Episode 2: Harry and Meghan

Getting to know them

Full disclosure: The stuff about their “courtship” (run up to Engagement/Marriage) was mostly news to me. When Harry and Meghan were connecting and dating in 2016/2017, I was mostly a tuned-out royal watcher. Well, I did have better things to do than get caught up in the melodramatic, ego-driven bullshit that had begun to dominate royal watching. To a degree, yes, that sort of thing wasn’t entirely new. Rabid Diana Stans/Camilla Haters were always there, muddying the waters with their perpetual grudges. Yet the Harry/Meghan saga introduced even more vicious modes of attack. Everything was racist, everything was awful, Trump was US President, and I was just fed up. Even news of their impending wedding was tainted by Trump, Trumpism, and anti-Trumpism: would he be invited? (He was not.) Would former presidents, like Barack Obama, be there, as a friend of the groom in particular? (It was decided by the royals that politicians would not necessarily be included on the guest list.)¹

At this point in the series, I have come to realize how beneficial it is that Harry and Meghan have done this. I had misgivings, as you know if you’ve been a subscriber long enough to have caught my last two articles in your inbox. Since undertaking this experimental journey through the Harry & Meghan saga, in their words, I have been reading the op-eds in the London newspapers. I’m curious about what others are saying about the series. The broadsheets are weighing in no less than the tabloids. Some of the op-ed pieces are by writers who have books out—books that cover events covered in the series. Valentine Low (of the Times) wrote a book, titled Courtiers, with lots of coverage of the Harry and Meghan saga; Low seems to be one of their naysayers. Lots of people wrote books covering the “Harry and Meghan” saga. Andrew Morton (of Diana: Her True Story fame) got their first with his biography of Meghan, written before the marriage, then Valentine Low, Lady Colin Campbell, and Tina Brown. (To be fair, Brown’s book, The Palace Papers, is probably the most objective and journalistically responsible book of anything written in relation to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That’s my own opinion.) The point is, everyone had something to say about Harry and Meghan—everyone, that is, except Harry and Meghan…until now. In the series, James Holt, Executive Director at the Archewell Foundation,² calls out the toxicity in the British press. As an American, I feel it is incumbent on me to admit that America’s press is very toxic too, and I don’t think this kind of toxicity is unique to any particular nation. I think this toxicity happens anywhere as long as there is profit in pain and torture. We see this all over the world—people consuming bad news and tragedy, violence and negativity. Nevertheless, I suppose it’s unsurprising that the British press will bear the brunt of the Sussex couple’s resentment. It was, after all, the British press (mostly) which they had and still largely have to deal with. In America, some media outlets with right-wing leanings have jumped on the bandwagon of anti-Sussex coverage. Donald Trump himself has thrown shade at the couple. Yet the leader of all this nastiness is undoubtedly the Daily Mail. American outlets often take their lead from the Daily Mail when it comes to the royal family.

I started this series in my substack in order to document my own prejudice (the “before I saw it” feelings) and to see whether those biases fall away or stand.

Netflix: Harry & Meghan

My second article on the topic covers my (admittedly snarky) reaction to Episode 1. Yet in spite of the tongue-in-cheek tone, I was beginning to feel that I might be missing a greater point to all this.

Netflix: Harry & Meghan

Now in my reaction to Episode 2, I feel myself awakening and opening up to a more accepting, softer position. I would like to spell out a few things covered in the series which I think are valuable insights.

I appreciate how they address the impact of divorce on a child. The push and pull, the back and forth, the tug of war that can happen even in relatively amicable circumstances. In Harry’s case, we know it was not amicable. Meghan also was the innocent caught between divorcing parents. I was floored by Meghan’s recall of a poem she wrote when she was 12:³

Two houses, two homes

Two kitchens, two phones

Two couches where I lay,

two places that I stay,

Moving, moving here and there

From Monday to Friday, I’m everywhere

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that bad,

but often times it makes me sad

I want to live that nuclear life,

with a happy dad and his loving wife,

A picket fence, a shaggy dog,

A fireplace, with a burning log

But it’s not real, it’s just a dream,

I cannot cry or even scream,

So here I sit with cat number three,

Life would be easy if there were two of me

12 years old! This is approximately the age that she was when she penned a letter of complaint to the Ivory corporation, asking them to change the wording in their dishwashing liquid commercial. She spoke with discernible pride about her success. The corporation changed the wording of their commercial to correct the sexist generalization that housework is women’s work. At the age of 11 or 12, Meghan was already challenging the status quo, asking tough questions, and pushing for progressive ideas. Coraggiosa!

This little girl grew up and continued to speak her mind. Her parents encouraged her to be an individual and to draw her own box.⁴ We get to know this eclectic person in Episode 2. She was drawn to two passions: acting and activism. She loved acting, but she also loved talking/thinking/writing/reading about social and cultural issues. She is on record here (and also on her podcast) saying that as a child she was not pretty. "I was smart," she said. I think she means that she wasn't a conventional beauty, the likes of which are rewarded with attention in the media, but she probably ought to explain that. The way she says it ("I wasn't pretty" because "I was smart") implies that "smart" and "pretty" cannot coexist. I can see the desire behind her words: She wants to be taken seriously. While she enjoyed acting, she needed more and deeper ways of self-expression. Hence, the Tig. Hence, the political discussion, and philosophical book plugs.⁵ While she loves Prince Harry and undoubtedly must enjoy some aspects of royal life, the viewer of Harry & Meghan (2022) might be forgiven for having a sense that she craves something more than day-to-day, humdrum routines that revolve around cutting ribbons and unveiling plaques.

The formality of royalty, says the Duchess of Sussex, “carries over on both sides” of the proverbial palace doors. Once behind those doors, there is no release, there is no escape. Her brother-in-law, William, and his wife, Kate, she said, were as formal in private as in public. “And that was surprising to me,” she said. It doesn’t surprise me to hear that the royal family may be very guarded and slow to relax around newcomers. In Episode 1, Harry discusses the issue of trust at some length.

Meghan met the Queen (the late Elizabeth II) first, before she even met William and Kate. And that was staggering to her, because while she met Her Majesty at a private lunch, she was still expected to curtsey. The lunch was organized at Royal Lodge, the home of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, the Duke and Duchess of York.

Harry then: “You know how to curtsey, right?”

Meghan in retrospect: “And I just thought it was a joke.”

What was not a joke was the media’s stereotyping of Harry’s new girlfriend. Politics never cease, it seems. Anti-immigration and “Brexit” set the tone and background of their intensely publicized relationship. “No matter what I did,” she said, “they were still going to find a way to destroy me.” The Daily Mail horribly called her a girl “straight outta Compton,”⁶ even though she never lived in Compton, and just saying that is incredibly insulting on multiple levels. Not only was it racist, it was elitist. It made light of systemic crime and poverty. In the second episode of the series, Meghan tells us that she was never seen, and nor did she regard herself in particular as a “black girl” until being outed as a royal girlfriend. At the same time, she recalls an episode from adolescence when her mother was called the N word. It was the more striking and memorable because it wasn’t normal. Normally, it seems, she was treated with love and respect; she had lots of friends and a happy life, for the most part. As a royal girlfriend, though, that changed. The Daily Mail turned her into an Other. Other media outlets followed suit.

Given that so much of what is written about this documentary is negative,⁷ I was pleasantly surprised to find a positive piece about it in the Telegraph. It was written by podcaster Bryony Gordon, a longtime supporter and friend of the couple. Gordon believes that, far from being phony, as the naysayers frequently say, “what you see is what you get” with this documentary. She considers it Harry and Meghan speaking their truth. She writes: “It is neither contrived nor fake.”⁸ She furthermore asserts that Harry and Meghan aren't really bothered about the critics. "For this series is not an attempt to change the hearts and minds"⁹ of tabloid skeptics. They just want the chance to do what the tabloids (and broadsheets) do all the time. It's ironic that critics of Harry and Meghan are so offended by the couple exercising the principle of free speech (about their own life) when some of those critics claim to be free speech absolutists. The whole point of free speech is that it applies to your opposition too. I understand the naysayers argument that it was Harry who, on Dax Shepard's Armchair Expert podcast, remarked that the U.S. First Amendment is "bonkers;" but of course, it’s rare that anyone quotes him in context. While he did admit that he doesn’t fully understand the U.S. Constitution, he thinks there’s a danger in using the First Amendment for exploitation. It allows a loophole, he said, toward redefining what privacy means.¹⁰ But anyone who thinks Harry was bonkers for saying any of that must be a believer in free speech, and it would be hypocritical to suggest that Harry and Meghan do not have a right to use the principle which you believe in. They are using free speech to tell their own story. If they profit from it, so what? It's their own story. It also makes sense that they are doing it for themselves more than for others, although that doesn't preclude others from deriving inspiration or meaning from the story. What the story has thus far done for me is remind me of the usefulness of having dialogues about freedom and privacy, public duty and private life. Hilariously, a Tory MP broached the topic of Harry and Meghan at the Prime Minister's Question Time. Employment Minister Guy Opperman thinks the public needs to be rallied to boycott Netflix. This was echoed by renewed calls to introduce legislation to strip Harry and Meghan of the ducal title of Sussex. I love the response to all this from Downing Street. A spokesman for the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, said the Prime Minister had "nothing"¹¹ to say about the documentary, adding that it's a private matter for "the palace" and that the prime minister has no intention of telling the public what shows or channels they can stream. "It's a matter for the public what channels they want to watch," the spokesman said, and then he was asked if Prime Minister Sunak has a Netflix account. "I honestly don't know," said the spokesman. Well done, PM Sunak's spokesperson. Imagine being a supporter of free speech, urging that opposing views must be heard, and simultaneously calling for a boycott of a streaming network because a couple exercises free speech about their own story!

1. Davies, Caroline. “World leaders to miss union of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.” The Guardian (UK). 10 April 2018.

2. The Archewell Foundation is the charitable organization founded by Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Website: https://archewell.com.

3. Poetry by 12-year-old Meghan Markle, now the Duchess of Sussex

4. Her dad literally told her, “Draw your own box,” when, as a biracial kid, she was confused about how to classify herself.

5. Booth, Robert. “Meghan Markle could shake up monarchy, says Noam Chomsky.” The Guardian (UK). 1 December 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/01/meghan-markle-could-shake-up-monarchy-says-noam-chomsky.

6. The Daily Mail, 3 November 2016. Article by Ruth Styles and Shekhar Bhatia. https://web.archive.org/web/20161103124410/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html.

7. Langfitt, Frank. “U.K. critics pan ‘Harry & Meghan’ Netflix series.” NPR. 9 December 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/09/1141845597/harry-and-meghan-netflix-reviews.

8. Gordon, Bryony. “Harry and Meghan are neither contrived nor fake - what you see on telly is what you get in real life.” The Daily Telegraph (UK). 9 December 2022. http://archive.today/Y0Ldx.

9. ibid.

10. Kirkpatrick, Emily. “Prince Harry Called the First Amendment ‘Bonkers’ and Gave Some Talking Heads an Excuse to Relitigate the Revolutionary War.” Vanity Fair. 17 May 2021. https://archive.vn/uyNRm.

11. Smith, Daniel. “Minister calls on public to ‘boycott Netflix’ over Harry and Meghan series.” WalesOnline. 9 December 2022. https://archive.vn/bZUFm.