X Close

Harry and Meghan’s Montecito prison More feuds will haunt their Californian dream

Who needs reality? (Chris Jackson/Getty Images for Invictus Games Dusseldorf 2023)

Who needs reality? (Chris Jackson/Getty Images for Invictus Games Dusseldorf 2023)


January 13, 2023   5 mins

Jeremy Clarkson’s savage polemic against Meghan Markle, with its sick fantasy of splattering her naked body with mud, may be of interest to, of all people, philosophers. Philosophers of language talk about “performatives”, meaning bits of language which get something done. Examples would be “I promise to lend you five pounds”, or “I name this overweight old hulk the Jeremy Clarkson”.

Clarkson’s words are performative because they don’t just describe a violent assault; they are one. The ancient Greeks saw a closer relation than we do between verbal and physical aggression: the word “sarcasm” derives from “sarkazein”, a word of theirs meaning to tear the flesh. Verbal onslaughts can be a lot more wounding than physical punch-ups. To adapt the old adage, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will really hurt me.

Although her husband has just published a new memoir, Meghan has always been the focus of the latest moral panic to overtake the British middle classes. These spasms of the national psyche break out from time to time, perhaps according to some secret historical law. The last couple of decades of the 19th century were rife with a loathing of so-called decadence: anarchists, opium dens, sexy French novels, flamboyant aesthetes, most of which could be summarised in two sinister words: Oscar Wilde. (Wilde was also an Irish immigrant, which didn’t help.)

Much of this culture was recycled in the Sixties, though the hair got longer, women could (just about) rebel along with men, and the dope changed from opium to marijuana. Among the targets of the nation’s collective moral wrath were The Rolling Stones, a bunch of innocuous youths who triggered a frenzy of puritan outrage laced with sexual envy. Even The Beatles, goodies to the Stones’s baddies, offended some Americans with their hairstyles. (“What do you call that hairstyle?” a US reporter asked Ringo disdainfully. “Arthur,” he replied.) With the campaigning of Mary Whitehouse, the fear and disgust assumed an organised form, hooking up with the churches and the odd dotty aristocrat. Nowadays, it comes from those who find an orgasmic fulfilment in the roar of a Porsche’s engine.

The characters may differ, but it’s always the same storyline. Traditional values are being corroded by some insidious force. The nation’s fibre is being fatally weakened by (and here you can choose) sex, immigrants, liberal-mindedness, sentimentalism, self-indulgence or excessive sensitivity. Meghan is just a contemporary name for these various forms of pollution. She may be an immigrant from America rather than Albania, arriving in a first-class aircraft cabin rather than a dingy, but the desire to defile her flesh is partly to do with the alien culture she represents, which is not so much the States as California. And California, like Rome, is more of an idea rather than a place.

In the meeting of Harry and Meghan, we could actually see the polluting process in action. In the eyes of traditionalists, an upright young Marine with an  impressively high kill-rate, a credit to the British values of loyalty, duty and self-discipline, had been publicly hi-jacked by an ethnically hybrid, touchy-feely starlet who probably consults her astrological chart to decide which colour of tights to wear. It’s hard luck for Clarkson and his kind that this soap-opera star, far from being just one pesky woman, represents a whole shift in social sensibility. It’s increasingly the sensibility of the young, which means that it’s here to stay for quite a while.

With the entry of this American vampire in London into the highest family in the land, woke culture finally penetrated the inmost sanctum of the Establishment and exposed its uglier features. A royal family which ritually praises diversity in the Commonwealth couldn’t handle it on its own doorstep. The battle is now on between American self-expression and British restraint, feeling and convention, wokery and Windsor. In fact, if one wants to be fanciful about it, the American Revolution is being fought out in miniature for a second time. Once again, an America which felt neglected and mistreated by a stiff-necked British Establishment has spurned the Crown and been driven into revolt.

“Woke”, in fact, is a meaningless term — a floating signifier you can stuff with whatever you want. As Zoe Williams wrote in the Guardian: “a hate figure has been created, a shibboleth, a means by which bigots can identify one another and give voice to their prejudice, without fear of censure.” But though woke may be a senseless term, it’s a highly convenient one. Even puce-faced old buffers in Pall Mall clubs are now aware that it isn’t permissible to be openly racist or sexist, so “woke” acts as a useful displacement. You can’t be anti-women, but you can be anti-woke, which means speaking up for good old-fashioned public-school values. Shut up whining, take your punishment like a man, stop picking over your fine feelings and if your head is reeling with confusion stick it under the shower. It’s a philosophy which can be encapsulated in four words — the Duke of Edinburgh — and Meghan is its nemesis. That the Duke’s exit from the royal stage and her entry on to it should have roughly coincided is neatly symbolic.

Meghan has done for her partner what, shamefully, not a single member of his grotesquely dysfunctional family seems to have done: helped him to come to terms with his grief over his mother’s death. That this involved a dash of spookery and psychobabble is neither here nor there. The task clearly couldn’t be left to men whose idea of how to treat newly bereaved children is to wake them up with the news in the middle of the night and then force them to go to church the next morning. More generally, Meghan showed Harry that he was living in an invisible cage, and smuggled in the crowbars by which he could be sprung. He could now see his surroundings through the distancing eyes of a stranger. His partner, to be fanciful once more, is a Henry James-type American heroine who sniffs a whiff of violence and corruption beneath the elegance of old Europe.

The couple escaped, however, to a place which has more in common with their former prison than they might like to think. Both Buckingham Palace and the Californian elite revolve on myths, images and fantasises. Both are places of staggering wealth and privilege which in the form of Hollywood present a facade of harmony and happiness behind which lurk lethal feuds and rivalries. The British monarchy is the longest-running Reality TV show in the world, an upper-class version of Eastenders. The Sussexes have fled from one arena of unreality to another. Both locations are philistine and semi-literate. The difference is that whereas the new world flaunts both its wealth and its feelings, the royal family coyly conceals both. The former is emotionally incontinent, while the latter is emotionally anaesthetised. The royals are public figures with all the reserve of private ones, while Harry and Meghan now belong to a sphere in which the concept of privacy has no place. The social order the prince has left behind believes in sacrificing the self — in duty, honour and obedience — while the world he has embraced is full of extravagant egoism. Neither of them is much engaged with what one might loosely call reality.

There are, then, two stories to be told. The first is that of an enlightened, democratically-minded young woman who causes the scales to fall from the deluded eyes of a moderately Tory ex-soldier. In a rare moment of illumination, he realises that he has spent his life incarcerated in a cockpit of snobbery, racism, deceit and emotional violence, all of it served up in the best possible taste, and breaks with a lifetime’s social conditioning to make a courageous bid for freedom. In the second story, an autocratic young prima donna sinks her claws into a former upper-class yobbo-turned-Marine, and persuades him to desert his duties and family bonds for a shallow, enormously lucrative career as a star of the very media he has previously denounced. Converting themselves overnight from glamorous but dignified figures into commodities on sale in the marketplace, Harry and Meghan vilify those closest to them and whine all the way to the bank about the injustices they have endured at the hands of the Establishment.

There is something to be said for both versions. They don’t, however, weigh equally in the scales, not least if one recalls the vicious abuse Meghan has suffered and Harry’s awakening to the shackles in which he had been living unawares. The couple were surely right to make their escape. Nor is there a contradiction between Harry slagging off his family one minute and asking for reconciliation the next. Telling the truth makes reconciliation hard, maybe impossible; but without the truth it will simply be a sham.


Terry Eagleton is a critic, literary theorist, and UnHerd columnist.


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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

214 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago

“Clarkson’s words are performative because they don’t just describe a violent assault; they are one.”
Rubbish. Words are not violence regardless of intent. They cannot be by definition. It is assertions such as this drivel which fuels the sophistic hysteria which seems to have gripped so many. The author included.

“Meghan has done for her partner what, shamefully, not a single member of his grotesquely dysfunctional family seems to have done: helped him to come to terms with his grief over his mother’s death.”
More rubbish. The boy clearly hasn’t come to terms with anything but has instead taken refuge in progressive politics and emotional incontinence.
His family is no more dysfunctional than most and less so than many.
Grieving is one of the most important processes we go though in life and is a vital component in the transition from child to adult. Nothing about this boy suggests we are dealing with an adult. It is often through processing grief that we open up to deaths’ universal nature and to the suffering of all. Nothing that has come from that boys’ mouth has suggested he is aware of anyones’ problems but his own.
His grief has given birth to conceit, fury and self obsession.
He and his wife have walked away from a position where they could have been of service to many.
What a waste.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

A thousand times yes! His family dysfunction is unique but not special. The lack of self awareness and gratitude is the hallmark of a retarded maturation. On a personal level I pity both him and Megan. Harry seemingly incapable of taking responsibility for himself and Megan destined to create her own He’ll on Earth whoever she goes.
I disagree with your last point. These two people were never in a position to be in service to anyone. Perhaps Harry in another two decades, one decade divorced will write another memoir, as a sensitive, humbled man and prove us wrong. That’s a book I’d like to read.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

You may well be right.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

I’d like to remind you that Harry is still growing up in that he has only recently removed the shackles that the Royal Institution imposes on its family members. He is in new territory but will become much more well rounded because in California he will be free to express his feelings and thereby grow and develop. Those who are restrained are never able to be themselves. He is still in the process of “becoming”. We will have to wait and see what he does with himself in the coming years before any of us can criticise and censor him. He was born with a golden spoon in his mouth but the price of retaining it meant constriction – I think he has found a way to go it alone and that is better than being a parasite.

Geoff Cooper
Geoff Cooper
1 year ago

Oh this is great stuff Elizabeth, ‘he is still in the process of “becoming”! and ‘that is better than being a parasite’ oh you’re too cruel Elizabeth, – priceless!

Matthew Wilson
Matthew Wilson
1 year ago

Still in the process of “becoming” 



 a bit like Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs.

Jean Pierre Noel
Jean Pierre Noel
1 year ago

He’s the definition of a parasite.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago

Endlessly expressing your feelings, victimhood and ‘truth’ being the main virtue nowadays. It is tragic, from the (younger) man who championed the Invicta games, something of true social value.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Yes! Imagine having to keep the wound open, suffer and whinge, on and on and on. Or — you become poor and uninteresting. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Out of The Firm, and into actual hell on earth. Sorry for him, rather less so for her.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Yes! Imagine having to keep the wound open, suffer and whinge, on and on and on. Or — you become poor and uninteresting. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Out of The Firm, and into actual hell on earth. Sorry for him, rather less so for her.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

horse manure.

Alice Rowlands
Alice Rowlands
1 year ago

I don’t think Harry will ever grow up now he has retired to la-la land.
But staying in the firm is no guarantee of achieving maturity any more than active service – just look at wicked Uncle Andrew – another infantile entitled ex-military spare.
His memoir is fascinating because he has so many delusions and because he has clearly been desperately unhappy since Diana died and truly believes Meghan has liberated him from the dismal prison of royalty.
In which case she resembles not so much his beloved mother as another American divorcee that a royal gentleman simply could not live without.
Charles is fortunate that he gets to have Camilla and keep his crown. He was basically miserable until he married her.
Harry was raised by a desperately unhappy woman who felt hopelessly trapped and he seems to have absorbed all her hostility towards the firm.
Unfortunately they are his blood family and yet he seems determined to play Diana’s avenging angel when had she lived it is quite likely she would have mellowed with maturity and reconciled with Charles and even with Camilla which might have given Harry a chance to reconcile, move on and grow up.
I doubt now that he ever will as he seems stuck at the moment his mother died in full victim mode which Meghan knows exactly how to use to her advantage.

Geoff Cooper
Geoff Cooper
1 year ago

Oh this is great stuff Elizabeth, ‘he is still in the process of “becoming”! and ‘that is better than being a parasite’ oh you’re too cruel Elizabeth, – priceless!

Matthew Wilson
Matthew Wilson
1 year ago

Still in the process of “becoming” 



 a bit like Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs.

Jean Pierre Noel
Jean Pierre Noel
1 year ago

He’s the definition of a parasite.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 year ago

Endlessly expressing your feelings, victimhood and ‘truth’ being the main virtue nowadays. It is tragic, from the (younger) man who championed the Invicta games, something of true social value.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

horse manure.

Alice Rowlands
Alice Rowlands
1 year ago

I don’t think Harry will ever grow up now he has retired to la-la land.
But staying in the firm is no guarantee of achieving maturity any more than active service – just look at wicked Uncle Andrew – another infantile entitled ex-military spare.
His memoir is fascinating because he has so many delusions and because he has clearly been desperately unhappy since Diana died and truly believes Meghan has liberated him from the dismal prison of royalty.
In which case she resembles not so much his beloved mother as another American divorcee that a royal gentleman simply could not live without.
Charles is fortunate that he gets to have Camilla and keep his crown. He was basically miserable until he married her.
Harry was raised by a desperately unhappy woman who felt hopelessly trapped and he seems to have absorbed all her hostility towards the firm.
Unfortunately they are his blood family and yet he seems determined to play Diana’s avenging angel when had she lived it is quite likely she would have mellowed with maturity and reconciled with Charles and even with Camilla which might have given Harry a chance to reconcile, move on and grow up.
I doubt now that he ever will as he seems stuck at the moment his mother died in full victim mode which Meghan knows exactly how to use to her advantage.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

You may well be right.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

I’d like to remind you that Harry is still growing up in that he has only recently removed the shackles that the Royal Institution imposes on its family members. He is in new territory but will become much more well rounded because in California he will be free to express his feelings and thereby grow and develop. Those who are restrained are never able to be themselves. He is still in the process of “becoming”. We will have to wait and see what he does with himself in the coming years before any of us can criticise and censor him. He was born with a golden spoon in his mouth but the price of retaining it meant constriction – I think he has found a way to go it alone and that is better than being a parasite.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

My impression is that Harry hasn’t suddenly come to terms with his mother’s death, but that he has come around to thinking (misguidedly in my view) that splattering his grief and his emotions around in public is somehow the way forward. He might cloak it in a layer of “I just want to help people”, but to me it just seems tasteless and like he’s commercialising his mother’s death. I think the same about the publication of M’s miscarriage. Superficially, it was packaged as a taboo breaker, but for me it looked like crass attention seeking, jumping on the bandwagon…but with a topic so sensitive that no one may publicly doubt you. It’s horribly cynical.
This is also a place we see clearly the difference between the US and Britain: we Brits are just more buttoned up about things like this. Sometimes I think we suppress too much…but when I look at Harry putting everything out in public, I think that the British stiff upper lip still has a lot to commend it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Well, I think H&M and many others operate on the assumption that we only have two choices when faced with lifes’ troubles – suppression or expression. This is a false dichotomy. The third option is the most useful – investigation. Investigation as to how our suffering arises and investigation into how we react to it.
“Buttoned up” or “stiff upper lip” does not always mean suppression. It can also mean we see the folly of how unregulated expression feeds our suffering. And that by silently reflecting that death comes to us all, that we don’t know where or when, we can face our own death or the death of a loved one with greater equanimity. And be kinder and more forgiving of them in the meantime. Harrys’ constant complaining shows he hasn’t truly reflected on death. Poor lad. I hope he does. But he’d need to keep better company than he currently does for that to happen.
The development of wisdom is of far greater use than expressing our feelings. They constantly change, so the expressing of them never ends.

Last edited 1 year ago by N Forster
Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

What a great comment.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

You are so right, your comment is wiser by far than almost anything I have read on the subject.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

I’m not convinced that self-expression and wisdom are mutually exclusive. A wise, garulous person is not a contradiction in my book. What I do think is the case is that thoughts kept to yourself are always genuine, even when misguided, whereas thoughts expressed are often said for effect.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Sounds like Shakespeare.
Yea, there thou mak’st me sad and mak’st me sin 
In envy that my Lord Northumberland 
Should be the father to so blest a son—  
A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue, 
Amongst a grove the very straightest plant, 
Who is sweet Fortune’s minion and her pride— 
Whilst I, by looking on the praise of him 
See riot and dishonor stain the brow 
Of my young Harry. O, that it could be proved 
That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged 
In cradle clothes our children where they lay, 
And called mine Percy, his Plantagenet!

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Self expression may be of use during an investigation into how and why we suffer, but if it is the only tool in the box, you can expect only more suffering.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Sounds like Shakespeare.
Yea, there thou mak’st me sad and mak’st me sin 
In envy that my Lord Northumberland 
Should be the father to so blest a son—  
A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue, 
Amongst a grove the very straightest plant, 
Who is sweet Fortune’s minion and her pride— 
Whilst I, by looking on the praise of him 
See riot and dishonor stain the brow 
Of my young Harry. O, that it could be proved 
That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged 
In cradle clothes our children where they lay, 
And called mine Percy, his Plantagenet!

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

Self expression may be of use during an investigation into how and why we suffer, but if it is the only tool in the box, you can expect only more suffering.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Ah, I see you are familar with Stoical thought and practices.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Those thoughts came straight from traditional Theravadan Buddhism. Of the 40 topics of meditation mentioned in the Pali Canon, 9 of them are reflection on death. It is a very important topic.

Alison Tyler
Alison Tyler
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Living and sanity are greatly enhanced by reflection on mortality and most faiths and philosophies recommend it. It gets easier and more essential with increasing age.

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Interesting. To be fair, stoicism and Buddhism, though separate approaches to life, share many similarities in outlook.

Alison Tyler
Alison Tyler
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Living and sanity are greatly enhanced by reflection on mortality and most faiths and philosophies recommend it. It gets easier and more essential with increasing age.

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Interesting. To be fair, stoicism and Buddhism, though separate approaches to life, share many similarities in outlook.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

Those thoughts came straight from traditional Theravadan Buddhism. Of the 40 topics of meditation mentioned in the Pali Canon, 9 of them are reflection on death. It is a very important topic.

Sally Owen
Sally Owen
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Absolutely wonderful comment!


Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

What a great comment.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

You are so right, your comment is wiser by far than almost anything I have read on the subject.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

I’m not convinced that self-expression and wisdom are mutually exclusive. A wise, garulous person is not a contradiction in my book. What I do think is the case is that thoughts kept to yourself are always genuine, even when misguided, whereas thoughts expressed are often said for effect.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Ah, I see you are familar with Stoical thought and practices.

Sally Owen
Sally Owen
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Absolutely wonderful comment!


John Croteau
John Croteau
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Please don’t insult Americans by claiming Meghan is representative of our people and culture. She and Harry are equally repulsive to the majority of Americans. Yes, our culture produced Meghan, but Harry is arguably worse. That’s all on Britain.

Patrick Paget
Patrick Paget
1 year ago
Reply to  John Croteau

No Americans are far worse, those (some of them) from California, New York and Portland. luckily ours come from Islington only and a bit from Scotland. And that’s on you !

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  John Croteau

I didn’t claim that. Please read my comment properly. I just said that Brits tend to be a bit more buttoned-up and reserved than Americans are…which – at least in my experience – is true. Take the attitude to therapy: in the States, lots of people just go to a “shrink” for the purposes of general or preventative mental hygiene, whereas in Britain I don’t think you’d really seek out a mental health professional unless something had already gone wrong with you – precisely because talking about your feelings openly is less culturally ingrained.
Pointing out a cultural difference if not necessarily an insult or an accusation!
I’m wholly uninterested in any discussion about whether Harry or Meghan is worse – to me they are both vile in their own, individual way. And collectively…the worst of the US joined with the worst of the UK in matrimony to form one giant, unappealing marital unit.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Dont you realize that there are all levels of “culture, breeding and whatever you would like to call it in every country? Please stop inferring that UK culture is more refined than US culture. Americans are no more truly represented by television shows than are Britians. 
.. However, I do agree with your last sentence.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Helana 0

I said nothing of the sort. I said Brits are like this, Americans are different. No value judgment involved – a simple observation. There are advantages and disadvantages of both ways of being.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Helana 0

I said nothing of the sort. I said Brits are like this, Americans are different. No value judgment involved – a simple observation. There are advantages and disadvantages of both ways of being.

Alan Kaufman
Alan Kaufman
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

As an American, take my word that we’re just fine with your insights!

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Dont you realize that there are all levels of “culture, breeding and whatever you would like to call it in every country? Please stop inferring that UK culture is more refined than US culture. Americans are no more truly represented by television shows than are Britians. 
.. However, I do agree with your last sentence.

Alan Kaufman
Alan Kaufman
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

As an American, take my word that we’re just fine with your insights!

Patrick Paget
Patrick Paget
1 year ago
Reply to  John Croteau

No Americans are far worse, those (some of them) from California, New York and Portland. luckily ours come from Islington only and a bit from Scotland. And that’s on you !

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  John Croteau

I didn’t claim that. Please read my comment properly. I just said that Brits tend to be a bit more buttoned-up and reserved than Americans are…which – at least in my experience – is true. Take the attitude to therapy: in the States, lots of people just go to a “shrink” for the purposes of general or preventative mental hygiene, whereas in Britain I don’t think you’d really seek out a mental health professional unless something had already gone wrong with you – precisely because talking about your feelings openly is less culturally ingrained.
Pointing out a cultural difference if not necessarily an insult or an accusation!
I’m wholly uninterested in any discussion about whether Harry or Meghan is worse – to me they are both vile in their own, individual way. And collectively…the worst of the US joined with the worst of the UK in matrimony to form one giant, unappealing marital unit.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I agreed with all you wrote until, ‘Sometimes I think we [Brits] suppress too much’. Are you talking about Edwardian Britain as it is portayed on TV or actual, contempory Britain?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

I’ve been living abroad for a long time, so perhaps my views are a bit outdated…but they do still hold true for the Brits who form my social and familial networks. Passive aggressive silences as a form of relationship diplomacy and not showing a lot of emotion outwardly are still common, I find.

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Those same networks with the same philosophies also exist in the US and other countries.

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Those same networks with the same philosophies also exist in the US and other countries.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Keith Merrick

I’ve been living abroad for a long time, so perhaps my views are a bit outdated…but they do still hold true for the Brits who form my social and familial networks. Passive aggressive silences as a form of relationship diplomacy and not showing a lot of emotion outwardly are still common, I find.

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Please dont confuse the majority of Americans with the Hollywood mentality. I dont know anyone in the US that thinks Harrys babble is appropriate.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Well, I think H&M and many others operate on the assumption that we only have two choices when faced with lifes’ troubles – suppression or expression. This is a false dichotomy. The third option is the most useful – investigation. Investigation as to how our suffering arises and investigation into how we react to it.
“Buttoned up” or “stiff upper lip” does not always mean suppression. It can also mean we see the folly of how unregulated expression feeds our suffering. And that by silently reflecting that death comes to us all, that we don’t know where or when, we can face our own death or the death of a loved one with greater equanimity. And be kinder and more forgiving of them in the meantime. Harrys’ constant complaining shows he hasn’t truly reflected on death. Poor lad. I hope he does. But he’d need to keep better company than he currently does for that to happen.
The development of wisdom is of far greater use than expressing our feelings. They constantly change, so the expressing of them never ends.

Last edited 1 year ago by N Forster
John Croteau
John Croteau
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Please don’t insult Americans by claiming Meghan is representative of our people and culture. She and Harry are equally repulsive to the majority of Americans. Yes, our culture produced Meghan, but Harry is arguably worse. That’s all on Britain.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I agreed with all you wrote until, ‘Sometimes I think we [Brits] suppress too much’. Are you talking about Edwardian Britain as it is portayed on TV or actual, contempory Britain?

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Please dont confuse the majority of Americans with the Hollywood mentality. I dont know anyone in the US that thinks Harrys babble is appropriate.

R Kays
R Kays
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Have to agree.

Then, there’s this:

“ Once again, an America which felt neglected and mistreated by a stiff-necked British Establishment has spurned the Crown and been driven into revolt.”

Blather in the highest. I may have gagged reading this drivel.

These two chose their porridge and now they must eat it — lumps and all.

Harry? Hard to know how a man could be so easily manipulated. But, there it is.

Gill Holway
Gill Holway
1 year ago
Reply to  R Kays

Equally ad to say that most women know which bits of a man to keep a grip on …and its not always those bits…. though it helps!!

Gill Holway
Gill Holway
1 year ago
Reply to  R Kays

Equally ad to say that most women know which bits of a man to keep a grip on …and its not always those bits…. though it helps!!

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

BRAVO!

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

His family is no more dysfunctional than most and less so than many.

Got to love the British tradition of understatement. No need to claim the family is not dysfunctional – only no more dysfunctional than others. But then given the state of British society today (more children out of wedlock for quite a while now), ends up being faint praise anyhow.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

I wonder if you have ever experienced the liberating openness of living in Califofnia, as I did. I used to be an emotional retard compared to the confident and freer person that I have become as a result of learning that there is no shame in feelings. The Californians have something really good going on there and their honesty about things, the truth, although not necessarily palatable, provides a healing component which is good for mental health. It is my opinion that Harry caught on to this. As a person he will benefit greatly. Had I been born in his position in that institution I would have escaped also.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago

Yes, he will benefit millions of dollars.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

May I suggest, that what you experienced in your California sojourn was not Deep California. Many of us have been almost four hundred years on this continent, working our way slowly westwards, to avoid seeing the smoke of a neighbor’s chimney. Stoicism and reserve in communcating are valued, as survival oriented actions. “Least said, soonest mended.” The Hollywood riffraff live on the surface. Those who come here to seek truth, drugs, therapy and “healing” are to the real West as the misbehaving North European tourists are to the Costa del Sol — distinct from the ancient and sober Andalucian culture. They feel liberated because they are playing “out foreign”. My guess is, Harry, with his foreign wife and foreign home, is seeking redefinition in “the other” … yet even the hippies said, “Where you go, there you are.”

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Indeed the California experiment is a complete success, provided you have access to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and don’t have to walk the mean streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles, where robbery has effectively become legal and the place is sinking under its debt, its heavy tax load, and its hypocritical governor, who insisted people keep their masks on BETWEEN BITES OF FOOD while at the same time whooping it up maskless with his pals. Yeah, California is the place to be, all right.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago

Yes, he will benefit millions of dollars.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

May I suggest, that what you experienced in your California sojourn was not Deep California. Many of us have been almost four hundred years on this continent, working our way slowly westwards, to avoid seeing the smoke of a neighbor’s chimney. Stoicism and reserve in communcating are valued, as survival oriented actions. “Least said, soonest mended.” The Hollywood riffraff live on the surface. Those who come here to seek truth, drugs, therapy and “healing” are to the real West as the misbehaving North European tourists are to the Costa del Sol — distinct from the ancient and sober Andalucian culture. They feel liberated because they are playing “out foreign”. My guess is, Harry, with his foreign wife and foreign home, is seeking redefinition in “the other” … yet even the hippies said, “Where you go, there you are.”

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Indeed the California experiment is a complete success, provided you have access to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and don’t have to walk the mean streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles, where robbery has effectively become legal and the place is sinking under its debt, its heavy tax load, and its hypocritical governor, who insisted people keep their masks on BETWEEN BITES OF FOOD while at the same time whooping it up maskless with his pals. Yeah, California is the place to be, all right.

alistair pope
alistair pope
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Any year now he will realise he has nothing left to give – and that the world has nothing left to give him.
Harry & Megan – Chief WalMart Greeters – 2023
Most infamous divorced couple – 2024
First Prince to claim UK unemployment benefits (offered rooms in the Tower) – 2025
Accepted back into the royal fold as Governor for Life of St Helena (Elba was not available) – 2026
Megan becomes a Jillaroo on an Australian outback property having claimed aboriginal ancestry – 2027 
.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

What a mad article.
All I can see, however hard I look is a bloke who has not got anywhere near being over the death of his mum when he was young, in a very privileged and prominent family.
And a woman who seeing this has thought through how to monetise the whole thing, by going to America (that ‘Canada’ option that still gets the odd mention wasn’t real in any sense..they didn’t ‘give it a go’ then decide it had to be California..it was California all along.
Many accusations…the alleged remark about wondering what the colour the baby may be…seem to get made vaguely, slurring just about anybody and everybody..and then just forgotten about as they overtaken by more allegations.
They’re making money and if just doing that makes someone a woke hero then fine.
But they’re doing it by doing exactly those things they accuse others of..selective briefings (and memory) and breaking confidences, for money, in the media.
For me that makes them both just everyday, ordinary hypocrites.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

A thousand times yes! His family dysfunction is unique but not special. The lack of self awareness and gratitude is the hallmark of a retarded maturation. On a personal level I pity both him and Megan. Harry seemingly incapable of taking responsibility for himself and Megan destined to create her own He’ll on Earth whoever she goes.
I disagree with your last point. These two people were never in a position to be in service to anyone. Perhaps Harry in another two decades, one decade divorced will write another memoir, as a sensitive, humbled man and prove us wrong. That’s a book I’d like to read.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

My impression is that Harry hasn’t suddenly come to terms with his mother’s death, but that he has come around to thinking (misguidedly in my view) that splattering his grief and his emotions around in public is somehow the way forward. He might cloak it in a layer of “I just want to help people”, but to me it just seems tasteless and like he’s commercialising his mother’s death. I think the same about the publication of M’s miscarriage. Superficially, it was packaged as a taboo breaker, but for me it looked like crass attention seeking, jumping on the bandwagon…but with a topic so sensitive that no one may publicly doubt you. It’s horribly cynical.
This is also a place we see clearly the difference between the US and Britain: we Brits are just more buttoned up about things like this. Sometimes I think we suppress too much…but when I look at Harry putting everything out in public, I think that the British stiff upper lip still has a lot to commend it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
R Kays
R Kays
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Have to agree.

Then, there’s this:

“ Once again, an America which felt neglected and mistreated by a stiff-necked British Establishment has spurned the Crown and been driven into revolt.”

Blather in the highest. I may have gagged reading this drivel.

These two chose their porridge and now they must eat it — lumps and all.

Harry? Hard to know how a man could be so easily manipulated. But, there it is.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

BRAVO!

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

His family is no more dysfunctional than most and less so than many.

Got to love the British tradition of understatement. No need to claim the family is not dysfunctional – only no more dysfunctional than others. But then given the state of British society today (more children out of wedlock for quite a while now), ends up being faint praise anyhow.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

I wonder if you have ever experienced the liberating openness of living in Califofnia, as I did. I used to be an emotional retard compared to the confident and freer person that I have become as a result of learning that there is no shame in feelings. The Californians have something really good going on there and their honesty about things, the truth, although not necessarily palatable, provides a healing component which is good for mental health. It is my opinion that Harry caught on to this. As a person he will benefit greatly. Had I been born in his position in that institution I would have escaped also.

alistair pope
alistair pope
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

Any year now he will realise he has nothing left to give – and that the world has nothing left to give him.
Harry & Megan – Chief WalMart Greeters – 2023
Most infamous divorced couple – 2024
First Prince to claim UK unemployment benefits (offered rooms in the Tower) – 2025
Accepted back into the royal fold as Governor for Life of St Helena (Elba was not available) – 2026
Megan becomes a Jillaroo on an Australian outback property having claimed aboriginal ancestry – 2027 
.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
1 year ago
Reply to  N Forster

What a mad article.
All I can see, however hard I look is a bloke who has not got anywhere near being over the death of his mum when he was young, in a very privileged and prominent family.
And a woman who seeing this has thought through how to monetise the whole thing, by going to America (that ‘Canada’ option that still gets the odd mention wasn’t real in any sense..they didn’t ‘give it a go’ then decide it had to be California..it was California all along.
Many accusations…the alleged remark about wondering what the colour the baby may be…seem to get made vaguely, slurring just about anybody and everybody..and then just forgotten about as they overtaken by more allegations.
They’re making money and if just doing that makes someone a woke hero then fine.
But they’re doing it by doing exactly those things they accuse others of..selective briefings (and memory) and breaking confidences, for money, in the media.
For me that makes them both just everyday, ordinary hypocrites.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago

“Clarkson’s words are performative because they don’t just describe a violent assault; they are one.”
Rubbish. Words are not violence regardless of intent. They cannot be by definition. It is assertions such as this drivel which fuels the sophistic hysteria which seems to have gripped so many. The author included.

“Meghan has done for her partner what, shamefully, not a single member of his grotesquely dysfunctional family seems to have done: helped him to come to terms with his grief over his mother’s death.”
More rubbish. The boy clearly hasn’t come to terms with anything but has instead taken refuge in progressive politics and emotional incontinence.
His family is no more dysfunctional than most and less so than many.
Grieving is one of the most important processes we go though in life and is a vital component in the transition from child to adult. Nothing about this boy suggests we are dealing with an adult. It is often through processing grief that we open up to deaths’ universal nature and to the suffering of all. Nothing that has come from that boys’ mouth has suggested he is aware of anyones’ problems but his own.
His grief has given birth to conceit, fury and self obsession.
He and his wife have walked away from a position where they could have been of service to many.
What a waste.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Eagleton has made a career out of misunderstanding the world around him, to the delectation of Guardianistas and their ilk. It would be amusing if he could write with some originality or style. Instead, this clichéd piece serves only to alert us to the banality of the Marxist worldview.

Like Giles Fraser’s essay yesterday, using the H&M saga to push their own skewed perspective is becoming increasingly tawdry, and in this case, so far behind the curve as to have lost sight of the axis.

Just one example: he thinks he’s being revelatory about Meghan’s influence on her husband. Tell us something we don’t know, Terry.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Eagleton seems to have mastered the art of being eloquent without allowing even an ounce of wisdom to creep into his work. An experienced sophist.
At least in Giles piece yesterday he admitted the most important realisation that H&M are still to reach – that it isn’t all about them.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Eagleton’s main difficulty is that, like so many leftist academics, he finds it almost impossible to conceal the depth of his snobbery and contempt for ‘ordinary’ people. This piece, full of his trademark aching self-regard, is an almost perfect example.

Richard 0
Richard 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Why is this old bore (Eagleton, not you) writing for Unherd? This piece it could be straight out of the Guardian in its predictability – yawn…

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard 0

Quite.
I’m sure Unherd Comments will let me know if i ever qualify for that epithet!

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard 0

That said, it’s always fascinating to read ‘the other side’ – the misconstrued, the ‘real philosophers’ to understand their cynicism and lunacy and twisted logic.

Andy Martin
Andy Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Absolutely!
To avoid UnHerd becoming an echo chamber of writers that we might more or less be in accord with, let’s have more Terry Eagleton and how about getting other Guardian columnists such as Afua Hirsch to write one of her grievance mongering articles?
Note that the Guardian have long stopped opening her articles for comment, so at least least UnHerd readers can have the opportunity to comment on her usual race baiting and weaponizing of history.

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Martin

Or we could bring back dog-fighting !

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
1 year ago
Reply to  Andy Martin

Or we could bring back dog-fighting !

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Bad for one’s blood pressure, though.

Richard Gasson
Richard Gasson
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

I couldn’t agree more

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

we hear this “other side” regularly. I joined unherd to get the “other other side.”

Andy Martin
Andy Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Absolutely!
To avoid UnHerd becoming an echo chamber of writers that we might more or less be in accord with, let’s have more Terry Eagleton and how about getting other Guardian columnists such as Afua Hirsch to write one of her grievance mongering articles?
Note that the Guardian have long stopped opening her articles for comment, so at least least UnHerd readers can have the opportunity to comment on her usual race baiting and weaponizing of history.

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Bad for one’s blood pressure, though.

Richard Gasson
Richard Gasson
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

I couldn’t agree more

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

we hear this “other side” regularly. I joined unherd to get the “other other side.”

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard 0

Quite.
I’m sure Unherd Comments will let me know if i ever qualify for that epithet!

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard 0

That said, it’s always fascinating to read ‘the other side’ – the misconstrued, the ‘real philosophers’ to understand their cynicism and lunacy and twisted logic.

N Forster
N Forster
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Eagleton seems to have mastered the art of being eloquent without allowing even an ounce of wisdom to creep into his work. An experienced sophist.
At least in Giles piece yesterday he admitted the most important realisation that H&M are still to reach – that it isn’t all about them.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Eagleton’s main difficulty is that, like so many leftist academics, he finds it almost impossible to conceal the depth of his snobbery and contempt for ‘ordinary’ people. This piece, full of his trademark aching self-regard, is an almost perfect example.

Richard 0
Richard 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Why is this old bore (Eagleton, not you) writing for Unherd? This piece it could be straight out of the Guardian in its predictability – yawn…

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Eagleton has made a career out of misunderstanding the world around him, to the delectation of Guardianistas and their ilk. It would be amusing if he could write with some originality or style. Instead, this clichéd piece serves only to alert us to the banality of the Marxist worldview.

Like Giles Fraser’s essay yesterday, using the H&M saga to push their own skewed perspective is becoming increasingly tawdry, and in this case, so far behind the curve as to have lost sight of the axis.

Just one example: he thinks he’s being revelatory about Meghan’s influence on her husband. Tell us something we don’t know, Terry.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Richard Turpin
Richard Turpin
1 year ago

Words are not, never have been or ever will be violence. The concept of a person’s ‘truth’ has allowed this pair to say whatever they want under a guise that doesn’t allow for facts to get in the way of blatant self-serving hypocrisy.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Turpin

The people who proclaim words are violence (generally when facts contradict their claims) also proclaim silence is violence (when they believe others should support their generally unfounded claims).

Last edited 1 year ago by Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Turpin

The people who proclaim words are violence (generally when facts contradict their claims) also proclaim silence is violence (when they believe others should support their generally unfounded claims).

Last edited 1 year ago by Aphrodite Rises
Richard Turpin
Richard Turpin
1 year ago

Words are not, never have been or ever will be violence. The concept of a person’s ‘truth’ has allowed this pair to say whatever they want under a guise that doesn’t allow for facts to get in the way of blatant self-serving hypocrisy.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

There is so much objectionable tosh in this article that it’s hard to know where to start, so I’ll pick on a couple of items at random.
‘Woke, in fact, is a meaningless term.’ Following other comments, no it isn’t. It’s a catch-all term, admittedly. But the racialisation of everything, the destruction of history and tradition, the queering of society, the influence of trans ideology are all real enough. Show me an EDI course in a public institution, a child being groomed to consider different sexual inclinations and ‘non-binary’ gender options, national figures being vilified or written out of history, and I’ll show you woke in action.
‘The couple were surely right to make their escape.’ Back to H&M. This would be utterly boring if it were just a family feud rather than an assault on the constitution and fabric of this country. One of the most admirable things about Harry is how he achieved so much from such humble beginnings. The vast wealth, the California mansion, the hot celebrity wife, the attention of the world media, all earned through hard work and personal merit. Oh
 hang on! They haven’t made their escape, have they? It’s glaringly obvious to everyone except Harry that he owes his entire lifestyle and his public platform to being born into the Royal Family, even as the spare. I admit, I can’t imagine the ‘gilded cage’ aspects of royal life. But if you’re going to escape from it, then escape from it all. Don’t decry the responsibilities while luxuriating in the benefits. I can understand it – kudos for such astonishing lack of self-awareness – but I don’t respect it.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

As you say, “woke” is by no means meaningless. On the contrary, it has a profound meaning, though not necessarily an attractive one. Words of this kind have a long history in many languages. It’s a widespread, possibly universal, trope for theological or philosophical awakening. In our time, though, it refers to ideological awakening (which is one reason, among many, for examining wokism as a “secular religion”).
As used in connection with identity politics, the word originated in black slang among those who claimed to be seeing the underlying truth about America for the first time, as if they were waking up from a dream. But the trope goes back much further than ten or fifteen years ago. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for instance, American Protestants produced a series of “great awakenings,” followed by the evangelical tradition of revivalism. Thousands of years earlier, Hindus and Buddhists had claimed that people were “asleep” until they attained enlightenment, usually after many lifetimes, and could finally see beyond the illusions that obscure reality.
So why do people now reject the word that they coined for themselves? In other words, why has “woke” come to have a pejorative connotation? The answer is simple enough, at least in the current context. It’s because those who fit the description—those who actually believe that they have a monopoly on truth by virtue of their innate characteristics—are so very self-righteous in attitude (which gives new meaning to “holier than thou”) and so very arrogant in behavior (by fostering “cancel culture”). You could argue—and I do—that they deserve an ironic label, one that throws the pious hypocrisy back in their faces.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Bravo

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

It’s become pejorative because in reality it’s not a set of positive ideas. It’s regressive, reality-denying, and racist. And at the moment, it controls virtually all, if not all, of our major institutions, including academe, media, the corporate world, and increasingly, government.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Bravo

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

It’s become pejorative because in reality it’s not a set of positive ideas. It’s regressive, reality-denying, and racist. And at the moment, it controls virtually all, if not all, of our major institutions, including academe, media, the corporate world, and increasingly, government.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

As you say, “woke” is by no means meaningless. On the contrary, it has a profound meaning, though not necessarily an attractive one. Words of this kind have a long history in many languages. It’s a widespread, possibly universal, trope for theological or philosophical awakening. In our time, though, it refers to ideological awakening (which is one reason, among many, for examining wokism as a “secular religion”).
As used in connection with identity politics, the word originated in black slang among those who claimed to be seeing the underlying truth about America for the first time, as if they were waking up from a dream. But the trope goes back much further than ten or fifteen years ago. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for instance, American Protestants produced a series of “great awakenings,” followed by the evangelical tradition of revivalism. Thousands of years earlier, Hindus and Buddhists had claimed that people were “asleep” until they attained enlightenment, usually after many lifetimes, and could finally see beyond the illusions that obscure reality.
So why do people now reject the word that they coined for themselves? In other words, why has “woke” come to have a pejorative connotation? The answer is simple enough, at least in the current context. It’s because those who fit the description—those who actually believe that they have a monopoly on truth by virtue of their innate characteristics—are so very self-righteous in attitude (which gives new meaning to “holier than thou”) and so very arrogant in behavior (by fostering “cancel culture”). You could argue—and I do—that they deserve an ironic label, one that throws the pious hypocrisy back in their faces.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago

There is so much objectionable tosh in this article that it’s hard to know where to start, so I’ll pick on a couple of items at random.
‘Woke, in fact, is a meaningless term.’ Following other comments, no it isn’t. It’s a catch-all term, admittedly. But the racialisation of everything, the destruction of history and tradition, the queering of society, the influence of trans ideology are all real enough. Show me an EDI course in a public institution, a child being groomed to consider different sexual inclinations and ‘non-binary’ gender options, national figures being vilified or written out of history, and I’ll show you woke in action.
‘The couple were surely right to make their escape.’ Back to H&M. This would be utterly boring if it were just a family feud rather than an assault on the constitution and fabric of this country. One of the most admirable things about Harry is how he achieved so much from such humble beginnings. The vast wealth, the California mansion, the hot celebrity wife, the attention of the world media, all earned through hard work and personal merit. Oh
 hang on! They haven’t made their escape, have they? It’s glaringly obvious to everyone except Harry that he owes his entire lifestyle and his public platform to being born into the Royal Family, even as the spare. I admit, I can’t imagine the ‘gilded cage’ aspects of royal life. But if you’re going to escape from it, then escape from it all. Don’t decry the responsibilities while luxuriating in the benefits. I can understand it – kudos for such astonishing lack of self-awareness – but I don’t respect it.

Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
1 year ago

Oh, dear Terry. ‘Incontinence’ – one of your favourite words, it would appear- indeed but from your keyboard. Having vented your spleen over our Royal Family, you suddenly remembered that your essay was supposed to be a comparative one. So, a quick coda on the gilded Montecito prison Harry now inhabits, with an intermezzo sideswipe at those who don’t happen to believe that being ‘woke’ is going to make any contribution to genuine, social, economic and democratic advancement in the world. But then that is not the point of being ‘woke’ is it? Rather it is truly performative, and, of course, been seen to be ‘progressive’.

Which, Terry, you are very good at. How else does one explain the howler of describing Harry as a Marine. Harry was many things in the Armed Forces but he was never a Marine (or even Royal Marine). However, if you cut your teeth on 1960s’ agitprop against ‘US imperialism’ and Vietnam protests, then ‘Marine’ is the appropriate stereotype hate figure, so your virtue is consistency, even if your vice is adherence to a wholly discredited, and deranged, world view. Consistency again, I suppose, but zero credibility: probably time to stop your dribbling.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Diggins

The word that came to my mind after reading Terry’s tosh, was verbal diarrhoea, but keyboard incontinence is a fitting description as well. Thank you for providing background information on Eagleton; his beginnings were well before my time, but I do remember the unfounded ad hominem accusations that he slung at Martin Amis some 15 years ago. I am not surprised that he has Marxist leanings and probably yearns for yet another iteration of “real” Communism, which will be equally bound for failure as previous versions.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon Diggins

The word that came to my mind after reading Terry’s tosh, was verbal diarrhoea, but keyboard incontinence is a fitting description as well. Thank you for providing background information on Eagleton; his beginnings were well before my time, but I do remember the unfounded ad hominem accusations that he slung at Martin Amis some 15 years ago. I am not surprised that he has Marxist leanings and probably yearns for yet another iteration of “real” Communism, which will be equally bound for failure as previous versions.

Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
1 year ago

Oh, dear Terry. ‘Incontinence’ – one of your favourite words, it would appear- indeed but from your keyboard. Having vented your spleen over our Royal Family, you suddenly remembered that your essay was supposed to be a comparative one. So, a quick coda on the gilded Montecito prison Harry now inhabits, with an intermezzo sideswipe at those who don’t happen to believe that being ‘woke’ is going to make any contribution to genuine, social, economic and democratic advancement in the world. But then that is not the point of being ‘woke’ is it? Rather it is truly performative, and, of course, been seen to be ‘progressive’.

Which, Terry, you are very good at. How else does one explain the howler of describing Harry as a Marine. Harry was many things in the Armed Forces but he was never a Marine (or even Royal Marine). However, if you cut your teeth on 1960s’ agitprop against ‘US imperialism’ and Vietnam protests, then ‘Marine’ is the appropriate stereotype hate figure, so your virtue is consistency, even if your vice is adherence to a wholly discredited, and deranged, world view. Consistency again, I suppose, but zero credibility: probably time to stop your dribbling.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

Five paragraphs of charmed courting, I was becoming interested, my heart rate was elevated and then the coercion. I was a racist after all, I should relax and open my unconscious bias, you were right after all.
The vast bulk of the British people were overjoyed that a non white princess was finally joining the Firm. Under the current zeitgeist Megan being black was advantageous.
These Woke (a working title) thinkers are blind to the fact that they are the establishment.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

Meghan isn’t black. Her father is white.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Eagleton would have it as “ethnically hybrid” : )

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

Eagleton would have it as “ethnically hybrid” : )

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
Andrew Taylor
Andrew Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

I didn’t know that Megan is black. Not that it matters. Her colour is of no interest to me. Her shallow nonsense is what bothers me. That she has recruited a witless ex member of the British Royal Family to her new mission does not add depth to her, or her nonsense. It just means that we have two grifters instead of one.

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Taylor

I totally agree with you, ( I did know that she was of mixed races.). It is her “shallow nonsense” and behavior that bothers me and everyone that I know. I have never heard her race mentioned except by the Sussex.

Helana 0
Helana 0
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Taylor

I totally agree with you, ( I did know that she was of mixed races.). It is her “shallow nonsense” and behavior that bothers me and everyone that I know. I have never heard her race mentioned except by the Sussex.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

Meghan isn’t black. Her father is white.

Andrew Taylor
Andrew Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

I didn’t know that Megan is black. Not that it matters. Her colour is of no interest to me. Her shallow nonsense is what bothers me. That she has recruited a witless ex member of the British Royal Family to her new mission does not add depth to her, or her nonsense. It just means that we have two grifters instead of one.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

Five paragraphs of charmed courting, I was becoming interested, my heart rate was elevated and then the coercion. I was a racist after all, I should relax and open my unconscious bias, you were right after all.
The vast bulk of the British people were overjoyed that a non white princess was finally joining the Firm. Under the current zeitgeist Megan being black was advantageous.
These Woke (a working title) thinkers are blind to the fact that they are the establishment.

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
1 year ago

I long for the day that both of them get the privacy that they so desperately desire.

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Personally, I don’t think they really want privacy. Their actions certainly don’t reflect that. It’s a case of “I want privacy and I’ll tell the whole world about it over and over and over”. All to the tune of millions of dollars.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

They revel in media attention but they want it solely on their terms. They want to control the media narrative and are infuriated by the freedom of the press in the U.K. and the first amendment in the U.S.

Gill Holway
Gill Holway
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

Better known as hypocracy.

John Ramsden
John Ramsden
1 year ago
Reply to  Gill Holway

Better spelled as hypocricy 🙂

(sorry couldn’t resist)

Last edited 1 year ago by John Ramsden
denz
denz
1 year ago
Reply to  John Ramsden

or correctly as hypocrisy

Thorunn Sleight
Thorunn Sleight
1 year ago
Reply to  John Ramsden

Them as corrects others’ postings had danged well better make sure of their own correctness!

denz
denz
1 year ago
Reply to  John Ramsden

or correctly as hypocrisy

Thorunn Sleight
Thorunn Sleight
1 year ago
Reply to  John Ramsden

Them as corrects others’ postings had danged well better make sure of their own correctness!

John Ramsden
John Ramsden
1 year ago
Reply to  Gill Holway

Better spelled as hypocricy 🙂

(sorry couldn’t resist)

Last edited 1 year ago by John Ramsden
Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

They revel in media attention but they want it solely on their terms. They want to control the media narrative and are infuriated by the freedom of the press in the U.K. and the first amendment in the U.S.

Gill Holway
Gill Holway
1 year ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

Better known as hypocracy.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

This book and the interviews surrounding it, hardly indicate that they “desire” privacy.
I just hope that the Royal Family don’t respond to the attacks directed at them in “Spare”.. Falling into the hands of the press has been seen to be a disaster and never ends, starting with Princess Diana and going on to Prince Andrew.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Same goes for the King, when he was foolish enough to give an interview to J.Dimbleby in 1994. It seems to have opened the floodgates of Royal confessions
 Of course you could say that Diana started the ball rolling with her secret tapes to Andrew Morton.

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
1 year ago

Please let’s not go there; Diana was nothing like the fraudulent Megan.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago
Reply to  Ari Dale

Yes she was a scam artist.
Big B behind closed doors.
Charles might not have gone to Oxford
but he was no fool
to take brains over beauty.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
1 year ago
Reply to  Ari Dale

Yes she was a scam artist.
Big B behind closed doors.
Charles might not have gone to Oxford
but he was no fool
to take brains over beauty.

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
1 year ago

Please let’s not go there; Diana was nothing like the fraudulent Megan.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Same goes for the King, when he was foolish enough to give an interview to J.Dimbleby in 1994. It seems to have opened the floodgates of Royal confessions
 Of course you could say that Diana started the ball rolling with her secret tapes to Andrew Morton.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Yes – that they both just go sit on the beach, go away : )

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Personally, I don’t think they really want privacy. Their actions certainly don’t reflect that. It’s a case of “I want privacy and I’ll tell the whole world about it over and over and over”. All to the tune of millions of dollars.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

This book and the interviews surrounding it, hardly indicate that they “desire” privacy.
I just hope that the Royal Family don’t respond to the attacks directed at them in “Spare”.. Falling into the hands of the press has been seen to be a disaster and never ends, starting with Princess Diana and going on to Prince Andrew.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

Yes – that they both just go sit on the beach, go away : )

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
1 year ago

I long for the day that both of them get the privacy that they so desperately desire.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

The digression on wokery in the middle of this essay is some of the most inane nonsense I’ve read on this site. Quoting Zoe Williams? Really? Jesus wept.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I actually thought it was the best bit. It was so right I almost choked on my avocado and tofu bap.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I couldn’t finish it. Thankfully others have gone to the bother of critiquing this tosh – full of generalisations and smears.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I actually thought it was the best bit. It was so right I almost choked on my avocado and tofu bap.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I couldn’t finish it. Thankfully others have gone to the bother of critiquing this tosh – full of generalisations and smears.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

The digression on wokery in the middle of this essay is some of the most inane nonsense I’ve read on this site. Quoting Zoe Williams? Really? Jesus wept.

Paul K
Paul K
1 year ago

The funny thing about this essay is how outdated it seems.
‘Words are violence’ is precisely the line that the non-existent ‘woke’ use to set the boundaries of the new moral debate, which Terry Eagleton rather sweetly seems to believe is still being directed by huffing old reactionary buffers in Pall Mall clubs. He even mentions Mary Whitehouse, who has been dead for decades and who is looking more prophetic by the day.
There are new speech codes today, the ‘woke’ direct and enforce them, and the reason they don’t like the word ‘woke’ is that it shines a light on them and their ideology, when they would like to pretend that they don’t even exist. The curious post-modern left which has infiltrated all our institutions and turned them on their heads still, like Terry Eagleton apparently, pretend they live in a world run by Bad Tories and old Christian reactionaries. But they are The Man now, and the speech codes come from them. Meghan Markle, fairly or not, has become a public representative of those values: a new puritanism disguised as liberation. It certainly seems to have Prof Eagleton fooled.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul K
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul K

His Pall Mall reference reminded me of the Remainers insults about the ignorant, nostalgic, racist, fruitcake (take your pick) British electorate voting for Brexit.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul K

His Pall Mall reference reminded me of the Remainers insults about the ignorant, nostalgic, racist, fruitcake (take your pick) British electorate voting for Brexit.

Paul K
Paul K
1 year ago

The funny thing about this essay is how outdated it seems.
‘Words are violence’ is precisely the line that the non-existent ‘woke’ use to set the boundaries of the new moral debate, which Terry Eagleton rather sweetly seems to believe is still being directed by huffing old reactionary buffers in Pall Mall clubs. He even mentions Mary Whitehouse, who has been dead for decades and who is looking more prophetic by the day.
There are new speech codes today, the ‘woke’ direct and enforce them, and the reason they don’t like the word ‘woke’ is that it shines a light on them and their ideology, when they would like to pretend that they don’t even exist. The curious post-modern left which has infiltrated all our institutions and turned them on their heads still, like Terry Eagleton apparently, pretend they live in a world run by Bad Tories and old Christian reactionaries. But they are The Man now, and the speech codes come from them. Meghan Markle, fairly or not, has become a public representative of those values: a new puritanism disguised as liberation. It certainly seems to have Prof Eagleton fooled.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul K
jmo
jmo
1 year ago

“The ancient Greeks saw a closer relation than we do between verbal and physical aggression: the word “sarcasm” derives from “sarkazein”, a word of theirs meaning to tear the flesh. ”

Is Eagleton for real? That’s exactly what he woke believe, and it is the professed belief of the establishment. Meghan is a classic example of a member of the elite browbeating the plebs while crying victim. That’s why she’s disliked. For the woke, an intolerable psychic injury (for which the perpetrator deserves to lose their job, reputation, and friends) is the experience of a delusional male when told he’s not a woman. For such a man, his ego needs pr*cking repeatedly until he stops behaving in such a ridiculous manner. His handmaidens need laughing at. In Gillray’s day, Eagleton would have felt sorry for aristocratic victims of satirical cartoons.

James van den Heever
James van den Heever
1 year ago
Reply to  jmo

He obviously never stayed in class for the lesson on metaphor.

James van den Heever
James van den Heever
1 year ago
Reply to  jmo

He obviously never stayed in class for the lesson on metaphor.

jmo
jmo
1 year ago

“The ancient Greeks saw a closer relation than we do between verbal and physical aggression: the word “sarcasm” derives from “sarkazein”, a word of theirs meaning to tear the flesh. ”

Is Eagleton for real? That’s exactly what he woke believe, and it is the professed belief of the establishment. Meghan is a classic example of a member of the elite browbeating the plebs while crying victim. That’s why she’s disliked. For the woke, an intolerable psychic injury (for which the perpetrator deserves to lose their job, reputation, and friends) is the experience of a delusional male when told he’s not a woman. For such a man, his ego needs pr*cking repeatedly until he stops behaving in such a ridiculous manner. His handmaidens need laughing at. In Gillray’s day, Eagleton would have felt sorry for aristocratic victims of satirical cartoons.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
1 year ago

Let me help you with the definition of “woke” Mr Eagleton. The “woke” are those whose sense of self-worth and of solidarity with each other rest on everyone else being bigots and racists (“deplorables”). It doesn’t matter whether we have done anything to deserve these labels, because all that really matters is that the people using them feel superior to us and retain the power to put everyone else in their place. Those are the “woke” – as the quote of Zoe Williams confirms.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
1 year ago

Let me help you with the definition of “woke” Mr Eagleton. The “woke” are those whose sense of self-worth and of solidarity with each other rest on everyone else being bigots and racists (“deplorables”). It doesn’t matter whether we have done anything to deserve these labels, because all that really matters is that the people using them feel superior to us and retain the power to put everyone else in their place. Those are the “woke” – as the quote of Zoe Williams confirms.

Peta Seel
Peta Seel
1 year ago

“Meghan has done for her partner what, shamefully, not a single member of his grotesquely dysfunctional family seems to have done: helped him to come to terms with his grief over his mother’s death.”
Sorry, but I stopped right there, that is a grotesquely unfair and cruel thing to say. This “dysfunctional family” did an awful lot to try and help both Diana’s sons come to terms with their loss. They just didn’t hang it on their sleeves. Whatever good they did Meghan unravelled it and took Harry all the way back to the 12-year-old boy where he has stuck, as his book reveals. It doesn’t matter where she is from, she is a ruthlessly wicked, manipulative, deeply unpleasant person and they exist in all societies.
I have no desire to go on, I could fill a book. I have come across them before and none were from California.

Peta Seel
Peta Seel
1 year ago

“Meghan has done for her partner what, shamefully, not a single member of his grotesquely dysfunctional family seems to have done: helped him to come to terms with his grief over his mother’s death.”
Sorry, but I stopped right there, that is a grotesquely unfair and cruel thing to say. This “dysfunctional family” did an awful lot to try and help both Diana’s sons come to terms with their loss. They just didn’t hang it on their sleeves. Whatever good they did Meghan unravelled it and took Harry all the way back to the 12-year-old boy where he has stuck, as his book reveals. It doesn’t matter where she is from, she is a ruthlessly wicked, manipulative, deeply unpleasant person and they exist in all societies.
I have no desire to go on, I could fill a book. I have come across them before and none were from California.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

I only came down here to say there’s now three Harry articles on the home page incl. The post latest. If I want to read about that there’s miles and miles of it in the tabloids. This place is good at giving a platform to academics for wordy and superfluous essays. The witch lit article is just a massive collection of wordy nonsense as far as I’m concerned. Putin not honouring the grain corridor is no surprise at all. It would be more surprising if he kept it open. I see this essay thinks words are a violent assault. Lmao. This guy hasn’t lived much. There’s no hope for me then. Better lock me up. How about this: some proper f****ng journalism. How about dragging your over educated arses out your expensive Londoncentric cafe and actually reporting on Britain? If this guy thinks words are a violent assault he should go work on a construction site. You’re a fu***g wa*ker is positively complimentary. What a load of old b*llocks.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Yeah I’ve hit my limit on Unherd articles about H&M. Please, no more – I come here to read about important stuff that matters.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Would be the more articulate way to put it!
I hope no one got any violent word wounds from my savage polemic. 🙂

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Yeah but your ‘prose’ got more upvotes!!

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Yeah but your ‘prose’ got more upvotes!!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Would be the more articulate way to put it!
I hope no one got any violent word wounds from my savage polemic. 🙂

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Yeah I’ve hit my limit on Unherd articles about H&M. Please, no more – I come here to read about important stuff that matters.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

I only came down here to say there’s now three Harry articles on the home page incl. The post latest. If I want to read about that there’s miles and miles of it in the tabloids. This place is good at giving a platform to academics for wordy and superfluous essays. The witch lit article is just a massive collection of wordy nonsense as far as I’m concerned. Putin not honouring the grain corridor is no surprise at all. It would be more surprising if he kept it open. I see this essay thinks words are a violent assault. Lmao. This guy hasn’t lived much. There’s no hope for me then. Better lock me up. How about this: some proper f****ng journalism. How about dragging your over educated arses out your expensive Londoncentric cafe and actually reporting on Britain? If this guy thinks words are a violent assault he should go work on a construction site. You’re a fu***g wa*ker is positively complimentary. What a load of old b*llocks.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago

“.Wilde was also an Irish immigrant, which didn’t help”

Wilde, over the course of his life, remained a subject of The United Kingdom’s of Great Britain and Ireland. He was not, and could not be, an immigrant.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

Wow careful there – he won’t like actual, real facts to pollute his article.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes, mea culpa. Sorry, folks!

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes, mea culpa. Sorry, folks!

Stephen Magee
Stephen Magee
1 year ago

And he was very probably a paedophile.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

Wow careful there – he won’t like actual, real facts to pollute his article.

Stephen Magee
Stephen Magee
1 year ago

And he was very probably a paedophile.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago

“.Wilde was also an Irish immigrant, which didn’t help”

Wilde, over the course of his life, remained a subject of The United Kingdom’s of Great Britain and Ireland. He was not, and could not be, an immigrant.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago

A very poor piece of writing and a demonstration that you have no understanding of the British psyche and why, therefore, they are so despised.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Brown

So despised? He’s written a best seller and apparently the fastest selling non fiction in years. Usually one doesn’t help someone one despises get richer…or do we?

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Brown

So despised? He’s written a best seller and apparently the fastest selling non fiction in years. Usually one doesn’t help someone one despises get richer…or do we?

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Sam Brown
Sam Brown
1 year ago

A very poor piece of writing and a demonstration that you have no understanding of the British psyche and why, therefore, they are so despised.

Toby B
Toby B
1 year ago

As an English Lit student many, many years ago, I used to enjoy reading Terry Eagleton’s literary criticism. But this piece is risible.
Whatever the lefty equivalent of a “puce-faced old buffer in Pall Mall” is, Eagleton is now it.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Toby B

He would not even be let into the lowest Pall Mall club to clean the loo brushes….

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

And if they did let him in I imagine retreating to the loo to converse with the brushes would be preferable to staying in the same room as him…..

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

And if they did let him in I imagine retreating to the loo to converse with the brushes would be preferable to staying in the same room as him…..

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Toby B

He would not even be let into the lowest Pall Mall club to clean the loo brushes….

Toby B
Toby B
1 year ago

As an English Lit student many, many years ago, I used to enjoy reading Terry Eagleton’s literary criticism. But this piece is risible.
Whatever the lefty equivalent of a “puce-faced old buffer in Pall Mall” is, Eagleton is now it.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

The Duke of Edinburgh seems a much better way of dealing with a traumatic life than self-indulgence and incontinent emoting. If this shows Terry Eagleton’s judgement I shall remember it against him in the future.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yeah he clearly hates the Duke with a passion – the old duffer did have some great qualities but not for this bigoted writer.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yeah he clearly hates the Duke with a passion – the old duffer did have some great qualities but not for this bigoted writer.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

The Duke of Edinburgh seems a much better way of dealing with a traumatic life than self-indulgence and incontinent emoting. If this shows Terry Eagleton’s judgement I shall remember it against him in the future.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago

Oh dear! What did I just read? If one has to refer to the Guardian to make one’s case, I fear all hope is already lost! Megan, the narcissistic star of her own show, has certainly not freed Harry from anything. He serves a purpose for her, at least for now, and that’s why she’s sticking around. Once she deems him no longer necessary or useful, he will discover her true nature and find himself on the receiving end of her manipulations.
I am not in a position to judge what the disparagingly described dysfunctional royal family did or did not do to help the two boys who had lost their mother, but whatever it was, it seems to have worked for William who appears to be a well-adjusted man, husband and father.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  Katja Sipple

Since his utter capture by Meghan & his subsequent descent into the platitudes & solipsism of therapy-speak, & the shallow glitz of Hollywood, I dread to think what would happen to him if she were to leave him.
He has burned his bridges with his family, who will surely be unlikely ever to want to speak freely with him in future, in case their misinterpreted words end up in another self-regarding documentary. Or – horrors – a sequel to ‘Spare’. The Prodigal he surely is not.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  Katja Sipple

Since his utter capture by Meghan & his subsequent descent into the platitudes & solipsism of therapy-speak, & the shallow glitz of Hollywood, I dread to think what would happen to him if she were to leave him.
He has burned his bridges with his family, who will surely be unlikely ever to want to speak freely with him in future, in case their misinterpreted words end up in another self-regarding documentary. Or – horrors – a sequel to ‘Spare’. The Prodigal he surely is not.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago

Oh dear! What did I just read? If one has to refer to the Guardian to make one’s case, I fear all hope is already lost! Megan, the narcissistic star of her own show, has certainly not freed Harry from anything. He serves a purpose for her, at least for now, and that’s why she’s sticking around. Once she deems him no longer necessary or useful, he will discover her true nature and find himself on the receiving end of her manipulations.
I am not in a position to judge what the disparagingly described dysfunctional royal family did or did not do to help the two boys who had lost their mother, but whatever it was, it seems to have worked for William who appears to be a well-adjusted man, husband and father.

Chris Hume
Chris Hume
1 year ago

Clarkson’s comment was an obvious bit of comic exaggeration using well-known imagery from a popular TV programme which has became a bit of a trope among viewers. The confected outrage was as pathetic as it was predictable.
It’s like saying “The French/English/Spanish/Americans annoy me. In fact I hope the whole country gets flattened by nukes”. Nobody could in good faith truly believe you wished genocide on the whole country. The joke is obviously that your dislike is out of proportion and is inherently silly.
But we’re expected to believe that Jeremy Clarkson is genuinely hoping that Meghan is subjected to that, when it’s blindingly obvious the enormous overstatement is the point of the joke.

Chris Hume
Chris Hume
1 year ago

Clarkson’s comment was an obvious bit of comic exaggeration using well-known imagery from a popular TV programme which has became a bit of a trope among viewers. The confected outrage was as pathetic as it was predictable.
It’s like saying “The French/English/Spanish/Americans annoy me. In fact I hope the whole country gets flattened by nukes”. Nobody could in good faith truly believe you wished genocide on the whole country. The joke is obviously that your dislike is out of proportion and is inherently silly.
But we’re expected to believe that Jeremy Clarkson is genuinely hoping that Meghan is subjected to that, when it’s blindingly obvious the enormous overstatement is the point of the joke.

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago

…an upright young Marine with an  impressively high kill-rate, a credit to the British values of loyalty, duty and self-discipline, had been publicly hi-jacked by an ethnically hybrid, touchy-feely starlet who probably consults her astrological chart to decide which colour of tights to wear. It’s hard luck for Clarkson and his kind that this soap-opera star, far from being just one pesky woman, represents a whole shift in social sensibility.

No need to describe killing people as impressive, or to bring race into it (though I do understand the strategy).

But otherwise – save a few more descriptions of how Meghan operates and the pathetic figure that her husband has become since meeting her – Bingo.

And its not just hard luck for Clarkson, but for all of us.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Jam
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

“ No need to describe killing people as impressive.” That’s a bit Woke isn’t it?

If you train and pay people to kill as the ‘teeth’ arms of the British Army still are (just) it is perfectly acceptable to describe some aspects of their professionalism as ‘impressive’. The soldiery are NOT Social Workers or Traffic Wardens but killers, and rather good ones at that.

Some years ago a TV recruiting advertisement for the Army went something like “Join the British Army, See the World, Meet interesting people (and Kill therm). The last bit obvious being added by the soldiery!

Mr Orwell has previously described these ‘men’, and the fact that however unpleasant it may appear, they are the ones who ultimately defend our society, like it or not.

As to the possibility that Harry could pass the Royal Marine Commando Course, he would have more chance flying unaided to the Moon.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Yes he was the Captain General of the RMs, but never passed through Lympstone.
That said, and prior to his recent utterances, his service record was commended by many senior officers and I understand through contacts as an ex service person myself, he did his job well and wasn’t granted an easy life. Fact he was the ‘Spare’ meant they didn’t hide him from genuine risk, unlike his Brother.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Please remind me what qualifications he had to hold a senior military position like “Captain General of the RMs” ?
Every time one of these freeloaders gets a prestige job or an unearned place at Cambridge University, that’s an opportunity lost to someone more deserving and able who could also do the job or use the opportunity better.
I have no major problem with those in the royal family who are arguably professional (like QEII and Princess Anne and likely William and Kate). We should have ditched the lightweights, hangers on and chancers decades ago.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Yes a nonsense these Royals get these senior military positions. The Americans don’t have this so why do we?
But the other point was Harry did actually serve properly and be placed in significant risk. The fella may be a troubled person now, hardly surprising with such a ridiculous upbringing and life experience, but he more than did his bit in the military. Many never do anything as worthwhile.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

Yes a nonsense these Royals get these senior military positions. The Americans don’t have this so why do we?
But the other point was Harry did actually serve properly and be placed in significant risk. The fella may be a troubled person now, hardly surprising with such a ridiculous upbringing and life experience, but he more than did his bit in the military. Many never do anything as worthwhile.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Please remind me what qualifications he had to hold a senior military position like “Captain General of the RMs” ?
Every time one of these freeloaders gets a prestige job or an unearned place at Cambridge University, that’s an opportunity lost to someone more deserving and able who could also do the job or use the opportunity better.
I have no major problem with those in the royal family who are arguably professional (like QEII and Princess Anne and likely William and Kate). We should have ditched the lightweights, hangers on and chancers decades ago.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

To be fair, a lot of Household Cavalry now do ” P” Company, not dis-similar to Commando physical training, as being part of 16 Airborne. My 2 x Royal Marine instructors at Camberley Comprehensive, Captain Graham Smart, and Signals Staff Sgt. Crisp were two of the most impressive and able soldiers that I ever met!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Did PH do “P” Company?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Did PH do “P” Company?

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago

“join the British Army, See the World, Meet interesting people (and Kill therm). The last bit obvious being added by the soldiery!“

I think you’ll find that was a spoof advert in an early issue of Viz!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

They plagiarised it.
‘Viz’ was founded in 1979, the Recruiting campaign was probably ten years earlier, shortly after Aden.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

They plagiarised it.
‘Viz’ was founded in 1979, the Recruiting campaign was probably ten years earlier, shortly after Aden.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE