.
Paddy, thank you. Now I get why everyone appears to detest them.
BREAKING NEWS:
This just in – The Duke & Duchess of Sussex have filed a Gross Breach of Privacy suit against …. …. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
The pair have embarked on a worldwide publicity tour to promote the fact that they just want some privacy, and have further amplified that point by releasing a 6 part documentary, bemoaning that every facet of their lives is being made known to the public.
In the much-publicised Netflix series we get to see the couple enjoying quiet, intimate moments together, …. accompanied by a photographer, cameraman, sound recordist, 3 lighting engineers, 4 production assistants, director, 2 assistant directors, producer, 2 make-up artists, 3 stylists, 4 nannies, 5 dog sitters and a fluffer.
The message they want to send is just how much they hate the intrusion into their lives – and to get that idea across we see Harry & Meghan touring US cities on an open-top bus, emblazoned with their names and images, bellowing at onlookers through loudhailers “Stop staring at us! We just want to be left alone – Hey, you there! Don’t ignore me, I said I just want some privacy.”
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex are claiming substantial damages for the harassment and emotional trauma they have brought on themselves. In order to meet the (likely to be eye-watering) costs of the case Harry & Meghan have announced they will sell the film rights to their story – (working title: Di Hard: With A Vengeance, or possibly Get Rich or Di Tryin’) just as long as their company, Archehole, produces it and Meghan gets to star in it.
They have become Edward VIII and Wallis, irrelevant social circuit feeders leaching on the status of his birth and forever seeking a ‘role’ that is no longer there because he abandoned it. Same story, retold in modern times with social media. We’ll have programmes about them for decades just as we did with Edward … but nothing will help them regain relevancy.
… They were never relevant. Harry was never going to be king.
… They were never relevant. Harry was never going to be king.
They have become Edward VIII and Wallis, irrelevant social circuit feeders leaching on the status of his birth and forever seeking a ‘role’ that is no longer there because he abandoned it. Same story, retold in modern times with social media. We’ll have programmes about them for decades just as we did with Edward … but nothing will help them regain relevancy.
Frankly, that any former Officer in The Blues, could wilfully make such a sad and asinine fool and imbecile of himself voluntarily in public, is beyond breathtaking, let alone be blind to the fact that he portrays himself as some folorn lap dog to a woman of patently virulent self centred self publicity driven control: her lack of intellect, and intelligence is beyond incredible.
I haven’t been following all this very much (I know – amazing, right?). But Harry comes across as not being terribly bright.
Old joke amongst Foot Guards…. ” Which brain do you pay most for, when requiring a brain transplant? A Cambridge don, a Goldman Sachs boss, or a Household Cavalry Officer? Answer: A Household Cavalry Officer as the brain comes totally unused”…..
Old joke amongst Foot Guards…. ” Which brain do you pay most for, when requiring a brain transplant? A Cambridge don, a Goldman Sachs boss, or a Household Cavalry Officer? Answer: A Household Cavalry Officer as the brain comes totally unused”…..
I haven’t been following all this very much (I know – amazing, right?). But Harry comes across as not being terribly bright.
Frankly, that any former Officer in The Blues, could wilfully make such a sad and asinine fool and imbecile of himself voluntarily in public, is beyond breathtaking, let alone be blind to the fact that he portrays himself as some folorn lap dog to a woman of patently virulent self centred self publicity driven control: her lack of intellect, and intelligence is beyond incredible.
You could argue that social history has always been about the interaction between the individual and the collective. The major location of the collective might have been the family, the village, the local aristocracy, the Church, the Government, the tyrant and his machine – but the story of a good life involves some accommodation between what ‘I want’ and what ‘They want’.
Perhaps Harry has sold his birthright for a mess of pottage… or possibly a pot of message.
M went to Catholic school, and Harry’s grandmother’s faith and duty should have been a great example to them both.
Crazy to remember M’spublic tears at the funeral, when she laughs and bows, mocking The Queen, so soon after her death. She mocked everything. They were like teenagers with their wedding, laughing at the sword. Tradition and duty have no meaning for them. Cashing in on wokeism means everything to them. Really sad and consumerist. They should be a warning to younger people.
M went to Catholic school, and Harry’s grandmother’s faith and duty should have been a great example to them both.
Crazy to remember M’spublic tears at the funeral, when she laughs and bows, mocking The Queen, so soon after her death. She mocked everything. They were like teenagers with their wedding, laughing at the sword. Tradition and duty have no meaning for them. Cashing in on wokeism means everything to them. Really sad and consumerist. They should be a warning to younger people.
You could argue that social history has always been about the interaction between the individual and the collective. The major location of the collective might have been the family, the village, the local aristocracy, the Church, the Government, the tyrant and his machine – but the story of a good life involves some accommodation between what ‘I want’ and what ‘They want’.
Perhaps Harry has sold his birthright for a mess of pottage… or possibly a pot of message.
Very good Giles. If only yours could be the final word on the matter.
Very good Giles. If only yours could be the final word on the matter.
Thanks, interesting and well argued article.
The implication is that if Harry has completely rejected the moral/ethical foundation of modern royalty, and if he rejects the obligations of bring a royal, he should be completely stripped of its privileges and be recast as just a private citizen.
I wonder what his wife would make of that …
Answer: a new Netflix series.
Answer: a new Netflix series.
Thanks, interesting and well argued article.
The implication is that if Harry has completely rejected the moral/ethical foundation of modern royalty, and if he rejects the obligations of bring a royal, he should be completely stripped of its privileges and be recast as just a private citizen.
I wonder what his wife would make of that …
Why do so many writers insist on describing aspects of human nature which they find distasteful as ‘capitalism’? It’s a way of saying, sotto voce, ‘Yes, I’m human too – but I’m not like that’. Of course you are.
Genuine altruism is the very, very rare exception, not the rule, among human beings in all contexts except that of the immediate family.
Why do so many writers insist on describing aspects of human nature which they find distasteful as ‘capitalism’? It’s a way of saying, sotto voce, ‘Yes, I’m human too – but I’m not like that’. Of course you are.
Genuine altruism is the very, very rare exception, not the rule, among human beings in all contexts except that of the immediate family.
Confidence without wisdom is conceit.
Confidence without wisdom is conceit.
I foresee a disturbing nightmare(a Bridge over the Kwai/Alec Guiness moment) that will see H in a decade , his youth all but evaporated waking in a cold sweat with the realisation that his whole life has been little more than a destructive fools journey.
His Grandmother must have been so disappointed.Little wonder his brother screamed at him.
I foresee a disturbing nightmare(a Bridge over the Kwai/Alec Guiness moment) that will see H in a decade , his youth all but evaporated waking in a cold sweat with the realisation that his whole life has been little more than a destructive fools journey.
His Grandmother must have been so disappointed.Little wonder his brother screamed at him.
This is an excellent piece of writing – perceptive, full of striking images and apt quotations. Quite the best thing I’ve read about this cartoon.
This is an excellent piece of writing – perceptive, full of striking images and apt quotations. Quite the best thing I’ve read about this cartoon.
The saddest part is that anyone cares.
At the moment, the attention Harry & Meghan are getting is ‘trainwreck attention’…in short order, very few will care and over time they will be like Mrs. Simpson and her second (third?) husband, Edward. H&M will age in their Montecito mansion and no one will pay attention or care as they have stated their boring story and they will be boring forever more.
Sadly, I have to disagree. The half-life of their story is far longer than any of us would have imagined. They appear to have at least three audiencies.
1) The media who have ever increasing amounts of space to fill. So the Daily Mail and Express purport to despise the couple, whilst still providing them with free publicity. No sign of this changing.
2) A tribe of true believers who will continue to follow them regardless. We don’t understand this and never will.
3) Those of us who despise this/find it tiresome/just wish it would all go away. But even a large proportion remain engaged. Our outraged reactions serve them by activating their base in group 2). That feels quite similar to the SNP’s attempts to rile the English into reacting. They don’t want you to like them – the more you don’t, the more they benefit – it keeps them in the news and “relevant”.
And maybe a fourth audience? I’m describing my occasional self here. Basically, I ran out of other articles to read on Unherd, TFP and a few other substacks I subscribe to and have read a couple Giles Fraser essays in the past that were at least interesting, so I clicked on a topic I normally steer clear of.
LOL – me too!
LOL – me too!
As a Canadian-born, U.S.-resident dual citizen, I agree that all this seems like much ado about little. But in visiting Canada during the week the Queen passed, I was astonished at how the news was dominated by that event–with almost no unrelated coverage–day after day, in a Commonwealth-former-colony across the sea.
The warmth of the attention is strongly influenced by Elizabeth’s general popularity and recent death, in a way that is somewhat comparable to the way the queen was criticised in the wake of Diana’s death.
But perhaps all those who defend, revile, or pretend to ignore Harry and Meghan can admit that there is real human interest in this family story, on top of the royal glitter, whether any of it truly matters outside of their palaces or not. And by present standards the defectors are still quite young. Perhaps they’ll become less self-absorbed in time?
Agreed, Peter B.
There’s a fourth audience, too – the army of offence-takers and lawyers who are, no doubt, already raking through the coverage (especially, but not exclusively, the negative coverage) generated by the latest spewings of Hazbeen and Me-Again to discover who can (profitably) be sued.
And maybe a fourth audience? I’m describing my occasional self here. Basically, I ran out of other articles to read on Unherd, TFP and a few other substacks I subscribe to and have read a couple Giles Fraser essays in the past that were at least interesting, so I clicked on a topic I normally steer clear of.
As a Canadian-born, U.S.-resident dual citizen, I agree that all this seems like much ado about little. But in visiting Canada during the week the Queen passed, I was astonished at how the news was dominated by that event–with almost no unrelated coverage–day after day, in a Commonwealth-former-colony across the sea.
The warmth of the attention is strongly influenced by Elizabeth’s general popularity and recent death, in a way that is somewhat comparable to the way the queen was criticised in the wake of Diana’s death.
But perhaps all those who defend, revile, or pretend to ignore Harry and Meghan can admit that there is real human interest in this family story, on top of the royal glitter, whether any of it truly matters outside of their palaces or not. And by present standards the defectors are still quite young. Perhaps they’ll become less self-absorbed in time?
Agreed, Peter B.
There’s a fourth audience, too – the army of offence-takers and lawyers who are, no doubt, already raking through the coverage (especially, but not exclusively, the negative coverage) generated by the latest spewings of Hazbeen and Me-Again to discover who can (profitably) be sued.
Will they end up subsisting on Harry’s “allowance” from the monarchy like Edward did?
What allowance? Whoever pesions them off will endanger their crown.
What allowance? Whoever pesions them off will endanger their crown.
They need constructive hobbies or maybe looking after a child might help occupy their time?
Sadly, I have to disagree. The half-life of their story is far longer than any of us would have imagined. They appear to have at least three audiencies.
1) The media who have ever increasing amounts of space to fill. So the Daily Mail and Express purport to despise the couple, whilst still providing them with free publicity. No sign of this changing.
2) A tribe of true believers who will continue to follow them regardless. We don’t understand this and never will.
3) Those of us who despise this/find it tiresome/just wish it would all go away. But even a large proportion remain engaged. Our outraged reactions serve them by activating their base in group 2). That feels quite similar to the SNP’s attempts to rile the English into reacting. They don’t want you to like them – the more you don’t, the more they benefit – it keeps them in the news and “relevant”.
Will they end up subsisting on Harry’s “allowance” from the monarchy like Edward did?
They need constructive hobbies or maybe looking after a child might help occupy their time?
I agree with the criticism expressed in the comments but it is good for someone to care, even about narcissists. I pass beggars on my way to the train and when I stop at traffic lights and part of their situation is that no-one cares.
At the moment, the attention Harry & Meghan are getting is ‘trainwreck attention’…in short order, very few will care and over time they will be like Mrs. Simpson and her second (third?) husband, Edward. H&M will age in their Montecito mansion and no one will pay attention or care as they have stated their boring story and they will be boring forever more.
I agree with the criticism expressed in the comments but it is good for someone to care, even about narcissists. I pass beggars on my way to the train and when I stop at traffic lights and part of their situation is that no-one cares.
The saddest part is that anyone cares.
On a wider vein than just these two there is a balance between freedom and responsibility.
I don’t believe one can have personal freedom without a matching responsibility. And this second part, taking responsibility, seems lacking in our present fractious times. Freedom can never be absolute, the limit must be somewhere around the idea of when my freedom impacts on another and impinges their freedom. If I want freedom I have to take responsibility to accept the consequences, whatever they are and I do need to manage the boundaries of my freedom when it rubs up against another’s free choices.
And, in my view, Markle wanted “her cake and eat it” without a thought as to what this would mean in the way of payment.
Non of us can get anywhere near a “free” life, we all rely on others. I rely on some people generating power to run this machine and others managing a copper wire to get my words through to a place where others are watching screens to make sure that my words can be linked to other people who may, or may not, be interested in reading them. I am “free” to write what I want to my responsibility includes paying for the bits between me and others and my responsibility to write reasonably.
It’s that balance between personal freedom and responsibility that i think Giles’ article was primarily intended to explore; Harry/Meghan v William/Kate happens to be a highly pertinent vehicle with which to conduct the exploration. I found it to be one of Giles’ best articles.
My pastor tells this tale very succinctly, “freedom’s not found in what we want to do, it’s the power to do what is right.” Amen.
It’s that balance between personal freedom and responsibility that i think Giles’ article was primarily intended to explore; Harry/Meghan v William/Kate happens to be a highly pertinent vehicle with which to conduct the exploration. I found it to be one of Giles’ best articles.
My pastor tells this tale very succinctly, “freedom’s not found in what we want to do, it’s the power to do what is right.” Amen.
On a wider vein than just these two there is a balance between freedom and responsibility.
I don’t believe one can have personal freedom without a matching responsibility. And this second part, taking responsibility, seems lacking in our present fractious times. Freedom can never be absolute, the limit must be somewhere around the idea of when my freedom impacts on another and impinges their freedom. If I want freedom I have to take responsibility to accept the consequences, whatever they are and I do need to manage the boundaries of my freedom when it rubs up against another’s free choices.
And, in my view, Markle wanted “her cake and eat it” without a thought as to what this would mean in the way of payment.
Non of us can get anywhere near a “free” life, we all rely on others. I rely on some people generating power to run this machine and others managing a copper wire to get my words through to a place where others are watching screens to make sure that my words can be linked to other people who may, or may not, be interested in reading them. I am “free” to write what I want to my responsibility includes paying for the bits between me and others and my responsibility to write reasonably.
And now he’s claiming that the stress from the press caused his wife’s miscarriage. True, or a grifting/spin/manipulation? Clue: there is no evidence, none, that stress causes miscarriage – which kinda makes sense when you embrace the robustness and importance of reproduction: women carry to term in bomb shelters, prisons, and abusive relationships; pregnancy is itself generally stressfull; and, if I may make a little assumption, that most women with successful pregnancies have, throughout history and prehistory, experienced rather more stress that the duchess.
And now he’s claiming that the stress from the press caused his wife’s miscarriage. True, or a grifting/spin/manipulation? Clue: there is no evidence, none, that stress causes miscarriage – which kinda makes sense when you embrace the robustness and importance of reproduction: women carry to term in bomb shelters, prisons, and abusive relationships; pregnancy is itself generally stressfull; and, if I may make a little assumption, that most women with successful pregnancies have, throughout history and prehistory, experienced rather more stress that the duchess.
Methinks that they protest too much. Their call for privacy reminds me of Mel Brooks version of, To Be Or Not To Be. ‘All I want is peace, peace! A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France!’ They are like two people in a rowing boat, using pickaxes to knock holes in the bottom and crying to onlookers for help. In other words this is a Titanic mistake on their part.
Methinks that they protest too much. Their call for privacy reminds me of Mel Brooks version of, To Be Or Not To Be. ‘All I want is peace, peace! A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France!’ They are like two people in a rowing boat, using pickaxes to knock holes in the bottom and crying to onlookers for help. In other words this is a Titanic mistake on their part.
Rather good quote from the BBC’s website from a reporter who watched MM delivering her wedding speech at the end of the final Netflix doc.
Unfortunately the BBC first aid kit on our floor has run out of sick bags, so we won’t reproduce the speech in its entirety here. But ends with the words: “Above all, love wins.”
Rather good quote from the BBC’s website from a reporter who watched MM delivering her wedding speech at the end of the final Netflix doc.
Unfortunately the BBC first aid kit on our floor has run out of sick bags, so we won’t reproduce the speech in its entirety here. But ends with the words: “Above all, love wins.”
One day, quite unexpectedly, given the fact that at that moment I was a young man living in the USSR, the thought came to my mind about the importance of the aristocracy.
If you are a nobleman and your parents, grandfathers and great-grandfathers were noblemen, this means that you are responsible both to them and to those who will come after you. You are just a link in the chain, and if you forget about it, the chain will break and the building of the nation will collapse.
And what does mansions and Netflix compare to that?
PS. Strictly speaking, this is not only about the aristocracy. It’s about any of us.
One day, quite unexpectedly, given the fact that at that moment I was a young man living in the USSR, the thought came to my mind about the importance of the aristocracy.
If you are a nobleman and your parents, grandfathers and great-grandfathers were noblemen, this means that you are responsible both to them and to those who will come after you. You are just a link in the chain, and if you forget about it, the chain will break and the building of the nation will collapse.
And what does mansions and Netflix compare to that?
PS. Strictly speaking, this is not only about the aristocracy. It’s about any of us.
I suspect that the reaction the pantomime performance of the show of allegiance to our Sovereign Lady caused in Harry will be seen, eventually, as one of the early nails in the coffin for their relationship.
When that ends, H is going to find himself on the receiving end of a similar onslaught from Meghan to the one he has joined her in on the rest of his Royal Family.
I suspect that the reaction the pantomime performance of the show of allegiance to our Sovereign Lady caused in Harry will be seen, eventually, as one of the early nails in the coffin for their relationship.
When that ends, H is going to find himself on the receiving end of a similar onslaught from Meghan to the one he has joined her in on the rest of his Royal Family.
I think the race-baiting element of the attacks was designed to encourage the liberal communities to back them and pit them against an all-white Royal family and, in doing so, allow them the platform to make an obscene amount of money. They represent everything about modern society that most intelligent people loathe, the ” my truth” bandwagon in which anybody can say anything about anyone under the guise of ‘fact’ when in almost all cases, it’s anything but.
They are horrible, odious and deeply manipulative in all they do and deserve all that is coming their way.
I second every single word in this comment. They are duplicitous and manipulative to the core although I do believe that she is the mastermind, and he is just a silly fool who parrots whatever she commands.
I second every single word in this comment. They are duplicitous and manipulative to the core although I do believe that she is the mastermind, and he is just a silly fool who parrots whatever she commands.
I think the race-baiting element of the attacks was designed to encourage the liberal communities to back them and pit them against an all-white Royal family and, in doing so, allow them the platform to make an obscene amount of money. They represent everything about modern society that most intelligent people loathe, the ” my truth” bandwagon in which anybody can say anything about anyone under the guise of ‘fact’ when in almost all cases, it’s anything but.
They are horrible, odious and deeply manipulative in all they do and deserve all that is coming their way.
… I will not watch or pay for any of their self-promoting lunacy. My choice!
… I will not watch or pay for any of their self-promoting lunacy. My choice!
Unfortunately, these two are destined to become another David and Wallace – wasting away in shabby luxury while whining endlessly of how they were “exiled” because they chose “love” over “duty” (as though the two are mutually exclusive) and exploit their meaningless connection to the Royal Family to make a “living” rather than doing something valuable with their “freedom”. As Mark Twain (didn’t) say – “History never repeats itself, but it sure does rhyme”.
History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.
—from “The Cure at Troy” by Seamus Heaney
History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.
—from “The Cure at Troy” by Seamus Heaney
Unfortunately, these two are destined to become another David and Wallace – wasting away in shabby luxury while whining endlessly of how they were “exiled” because they chose “love” over “duty” (as though the two are mutually exclusive) and exploit their meaningless connection to the Royal Family to make a “living” rather than doing something valuable with their “freedom”. As Mark Twain (didn’t) say – “History never repeats itself, but it sure does rhyme”.
Curious to know why the curtsey was considered such an affront, I watched the outtake.
I too was shocked and disgusted by her mockery of the late Queen. Disgusted, too, that Prince Harry who swore allegiance to the late Queen as his Commander-in-Chief, should have allowed this to remain in Netflix’ film, for worldwide distribution.
The impression is of an actress, playing her part with all the histrionics available – squeals, mockery, drama – her ‘tears’ at the funeral so easily switched to mocking the Queen who had done so much to welcome Meghan (“we shared a rug”).
The difference between the Abdication and Harry’s exodus, is the at Edward VIII loved his country, wept with his gathered family when he left, never tried to criticise or bring down the Monarchy.
Curious to know why the curtsey was considered such an affront, I watched the outtake.
I too was shocked and disgusted by her mockery of the late Queen. Disgusted, too, that Prince Harry who swore allegiance to the late Queen as his Commander-in-Chief, should have allowed this to remain in Netflix’ film, for worldwide distribution.
The impression is of an actress, playing her part with all the histrionics available – squeals, mockery, drama – her ‘tears’ at the funeral so easily switched to mocking the Queen who had done so much to welcome Meghan (“we shared a rug”).
The difference between the Abdication and Harry’s exodus, is the at Edward VIII loved his country, wept with his gathered family when he left, never tried to criticise or bring down the Monarchy.
They have become addicted to their false narrative of victimhood. Occasionally one might have caught a dying flare of terror and remorse in Harry’s eyes, but the Meghan-machine steamrolls everything. How can he escape? One suspects he longs to return to the sanity and (relative) freedom of his role in the royal family, but he’s trapped in his marriage and hasn’t the guts to admit it’s all been a dreadful mistake. It will break him, which is just so sad.
They have become addicted to their false narrative of victimhood. Occasionally one might have caught a dying flare of terror and remorse in Harry’s eyes, but the Meghan-machine steamrolls everything. How can he escape? One suspects he longs to return to the sanity and (relative) freedom of his role in the royal family, but he’s trapped in his marriage and hasn’t the guts to admit it’s all been a dreadful mistake. It will break him, which is just so sad.
‘This is why the “Montecito perspective” contrasts so directly with the “Buckingham Palace perspective”, which is what makes the whole Harry/William drama so much more than a mimetic rivalry between siblings. They are archetypes of two fundamental and bitter political adversaries: very roughly, tradition and the ethics of the market, old world power and new world power, England and America.:
I thought this hit the nail on the head for me, I agree with much of the article, actually I think it’s very good.
‘Montecito perspective’ is what gets my goat. I think they have behaved disgracefully, my mum refers to them bluntly – ‘like a pair of spoiled brats’.
‘This is why the “Montecito perspective” contrasts so directly with the “Buckingham Palace perspective”, which is what makes the whole Harry/William drama so much more than a mimetic rivalry between siblings. They are archetypes of two fundamental and bitter political adversaries: very roughly, tradition and the ethics of the market, old world power and new world power, England and America.:
I thought this hit the nail on the head for me, I agree with much of the article, actually I think it’s very good.
‘Montecito perspective’ is what gets my goat. I think they have behaved disgracefully, my mum refers to them bluntly – ‘like a pair of spoiled brats’.
If Shakespeare were still around he would find so much about this split to fill a tragic play: duty and servitude versus self-expression and freedom, rooted stability versus adventure, traditional power versus a new brand of performative crowd-pleasing. The bard would be waiting for the outcome: will the new power unseat the old, leaving in its wake old bonds of society in tatters?
In the end, all the drama of the Sussexes can offer the world is “an ethics indistinguishable from narcissism” as Giles Fraser puts it. We all instinctively understand why Harry has chosen this path, but we also know that it will lead to a tragic end; either a damaged symbol of a nation’s millenium of history, or a broken would-be hero of a cult of individual expression. Or both.
If the Bard were to treat this story, I expect it would not be so much the one vs. the other, as it would have William and Kate as protagonists, and Harry and Meghan as the declasse comic couple, on the side stage, so to speak. Kabuki theatre does this very well. Sadly, looking at Harry in this moment, he seems to be playing Bottom.
If the Bard were to treat this story, I expect it would not be so much the one vs. the other, as it would have William and Kate as protagonists, and Harry and Meghan as the declasse comic couple, on the side stage, so to speak. Kabuki theatre does this very well. Sadly, looking at Harry in this moment, he seems to be playing Bottom.
If Shakespeare were still around he would find so much about this split to fill a tragic play: duty and servitude versus self-expression and freedom, rooted stability versus adventure, traditional power versus a new brand of performative crowd-pleasing. The bard would be waiting for the outcome: will the new power unseat the old, leaving in its wake old bonds of society in tatters?
In the end, all the drama of the Sussexes can offer the world is “an ethics indistinguishable from narcissism” as Giles Fraser puts it. We all instinctively understand why Harry has chosen this path, but we also know that it will lead to a tragic end; either a damaged symbol of a nation’s millenium of history, or a broken would-be hero of a cult of individual expression. Or both.
It’s funny bc, between the two brothers, you’d think William might be the one resigned to privacy and desirous of keeping his family out of the spotlight given their literal prominence in duty over that of his brother’s.. but no, it’s been H and M (who else finds their monikers for one another to be another nauseating cry for attention? ) who really could have just fallen in line and done their roles w dignity while the fervour died down, and slunk away for the most part into a relatively quiet royal life.. but the writer has it bang on- the quest for self-fulfillment driven by Meghan’s modern liberal ideals has left them unwilling to do that. It’s funny how he calls their romance “perfectly ordinary” , which it really is. They do not have a love story worth writing about, let alone taking up a 6-part docuseries..This was a good read!
It’s funny bc, between the two brothers, you’d think William might be the one resigned to privacy and desirous of keeping his family out of the spotlight given their literal prominence in duty over that of his brother’s.. but no, it’s been H and M (who else finds their monikers for one another to be another nauseating cry for attention? ) who really could have just fallen in line and done their roles w dignity while the fervour died down, and slunk away for the most part into a relatively quiet royal life.. but the writer has it bang on- the quest for self-fulfillment driven by Meghan’s modern liberal ideals has left them unwilling to do that. It’s funny how he calls their romance “perfectly ordinary” , which it really is. They do not have a love story worth writing about, let alone taking up a 6-part docuseries..This was a good read!
“Nought’s had, all’s spent,
Where our desire is got without content:
‘Tis safer to be that which we destroy
Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy.”
Thought for the day, H and M, though thinking’s not really your strong suit, I suppose.
“Nought’s had, all’s spent,
Where our desire is got without content:
‘Tis safer to be that which we destroy
Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy.”
Thought for the day, H and M, though thinking’s not really your strong suit, I suppose.
Excellent article, Giles.
Excellent article, Giles.
Truth requires a possessive pronoun, making it submissive to individual will: my truth.
We’ve seen that for years, now. My truth. My Truth is… People have substituted that for something from the recent past like, My experience has been… That’s a subtle change in words but it really is dramatic (and done deliberately I’m certain by those invoking it these days) – questioning someone’s Truth can be like discrediting their religion or something. It can make people dig in their heels and understandably so I think. Invoking Truth leaves little room for disagreement while also being able to find some common ground.
Truth requires a possessive pronoun, making it submissive to individual will: my truth.
We’ve seen that for years, now. My truth. My Truth is… People have substituted that for something from the recent past like, My experience has been… That’s a subtle change in words but it really is dramatic (and done deliberately I’m certain by those invoking it these days) – questioning someone’s Truth can be like discrediting their religion or something. It can make people dig in their heels and understandably so I think. Invoking Truth leaves little room for disagreement while also being able to find some common ground.
Excellent analysis. The level of self-deception of Harry at least, probably Meghan too, seems to know no bounds. Lots I could say, but I do like this joke:
Harry and Meghan: “Publicity-shy couple share more intimate secrets with 8 billion people”.
Excellent analysis. The level of self-deception of Harry at least, probably Meghan too, seems to know no bounds. Lots I could say, but I do like this joke:
Harry and Meghan: “Publicity-shy couple share more intimate secrets with 8 billion people”.
They are famous (and rich) for doing….what?
They are famous (and rich) for doing….what?
Best essay I’ve read for quite some time, however I have one quibble:
>There is only one core moral situation and that is when I point to something and say: “I want it”.
Mostly true, but not always: You can *of course* be a woman the moment you claim it, however you *can’t* be Black nor Indigenous no matter how hard you try nor how much you want it. In fact it is a cancelling offense and the Twitterii will not forgive someone claiming to be of the Holy Blood (an Indian or a negro) if they are in fact merely white.
Best essay I’ve read for quite some time, however I have one quibble:
>There is only one core moral situation and that is when I point to something and say: “I want it”.
Mostly true, but not always: You can *of course* be a woman the moment you claim it, however you *can’t* be Black nor Indigenous no matter how hard you try nor how much you want it. In fact it is a cancelling offense and the Twitterii will not forgive someone claiming to be of the Holy Blood (an Indian or a negro) if they are in fact merely white.
Rev. Fraser, you state that ‘I can be a woman simply if I choose to be one, irrespective of any biological givenness.’ You can certainly say you are a woman, you can think you are a woman, you can even act like you (think) a woman acts. But, as a man of g/d, you should realise that that makes you only a fool since you remain a man in the sight of the only one who really matters.
I think you’re missing the irony in the author’s words. He is not speaking for himself. He is speaking Woke-ness.
Even so I think Jacqueline’s comment was worth writing. With or without an ironic context her point is a good one.
Even so I think Jacqueline’s comment was worth writing. With or without an ironic context her point is a good one.
I think you’re missing the irony in the author’s words. He is not speaking for himself. He is speaking Woke-ness.
Rev. Fraser, you state that ‘I can be a woman simply if I choose to be one, irrespective of any biological givenness.’ You can certainly say you are a woman, you can think you are a woman, you can even act like you (think) a woman acts. But, as a man of g/d, you should realise that that makes you only a fool since you remain a man in the sight of the only one who really matters.
I really liked this post, though I’m still not sure why, ‘The crack between us reaches down to the very bottom’ was chucked in. I’m guessing it has something to do with narcissism but couldn’t swear to it.
Also I had to read ‘servitude…inspired by a king who divested himself of power to come among us as a baby’ a couple of times before realising we were not talking about an actual king, or one of the Queen’s immediate ancestors, but God.
I really liked this post, though I’m still not sure why, ‘The crack between us reaches down to the very bottom’ was chucked in. I’m guessing it has something to do with narcissism but couldn’t swear to it.
Also I had to read ‘servitude…inspired by a king who divested himself of power to come among us as a baby’ a couple of times before realising we were not talking about an actual king, or one of the Queen’s immediate ancestors, but God.
As an American, I find myself lucky not being able to understand any of it enough to feel the need to care. At the same time, I wonder where that “one drop” is from that makes Meghan black.
Only an American. Would post that. Dear me.
You further confirm my opinion that American and British values are not compatible. I don’t think you are capable of understanding much of anything after reading that comment. They say ignorance is bliss though, so I suppose it is lucky for you.
‘Decouple’ from our ignorant overlords!? ‘reparations’? 🙂
Only an American. Would post that. Dear me.
You further confirm my opinion that American and British values are not compatible. I don’t think you are capable of understanding much of anything after reading that comment. They say ignorance is bliss though, so I suppose it is lucky for you.
‘Decouple’ from our ignorant overlords!? ‘reparations’? 🙂
As an American, I find myself lucky not being able to understand any of it enough to feel the need to care. At the same time, I wonder where that “one drop” is from that makes Meghan black.
I’m the only person alive who finds all this less than compelling.
I’m the only person alive who finds all this less than compelling.
I never got through much of Rands tomes, but “No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation on another man,” likely means that you should choose the obligation.
I never got through much of Rands tomes, but “No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation on another man,” likely means that you should choose the obligation.
Not sure about this well written article – could it be possible that the writer has fallen into jealousy/envy mode? After all, there are plenty of people to undertake Royal duties instead of Harry: Charles & Camilla, Edward & Sophie, Anne, the two princesses, Beatrice & Eugenie as well as other minor royals. Harry will be no different to me in that we will both experience that “emptiness within” except that his is in sunshine in Montecito and mine is in unsunny England in a Council Flat. Harry won in the lottery of life in a big way. He doesn’t need the Royal way of life of duty and service – service to what? Tea parties, opening new ventures, attending the best concerts, the finest theatre, the ballet! This is service and duty?
It seems to me the duty and service is to keep themselves living in absolute luxury in the way they are already accustomed! Harry has used his birthright to be free from an antiquated system that was designed to retain power. I don’t see that this Royal family deserve any bowing to. Why? You may be impressed by them – I am not. Not at all. I am now a septuagenarian and was born British. The Royal Family are just big business – but they market the deal as duty and service to the British people thus buying their favour.
Not sure about this well written article – could it be possible that the writer has fallen into jealousy/envy mode? After all, there are plenty of people to undertake Royal duties instead of Harry: Charles & Camilla, Edward & Sophie, Anne, the two princesses, Beatrice & Eugenie as well as other minor royals. Harry will be no different to me in that we will both experience that “emptiness within” except that his is in sunshine in Montecito and mine is in unsunny England in a Council Flat. Harry won in the lottery of life in a big way. He doesn’t need the Royal way of life of duty and service – service to what? Tea parties, opening new ventures, attending the best concerts, the finest theatre, the ballet! This is service and duty?
It seems to me the duty and service is to keep themselves living in absolute luxury in the way they are already accustomed! Harry has used his birthright to be free from an antiquated system that was designed to retain power. I don’t see that this Royal family deserve any bowing to. Why? You may be impressed by them – I am not. Not at all. I am now a septuagenarian and was born British. The Royal Family are just big business – but they market the deal as duty and service to the British people thus buying their favour.
Dear Giles, You were once my vicar at the church in Putney, and I have listened to you often on the Moral Maze. I’ve also seen some of your pieces in the Telegraph I think? Anyway I’ve always thought you were a sort of very very leftie priest (because Jesus was I think an archetypal leftie really – I’m a Telegraph reading Unherd reading centre rightie, but Jesus is in my books the most wonderful hero and teacher, although I’m not ready to give away all my worldly goods as yet!). Anyway, I just wanted to say I think you’ve moved just a little bit towards the centre left (yay) and maybe I’ve misunderstood you all along. But whatever, and changing the subject entirely as the point I’m about to make has nothing to do with it, I think you are a perceptive genius, as your piece on Harry and Meghan has for me totally distilled and clarified what all the fuss is about – NOW (thanks to you) I can put my finger on it! BRAVO and Thankyou! x
Dear Giles, You were once my vicar at the church in Putney, and I have listened to you often on the Moral Maze. I’ve also seen some of your pieces in the Telegraph I think? Anyway I’ve always thought you were a sort of very very leftie priest (because Jesus was I think an archetypal leftie really – I’m a Telegraph reading Unherd reading centre rightie, but Jesus is in my books the most wonderful hero and teacher, although I’m not ready to give away all my worldly goods as yet!). Anyway, I just wanted to say I think you’ve moved just a little bit towards the centre left (yay) and maybe I’ve misunderstood you all along. But whatever, and changing the subject entirely as the point I’m about to make has nothing to do with it, I think you are a perceptive genius, as your piece on Harry and Meghan has for me totally distilled and clarified what all the fuss is about – NOW (thanks to you) I can put my finger on it! BRAVO and Thankyou! x
If H&M had opted to live a discreet quiet life somewhere nice in the US, as they claimed they wanted, they would doubtless have had ample funding from his dad. What a sad and distasteful alternative they have chosen.
If H&M had opted to live a discreet quiet life somewhere nice in the US, as they claimed they wanted, they would doubtless have had ample funding from his dad. What a sad and distasteful alternative they have chosen.
Though Fraser may be correct on the example that ‘inspired’ Elizabeth’s ‘servitude’, I think he wildly overreaches to imply that she was the ‘perfect role model’ of ‘all this’ for her grandson, as if she embodied a living Imitation, in the Thomas á Kempis sense.
Though Fraser may be correct on the example that ‘inspired’ Elizabeth’s ‘servitude’, I think he wildly overreaches to imply that she was the ‘perfect role model’ of ‘all this’ for her grandson, as if she embodied a living Imitation, in the Thomas á Kempis sense.
There is one comment herein which I think can be readily eliminated. The concern that capitalism does not price into the cost of goods the renovation of the environment, the so called ‘cleaning up afterwards syndrome’ is a matter for regulation. Simple, make governments do their job.
There is one comment herein which I think can be readily eliminated. The concern that capitalism does not price into the cost of goods the renovation of the environment, the so called ‘cleaning up afterwards syndrome’ is a matter for regulation. Simple, make governments do their job.
“William would use words like “duty” and “service”, a crucial aspect of which is the belief that my life is not all-about-me.”
It never ceases to amaze me that people who bleat about “duty” and “service” do very well out of it, in terms of deference demanded and received, and material comfort enjoyed.
Alternatively, the many people who actually live from a sense of duty and do (often selflessly) serve their fellow man (sorry, person!) don’t bang on about it and get generally overlooked.
Think about the really sad donations the Meghan Harrys have made, as they bleat on about service. And from their Delaware foundations, which means as little money as possible goes to charity, like the Kennedycharity they just got their anti racism prize from.
The U.K. Royals do have a comfortable foundation from which to be charitable, it is true. Yet they do not have to do near the work they do, if not powered from a sense of real duty. We all are situated somewhere in society, and you, too, can give to your neighbours, even through a kind word, if nothing else.
Indeed. While the words of public figures can have outsized impact, good or bad, announcing one’s sense of duty and service is not exactly synonymous with being a dutiful servant.
Think about the really sad donations the Meghan Harrys have made, as they bleat on about service. And from their Delaware foundations, which means as little money as possible goes to charity, like the Kennedycharity they just got their anti racism prize from.
The U.K. Royals do have a comfortable foundation from which to be charitable, it is true. Yet they do not have to do near the work they do, if not powered from a sense of real duty. We all are situated somewhere in society, and you, too, can give to your neighbours, even through a kind word, if nothing else.
Indeed. While the words of public figures can have outsized impact, good or bad, announcing one’s sense of duty and service is not exactly synonymous with being a dutiful servant.
“William would use words like “duty” and “service”, a crucial aspect of which is the belief that my life is not all-about-me.”
It never ceases to amaze me that people who bleat about “duty” and “service” do very well out of it, in terms of deference demanded and received, and material comfort enjoyed.
Alternatively, the many people who actually live from a sense of duty and do (often selflessly) serve their fellow man (sorry, person!) don’t bang on about it and get generally overlooked.
It seems like most of the commenters here agree with the odious Jeremy Clarkson. How humiliating for you.
It seems like most of the commenters here agree with the odious Jeremy Clarkson. How humiliating for you.
I’m all for stuff that just further highlights how daft the whole silly Monarchy edifice truly is. Much of what is happening is just a drawing back of the veil.
I do though feel some sympathy for those born or married into it. But they have choices. Let us see how this plays out over coming years. There may be choices to come that the next generation of Royals decide to take.
There is of course no comparison between what the late Queen experienced in media intrusion in her young adulthood and what H&M experienced. Giles article seems to assume some steady-state in this, but that’s not accurate. Social media a whole new medium. The sacrifice now is much greater because the intrusion, and abuse, is much greater.
Just one final thought – once the Palace withdrew funding for security (if this was a form of blackmail it’s particularly unedifying given they knew all about the threats to an ex serving solider and mixed race woman), it was inevitable the couple would need to make financial decisions to cover that themselves. Perhaps the Palace should have backed off the apparent blackmail and found a more mutual agreeable arrangement? Are they not getting what they deserved for that bit of stupidity?
I’m all for stuff that just further highlights how daft the whole silly Monarchy edifice truly is. Much of what is happening is just a drawing back of the veil.
I do though feel some sympathy for those born or married into it. But they have choices. Let us see how this plays out over coming years. There may be choices to come that the next generation of Royals decide to take.
There is of course no comparison between what the late Queen experienced in media intrusion in her young adulthood and what H&M experienced. Giles article seems to assume some steady-state in this, but that’s not accurate. Social media a whole new medium. The sacrifice now is much greater because the intrusion, and abuse, is much greater.
Just one final thought – once the Palace withdrew funding for security (if this was a form of blackmail it’s particularly unedifying given they knew all about the threats to an ex serving solider and mixed race woman), it was inevitable the couple would need to make financial decisions to cover that themselves. Perhaps the Palace should have backed off the apparent blackmail and found a more mutual agreeable arrangement? Are they not getting what they deserved for that bit of stupidity?
The whole thing is soap opera nonsense. Not just the H&M saga, but the whole Monarchy daftness. Generational change means it inevitably will have to do much more to survive.
One does though have some human sympathy for the people born or married into this. We’ll see what choices they make, and they have them, in years to come.
Giles is wrong though to imply, which I think is what he has done, the late Queen experienced anything like the media intrusion H&M have when she was a young adult, or the abuse for that matter. I think he implies the sacrifice is the same and she could handle it whereas H&M couldn’t. The experience has not been steady state and wrong to imply otherwise. Social media of course a completely new medium Liz and Phil never had to contend with at similar age to H&M. And as regards Wills and Catherine, no racial element has been played by our glorious media (although not been easy for them either).
I think also the Palace played it badly wrong in removing funding for security. H is an ex soldier who served his country and an obvious target for the rest of his life whether a serving Royal or not. His wife subject to more death threats than any other Royal bar perhaps her husband. The Palace knew this. Was it a form of blackmail? Well whatever it certainly rebounded as it will have been an added reason for H&M needing to maximise their earnings whilst they could. I don’t blame them for that.
Yes, it is a soap opera. Just like the court of Henry VIII was a soap opera, and the court of Elizabeth I, and that of Victoria. I came late to the study of history (and deeply regret it) but anyone who has read even superficially about the Tudor court cannot be surprised by the interpersonal dynamics of the current shower, the plotting and scheming, the jockeying for position, the back-biting by everyone, but especially the courtiers.
Actually, it’s a bloody good soap-opera! Though predictable – petulant old man behaving like a petulant old man, thick spoiled brats behaving like thick spoiled brats, and American actress behaving like – you guessed it – an American actress. If it were actually a work of fiction, we would probably be complaining about how one-dimensional the characters are.
I so wish Harry Enfield would revive “The Windsors” to cover the last few years!!
If one declines to do the job to which one is born, then how does one deserve publicly funded security which is derived from that to which one is born?
Please describe the job?
Partake in a ridiculous full time soap opera for the delectation of large elements of the Press where you and your family can be constantly poked at and abused, especially you because you opted to marry a mixed race American who was also far more intelligent than usually allowed in the Royal family?
In fact the bigger question is why any of the poor sods stay.
Please describe the job?
Partake in a ridiculous full time soap opera for the delectation of large elements of the Press where you and your family can be constantly poked at and abused, especially you because you opted to marry a mixed race American who was also far more intelligent than usually allowed in the Royal family?
In fact the bigger question is why any of the poor sods stay.
Yes, it is a soap opera. Just like the court of Henry VIII was a soap opera, and the court of Elizabeth I, and that of Victoria. I came late to the study of history (and deeply regret it) but anyone who has read even superficially about the Tudor court cannot be surprised by the interpersonal dynamics of the current shower, the plotting and scheming, the jockeying for position, the back-biting by everyone, but especially the courtiers.
Actually, it’s a bloody good soap-opera! Though predictable – petulant old man behaving like a petulant old man, thick spoiled brats behaving like thick spoiled brats, and American actress behaving like – you guessed it – an American actress. If it were actually a work of fiction, we would probably be complaining about how one-dimensional the characters are.
I so wish Harry Enfield would revive “The Windsors” to cover the last few years!!
If one declines to do the job to which one is born, then how does one deserve publicly funded security which is derived from that to which one is born?
The whole thing is soap opera nonsense. Not just the H&M saga, but the whole Monarchy daftness. Generational change means it inevitably will have to do much more to survive.
One does though have some human sympathy for the people born or married into this. We’ll see what choices they make, and they have them, in years to come.
Giles is wrong though to imply, which I think is what he has done, the late Queen experienced anything like the media intrusion H&M have when she was a young adult, or the abuse for that matter. I think he implies the sacrifice is the same and she could handle it whereas H&M couldn’t. The experience has not been steady state and wrong to imply otherwise. Social media of course a completely new medium Liz and Phil never had to contend with at similar age to H&M. And as regards Wills and Catherine, no racial element has been played by our glorious media (although not been easy for them either).
I think also the Palace played it badly wrong in removing funding for security. H is an ex soldier who served his country and an obvious target for the rest of his life whether a serving Royal or not. His wife subject to more death threats than any other Royal bar perhaps her husband. The Palace knew this. Was it a form of blackmail? Well whatever it certainly rebounded as it will have been an added reason for H&M needing to maximise their earnings whilst they could. I don’t blame them for that.
I understand that Elizabeth is a much-admired woman, dear in the memory of many, but I think it’s an absurd overreach for the author to compare her sense of duty and service to the selflessness of Jesus of Nazareth.
Not that I claim to know her heart, but is anyone under the impression that her Christian practice rose to the level of radical compassion or Christ-like sacrifice?
Not compared to but inspired by.
Fair point. I do think Fraser strongly implies that Elizabeth was inspired to a Christ-like ‘servitude’ which Harry ought to have appreciated in his grandmother, whom Fraser declares to have been ‘the perfect role model for all this‘ in the sentence that follows the Christ the King reference.
Yes, I agree. I guess it’s predictable of Fraser to tie Christ into his thoughts.
Yes, I agree. I guess it’s predictable of Fraser to tie Christ into his thoughts.
Fair point. I do think Fraser strongly implies that Elizabeth was inspired to a Christ-like ‘servitude’ which Harry ought to have appreciated in his grandmother, whom Fraser declares to have been ‘the perfect role model for all this‘ in the sentence that follows the Christ the King reference.
Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But he was deeply dismayed by these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” (Mark 10:21-22)
wasnt Jesus also a Household Calvary officer and Old Edonian?
wasnt Jesus also a Household Calvary officer and Old Edonian?
Not compared to but inspired by.
Looking at him, Jesus showed love to him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But he was deeply dismayed by these words, and he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” (Mark 10:21-22)
I understand that Elizabeth is a much-admired woman, dear in the memory of many, but I think it’s an absurd overreach for the author to compare her sense of duty and service to the selflessness of Jesus of Nazareth.
Not that I claim to know her heart, but is anyone under the impression that her Christian practice rose to the level of radical compassion or Christ-like sacrifice?
I haven’t yet watched the three new episodes, just the first three. What surprises me about your essay is that it makes absolutely no mention–zero–of what the first half of the series is actually about, which is the outsize and plainly malignant role played by the UK tabloid press in hounding Markle in every conceivable way, at every conceivable turn. I’d love to believe that that press coverage was driven by the tabloids’ desire to preserve the sanctity of the British Royals, the majesty of the Queen and her commonwealth, but I know better and so do you. The same capitalism that you’ve associated with All The Bad Things Going On Here–i.e., Harry, Meghan, and their presumptive bad taste in California housing–is of course driving the tabloid frenzy to depict Markle and her family, white and black, as lowlife opportunists who threaten to sully the Crown. Intellectual honesty would have required you to talk about the role played by the tabloids, and that in turn might have helped you appreciate what I appreciate about the series: Harry and Meghan have turned the tables on the tabloids, reclaimed the power of representation in a potent way, and told their story. I happen to find their story compelling. I’m coming, I’ll admit, from the perspective of a generally anti-woke American, interracially married for 18 years, who is naturally sympathetic to Harry and Meghan’s plight. I could care less for Hollywood celebrities. As American actresses go, Meghan is far more thoughtful than most; her service mission long preceded her coming together with Harry. I don’t particularly like the moments when Harry’s “growth” is configured explicitly onscreen, with little claps of approval, as his transformation into a good little antiracist. By the same token, I find pretty much all the onscreen black UK commentators to be helpful and informative. Regardless, virtually none of the screen time in the first three episodes shows us what you claim the series is about, which is Harry’s (and Meghan’s) refusal of the “duty” and “service” required of those who would be part of the British monarchy. Quite the opposite: the series shows us a somewhat callow and morally errant young Prince Hal who spends a full decade serving his nation as a warrior–and connecting with his fellow citizens, becoming a man of the people, as he does so. It shows us the woman who would be his bride trying ever so hard, in the face of her laughably unschooled American etiquette, to dress properly (“muted colors”) so as to fit in. And then there’s the curtsy moment. Here, as an American, I saw the moment you sneer at entirely differently. In her almost comically broad curtsy, I saw her mocking herself, not the Queen; mocking her own awkward, Quixotic, girl-in-love desire to make the proper impression on a Queen who was also a (grand)parent who needed to be properly respected and impressed. What you saw as the ultimate diss to the royals, I saw as an entirely reasonable plea for compassion. I’ll repeat: these are my thoughts based on the first three episodes, not the three-episode dump that has just occurred. I do hope, though, that you’ll say something about the tabloid press and their capital-driven hunger for spectacle–especially racial spectacle, which is always good for sales.
Don’t worry, there are many here in UK saw it exactly as you did, probably more so with the younger viewers. For alot of others there is already much invested in demonising Megan creating a real reluctance to look at this afresh.
The additional thing that seems to come across is she’s clever and was a self made professional. Some Royals and the media gonna really struggle with that, esp as every time she spoke that came across. So we have a women, of mixed race, who’s intelligent and already proven herself without advantage. Jeez that was inevitably going ‘wind up’ an awful lot of Mail readers. (Daily Mail – pretty dreadful semi tabloid here in the UK with an aging demographic one suspects, so there is hope).
Thanks, J.
Thanks, J.
You say you’re in an inter-racial marriage as if that should mean something to people in the UK. While there are certainly bigots as there are in any country. I doubt that any here give a toss about Markle’s race or skin colour. You’re misreading the UK as Markle is.
There’s no “racial spectacle’ for us here in H&M’s message to us from across the pond. In one example of numerous others, our Hindu, plainly Indian heritage PM lighting candles for Diwali outside No 10 was just a brief picture story in the 24 hour news cycle.
There are certainly very real cultural and religious tensions in parts of the UK. The initial interest in Markle was that she was an American. Not black.
The pictures of Harry following his mother’s coffin moved many. His pranks and army service made him popular. H&M’s wedding was greeted with enthusiastic delight. We were sympathetic to him wishing to stand back both on a personal and constitutional level.
The Markle dislike for me began with her in one of the world’s poorest countries tearfully saying “No one asks about me.” This from a woman, with a large home paid for by us tax payers, job security, free health care and riches beyond many in the West let alone the country she was in.
Vomit making.
Then came the inexplicable, easily proven lies in the Winfrey interview while Harry’s grandfather was dying. That also insulted us in the UK and Commonwealth who wanted nothing but the best for them.
Markel gives every appearance of thinking and behaving as if she’d be star of the show. But constitutionally, her husband is very low in the pecking order. Barring a massacre, she’ll never be Queen.
Don’t worry, there are many here in UK saw it exactly as you did, probably more so with the younger viewers. For alot of others there is already much invested in demonising Megan creating a real reluctance to look at this afresh.
The additional thing that seems to come across is she’s clever and was a self made professional. Some Royals and the media gonna really struggle with that, esp as every time she spoke that came across. So we have a women, of mixed race, who’s intelligent and already proven herself without advantage. Jeez that was inevitably going ‘wind up’ an awful lot of Mail readers. (Daily Mail – pretty dreadful semi tabloid here in the UK with an aging demographic one suspects, so there is hope).
You say you’re in an inter-racial marriage as if that should mean something to people in the UK. While there are certainly bigots as there are in any country. I doubt that any here give a toss about Markle’s race or skin colour. You’re misreading the UK as Markle is.
There’s no “racial spectacle’ for us here in H&M’s message to us from across the pond. In one example of numerous others, our Hindu, plainly Indian heritage PM lighting candles for Diwali outside No 10 was just a brief picture story in the 24 hour news cycle.
There are certainly very real cultural and religious tensions in parts of the UK. The initial interest in Markle was that she was an American. Not black.
The pictures of Harry following his mother’s coffin moved many. His pranks and army service made him popular. H&M’s wedding was greeted with enthusiastic delight. We were sympathetic to him wishing to stand back both on a personal and constitutional level.
The Markle dislike for me began with her in one of the world’s poorest countries tearfully saying “No one asks about me.” This from a woman, with a large home paid for by us tax payers, job security, free health care and riches beyond many in the West let alone the country she was in.
Vomit making.
Then came the inexplicable, easily proven lies in the Winfrey interview while Harry’s grandfather was dying. That also insulted us in the UK and Commonwealth who wanted nothing but the best for them.
Markel gives every appearance of thinking and behaving as if she’d be star of the show. But constitutionally, her husband is very low in the pecking order. Barring a massacre, she’ll never be Queen.
I haven’t yet watched the three new episodes, just the first three. What surprises me about your essay is that it makes absolutely no mention–zero–of what the first half of the series is actually about, which is the outsize and plainly malignant role played by the UK tabloid press in hounding Markle in every conceivable way, at every conceivable turn. I’d love to believe that that press coverage was driven by the tabloids’ desire to preserve the sanctity of the British Royals, the majesty of the Queen and her commonwealth, but I know better and so do you. The same capitalism that you’ve associated with All The Bad Things Going On Here–i.e., Harry, Meghan, and their presumptive bad taste in California housing–is of course driving the tabloid frenzy to depict Markle and her family, white and black, as lowlife opportunists who threaten to sully the Crown. Intellectual honesty would have required you to talk about the role played by the tabloids, and that in turn might have helped you appreciate what I appreciate about the series: Harry and Meghan have turned the tables on the tabloids, reclaimed the power of representation in a potent way, and told their story. I happen to find their story compelling. I’m coming, I’ll admit, from the perspective of a generally anti-woke American, interracially married for 18 years, who is naturally sympathetic to Harry and Meghan’s plight. I could care less for Hollywood celebrities. As American actresses go, Meghan is far more thoughtful than most; her service mission long preceded her coming together with Harry. I don’t particularly like the moments when Harry’s “growth” is configured explicitly onscreen, with little claps of approval, as his transformation into a good little antiracist. By the same token, I find pretty much all the onscreen black UK commentators to be helpful and informative. Regardless, virtually none of the screen time in the first three episodes shows us what you claim the series is about, which is Harry’s (and Meghan’s) refusal of the “duty” and “service” required of those who would be part of the British monarchy. Quite the opposite: the series shows us a somewhat callow and morally errant young Prince Hal who spends a full decade serving his nation as a warrior–and connecting with his fellow citizens, becoming a man of the people, as he does so. It shows us the woman who would be his bride trying ever so hard, in the face of her laughably unschooled American etiquette, to dress properly (“muted colors”) so as to fit in. And then there’s the curtsy moment. Here, as an American, I saw the moment you sneer at entirely differently. In her almost comically broad curtsy, I saw her mocking herself, not the Queen; mocking her own awkward, Quixotic, girl-in-love desire to make the proper impression on a Queen who was also a (grand)parent who needed to be properly respected and impressed. What you saw as the ultimate diss to the royals, I saw as an entirely reasonable plea for compassion. I’ll repeat: these are my thoughts based on the first three episodes, not the three-episode dump that has just occurred. I do hope, though, that you’ll say something about the tabloid press and their capital-driven hunger for spectacle–especially racial spectacle, which is always good for sales.
well the timing of your article suggests that you may have had a chance to see the second batch of films, but the content suggests that you haven’t. To show so little compassion to Harry who suffered through his mother’s appalling ill treatment by the media, leading to her death after years of cruelty at the hands of the royal family, and then to see the muck-raking tabloids proceeding to destroy his new wlfe was more than a husband should have to bear, royal or otherwise.
Ill treatment by the media?? They doted on Diana and she lapped it up, creating the template her illegitimate offspring is now employing.
A just point Andrew, shame the Royalist tabloid readers on here only see what they want. I am going off Unherd.
Concur AD.
What is also really disappointing is the Palace seemed to try to use the funding for security protection as leverage. H served 10 yrs in the Army and twice went to Afghanistan. He therefore has a huge target on his back. M has clearly received more death threats than any other Royal. To thus try to link on-going Security support to a ‘toe the line’ approach is just a form of blackmail isn’t it? Probably not meant quite like that but come on that’s how it’s going to look.
One can see why they had to maximise their earnings. They need a lifetime of Security support. And I don’t blame them.
Look on the bright side, he hasn’t been dragged before the courts yet, as many who served elsewhere have, but then they were just the foot-soldiers.
Others have served in-country, too. If Harry were to get security on the basis of that, so should everyone who was over there. As for Meghan, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” We all make choices, but then must pay for them.
I think you’ll find the target on Harry’s back is somewhat larger than that on the average squaddie’s wherever they served. And it will be for rest of his life.
And of course they have got out of the kitchen and appears have a much better life now. That’ll really be what grates with some. They found a way to escape and fund their own security. Resourceful even if the TV series not to everyone’s taste.
They won’t be the last. The pattern will repeat itself. And of course give many the opportunity for outrage.
And thus the soap opera continues.
I think you’ll find the target on Harry’s back is somewhat larger than that on the average squaddie’s wherever they served. And it will be for rest of his life.
And of course they have got out of the kitchen and appears have a much better life now. That’ll really be what grates with some. They found a way to escape and fund their own security. Resourceful even if the TV series not to everyone’s taste.
They won’t be the last. The pattern will repeat itself. And of course give many the opportunity for outrage.
And thus the soap opera continues.
Look on the bright side, he hasn’t been dragged before the courts yet, as many who served elsewhere have, but then they were just the foot-soldiers.
Others have served in-country, too. If Harry were to get security on the basis of that, so should everyone who was over there. As for Meghan, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” We all make choices, but then must pay for them.
Ill treatment by the media?? They doted on Diana and she lapped it up, creating the template her illegitimate offspring is now employing.
A just point Andrew, shame the Royalist tabloid readers on here only see what they want. I am going off Unherd.
Concur AD.
What is also really disappointing is the Palace seemed to try to use the funding for security protection as leverage. H served 10 yrs in the Army and twice went to Afghanistan. He therefore has a huge target on his back. M has clearly received more death threats than any other Royal. To thus try to link on-going Security support to a ‘toe the line’ approach is just a form of blackmail isn’t it? Probably not meant quite like that but come on that’s how it’s going to look.
One can see why they had to maximise their earnings. They need a lifetime of Security support. And I don’t blame them.
well the timing of your article suggests that you may have had a chance to see the second batch of films, but the content suggests that you haven’t. To show so little compassion to Harry who suffered through his mother’s appalling ill treatment by the media, leading to her death after years of cruelty at the hands of the royal family, and then to see the muck-raking tabloids proceeding to destroy his new wlfe was more than a husband should have to bear, royal or otherwise.
My Mom is Scottish, though I’m an American. Despite remembering watching Harry’s parents wedding that was broadcast here on tv in America way back when, I still never got the whole “Royal Family” thing and still don’t.
Can someone please explain why nearly everyone in Great Britian seems so enamoured by a wealthy, elitist German family sponging off the backs of the populace? These monarchs have been getting the people of Britian into wars since Queen Victoria.
Certainly people here are blind followers as well but with the Royals, it’s more like a religion.
“Can someone please explain why nearly everyone in Great Britian seems so enamoured by a wealthy, elitist German family sponging off the backs of the populace?”
Ditto America with the wealthy, elitist and far more corrupt German Trump family!
I doubt most would equate the Royal Family with the Trump family on either side of the pond, in addition to that comment not being helpful at all.
I doubt most would equate the Royal Family with the Trump family on either side of the pond, in addition to that comment not being helpful at all.
Jim, You claim to be an American yet describe the Royal Family as German. Pray tell, how many generations does it require in order to define oneself as British? And why do you Americans not conform to the same standards?
As you say, you don’t get it. It’s difficult to explain, but it has a lot to do with with continuity, and with having a head of state who is not linked to any political party and so can represent all of the nation (even those who are republican). The Queen, or King now, is the personification of the state, and to bow to her/him is to honour the country and her people. That’s the best that I can do.
That was a pretty good explanation to me!
I agree it is a good explanation : it just happens that I do not agree with it. As I understand it, in the USA the embodiment/representation of the state is the flag, and people pay it due respect (but they do not, I understand, bow to it, or kneel down to it. That does not make it less special to Americans, or less important as a symbol). In the UK I do not believe that the monarch is a ‘personification’ of the state, and people who bow and scrape to the individuals tend to think (in my experience) that they do so because these are ‘special’ people : more than once I have described the late queen (who did an excellent job – as a head of state) as believing that she was actually “God’s special little pixie”. I think Charles thinks the same (except he thinks he is “the gods’ special little pixie.” Several of the hangers-on (Andrew, William, Harry etc.) also think they are in some way existentially special. Other countries have heads of state, but many of their citizens do not feel the need to abase themselves in prostration before them.
I thought we as a society had grown out of kowtowing to either ‘the state’ or someone whose job just happens to be the public figure at the front. I am disappointed to think that we have not. (And I am, on a related note, rather disgusted to see human beings slobbering over a bishop’s hand jewelery – you don’t know where the hand has been, for goodness sake. Probably best not to imagine.)
A moth eaten rag on a worm eaten pole
It doesn’t seem likely to stir a man’s soul,
but ’tis the deeds that were done ‘neath that moth eaten rag,
when the pole was a staff, and the rag was a flag.
Monarchy is like the flag, it rallies the troops and it reminds them of the deeds that were done after the rallying. One thing that Little Britain and its Empire will always be remembered for was that they sacrificed all, including the empire’s existence, to enable the US to eventually win a world war.
A moth eaten rag on a worm eaten pole
It doesn’t seem likely to stir a man’s soul,
but ’tis the deeds that were done ‘neath that moth eaten rag,
when the pole was a staff, and the rag was a flag.
Monarchy is like the flag, it rallies the troops and it reminds them of the deeds that were done after the rallying. One thing that Little Britain and its Empire will always be remembered for was that they sacrificed all, including the empire’s existence, to enable the US to eventually win a world war.
That was a pretty good explanation to me!
I agree it is a good explanation : it just happens that I do not agree with it. As I understand it, in the USA the embodiment/representation of the state is the flag, and people pay it due respect (but they do not, I understand, bow to it, or kneel down to it. That does not make it less special to Americans, or less important as a symbol). In the UK I do not believe that the monarch is a ‘personification’ of the state, and people who bow and scrape to the individuals tend to think (in my experience) that they do so because these are ‘special’ people : more than once I have described the late queen (who did an excellent job – as a head of state) as believing that she was actually “God’s special little pixie”. I think Charles thinks the same (except he thinks he is “the gods’ special little pixie.” Several of the hangers-on (Andrew, William, Harry etc.) also think they are in some way existentially special. Other countries have heads of state, but many of their citizens do not feel the need to abase themselves in prostration before them.
I thought we as a society had grown out of kowtowing to either ‘the state’ or someone whose job just happens to be the public figure at the front. I am disappointed to think that we have not. (And I am, on a related note, rather disgusted to see human beings slobbering over a bishop’s hand jewelery – you don’t know where the hand has been, for goodness sake. Probably best not to imagine.)
Good point. Monarchy indeed is a form of civil religion and it endures precisely because the associated symbolism has a binding and unifying function. It works as long as people take the responsibilities seriously as civic duties. Which for instance the author emphasises by contrasting the differences between William and Harry.
However I am equally incredulous that Americans like yourself are unable to see what is apparent to those outside the USA – that you have your own secular religion which has kept Americans unified and connected as a “we the people”. For instance your literal reverence for the presidency (European leaders could only dream of such adulation), the democratic theatre of electioning (reminiscent of ancient Athenian ritual religious ceremonies), and your shared devotion to your founding sacred scriptures – the declaration of independence, and Bill of Rights, which are literally on display in a secular temple and to which countless Americans (not just foreign tourists) visit Washington to pay homage.
Good points, but I think that there is a qualitative difference. Americans seem to me to be able to distinguish between the office “Mr President” and the holder of the office “That sleazeball Clinton”(for example). There are many Brits who seem incapable of doing this.
Your initial paragraph covered my question. The second one, in my opinion was completely unnecessary. I was not trying to compare one to another but to understand the thinking of many of the people in Great Britian. I thought perhaps I’ve been missing out on something that my ancestors have long understood that has eluded me.
Good points, but I think that there is a qualitative difference. Americans seem to me to be able to distinguish between the office “Mr President” and the holder of the office “That sleazeball Clinton”(for example). There are many Brits who seem incapable of doing this.
Your initial paragraph covered my question. The second one, in my opinion was completely unnecessary. I was not trying to compare one to another but to understand the thinking of many of the people in Great Britian. I thought perhaps I’ve been missing out on something that my ancestors have long understood that has eluded me.
There are three arms of government in the UK: the legislative, (Parliament),the judiciary (courts and police) and the executive (Civil Service). In the middle as a kind of balance or pivot is the monarchy. The monarch signs off the laws but doesn’t make them, appoints judges on advice and is subject to the law, and appoints ministers and ministry heads on advice without running the country. It is apolitical and acts only on advice. It can’t start or stop wars, change laws etc. In some ways it is powerless. The person inhabiting the role of monarch is expected to represent the people and take an interest in our lives by going all around the country carrying out duties that please the community. The British asked George 1st to come across because more than anything the country wanted peace. It hadn’t enjoyed the Civil War. In short the monarch embodies the British people without any real power. It exists by consent. Lesson over!
Plus, most importantly, the monarch is the head of the armed forces which allows the forces continuity and remoteness from politics – an amazingly good feature of the British constitution.
Plus, most importantly, the monarch is the head of the armed forces which allows the forces continuity and remoteness from politics – an amazingly good feature of the British constitution.
“Can someone please explain why nearly everyone in Great Britian seems so enamoured by a wealthy, elitist German family sponging off the backs of the populace?”
Ditto America with the wealthy, elitist and far more corrupt German Trump family!
Jim, You claim to be an American yet describe the Royal Family as German. Pray tell, how many generations does it require in order to define oneself as British? And why do you Americans not conform to the same standards?
As you say, you don’t get it. It’s difficult to explain, but it has a lot to do with with continuity, and with having a head of state who is not linked to any political party and so can represent all of the nation (even those who are republican). The Queen, or King now, is the personification of the state, and to bow to her/him is to honour the country and her people. That’s the best that I can do.
Good point. Monarchy indeed is a form of civil religion and it endures precisely because the associated symbolism has a binding and unifying function. It works as long as people take the responsibilities seriously as civic duties. Which for instance the author emphasises by contrasting the differences between William and Harry.
However I am equally incredulous that Americans like yourself are unable to see what is apparent to those outside the USA – that you have your own secular religion which has kept Americans unified and connected as a “we the people”. For instance your literal reverence for the presidency (European leaders could only dream of such adulation), the democratic theatre of electioning (reminiscent of ancient Athenian ritual religious ceremonies), and your shared devotion to your founding sacred scriptures – the declaration of independence, and Bill of Rights, which are literally on display in a secular temple and to which countless Americans (not just foreign tourists) visit Washington to pay homage.
There are three arms of government in the UK: the legislative, (Parliament),the judiciary (courts and police) and the executive (Civil Service). In the middle as a kind of balance or pivot is the monarchy. The monarch signs off the laws but doesn’t make them, appoints judges on advice and is subject to the law, and appoints ministers and ministry heads on advice without running the country. It is apolitical and acts only on advice. It can’t start or stop wars, change laws etc. In some ways it is powerless. The person inhabiting the role of monarch is expected to represent the people and take an interest in our lives by going all around the country carrying out duties that please the community. The British asked George 1st to come across because more than anything the country wanted peace. It hadn’t enjoyed the Civil War. In short the monarch embodies the British people without any real power. It exists by consent. Lesson over!
My Mom is Scottish, though I’m an American. Despite remembering watching Harry’s parents wedding that was broadcast here on tv in America way back when, I still never got the whole “Royal Family” thing and still don’t.
Can someone please explain why nearly everyone in Great Britian seems so enamoured by a wealthy, elitist German family sponging off the backs of the populace? These monarchs have been getting the people of Britian into wars since Queen Victoria.
Certainly people here are blind followers as well but with the Royals, it’s more like a religion.