I've been posting about this on FB here and there and I'm sick of it but Claire, I expected better from you. I did not watch the interview but from I have read, much of it seems not believable to me. That the royal family is strippled with racism is no surprise, and the remark about the baby's skin color is reprehensible. Notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that Meghan did no research on Harry or the family. She didn't look up his net worth? She never saw that photo of Harry dressed in a Nazi costume? (Maybe that's when she "woke" him?) Next: no support for her depression? Harry has had counseling, and he and Will set up a foundation to promote mental health. He didn't call someone? Next: none of the Queen's great grandchildren have titles, except for William's son who is in the line of succession, and his siblings (so they won't feel inferior). and the tabloid business, boils down to the Queen not "correcting" the story about who made whom cry. Meghan is an *actor* and that was a master **act**, abetted by Oprah, to take control of the narrative and promote the Sussex brand. I don't doubt it's "hard" to be a royal, the price of all that privilege and wealth is personal isolation and a life of boring dutiful events. Some of the "lesser" royals find personal meaning in pursuits like horseback riding, architectural preservation, etc. Meghan thought she was marrying into the ultimate celebrity. Yeah, maybe they were kinda mean to her. That so many people are falling for this as a brave act against racism astounds me.
Thank you for this comment! I share the same reservations that you do--including it is an interesting way that I think the spirit of #MeToo has infected all forms of harm that we are expected to #BelieveHer in all things when the narrative rings true and the details don't. My original post was far more skeptical in the ways you sketch out, and then several women of color told me in no uncertain terms that these reservations were also racially insensitive (to put it mildly.) And my assertion that this was a rebranding exercise was viewed as similarly insulting. So what I tried to do in redrafting was to be less assertive, leave the framing in place and create more space for people to disagree. So I am glad you did.
Great anatomy of an interview by Oprah. I see a kind of parallel to Oprah in Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the way in which he adeptly leads his white guests on "Finding Your Roots" to the realization that they have ancestors who owned slaves and/or have Sub-Saharan African DNA. He elucidates the implications of the past on the present and the future. He educates everyone on how we are *actually* one big family one episode at a time. I wonder what you think about the possibility that Harry and Meghan are fully aware of the degree of sacrifice and the real, serious risk involved in making structural change to an institution that has existed for over a millennium? And, while I believe Harry really loves Meghan, there was perhaps a conscious choice made by Harry of a spouse that would both make his mother proud and make a crack in the fortress wall.
Excellent observations: I would also not be surprised if they had a private deal ahead of time that if it didn't work out, they would leave...Meghan is an incredibly worldly and well-educated person. I doubt she knew as little abot what she was walking into as she suggests.
I agree with your take on the private deal. I am surprised by the responses across media piling on Meghan. Why attack her for having been an actor? Aren't we all "actors" in life and "all the world's a stage." How does another person know what's an act and what's not? This accusation is particularly rich given the theatricality of the monarchy, but somehow that "acting" is OK. I do believe Meghan and Harry's acts and words have been chosen carefully. They understand that change is incremental. They have decided to take the risk and sow a seed.
So--good question. I think when people do not want to believe women alleging abuse, they lean on any proof that they think they can point to that the person is fraudulent. How do you persuade that someone seems authentic-- but must be lying? Saying s/he is an actor. Same thing came up with Tara Reade (who actually, I had questions about--but not because she's had theatrical training.)
First, I love your exchange below with Mae Ngai who neatly sums up a lot of the doubts I had about the interview, and I love your response because it makes your process wonderfully and informatively transparent. Secondly, unlike Mae, that address it here because it is important in my view. Whether we choose to believe that alleged racial attacks (passive or aggressive) against Ms. Markle are true in whole or in part (there is this thing called half-truth, we must remember), we also have to ask what the qualitative difference (if any) there is between Markle's experience and that of a non-celebrity, non-millionaire Black person or person of color and whether that distinction matters in a discussion of racism, institutional or otherwise. My instinct is that it does, primarily because money and power confer options that those with little to no power or money do not have. Ms. Markle had many opportunities, particularly through her intimacy with her husband, to understand his family and the institution of which he was a part and to make a decision about whether she dared to become part of it. If she did not, that's on her. If she did and it didn't work out, who is to blame? Privilege comes in many forms and colors. And as you write in your excellent essay, there is something particularly California in her description of her pretended or real innocence of any knowledge of the Royal Family before she married. I agree with you 100% about Oprah's brand, how she curates it, and what it's goal is. Well done.
Mae is, bar none, one of the great historians of our generation. I think one of the interesting aspects of the interview is their sense that they were broke when they weren't--there is something yet to be written about what it means for extremely wealthy people to face life as only moderately wealthy, and how little Harry knows about living in the world. There is also something to be written about the security industry: one account I read said that just evaluating a celebrity's needs could cost as much as $1.5 million.
I've been posting about this on FB here and there and I'm sick of it but Claire, I expected better from you. I did not watch the interview but from I have read, much of it seems not believable to me. That the royal family is strippled with racism is no surprise, and the remark about the baby's skin color is reprehensible. Notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that Meghan did no research on Harry or the family. She didn't look up his net worth? She never saw that photo of Harry dressed in a Nazi costume? (Maybe that's when she "woke" him?) Next: no support for her depression? Harry has had counseling, and he and Will set up a foundation to promote mental health. He didn't call someone? Next: none of the Queen's great grandchildren have titles, except for William's son who is in the line of succession, and his siblings (so they won't feel inferior). and the tabloid business, boils down to the Queen not "correcting" the story about who made whom cry. Meghan is an *actor* and that was a master **act**, abetted by Oprah, to take control of the narrative and promote the Sussex brand. I don't doubt it's "hard" to be a royal, the price of all that privilege and wealth is personal isolation and a life of boring dutiful events. Some of the "lesser" royals find personal meaning in pursuits like horseback riding, architectural preservation, etc. Meghan thought she was marrying into the ultimate celebrity. Yeah, maybe they were kinda mean to her. That so many people are falling for this as a brave act against racism astounds me.
Thank you for this comment! I share the same reservations that you do--including it is an interesting way that I think the spirit of #MeToo has infected all forms of harm that we are expected to #BelieveHer in all things when the narrative rings true and the details don't. My original post was far more skeptical in the ways you sketch out, and then several women of color told me in no uncertain terms that these reservations were also racially insensitive (to put it mildly.) And my assertion that this was a rebranding exercise was viewed as similarly insulting. So what I tried to do in redrafting was to be less assertive, leave the framing in place and create more space for people to disagree. So I am glad you did.
I would be more inclined to sympathize with M. if she had some actual evidence and not a story full of holes and unbelievables.
Great anatomy of an interview by Oprah. I see a kind of parallel to Oprah in Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the way in which he adeptly leads his white guests on "Finding Your Roots" to the realization that they have ancestors who owned slaves and/or have Sub-Saharan African DNA. He elucidates the implications of the past on the present and the future. He educates everyone on how we are *actually* one big family one episode at a time. I wonder what you think about the possibility that Harry and Meghan are fully aware of the degree of sacrifice and the real, serious risk involved in making structural change to an institution that has existed for over a millennium? And, while I believe Harry really loves Meghan, there was perhaps a conscious choice made by Harry of a spouse that would both make his mother proud and make a crack in the fortress wall.
Excellent observations: I would also not be surprised if they had a private deal ahead of time that if it didn't work out, they would leave...Meghan is an incredibly worldly and well-educated person. I doubt she knew as little abot what she was walking into as she suggests.
I agree with your take on the private deal. I am surprised by the responses across media piling on Meghan. Why attack her for having been an actor? Aren't we all "actors" in life and "all the world's a stage." How does another person know what's an act and what's not? This accusation is particularly rich given the theatricality of the monarchy, but somehow that "acting" is OK. I do believe Meghan and Harry's acts and words have been chosen carefully. They understand that change is incremental. They have decided to take the risk and sow a seed.
So--good question. I think when people do not want to believe women alleging abuse, they lean on any proof that they think they can point to that the person is fraudulent. How do you persuade that someone seems authentic-- but must be lying? Saying s/he is an actor. Same thing came up with Tara Reade (who actually, I had questions about--but not because she's had theatrical training.)
First, I love your exchange below with Mae Ngai who neatly sums up a lot of the doubts I had about the interview, and I love your response because it makes your process wonderfully and informatively transparent. Secondly, unlike Mae, that address it here because it is important in my view. Whether we choose to believe that alleged racial attacks (passive or aggressive) against Ms. Markle are true in whole or in part (there is this thing called half-truth, we must remember), we also have to ask what the qualitative difference (if any) there is between Markle's experience and that of a non-celebrity, non-millionaire Black person or person of color and whether that distinction matters in a discussion of racism, institutional or otherwise. My instinct is that it does, primarily because money and power confer options that those with little to no power or money do not have. Ms. Markle had many opportunities, particularly through her intimacy with her husband, to understand his family and the institution of which he was a part and to make a decision about whether she dared to become part of it. If she did not, that's on her. If she did and it didn't work out, who is to blame? Privilege comes in many forms and colors. And as you write in your excellent essay, there is something particularly California in her description of her pretended or real innocence of any knowledge of the Royal Family before she married. I agree with you 100% about Oprah's brand, how she curates it, and what it's goal is. Well done.
Mae is, bar none, one of the great historians of our generation. I think one of the interesting aspects of the interview is their sense that they were broke when they weren't--there is something yet to be written about what it means for extremely wealthy people to face life as only moderately wealthy, and how little Harry knows about living in the world. There is also something to be written about the security industry: one account I read said that just evaluating a celebrity's needs could cost as much as $1.5 million.