When it comes to Harry and Meghan, the media is the message

In their new column for Xtra, Chosen Family’s Thomas and Tranna react to the biggest stories on the internet and beyond. 

In pop culture history, few interviews have come close to the magnitude of interest generated by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Oprah interview, which aired the evening of Mar. 7. There was Monica Lewinsky and Barbara Walters, Princess Diana and Martin Bashir and, more recently, Stormy Daniels and Anderson Cooper, but it’s been a hot minute since the promise of a juicy tell-all has captured the interest of the world on this scale. And the interview dropped more bombshells than we were expecting—the two biggest being the revelation that there were concerns and conversations within the palace about the colour of Meghan and Harry’s son’s skin colour and Meghan’s mental health struggles, which led to her becoming suicidal. Perhaps the most damning part of the latter bombshell: Despite many pleas for help, Meghan was given no support or medical/psychological aid during that difficult time.  

Over the course of this pandemic year, many people—ourselves included—have questioned the relevance of celebrity culture. We’ve seen the rich and famous navigate the last year virtually unaffected by the pandemic, while us regular folk have struggled with unemployment, evictions and illness. Many celebrities have been called out for being completely out of touch, and there have been endless think pieces written about the death of celebrity culture. So why do we care about Meghan and Harry? Is there anything truly relatable about their stories? If their most recent interview is anything to go by, our collective hunger for gossip and scandal hasn’t been diminished by this incredibly difficult year. Maybe focusing on the problems of the rich and famous allows a certain escape from our own problems; is there actually a difference between the entertainment and escape we find in watching shows like The Crown and the Oprah interview? 

Even though neither of us is particularly invested in the lives of the royals, we couldn’t help but get swept up in the drama and excitement of the first must-see, pop culture history-making interview of the new decade. Now that the interview has aired around the world, was it even worth watching? Does the story of Meghan and Harry really tell us anything we didn’t already know about the monarchy and the British press? What does our relationship to celebrity reveal about our culture? One thing is for sure: We need a T-shirt that says: “Were you silent or were you SILENCE-DTUH?” 

Tranna: So, on Sunday morning I conducted a silly poll on Twitter. The options were: Team Meghan and Harry, Team Royal and They’re All Idiots. Forty-six percent of the people who voted were Team Meghan and Harry, 2 percent were Team Royals and 52 percent think they’re all idiots. I have to admit, before watching the interview, I was Team They’re All Idiots, but the interview took me by surprise. It was a lot more revealing than I thought it would be. And I found Meghan to be candid and relatively transparent. 

Thomas: Before watching the interview, I would have said I’m Team Drama because, in a way, the return to royal drama signals that normal life is on its way back. Remember how, in January 2020, the biggest news in the world was that Meghan and Harry wanted to “step back” as senior royals to lead a simpler life in a Commonwealth country? It was thrilling to learn that they lived in a mansion in British Columbia they rented on Airbnb! 

A year later, the intense buzz around the Oprah interview is a reminder that anyone and everyone is a royal commentator (with zero insight into what it means to join this family). But watching the first hour of Oprah’s interview with Meghan, especially when she shares that she felt suicidal, I felt both compassion and embarrassment.

Tranna: Why embarrassment?

Thomas: In a way, the toxic obsession for royals is a form of enabling, and I felt embarrassed for taking part in the spectacle. The institution wouldn’t be so controlling of optics if the media wasn’t profiting from content about the family. I’m asking myself: Does watching the special, and writing this column, contribute to the problem? Harry and Meghan’s story is everywhere because it is media gold that gets people talking (about something other than COVID-19). It’s a compelling story because the themes are endless: Old power versus new power; toxic allegations against both Meghan and the Firm, extremely problematic silence around Prince Andrew’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein; opportunism after announcing Spotify and Netflix deals; rampant racism and misogyny in the British media and now mental health problems Meghan couldn’t get treatment for while living at the Palace. The challenge with this story is to prioritize what actually matters in this basket of competing issues. 

Following royal drama from afar can sometimes seem inconsequential, even though we’ve learned how much these people can go through. The royal family is powerful, yes, but the way they are depicted in the media is dehumanizing—like they are some sort of millionaire robots. Have we forgotten what Harry and William went through as young teenagers? Hearing Meghan say that, despite all the privilege in the world, she felt she no longer wanted to live is obviously terrible and a reminder that wealth doesn’t buy happiness.

Tranna: I think you’ve landed on something really important: Prioritizing what actually matters. In those two hours, so much was revealed. But when you take a step back, what actually mattered? What in the interview will actually have an effect on the culture, on the institutions of the monarchy and the British media? I think Meghan’s revelation about being suicidal was one of the most significant parts of the interview. I spoke with a British friend after the interview because I wanted a sense of how Brits feel about the whole thing. He told me that it’s important to know that the culture of mental health in the U.K., even today, is nothing like it is in North America. We are so much more open about mental health struggles, therapy, getting the help you need, and the Brits really aren’t. When Oprah asked Harry why he didn’t insist on getting Meghan help at the time of her crisis and he explains that those are just not the kinds of conversations that happen, I was appalled. But after my friend’s explanation, while still inexcusable, it made more sense. That reluctance to address mental health issues is not just a royal family thing, it’s a British thing, and I believe Meghan’s revelation has the potential to really bring about change on that front in the U.K. 

“That reluctance to address mental health issues is not just a royal family thing, it’s a British thing.”

Thomas: It really needs to change.  Side note: I have to say Oprah was really on her A-game! It was thrilling to watch her. She asked pointed questions and even brought up stories I’m sure a lot of people had forgotten about, like the rumour that Meghan made Kate cry. Meghan revealed that not only did she not make Kate cry, the reverse is allegedly what happened… and right before the wedding!

Tranna: I’m sorry but I couldn’t help rolling my eyes at the who-made-who-cry story. It was all over stupid flower girl dresses—who gives a shit? I wish Oprah had spent more time on the question of jealousy between Kate and Meghan. One of the most interesting parts of the interview to me is when Harry speaks about their tour of Australia, what a success it was and how dazzling Meghan was, in a way that recalled the charisma and star power of his mother. It speaks to the royal family’s real motivation to bring Meghan down. Harry and Meghan are not the successors to the throne; they cannot be allowed to outshine Will and Kate. I believe that’s the real reason they turned on Meghan. Why else would they turn on her when she brought so much to the table in terms of making the royal family look somewhat evolved and contemporary, which is no easy feat? That was a huge mistake on the royal family’s part. After this interview they have truly never looked more irrelevant, never more like the racist old gasbags that they are. 

Thomas: Their wedding felt so hopeful, though! Oprah even called it magical. One moment of the ceremony that brought me a lot of hope was when the Kingdom Choir sang “Stand by Me.” There was something incredible in the images of a group of Black singers, conducted with poise and passion by Karen Gibson, performing in front of the British establishment. The sunlight pouring into St. George’s Chapel, Harry holding Meghan’s hand, the choir’s beautiful rendition of one of the tackiest wedding songs ever: I remember watching that moment on a loop, believing in fairytales and racial harmony, if only for a day. That’s the power of Harry and Meghan’s union. It led me to naively believe that the royal family might evolve past the colonialist pomp. Clearly, I was wrong! It’s also wild to think that the wedding was less than three years ago. Things have gone south so quickly. The revelation that someone asked Harry what his mixed-race child would look like after birth is so appalling, cruel and violent. It will probably become a much bigger story in the days ahead (it should).

Tranna: But we also can’t pretend that the story about their child’s skin colour, as revolting and disturbing as it is, is a big revelation in regards to the royal family’s racism. The British monarchy is a corrupt institution that has built its wealth on human suffering, indenture and enslavement—they fucking invented colonialism! I felt sort of enraged by people acting like the racism Meghan described is the first instance of racism they’ve seen from the royal family. Come on! There is an entire history of racism, and it’s never even been well-hidden! That’s the danger of people learning about history through historical fiction. The Crown, as entertaining as it is, is not a historical document! With all that said, I can still see how having Meghan saying it out loud, publicly, is a kind of “speaking truth to power” moment. 

Thomas: I was surprised that Meghan said she didn’t do any research prior to meeting the family. 

Tranna: She googled the British national anthem, but not the guy she was dating—right! I also didn’t buy the kind of naiveté she was trying to sell us in the first 15 minutes of the interview. I remember Wendy Williams telling a story about Meghan begging to be on her show before she was famous that sort of illustrates that Meghan was a schemer—and I’m not saying that as a negative thing, simply matter-of-factly. Words like “scheming,” “ambitious” and “determined” are always used unfairly to negatively describe women, when men are celebrated for those qualities. What I’m trying to get at is that Meghan was someone who was trying to make it in show business—we can relate—and that requires a certain amount of savvy. And just like everyone who’s trying to make it in showbusiness (just like you and me!), you have to hustle; you have to learn how to get what you want and how to get to where you want to be. Meghan is an extremely smart woman, and I don’t believe she went into the whole thing as naively as she claims. I do believe she got way more than she bargained for. 

Thomas: One of the main challenges of our time when it comes to discussing gender is the question of accountability, especially for powerful women in the public eye. Taylor Swift, and also Mia Farrow, are relentless in highlighting how they feel they have been wronged (don’t get me wrong: The patriarchy is real, Scooter Braun is trash and Woody Allen is a creep). Seeing some negative reactions to Meghan’s performance, it’s clear it’s a slippery slope. Can women still be criticized for toxic behaviour or perceived dishonesty without fear of appearing sexist? Watching the interview, I wonder which narrative will prevail: Meghan’s struggle with mental health or the palace’s inquiry into workplace abuse? One interesting parallel to this is the case of Governor General Julie Payette, the Queen’s representative in Canada, who recently stepped down after a report highlighted how toxic a workplace Rideau Hall had become.

Tranna: I think Meghan’s story will prevail over that bullshit story about her being a bully to her staff, which the royal family released a week ahead of the interview, clearly trying to discredit whatever Meghan would reveal in the Oprah interview. But it didn’t work. The royal family has no credibility right now. This quote from their statement made me laugh: “[The palace] does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment.’” But they will tolerate Prince Andrew’s alleged sex trafficking. These people are bananas! I’m obviously not defending bullying or mistreatment of employees in any capacity—it’s despicable—but are we really surprised that a rich and famous person was mean to their staff? Is there not bigger fish to fry here? Remember when Naomi Campbell threw a phone at a hotel maid? And I think this is where misogynoir in the British media comes into play. They are deliberately playing into the “angry Black woman” trope and trying to use that to discredit Meghan. 

Thomas: There’s no doubt about the timing of the bullying piece, but where I also get suspicious is the timing of the interview itself: Oprah mentioned her upcoming Apple TV project with Harry and even goes so far as bringing up the couple’s new company/charity, Archewell. Settling into their new life in California after having announced lucrative deals, they agreed to a sit-down with Oprah (who might have worked on this for years), revealing they scrambled to find money to pay for security. Learning that Harry and Meghan were cut off financially definitely provided context for these deals—even though they make them look crass AF! Allegedly, one of the biggest fears of the Queen is for the monarchy to look cheap. And watching Harry appear on James Corden’s Late Late Show, she is right to be worried! You have to see it, it’s so cringy. Hollywood’s most-hated Brit (Corden) takes Harry on a bus ride through L.A. to “surprise” the owners of the Bel-Air home that served as the outdoor location on Fresh Prince of Bel-Air—Harry could be the Real Prince of Bel-Air, get it? Blame Corden, not me! Harry looks pathetic. At least Oprah had more class when she visited Harry and Meghan’s new property (where they raise “rescue chickens”—of course they do). 

Tranna: Did you notice that Oprah got a carton of eggs from their little farm? I hope she paid for them, because the Sussexes seem really strapped for cash! I couldn’t believe that whole last part of the interview where Harry was talking about being trapped and the financial struggles. Despite everything in the interview, I would still very much rather be trapped in a palace than trapped in poverty, personally.  

We could go on about this interview forever, but I’d like to end here: How truly relatable are Meghan and Harry? I saw so many BIPOC on Twitter, women in particular, going on about Meghan being a hero. Not really being a person of colour myself (I’m half Middle Eastern, but have always benefited from white privilege), I can’t make that call, but one of the best tweets I saw was by @vivafalastin, who wrote: “Watching this is crazy because it’s not like [Meghan and Harry] are even critiquing the system[.] They’re literally just saying the royal institution was mean to them and if they were kind they would have stayed.” And I really agree with that. The whole interview was about them. It wasn’t about tackling the larger issues at play in a substantial way; had they received the support they needed, they were prepared to spend their lives supporting the institution. Ultimately, to me, the whole thing came off as very “woe is me” (again, with the exception of the mental health revelation, which I think was meaningful). 

Another interesting thought I came across was from Michael R. Jackson, the writer of the musical A Strange Loop. He wrote: “Why did a woman who follows me on Twitter tweet that Meghan’s story ‘echoes that of so many Black women across the world… Dutchess of Sussex or not’? What?!? Why do so many people identify with them SO strongly.” It reminds me so much of when Caitlyn Jenner came out as trans. At first, the story felt so groundbreaking, so important, but then, with a little time, a lot of trans people (myself included) were like: “Wait a minute… What do I have in common with this wealthy, Republican trans woman who loves to golf and has every resource possible to transition?” What do you make of Meghan and Harry’s relatability? Are they heroic? Is this interview going to change anything? Are Meghan and Harry really revolutionaries, or are they just self-involved celebs looking for sympathy? 

“The Sussexes’ life is unrelatable and that’s the reason why we care!”

Thomas: They’re absolutely not heroic! At the end of the day, the operation is still self-serving and we wouldn’t be speaking about them if they weren’t royals. The Sussexes’ life is unrelatable and that’s the reason why we care! Being unrelatable is okay! I don’t think an interview can bring any significant structural change, but it’s an interesting development: If Charles or William were the ones “concerned” about Archie’s skin colour, can they legitimately take over the institution without losing the public’s support? If they do, what does it say about the U.K.? What Harry and Meghan did is create a doubt in the viewers’ mind and that could be damaging. 

Your Twitter poll should have had a fourth answer: The real winner in this is clearly Oprah. Watching her react to the bombshell revelations was more relatable than anything Harry and Meghan could have said. Her genius is to both be an incredible proxy for the audience and one of the most incredible rags-to-riches success stories of our time. 

Tranna: Team Oprah all the way.