No surprise that Harry and Meghan had to leave the UK to live “happily ever after”

 

I supposed that most people here in the U.S. have this idea that the “mother country” across the sea is somehow culturally and socially more “sophisticated,” and of course there is that British “accent” that can sell any gullible person a paper bag full of excrement (I saw that in an old MAD magazine). But that seems to be what the British tabloid press is “selling” to its own people. In this country, even the New York Post is careful not to step over too many lines, while People confines itself mostly the latest mostly harmless gossip, and nobody really takes The National Enquirer as anything other than a peddler in weird. Online celebrity gossip content may be a free-for-all, but the only people who pay attention to it are those who have nothing better to do with their empty lives.

But in the UK, The Daily Mail, The Express and the like are treated like “legitimate” purveyors of news. Of course, what qualifies as such is a matter of opinion (which it mostly is), and subject to debate. After her marriage to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle tried to play the game, making the rounds to show that the royals cared about the welfare of their “subjects,” and unlike some of her cohorts, Meghan had that wide grin that suggested that she actually enjoyed “mingling” with the “commoners.” That was no good, because it made everyone else in the royal family look too stiff, too formal and too, well, “unnatural.”

The tabloid press soon found this “unroyal,” and proceeded to take any opportunity to criticize Meghan, even when the hypocrisy was clear to anyone who had a fragment of common sense. While Kate “tenderly cradled” her “baby bump,” the very same rag would criticize Meghan for supposedly not being able to keep her hands off her “baby bump.” She was forced to endure endless tabloid inanities, and Piers Morgan—the UK version of Tucker Carlson, with a dash of Jeanine Pirro—continuously offered up his own “interpretation” of Meghan’s activities and motivations, which he obviously knew nothing about, but was all too happy to share his petty personal gripes about her and how she “harmed” the royal “brand.”

I suppose that to many, the decision of Harry and Meghan to drop out of being full-time royals and move to the “colonies” seemed a bit self-serving, and selfish. But in the run-up to their “tell-all” interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday, there was clearly concern on the part of the royal family and the tabloid media that mostly slandered her (we have already seen how easy that is in Johnny Depp’s UK defamation case), and there is little doubt that there was collusion between the two to release a story about how Meghan had “bullied” two or three members of the royal staff, which the “Palace” promised to “investigate,” as if there isn’t so much bad blood that we can expect an “impartial” inquiry. My suspicion is that Meghan had to deal with a few Mrs. Danvers-types, who saw her as an “interloper” who didn’t belong, and under the guise of “protocol” continuously frustrated her wishes.

What we found out on Sunday was the following, and it didn’t make for pleasant perusal:

Harry’s father, Prince Charles—who had already cut-off his son from receiving any funds from his estate—has refused to answer his phone calls for months, and in regard to his relationship with his brother Prince William, there is just “space” between them.

The tabloid press, in apparent collusion with the “Palace,” allowed a false story to spread about how Meghan had caused Kate to “cry” over the bridesmaids’ outfits. Meghan claims that the opposite was true, that Kate caused her to cry and later apologized. When the tabloid press twisted the story around, neither the “Palace” nor a clearly envious, self-serving Kate attempted to correct the story.

There were “concerns” expressed by unnamed members of the royal family about the skin color of Harry and Meghan’s baby, which Harry claims to have found shocking and disturbing. He refused to say who he had this conversation with, but the only people he kept off the hook was Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip, which probably is not surprising since he and Meghan went out of their way not to burn every bridge by saying just nice things about the queen and not appearing “insensitive” about Phillip’s present health condition.

Previously it was believed that Harry and Meghan declined any title for their son Archie because they wanted him to live a “normal” life; now we are told that they were upset over the decision to refuse Archie a title, an income and security that apparently came from the top (presumably the queen). The tabloid media response was to blame Meghan for making the accusation of racism on the part of royal family in refusing to treat their son like one of the “family”—ignoring Harry’s own comments and views on the subject.

Meghan apparently reached such a low point psychologically from all the attacks from the press that thoughts of suicide entered her mind, and she sought therapy. However, she was informed that this would not “look good” for the royal “brand” if it appeared that a member (an “accidental” one at that) appeared to lack the “stiff upper lip” and just “took it.” However, it appears that many in the Palace did want her to “feel the pain.”

While the tabloids have been predictably all over themselves in phony self-righteousness, others, like the Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey, noted that these were the kind of “bombshells” that the Palace had been courting for years, and in refusing to support Meghan, were paying the price for it: “Make no mistake, this was a pregnant woman blaming the institution—and those within it—for failing to help her at her lowest ebb.” That does not look “good.”  The BBC’s Jonny Dymond observed that the interview drew an image of “unfeeling individuals” in an “unfeeling institution.” Also not “good” for the royal "brand." 

Also "not good" was the judgment in a British court last month that The Mail on Sunday had violated Meghan's privacy rights in publishing an edited personal letter sent to her father, and directed the tabloid to print the judgment on its front page in "a font size no smaller" than the original headline of the offending piece.

Royal biographer Sean Smith is critical of the Palace’s short-sighted refusal to harness Meghan and Harry’s “mega-watt charisma” and approachability out of petty personal jealousies. Not that they are particularly hurting financially at the moment, having signed a $112 million production deal with Netflix, which reportedly has Prince William and company “livid”—supposedly over the fact that Netflix is producing a series about the royal family called “The Crown.” Knowing them, it is probably more about the self-sufficiency of the Harry and Meghan, rather than being seen as a “drain” on public finances—which of course makes the royal family look “bad,” and they can’t have that.