In terms of British history and society, “Waity Katy” Middleton scaled a far greater obstacle in her path to marriage to an English prince than that of racism. She overcame the “class” distinction. Her parents were from upper-middle -class families–not “noble,” not even “aristocratic”–and they met while he was working as an air traffic controller and she was what used to be called a “stewardess.” Although they were left some money by a well-off ancestor, they’re largely self-made, and have worked hard to get where they are. Kate’s mother (“doors to manual”) was the object of years of scorn from Will’s “friends” at school, and the tabloid coverage of Will’s “commoner” girlfriend was especially cruel.
But, of course, as Meghan pointed out to “The Oprah” (h/t the late, great, Rush Limbaugh), the coverage of Kate was “rude” but not “racist.” Couldn’t have been racist, because Kate is white. Pretty sure, had Megan been put through the same sort of tabloid mill as her sister-in-law, she’d have played the race victimhood card, though. Oh, wait . . .
What a classless pair. Proof once again that “birth” has nothing to do with it, as William and Kate demonstrate on the one hand, and Harry and Meghan do on the other, every single day.
Pity, when it comes to American women marrying princes of the realm (even tiny ones), Meghan chose to take a leaf out of Wallis Simpson’s book rather than Grace Kelly’s.
Sorry Megs. The vision that you and Harry have of yourself, that you’re some sort of modern-day Diana simply doesn’t add up. To begin with, I can buy the thought that Diana, still a teenager when her engagement to Charles was announced, “didn’t know what she was getting into,” and that “The Firm” made some cataclysmic mistakes in dealing with her situation, starting with her husband’s lack of support and the pretty clear evidence that he never stopped bonking his girlfriend for the duration of his marriage. (Any “disappointment” and sense of “letdown” that Harry feels at his father’s behavior has been massively felt ten times over, for decades, by the Great British Public, I assure you. Has Harry been living under a rock all this time? Oh, that’s right. He was “trapped.” But he didn’t know he was “trapped” until he met you.)
But, you. You were older, when you married Harry, than Diana was when she died. And yet you expect me to swallow the idea that just like Diana, it was all too much for you, and that you, an independent, already married and divorced, (very modestly) successful actress, didn’t understand what you were in for. Haven’t you seen any episodes of The Crown? Don’t you read the papers? Haven’t you got a computer? Glory be. (Looks like you don’t really understand how the Church of England marriage ceremony works, either. No idea what you and Harry and the Archbishop were doing in the garden three days before, but it wasn’t undertaking any sort of marriage that would “stick.” Nor was your incoherent and largely wrong story about how inherited titles work, and your deliberately vague, so as to engender more speculation and tabloid frenzy, accusations of racist talk about your son’s skin color, particularly edifying either.)
Newsflash, darling: You weren’t put on this earth to rescue or fix the British monarchy. Beyond the circle of your celebrity friends (most of whom, I suspect, are drafting along in the tatters of your “royal” tailwind) and the vultures of the tabloid presses on both sides of the Atlantic, hardly anyone gives a hoot what you think, or what two privileged, entitled, whiny little rich people have to say in a world that’s still struggling with the horrific consequences of a deadly pandemic.
I haven’t seen you doing very much to help with efforts there, although I see your brother-in-law and sister-in-law doing their bit on the front lines all the time, and even your 94-year old grandmother-in-law is more present on the public stage than you’ve been.
I wish I could remember where I read a column, months ago, which posited that your biggest frustration is that Hollywood princesses are used to going to events, even those at children’s’ hospitals and veterans’ centers, getting all the attention, and featuring as the “star of the show” But that when British Royalty visits those same places, the “stars” are the children with cancer and the wounded soldiers, and the purpose of the Queen, the Prince, Princess, Duke or Duchess, is simply to highlight them, the good work being done, and the workers who do it. (Come to think of it, it may have been a comment made by Mark Steyn on a US news program.)
That’s as it should be. But I suspect it probably wasn’t good enough for you, who likes to see your own name in lights, and who seems very wrapped up in your “Lady Bountiful” persona.
As Brendan O’Neill succinctly put it, yesterday:
More fundamentally we’re witnessing a culture clash. A conflict between the contemporary cults of victimhood and identity politics, as now keenly represented by Harry and Meghan, and the older ideals of duty, self-sacrifice, stoicism and keeping your shit together, as embodied by the queen, and as aspired to by most Brits in recent decades.
On this one, you can put me down as squarely on the side of Team Cambridge and “keeping your shit together.”
As for Harry and Meghan, I applaud their desire for privacy. Now that they’ve caused all this fuss and probably wrecked any chance of restoring normal familial relations any time soon (Meghan seems well-practiced in that sort of thing, especially as it relates to intergenerational and sibling dynamics), I’d just like to see them act as if they mean it and devote the rest of their rich and privileged lives to quietly doing good works for their own sake and out of the limelight.
Go away. Please.