Subscribe
Notify of
guest
212 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
N Forster
N Forster
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  Max Price

You may well be right.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago

Still in the process of “becoming” …

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

Jean Pierre Noel
Jean Pierre Noel
2 months ago

He’s the definition of a parasite.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago

horse manure.

Alice Rowlands
Alice Rowlands
2 months 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.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
2 months 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 2 months ago by Katharine Eyre
N Forster
N Forster
2 months 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 2 months ago by N Forster
Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

What a great comment.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

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

N Forster
N Forster
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

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

Sally Owen
Sally Owen
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

Absolutely wonderful comment!…

John Croteau
John Croteau
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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 2 months ago by Katharine Eyre
Helana 0
Helana 0
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

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

Helana 0
Helana 0
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

BRAVO!

Emre S
Emre S
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago

Yes, he will benefit millions of dollars.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
2 months 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 2 months ago by Steve Murray
N Forster
N Forster
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy Martin

Or we could bring back dog-fighting !

Ari Dale
Ari Dale
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Bad for one’s blood pressure, though.

Richard Gasson
Richard Gasson
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

I couldn’t agree more

harry storm
harry storm
2 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

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

Richard Turpin
Richard Turpin
2 months 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
2 months 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 2 months ago by Aphrodite Rises
Paul T
Paul T
2 months 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
2 months 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 2 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Helana 0
Helana 0
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Bravo

harry storm
harry storm
2 months 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 2 months ago by Vilde Chaye
Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Max Price
Max Price
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  Max Price

Meghan isn’t black. Her father is white.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago

Eagleton would have it as “ethnically hybrid” : )

Last edited 2 months ago by Cathy Carron
Andrew Taylor
Andrew Taylor
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
2 months ago

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

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  Mary Bruels

Better known as hypocracy.

John Ramsden
John Ramsden
2 months ago
Reply to  Gill Holway

Better spelled as hypocricy 🙂

(sorry couldn’t resist)

Last edited 2 months ago by John Ramsden
denz
denz
2 months ago
Reply to  John Ramsden

or correctly as hypocrisy

Thorunn Sleight
Thorunn Sleight
1 month ago
Reply to  John Ramsden

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

Iris C
Iris C
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months ago

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

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
2 months 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.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

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

R Wright
R Wright
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Paul K
Paul K
2 months 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 2 months ago by Paul K
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months 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.

jmo
jmo
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  jmo

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

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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 2 months ago by Ian Stewart
B Emery
B Emery
2 months 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
2 months ago
Reply to  B Emery

Yeah but your ‘prose’ got more upvotes!!

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
2 months 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
2 months ago

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

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

Yes, mea culpa. Sorry, folks!

Stephen Magee
Stephen Magee
2 months ago

And he was very probably a paedophile.

Sam Brown
Sam Brown
2 months 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
2 months 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 2 months ago by j watson
Toby B
Toby B
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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…..

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Chris Hume
Chris Hume
2 months 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
2 months 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 2 months ago by Jim Jam
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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
2 months 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.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months 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
2 months ago

Did PH do “P” Company?

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
2 months 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
2 months ago

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

Last edited 2 months ago by stanhopecharles344
Iris C
Iris C
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

Prince Harry makes much of his own personal grief but thinks nothing of the grief suffered by the relations of the Afghans he seems to have reveled in killing…

j watson
j watson
2 months ago
Reply to  Iris C

You need to read the full section in the book, not just the bit the media extracted. It’s nowhere near as bad as has been spun and in fact raises some really important points related to PTSD and how soldiers feel later. I still have reservations about the sense in him sharing this but how he does it is a million miles from how some in the media, and TV Generals before reading it, have conveyed it’s essence.

Spencer Dugdale
Spencer Dugdale
2 months ago

Eagleton appears to have swallowed wholesale and uncritically Harry’s “truth” not withstanding that memory is unreliable and that of a drug taker even more so. Eagleton lacks awareness of his own prejudiced, motivated reasoning.

Dr Anne Kelley
Dr Anne Kelley
2 months ago

If words are indeed ‘violence’ then H & M have been pretty violent towards his family.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
2 months ago
Reply to  Dr Anne Kelley

Harry’s words, his recollections, his ‘truth’ are meant to hurt. But it also depends on the how the recipients react to the intended ‘hurt’. Eleanor Roosevelt famously said, “No one can make you feel inferior (or hurt) without your permission”. So, the Royal Family are correct to just carry-on do their jobs; There’s no need to comment on Harry & Meghan’s ‘oral diarrhea’ or ‘verbal incontinence’.

Last edited 2 months ago by Cathy Carron
Stewart Dixon
Stewart Dixon
2 months ago

Yuk. Woke apparently a meaningless term; this assertion bolstered by the wisdom of Zoe Williams, in the Grauniad no less… everything in this article is drivel and makes me feel unsafe, or so it seems to me, and my feelings matter don’t they.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
2 months ago

What complete tosh.
To take just one point, H clearly hasn’t come to terms with his grief. As Mary Harrington pointed out perceptively the other day, H’s sense that his mother abandoned him by dying (clearly not her fault) is complicated by his, perhaps subconscious, realisation that she did actually abandon him while still alive, by swanning around the Med with Dodi Fayed instead of staying at home looking after him and his brother.
This obviously conflicts with his view of his mother as a latter-day saint, who was so badly mistreated by his paternal family that his lashing out at them is entirely justified.
No wonder he’s confused.

Slopmop McTeash
Slopmop McTeash
2 months ago

I had to read this article twice to make sure I was not missing some hidden joke.
I have concluded:
This article is load of woke and undiluted garbage; it is insulting nonsense.

Meghan Markle is a terrible, destructive human being who lacks both honour and decency…Everything Clarkson said about her spot on.

Phil Rees
Phil Rees
2 months ago

“A royal family which ritually praises diversity in the Commonwealth couldn’t handle it on its own doorstep”. I should have stopped reading upon encountering this direct inversion of the truth. but didn’t and waded on through such a pile of rubbish. I should also have seen the warning signs in Eagleton’s description as ‘literary theorist’, whatever that might be. I note from an earlier comment that he is much liked in the Guardian. This article has to be one of the worst from Unherd I can remember.

TIM HALL
TIM HALL
2 months ago

Entertaining certainly, and wrong, undoubtedly. Harry is telling the truth is he? Surely his creatively curating memory ensures that it is no more than his truth.
Also, what about William? He lost the same mother (though not necessarily the same father) why hasn’t he engaged in public lacerations of his oh so awful family and the institution they represent? One reason might be that he didn’t marry a carnivorous and pathological narcissist who has alienated even her own family.
Lastly, if words are literally an assault (spoiler alert: they aren’t) then the person most ferociously engaged in fist-spitting is Harry Sussex.

Michael Davis
Michael Davis
2 months ago

If they are both cured and at peace with their situation why did they need to trash the institution and family to the highest bidder
if Megan did not understand the Royal Family and the monarchy then maybe the fault is hers not the institution

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 months ago

Whichever version is true, if you continually slag off your family and reveal highly detailed information about them in public don’t expect a good outcome.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
2 months ago

… or it could just be that she’s an ocean-going pain in the neck.

jmo
jmo
2 months 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.

Last edited 2 months ago by j morgan
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 months ago
Reply to  jmo

I thought that that was a strange thing to say, especially from an English professor; has he never heard of metaphor. Additionally, although he is correct that the word does come,originally from the Greek word meaning to tear or rend flesh, it comes into the English language via Latin “sarcasmos” (they do use the Greek form of the word);it is used by Quintus and Dionysos to mean a jibe, a joke, a taunt. So, by the time it comes into English, it’s no longer even a metaphor, it has been shorn of all its original physical meaning. I do find that the twisting of words to mean what you want, even in a leaned way as here, is dishonest, and I’m disappointed that Terry Eagleton resorts to this tactic.

N Forster
N Forster
2 months ago

He is a Sophist.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

Yup – being provocative and manipulative in order to promote his views, regardless of facts. He’s a bigot in other words.

Peter Watson
Peter Watson
2 months ago

I had forgotten Eagleton and having read this twaddle I shall ignore further offal from his Marxist mind. If one may use such a word in his case.

Dominic A
Dominic A
2 months ago

It is curious to read Terry Eagleton coming to the aid of a Prince of the House of Windsor; untiI you recognise the common cause: both are flailing careerists from moribund conservative-patrician institutions – Aristocracy and Marxism (Lite). As Patrick Melrose (Edward St Aubyn) quipped, ‘aristocrats are the last Marxists – the only people who still believe that class is a total explanation’.

James Kirk
James Kirk
2 months ago

Ridiculous. The Brits barely noticed her ethnicity until her Mum showed up at the wedding. Even then they didn’t mind, they thought she was cute and could join in well with the ribbon cutting and being charming to the schoolchildren bearing posies. Her new job in other words.
She must have been briefed she wasn’t joining any old club and there were rules, mostly unwritten, that came with the deal. OK, she / they couldn’t accept them, exit stage left, or west.
But no, they could have settled in quiet but wealthy dignity. Bought a ranch with ponies and other animals, a paradise for the kids with unobtrusive security. Harry could have pretended to run it and set an example of decent royalty.
Now they have encouraged a fatwah and the general contempt of the western world. Hardly a recipe for a happy stress free married life.

Aphrodite Rises
Aphrodite Rises
2 months ago
Reply to  James Kirk

Thank you for making me laugh.

Brett H
Brett H
2 months ago

Bye bye, UnHerd.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

So soon?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months ago

Everyone named Terry is my definition an oik…

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
2 months ago

So agree, As a first name, it manages to be both ambiguous and diminutive. De minimus non curat …

Chris Twine
Chris Twine
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

I don’t really agree with the premise of the article but what I enjoy about UnHerd is the range of contributors. It is a shame if it just becomes another echo-chamber

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
2 months ago
Reply to  Chris Twine

Yes, and even more enjoyable is reading the often thoughtful and insightful comments below.

Mint Julip
Mint Julip
2 months ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

I was forced to pay good money to be here, because Unherd wouldn’t let me read the comments any more! The reader’s comments are, I find, invaluable for actually explaining the articles, pointing out the weaknesses of the articles and providing useful information on the Author at the top of the page. Essays by people like Mary Harrington do not need any interpretation, she shoots straight from the hip and doesn’t employ any jiggery-pokery, unlike the woolly blather from our Guardian chum.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months ago
Reply to  Mint Julip

The comments represent half the value for me – insightful, making me think about my own view. Best standard of comments on a news forum that I’ve come across.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
2 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Nah, they’re just teasing us. Bit extreme but hopefully not to be repeated.

Stephan Le Roux
Stephan Le Roux
2 months ago

Surely we have had enough of Harry and Megan? Let the blackened pot and warped lid continue to boil their cabbage but spare us the eating!

David Lawrence
David Lawrence
2 months ago

What a load of drivel. I admit to bailing out half way through.

Jason Sanders
Jason Sanders
2 months ago

The latest moral panic to overtake the British middle classes is Andrew Tate, to state its Meghan would be to misunderstand “moral panic” and “middle class”

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 months ago
Reply to  Jason Sanders

Well, it seems that I’m one of the panicked middle-classes then, as I find his veiws and his (alleged) actions morally repulsive.

Peter Watson
Peter Watson
2 months ago

Tate is the living embodiment of Hubris and as thick as mince.

Jason Sanders
Jason Sanders
2 months ago

I find his views and actions repulsive too, but I cant help but think the influence that he has over young men is overhyped representing somewhat of a moral panic.

Ian McKinney
Ian McKinney
2 months ago
Reply to  Jason Sanders

We have two teenage boys in our house and whilst both thankfully and correctly think that Tate is an utter twerp, they report that the vast majority of their peers are devoted to him. Sadly, I don’t think it is overhyped.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian McKinney

This is a bit depressing; I was hoping that it was over-hyped.

Chris England
Chris England
2 months ago

What utter rubbish.
There is only 1 true statement in the whole piece: Harry was right to leave.
To suggest he is now over the death of his mother is a stretch and the rest bears no resemblance to reality- ascribing the usual worn out labels to outdated views of the structure of society and taking the views in the book as an absolute truth rather than subjective memories of someone with issues- without a doubt the worst article I have read in Unherd in the last 2 years- by a fair margin.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months ago

The author clearly had no personal experience, let alone knowledge of British upper class life, or people… actually rather amusing that he makes it so obvious, but he is in amongst the other 99.9 pc of commentators, and not knowing the difference between a Marine and a Blues officer would hardly get him a gun on a Norfolk wild bird day…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months ago

… even as a beater…

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
2 months ago

I thought it was the Blues and Royals, but I wasn’t sure, thanks for confirming it.

Sophy T
Sophy T
2 months ago

What a spiteful article

Peter B
Peter B
2 months ago

“the vicious abuse Meghan has suffered …”
Hold on a moment. What about all the vicious abuse and lies Harry and Meghan have been handing out for several years now ?
What utter rubbish this article is. British people are disgusted with these two pathetic wretches because of their despicable behaviour. Not because she’s American/foreign/different.
There are some UnHerd writers who normally produce great articles and sometimes disappoint. There are some who usually frustrate, but occasionally surprise and delight (Julie Bindel for me at least). And there is one here who has yet to trouble the scorers …

mark revelle
mark revelle
2 months ago

Has Mr Eagleton not watched Game of Thrones? Clarkson was simply substituting Meghan for the ‘disgraced’ Cersei Lannister, who endured the infamous Walk of Shame.And it was excrement, not mud.
As for the rest of the piece, what is it for? isn’t it just just more of old Terry rifling through his usual rag bag of half-thoughts. prejudices and lame attempts at humour? For a ‘Distinguished’ professor of Eng. Lit. he displays an unerringly tin ear. And it’s dinghy, not ‘dingy’.
The Rolling Stones ‘innocuous youths’? What?
Puce-faced old buffers in Pall Mall clubs? How refreshingly original.
All this from a man who must know that Clarkson has more genuine ability in his little finger than he himself could ever hope to emulate.
Shut up,Terry, it’s time. Hurry up, please, Terry. It’s time.

Pascal Bercker
Pascal Bercker
2 months ago

It seems to me that the grieving period is long past, and this “prince” should heed the advice given to Hamlet who surely had better cause to grieve childlike at the murderous death of his father. Would this so-called prince not be so proudly book-blind as he often boasts, he would have recalled this wise speech to the grief-struck Hamlet. Merely substitute “mother” for “father” and you will have the sum of a full indictment against this counterfeit of a prince, so-called.
KING:
 ’Tis sweet and commendable in your nature,
Hamlet,
To give these mourning duties to your father.
But you must know your father lost a father,
That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound
In filial obligation for some term
To do obsequious sorrow. But to persever
In obstinate condolement is a course
Of impious stubbornness. ’Tis unmanly grief.
It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,
A heart unfortified, a mind impatient,
An understanding simple and unschooled.
For what we know must be and is as common
As any the most vulgar thing to sense,
Why should we in our peevish opposition
Take it to heart? Fie, ’tis a fault to heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd, whose common theme
Is death of fathers, and who still hath cried,
From the first corse till he that died today,
“This must be so.” We pray you, throw to earth
This unprevailing woe and think of us
As of a father;

Last edited 2 months ago by Pascal Bercker
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  Pascal Bercker

Striking wisdom from a character who killed the father in question, his own brother. The complexity and anguished self-awareness of a villain like Claudius and the intermittent eloquence of a fool like Polonius are notable, true-to-life examples of Shakespeare’s greatness.
Do you think Harry can develop a son-like bond with Camilla without poisoning her drink?

Andrew Taylor
Andrew Taylor
2 months ago

Utter tripe. I’m hoping that Mr Eagleton did not receive any of my subscription for this rubbish.

John Tangney
John Tangney
2 months ago

TLDR: Old Marxist makes bid for relevance in the woke wars

Nick Wade
Nick Wade
2 months ago

Harry was never a marine. He was in the army, so was a soldier. The distinction is important, particularly to marines.

Andy Iddon
Andy Iddon
2 months ago

Sorry, I just don’t see the narrative heavy nonsense of the last paragraph. Vicious abuse? Shackles? Reconciliation whilst driving the dagger home? It was an interesting and open piece of parallels, until this “colouring in”, which to me has no resemblance of what was the reality, or at the very least validates only effect with no consideration for cause.

Last edited 2 months ago by andrew.iddon
mike otter
mike otter
2 months ago

Wow – worst article i’ve ever read on Unherd utter nonsense. The author needs to go back to whatever his day job is and leave philosophy and its relationship to language and psychology to the, er , thinkers! – I don’t mean just academics, anyone who understands basic epistemiology would fit the bill. One explanation for this sort of inchoate outpouring would be sharing Harry’s drugs hobby, or possibly even his stash! Just want to pick a few bits of nonsense to get folk thinking: Megan Markle from a “different” culture to UK? She is the very embodiment of the spoilt brat culture shared by US/UK. Also “Beatles, Rolling Stones, Marijuana” pack it in pal many of Unherd’s readers are so old we were there.

Last edited 2 months ago by mike otter
David McKee
David McKee
2 months ago

“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.”
Sensibility is le mot juste. We have been here before. In eighteenth century France, they had a craze for sensibility, which can be described as an extravagant emotional reaction to the trials and tribulations of life. For example, going into orgies of rapture over a nice view of the countryside, or vociferous self-loathing about what our great-great-great-great grandparents did to Africans.
Sensibility is well described in Simon Schama’s history of the French Revolution, ‘Citizens.’
Sensibility was sent up quite beautifully by an author Prof. Eagleton may not have come across, called Jane Austen. It’s in her book, ‘Sense and…’ (ahem).

Dog Eared
Dog Eared
2 months ago

Whilst I don’t agree with the author I’m glad to see alternative viewpoints being put forward, I wouldn’t want Unherd to lose it’s mission and cede to the the narrow views of certain factions.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
2 months ago
Reply to  Dog Eared

‘Certain factions’?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago

Quite a sneering, inflammatory article, provoking outraged engagement plus many insightful and eloquent responses from the UnHerd “commentariat”–mission accomplished for Eagleton and the multiplying architects of clickbait?
As an American with minor, distant cultural ties to the whole thing via Canadian dual citizenship, I’m fascinated by the degree to which fractures and scandals in the Royal Family–with this one vying for top prize–seem at once to not matter much and be of real importance, with opinionators, debaters, and haters announcing (especially in the States), their disdain and disinterest while they advance their own takes at length, thus expressing their de facto interest, or at least their willingness to expend energy on the topic. I think the heated responses generated by the exploits of Harry and Meghan–or what they are made to represent–reveals a (real or perceived) deeper symbolic meaning, like a tragic play in which no one’s been murdered yet. I’m sure all that is far from groundbreaking but I wanted to express my own “loquacious disinterest”.
I’ll make no comment for or against any Royals here but I appreciate this opportunity to hear from an intelligent cross-section of British commenters both more numerous and viewpoint-varied than those UK residents who comment on topically (if not tonally) similar articles at, for example, the New York Times. A signature example of the comments being more interesting than the article, which was little more than grandiloquent hackwork.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
2 months ago

I still rather like Clarkson. Funny. Bold. Stirring up the Woke.

James van den Heever
James van den Heever
2 months ago

A somewhat confused polemic.

Greg La Cock
Greg La Cock
2 months ago

Her family doesn’t appear to like her. Ditto for us. That ought to tell us something about their character.

Gill Holway
Gill Holway
2 months ago

Harrys’ truth? Were do you start? This isnt a fantastically popular drama cum sit com however much writers and journlsts and even the people living it would like it to be so. To the financially involved its merely money in the bank for which the interest will be paid, by them, later

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
2 months ago

Clarkson might be a blackguard who deserves a turn in the stocks followed by the ducking stool, but this article is tripe.Oh, to live on such grand Olympian heights. Literary theorist! It shows, pal. Who wheels your bin to the curb, the old woman or the gilded young feller with golden curls?

Tony Sandy
Tony Sandy
2 months ago

I thought the saying was sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, at least in my school playground? Throwing a brick at someone’s head usually hurts anybody but words are dependent upon how you react to them (laugh them off or take offence at what is said). In other words interpretation and the emotional slant you take on what you hear (the decisions you take).

Neil Ross
Neil Ross
2 months ago

Oh Dear, the writer has fallen for the Harry version of his life with everything being someone else’s fault while he is perfect and the sole provider of the truth!
Meghan has clearly failed to get him to come to terms with his mother’s death given he still refers to it at every opportunity and cannot accept she was killed by a drunk driver employed by her boyfriend’s father!

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
2 months ago

The only point with which I agreed (before ceasing to read, doubting that it was a good use of the dwindling resource of my time on this planet) was finding the term “woke” disagreeable lazy: let’s just stick to time honoured epithets such as “imbecilic”. Preferably, we might also find new and inventive ways to mock vacuity when we come across it.

In return, however, might I request that the left wing cease describing all they find disagreeable as “extreme right wing”, or, a fortiori, “f**cist”. That’s very lazy, too.

(Edited to circumvent the mod bots’ disapproval of my use of the “other” f-word.)

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Parker
ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
2 months ago

No, sorry. He is being manipulated for monetary advantage.

Rob Mcneill-wilson
Rob Mcneill-wilson
2 months ago

This writer wheels out the well-worn defence of woke; if you criticise any aspect of that damaging, neo-Marxist manifestation you are a bigot.

Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
2 months ago

A lot to disagree with here, but, getting to the end, I feel most of us can agree with the author that: “The couple were surely right to make their escape.”

N Forster
N Forster
2 months ago

Why?

Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

They’re not suited to their appropriate roles in the royal family, so, the further away the better.

Last edited 2 months ago by Russell Hamilton
N Forster
N Forster
2 months ago

Had their escape been a silent one, like that of Edward and Mrs Simpson, it would have been a blessing. As it is, a life of frustrated suppression on their part would have been a greater gift to the world than their current efforts. And in time, they may have realised what an honour and a privilege it is to serve.

Anakei Ess
Anakei Ess
2 months ago

And it is going so well for Harry – no job, no family, no purpose in life except perpetual victimhood.

michael harris
michael harris
2 months ago
Reply to  Anakei Ess

But he must be making lots of money from the book sales.

John Croteau
John Croteau
2 months ago
Reply to  michael harris

That privilege of money won’t make him any happier than being born into one of the most privileged families the world has ever known. In fact, he will end up among the unhappiest once he wakes up and finds himself one of the most disliked and disrespected the world will ever know.

Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
2 months ago
Reply to  Anakei Ess

When you see Harry on these interviews he’s doing, he doesn’t look happy. But he does have a family – that’s one thing Meghan has given him, and having children to love will be his best way out of the grief he still feels over his mother’s death.

Meghan has also given him a language, a schema, for understanding his issues. Not the best language, this whole ‘victim’ thing, but if you didn’t have one at all, it’s better to have a way to explain your situation to yourself, than to be miserable and not have an explanation, not to see a way out. It’s the start of a journey for Harry, let’s hope he makes it home.

John Croteau
John Croteau
2 months ago

Harry’s children will grow up and wonder how he could have squandered their family privilege.

j watson
j watson
2 months ago

Absolutely. And if they needed to secure funds for their needs, incl. lifetime of security, while the going was good, fair play to them. I don’t have to agree with all their perspective to recognise that.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
2 months ago

Terry’s angling for an invite onto the next edition of Archetypes .After that possibly reprise with Meghan the Monroe /Miller marriage.

And if Meghan is truly ‘an enlightened and democratic young woman’ why not unburden herself of her title of Duchess of Sussex , as she seemingly unburdened herself of every member of her family except her mother who is paraded as a necessary marker of her daughter’s recently embraced black identity .

If she is not a snob why no invites to her wedding for friends from childhood instead of Hollywood big shots she didn’t even know ?

Last edited 2 months ago by Alan Osband
Jason Sanders
Jason Sanders
2 months ago

o[#

harry storm
harry storm
2 months ago

The author of this article is an ignoramus, an ostrich who prefers to keep his head covered in the dirt of the prevailing left-woke orthodoxy than see what is really going on. Whether it’s racist so-called anti-racism, reality denying gender politics or the narcissistic delusions of Meghan and Harry, he sees only what he wants to see and rationalizes what doesn’t quite fit the myopic worldview. Surprised to see this sort of article on Unherd, as it is routine fare in the mainstream media and if I wanted to see this, I’d just have to listen to the CBC/BBC or pick up a copy of the New York Times.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
2 months ago

Terry’s disdain for ‘mainstream values’ seems mainly a gripe with conformity, and his support for H&M useful on that level and as a criticism of the Establishment via its rebels. The old argument about the conformists seeing threats everywhere is
a perennial for people of Terry’s disposition, with never a thought for whether social devolution is possible. By which logic, social progression is surely also impossible.

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
2 months ago

He’s not a Marine. The Royal family didn’t reject her.

Words are not violence.

Wrong, AMERICAN narrative.

Last edited 2 months ago by Roddy Campbell
Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 month ago

“Clarkson’s words are performative because they don’t just describe a violent assault; they are one.”

This is nonsense. In this country we have freedom of speech – not freedom of violence.

jmo
jmo
2 months ago

Are all comments on this subject to approval?

jmo
jmo
2 months ago
Reply to  jmo

It must have been triggered by a word that looked like a naughty one.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
2 months ago
Reply to  jmo

The are several off-limits words including most profanity (with the exception of “shit” for some reason). And using certain religious terms or loaded historical references (think Germany) may cause a delay in publication of your comment, usually a non-permanent one.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 month ago

“Telling the truth makes reconciliation hard, maybe impossible; but without the truth it will simply be a sham”.

Fine. But why the need to broadcast that truth to the world via the media, for payment? That act alone negates the writer’s points and if the writer would not respond to that criticism, then his other points are meaningless, are they not?

Last edited 1 month ago by Albireo Double
Jonny Stud
Jonny Stud
27 days ago

Clarkson was quote obviously referencing a scene from a massively successful and well known television series in allegory and clearly didn’t want to actually carry out said act, a fact even this author must be aware of but conveniently ignores because it’s an excuse to be offended on someone else’s behalf. What even was the surprise? Controversial columnist who says things to be controversial makes controversial statement, shocking, who’d have thought?

Roddy Campbell
Roddy Campbell
22 days ago

To use language you understand: this is your ‘truth’.

But it isn’t mine.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
2 months ago

I think it is unreasonable to describe the royal family as dysfunctional. Where is there another family to compare them with in this country? They are never willingly going to give up their obscenely privileged lifestyle so we must assume they don’t see themselves as dysfunctional.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 months ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

We’re all obscenely privileged these days.

elizabeth shannon
elizabeth shannon
2 months ago

Terry Eggleston has got it, just right.

Steve Grattan
Steve Grattan
2 months ago

Uh? Terry didn’t even mention the press! Probably the main thrust of everything Harry is saying is that the press are at the root of all the bad that he endures. We need the press to have a deep and on-going conversation with themselves and come to the conclusion that they make things worse – every time. No-one ever seems to call this out. I think Harry is one of a very small number who do and they just hate him for it. Harry may be making mistakes and may live to regret some of the ways he is behaving but it’s hard to deny that the press just make it all 100 times worse. Radio 4 this afternoon: “why do you think this is such a big story and won’t go away”. f*****g idiots, its because they bang on and on about it ALL the time, stirring the shit to make it smell as much as possible.

N Forster
N Forster
2 months ago

You remind me of a line from one of the Suttas from the Pali canon:
Can an unwise person know of an unwise person that this person is an unwise person?
No.

John Ramsden
John Ramsden
2 months ago
Reply to  N Forster

I’ve noticed that more than once in my work. Very incompetent people often suffer from what might be called “Dunning-Kruger by proxy”, in that they are poor judges of and reject competent advice (not necessarily from myself). Only to be expected really, because how can someone accurately assess the merit of something about which they are clueless?

j watson
j watson
2 months ago

Great article. Best yet on this saga on UnHerd.
Will annoy the heck out of many though I’m sure.

Jane Watson
Jane Watson
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

That’s not me by the way. I think the article is utter garbage.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane Watson

Print it out and use it as what is known in “Intra M25 land as ” Toilette Stationary”!!!!

John Ramsden
John Ramsden
2 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Well worth publishing though, because the perceptive comments tore it apart strip by strip! In some ways this can be better than an article which everyone applauds and whose comments become little more than a mass hugbox!