Harry and Meghan. (And Why Their Saga Matters.)

When will the press accept that the royal family emboldened the British press’assault on Meghan m. Then the press emboldened the racists in Britain?

This NYT reporter seriously stated that some segment of the British population made Meghan's "life miserable." Seriously! How miserable can multi-millionaires in a castle under 24-hour guard be, compared to the rest of us? How miserable can they be traveling the world surrounded by body guards? How can tabloid stories that can go unread and ignored by intelligent people make anyone miserable? It seems to me that H and M need to get a backbone and appreciate their privilege. Also, this reporter asserts that the Brexit voters and people who maligned Meghan are one in the same, without citing a single source. No mention or link to a poll, survey, study or research. That is not reliable journalism. I care nothing about monarchy soap operas, but I do care about responsible journalism.

Key conclusions in this podcast are based on errors in chronology or unsupported by data: 1. It notes that "after the wedding", the media "bled into sinister coverage". But the headlines used as proof points, about "exotic DNA" and "Compton", actually ran months *before* the wedding, and in fact before Harry's media letter and the couple's appearance together in Toronto even confirmed the relationship. 2. I agree with SusanM that comparisons of coverage (including BuzzFeed's) of Meghan and Kate for similar events are time-shifted and disregard the years of negative coverage of "Waity Katy" as a commoner ("doors to manual") before her engagement to William. There is undoubtedly racist topspin to the coverage of Meghan, but misogyny and classism were also evident in early years' coverage of Kate and most coverage of Sarah Ferguson. 3. It notes that Harry and Meghan "pulled off" the "new life" they wanted. But the final agreement precludes use of their royal titles, free use of Frogmore Cottage, their public patronages and military titles, and part-time representation of the Queen. They are categorically not "carving out a progressive new role within this institution", as they wanted. They are now operating almost completely outside it. 4. There is no data whatsoever to support the claim that "the people that were hardest on Meghan Markle were the same people that voted for Brexit" (the paper normally uses the phrase "without evidence" to accompany a claim like this).

First, I think this episode could have benefited from input from the gender, race and pop culture experts at the NYT, along with the London Bureau Chief. However, since we're here...! I don't think you can discus Harry and Meghan's new chapter fairly without getting the chronology right: the racialized coverage came first (2016) and the negative coverage ticked up slowly but surely after their successful Pacific tour (Oct 2018) and reached new heights after Archie was born (May 2019). The private jet kerfuffle (putting it mildly) in August 2019 arguably followed British media's anger at missing out on cashing in on Archie's private Christening. Looking at it this way, it's clear Harry and Meghan are breaking up with the British media not the British people. And yes, they're also taking space from a family that may love them, but that also has chosen (fairly enough) to put their traditional, conservative institution first. And that's fine, that's their job and there are enough heirs ahead of Harry, aren't there? People keep trying to remind Harry and Meghan that they don't matter, and yet the attention says otherwise :)

In defence of the British people who seem to be under an onslaught of racist accusations from US press, perhaps projection, and our obsessions, let me explain; the relationship of The Monarchy to the people is not a complicated one. The people aren’t overly concerned with Markle’s race, her status as divorcee, American or actress, we just want know, can she do the job, which is after all one of the highest ranking jobs in the country with a great benefits package. When she spontaneously writes affirmations on banana skins for sex workers you have to wonder. If it helps, the tabloids are to the British what the National Enquirer is to the Americans, nobody in there right mind believes Elvis was in Walmart, or cares. Incidentally the avocado anecdote was the last straw of an already irresponsible piece that prompted me to comment.

Thank you so much for this story. I found the correlation between Megan and Harry’s decision and Brexit to be very astute. But I would argue that it is not paradoxical at all. Its in fact proof of one of the underlying reasons for Brexit — prejudice. Or simply put racism. Although I appreciated the story highlighting the racist acts against Megan I felt like the reporting did not push hard enough in explicitly stating that it was not just the “older generation” but the white demographic that was behind these attacks on Megan. Similarly it is not just the “older generation” of Brits who voted for Brexit but majority white. To not include that fact in almost every statement when speaking of the “two sides” seems...irresponsible. Or soft — for lack of a better word. One key element of Brexit thats so appealing to conservatives whites is stopping the influx of immigrants, which are mainly non-whites. So again the idea that this white older generation — who voted for Brexit- would want Megan Markle to be gone - actually makes total sense. It’s not a paradox at all. And in fact Megan and Harry probably sensed with Brexit the conservative, prejudice title wave coming. What is paradoxical or perhaps predictable is those same white older conservatives who pushed her out... now complaining that she left.

There is more than racism facing Meghan Markle. It isn't just what she is, but what she is not. Prince Harry had the audacity to marry someone who IS NOT European Royalty or a British Aristocrat, not even a Wealthy British Commoner (like Kate). People didn't think Commoner Kate was "good enough" for William in the beginning. But at least Kate was British, attended the right schools, got the right education, knew the right people and spoke with that oh so essential "posh" accent...and yes she was white. You see part of the problem is that Meghan is NOT British. She is NOT even from a Commonwealth Nation. No, Meghan is the worst thing she can be, an American Divorcee. The British have long memories and they just have to conjure up images/stories of American Divorcee Wallace Simpson from the 1930's, and lament how the King abdicated the throne to marry her and it almost brought down the monarchy. That evil divorced American. Oh yes, they painted Meghan with the same brush from the very beginning. Divorced American, two strikes. God forbid she's an actress/celebrity, too tacky! Strike Three. Let's just top it off with the fact that she is biracial. Strike Four, but it doesn't matter she was OUT at strike three. Meghan was set up to take a relentless and ruthless beating in the press. The Royal family and their courtiers should have seen that coming long before the marriage. They should have been prepared for it and protected her. Harry should have known!

The conclusion that the same forces that pushed for Brexit are the same that drove M&H to leave is utter nonsense. Leaving the Monarchy with the Queen as Head of State –and not just a puppet – the way they did, is regarded by many – who are in now way Brexiteers – as selfish and reckless. Kate got bad press as well, but she cleverly chose to ignore it. Meghan could not have to be that naive not to know that she would be scrutinized. It's become very clear that she never really wanted to be a civil servant – and this is what you are as a member of the Royal Family.

PS: I appreciate the acknowledgment that the Venn diagram of Sussex haters (not critics, the virulent haters) and Brexit voters is close to a circle. MAGA people are also a quite neat overlap. And there is definitely an important discussion on the conflict between multicultural liberalism and progressivism, and monoculture traditionalists (who probably lean towards authoritarianism too).

I'm shocked to see that a Journalist who writes for the New York Times has addressed this topic in the same fluffy sentimental way as a gossip magazine, totally failing to address the underlying issue. Britain is governed by the Westminster System which does not have Separation of Powers. In other words the answer to the question - Who is watching the Watchmen, is - The Queen. For that reason she cannot be seen to be political. And therefore neither can any of the people who represent her. It’s quite a tricky role on which the balance of a country relies. The fact that nobody has witnessed the ‘Reserve Power’ of the monarchy and therefore considers her benign is testament to the strength of that system. But as a political journalist you know all that! Therefore with respect to Megan Markle, I think you need far more experience than a few years as a UN ambassador and a casual wardrobe before you start tinkering with the modernisation of that system. And whilst it may be important to Megan that she thrives I think the Queen is a little more distracted with the survival of the other 66.4 million subjects she is responsible for. Just to put things in perspective. cont....

Glad to hear a more sober take on this situation outside the tabloid fog. The Brexit analogy is so spot on and would have loved a deeper dive on that aspect. I think they wanted out before Brexit officially goes through at end of the month. Remove themselves from that particular narrative. Would have loved a bit more on when the press coverage really turned on the couple. A lot of people believe the successful Australia/Oceana tour was a turning point as well as the lead up to their baby’s birth. Anyway, glad you covered this and gave it a wider context.

I'm still not sure why any of this matters? If Markle is a victim of unfair tabloid coverage, that was surely to be expected and prepared for by the couple? I would hope that she and Harry had no illusions about their union and how it would be covered? Unless they truly feel entitled to special treatment, which is both childish and myopic. If Markle is a victim of racism, so are millions of others, in less privileged positions, without access to mental health care, financial support, or family. Why are we asked to care about entitled folks, who have every advantage in the world, and who, through their own actions, are hypocrites who seem out of touch with the plight of those less privileged? Why look deeper at their use of private jets as environmentalists, of using British taxpayer money to renovate their "cottage"? Yes, they paid the renovation money back, but what in the world were they thinking to being with? Why not ask the tough questions about the relevancy of what they represent? Of what they contribute? Of why people are so obsessed with class and status and what that says? Why this slavish fascination with the monarchy? All of that wealth was made on the backs of people who were oppressed. There are more important stories, stories which actually affect us, that shed light on where we are politically and racially in both America and Britain. Focus on the insidiousness of symbols. The fear of change. Megxit is not a thing.

Great analysis today! It seems paradoxical that the English hope to regain past greatness by self-diminution. But emotions may be irrational. Everything appears possible in the mind until actuality demands reckoning. In another generation, when the UK will be smaller and poorer, the English and Welsh may look back in regret, ask their royal couple to kindly return, and another referendum may decide to rejoin the union.

Oh dear. Do we really have to care? M & H are now living in a $24M mansion shilling the royal name for profit. Wasn’t that always the game? Fame and money without the hard work and self-sacrifice? Megan is 38, grew up well-educated and privileged, became an expert at self-promotion and, now, self-pity. Yawn.

Love The Daily Podcast, I enjoy Michael Barbaro's delivery. I listen to it every day on my way to work!

If Mexit is all about race, then Meghan should find out exactly how the connection between Leopold of Belgium and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness obtains in terms of Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Maybe what Harry needs most of all is a good get rich-quick scheme. Is he prepared for a trade, or a vocation, or what?

It doesn't matter at all. This is America and we do not have royal family. What goes on across the pond has no significance here. It is just a way for the media to try to make a buck off of it.

I don’t think the comparisons to Kate Middleton are fair. Why isn’t anyone asking how hard it was to be “Waity-Katey” when she was still essentially a child and all of the other negative coverage of her that she endured for years after she first entered the scene? I think that she has earned the relative deference (she is still the subject of plenty of snarky and intrusive reporting) that she gets by having spent YEARS gaining the trust of the British people. Meghan seems to have come in thinking that she should automatically be treated differently than anyone before her, all the while flouting the conventions and expectations of the British people. Somehow she missed the memo that she was signing up to work for the Windsors and the British people.

Chris Stanford who does the NYT Briefing (a herculean task) listens to The Daily. There could not be a better recommendation! So I listened today to your program done in London with an excessively applauding live audience. Some very interesting comments on Brexit and nationalism in Europe. In order to get to those comments, however, one has to listen to thirty minutes of self lauding by staff of The Daily. I know that you work very hard to create trustworthy news discussions but frankly I am interested in the discussions, not you.

I don't understand the hounding fascination with this young couple. Yes, they're "celebraties" but why do people need to follow EVERYTHING they say and do? Why is the nyt posting this story? Why can't people just do what they ask and let them live their life? Can you imagine having people photograph your every move and post in for the world to see? This is madness. The human need of voyeurism makes me sad. How about we just force ourselves to leave them alone instead?

By using the term “Megxit,” the NYT is continuing the sexist narrative of the British media. Meghan AND Harry have made plans to step down. This is not something we should attribute to Meghan alone. So disappointed in NYT for chasing viewers with tabloid headlines.

Trying to attach this much meaning to so-called Megxit is just funny. Meghan and Harry are two privileged people whose no-issue challenges do not mean anything for the broader public. And equating treatment by meaningless tabloids to real, day-in-day-out racism faced by black citizens is disservice to the cause. Meghan and Harry brought a lot of the bad press onto themselves with their entitled, shallow and hypocritical ways. And the reason they are "exiting" the Royal Family is to commercialize on their Kardashian-like celebrity status. Let's not make something out of nothing.

Just listened to Mark Lander's Daily -- Wow, very-interesting that last about Who was/is For Brexit and that those same people are Against HarryExit. Worth the listen, thank you.

Really? Isn’t there any other story you could dedicate your considerable NYT resources to? I know you’re trying to avoid impeachment stories - but the Harry & Meghan story isn’t even new - it’s several weeks old. And it really has no import on the Brexit story from a global viewpoint. No, it really DOESN’T matter. Godspeed to Harry and Meghan; I’m on their side. But I expect better from the Times and the Daily.

I'm a big fan of The Daily but was very disappointed in this podcast and it's failure to connect the dots between the racist roots of not only Brexit and Mexit, but also MAGA. Racist fear of a mulitplural, multicultural democracy is a powerful force in Britian, the USA and many other parts of the world. If we can openly discuss this, we can begin to reverse this evil.