Thoughts on THAT interview
Mar. 9th, 2021 07:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rich_jackoI watched the Meghan and Harry interview last night. I know a lot of people aren't interested, and I'm not completely sure why I am. I guess I'm a bit of a sucker for royal news and all things constitutional. The following are a few reactions I had (expanding on a comment I posted earlier on That Facebook):
My overall impression was one of sadness that they felt the need to drag a family feud out in public. We didn't need to know there was a time Prince Charles wasn't returning Harry's calls, or that Meghan and Kate had a brief falling out over dresses for flower girls (You said you forgave her and would never want to raise it in public, so why are you raising it in public?). They say they want to mend bridges, but airing these things can't possibly help.
The mental health and racism issues were much more serious, and did need to be brought to light. Most of the criticism was aimed at palace officials rather than the royals themselves. It certainly feels like there should be an investigation into this. Again, it was sad that the couple didn't feel they could turn to any of the family for help - especially given the amount of work Prince William in particular has done to raise the profile of mental health issues.
The unnamed royal commenting on what colour Archie's skin would be is a tricky one, where it feels we need to hear the other side. The context was unclear. Was it intended as "the media are going to obsess over this, so you need to be prepared to deal with that," or was it something more sinister?
The institutional lack of support was obvious though. I was also sad about the awful press treatment of certain women in the royal family (and it is always the women), and noted the irony of this being broadcast on International Women's Day. It's probably right that the palace has never got involved in a media tit-for-tat, but it's hard not to imagine something could have been done to challenge the worst of the journalistic behaviour.
Overall, Meghan and Harry mostly came across sympathetically and it was nowhere near as cringe-worthy as that awful 1995 Diana interview, but it was still an exercise in media manipulation and only one side of the story. What they said deserves to be taken seriously, but we shouldn't jump to too many conclusions.
Some of it didn't quite ring true. Removing their security was presented as family pettiness, but that security is taxpayer-funded, so there will have been wider considerations. Archie not being a prince was portrayed as a personal snub, but it reflects a long-term trend of scaling back royal titles and the civil list - William and Kate's children are in the direct line of succession, but none of the Queen's other great-grandchildren have titles, nor do Princess Anne's children.
The bits where the interview was dumbed down for the US audience were annoying, such as Oprah's fake astonishment at the "revelations" the royals can't just do whatever they want, and that the media have a lot of influence over them. Though I do wonder how the anti-royal brigade will square Meghan's description of a restrictive, hard-working and emotionally brutal life with their perception of the royals as a bunch of lazy freeloaders.
There were lighter moments. It was nice to hear how warmly Meghan was welcomed in at first, and I loved the anecdote of how she first met the Queen, wasn't expecting to, and had to be given a hasty lesson in how to curtsey by other royals. They were both full of praise for the Queen. (No one ever has anything bad to say about HMTQ!) Their reflections on parenthood were charming too.
I am still a little baffled though, as to why a couple claiming to try to escape the public eye and protect their son would move to LA, start a media company and name it after him.
My overall impression was one of sadness that they felt the need to drag a family feud out in public. We didn't need to know there was a time Prince Charles wasn't returning Harry's calls, or that Meghan and Kate had a brief falling out over dresses for flower girls (You said you forgave her and would never want to raise it in public, so why are you raising it in public?). They say they want to mend bridges, but airing these things can't possibly help.
The mental health and racism issues were much more serious, and did need to be brought to light. Most of the criticism was aimed at palace officials rather than the royals themselves. It certainly feels like there should be an investigation into this. Again, it was sad that the couple didn't feel they could turn to any of the family for help - especially given the amount of work Prince William in particular has done to raise the profile of mental health issues.
The unnamed royal commenting on what colour Archie's skin would be is a tricky one, where it feels we need to hear the other side. The context was unclear. Was it intended as "the media are going to obsess over this, so you need to be prepared to deal with that," or was it something more sinister?
The institutional lack of support was obvious though. I was also sad about the awful press treatment of certain women in the royal family (and it is always the women), and noted the irony of this being broadcast on International Women's Day. It's probably right that the palace has never got involved in a media tit-for-tat, but it's hard not to imagine something could have been done to challenge the worst of the journalistic behaviour.
Overall, Meghan and Harry mostly came across sympathetically and it was nowhere near as cringe-worthy as that awful 1995 Diana interview, but it was still an exercise in media manipulation and only one side of the story. What they said deserves to be taken seriously, but we shouldn't jump to too many conclusions.
Some of it didn't quite ring true. Removing their security was presented as family pettiness, but that security is taxpayer-funded, so there will have been wider considerations. Archie not being a prince was portrayed as a personal snub, but it reflects a long-term trend of scaling back royal titles and the civil list - William and Kate's children are in the direct line of succession, but none of the Queen's other great-grandchildren have titles, nor do Princess Anne's children.
The bits where the interview was dumbed down for the US audience were annoying, such as Oprah's fake astonishment at the "revelations" the royals can't just do whatever they want, and that the media have a lot of influence over them. Though I do wonder how the anti-royal brigade will square Meghan's description of a restrictive, hard-working and emotionally brutal life with their perception of the royals as a bunch of lazy freeloaders.
There were lighter moments. It was nice to hear how warmly Meghan was welcomed in at first, and I loved the anecdote of how she first met the Queen, wasn't expecting to, and had to be given a hasty lesson in how to curtsey by other royals. They were both full of praise for the Queen. (No one ever has anything bad to say about HMTQ!) Their reflections on parenthood were charming too.
I am still a little baffled though, as to why a couple claiming to try to escape the public eye and protect their son would move to LA, start a media company and name it after him.
