It’s hard to know where to begin to undo Meghan’s extraordinary statements, writes REBECCA ENGLISH

Her behavior ranges from the unintentionally hilarious (comparing herself and Harry to tangled palm trees and matching salt and pepper shakers) to the downright bizarre (handing over a prepared backpack – unsolicited – to a homeless man she meets on the way to school). her bodyguard).

But there is an undertone of cool menace in the Duchess of Sussex’s latest extraordinary interview with American lifestyle magazine The Cut.

“Interestingly, I’ve never had to sign anything that prevents me from speaking,” she notes at one point, adding, “I really tried hard [to forgive]especially knowing that I can say anything.’

Even the interviewer notes that her voice is “meaningful.” Meghan continues: “I have a lot to say until I don’t anymore. Do you like that? Sometimes, as the saying goes, the silent part is still part of the song.’

The language may be stifled, but its message is crystal clear: the royal family – their in-laws – had better watch their backs. She gives the not-so-subtle impression that her treatment by the British establishment – which she felt was unlike any other member of the royal family in history – was based on race.

This observation is followed by a consciously knowing but slightly wistful look into the distance, as if to emphasize her “regret” for everything lost – not that it was her fault.

Her behavior ranges from the unintentionally hilarious (comparing herself and Harry to tangled palm trees and matching salt and pepper shakers) to the downright bizarre (handing over a prepared backpack - unsolicited - to a homeless man she meets on the way to school). her bodyguard)

Her behavior ranges from the unintentionally hilarious (comparing herself and Harry to tangled palm trees and matching salt and pepper shakers) to the downright bizarre (handing over a prepared backpack – unsolicited – to a homeless man she meets on the way to school). her bodyguard)

It’s hard to know where to begin to listen to Meghan’s extraordinary lilt in the first part of what promises to be a massive promotional junket to mark her new commercial ventures, from her Spotify podcast to a Netflix documentary , cancel.

How you read them will likely depend on your existing perspective of the famously divisive Duchess of Sussex. Delusional, narcissistic, manipulative…all words I heard yesterday to describe her ruminations. Others saw it as “brave, powerful and perceptive”.

While Meghan is given plenty of room to offer her opinions on everything from life in The Firm to her plan to get back on Instagram, interviewer Allison P Davis isn’t slavishly flattering.

The point at which she describes Meghan’s “suggestion” that she could transcribe the “guttural” moans she makes is laugh-out-loud comedy.

Davis is also amazed at Meghan and Harry’s decision to accept a free stay at a Hollywood mansion from actor and filmmaker Tyler Perry, a man they had never met before deciding to buy a $10million Montecito mansion to buy pounds they hadn’t even seen inside.

She also acknowledges the Duchess’ wise efforts to turn her apparent “hardship” as a working queen “into contentment”. Ouch. But she fails to bring some of her, shall we say, more startling claims to their attention.

But there is an undertone of cool menace in the Duchess of Sussex's latest extraordinary interview with American lifestyle magazine The Cut

But there is an undertone of cool menace in the Duchess of Sussex’s latest extraordinary interview with American lifestyle magazine The Cut

Meghan is entitled to have any opinion about the British media, but perhaps it would be better to base that view on facts.

She suggests she could never have done the school run in the UK because the UK media would have stationed “40” photographers a day in a media pen at the gate. Strict UK rules on reporting children – all children, even royal ones – to which the media willingly subscribe, make this simply impossible these days.

And the proof is in the pudding. Both William and Kate have been dropping and collecting their children from school since Prince George, now nine, started nursery school aged two – and not a single photo has ever appeared in the British press.

The irony of her saying that while inviting a hand-picked journalist to invade her son’s privacy and join her on the school run is just, well… I’m at a loss for words. A close friend once told me that, historically at least, William shares many of his brother’s views on the media when it comes to the historical treatment of his mother and the worst excesses of the paparazzi.

The language may be stifled, but its message is crystal clear: the royal family - their in-laws - had better watch their backs

The language may be stifled, but its message is crystal clear: the royal family – their in-laws – had better watch their backs

However, the striking difference between the two men is that William has accepted that 25 years have passed, the media landscape has changed and there is a great deal of public goodwill and interest in his young family.

And as long as the kids’ everyday lives are “shielded” (which they absolutely are), he and his wife are happy to share their own pictures with the public.

“But that’s the difference between working for two adults and not a bunch of sloppy teenagers,” someone with experience working with both couples tells me.

At one point in the interview, Meghan refers to people who “call my kids the N-word.” It’s not 100% clear who she was referring to, but if it was the media, it was vile and untrue.

The constant references to the couple’s children – and their interaction with the journalist interviewing Meghan – is notable given the Sussexes’ repeated demands for privacy. That said, it’s up to the Sussexes how much of their family they share publicly.

She gives the not-so-subtle impression that her treatment by the British establishment - which she felt was unlike any other member of the royal family in history - was based on race

She gives the not-so-subtle impression that her treatment by the British establishment – which she felt was unlike any other member of the royal family in history – was based on race

When these claims are clearly and repeatedly watered down in pursuit of the almighty dollar, it is incredibly hypocritical. What’s so clear about this interview – and the stylish photoshoot that accompanies it – is that Meghan thought she’d be able to when she joined the royal family.

She grew up with it, aspired to it and had started to get a little taste of it when she met Harry. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

But that glossy access-all-areas, tossing a basket of homegrown fruit and veg (and a jar of ‘Lili’ jam) into your interviewer’s arms isn’t what our country tweeds and Tupperware crates do the pantry of the royal family is about. Rather than accepting that, she – with Harry as a more than willing co-conspirator – opted for the nuclear option.

For now, Buckingham Palace has chosen to take the line of least resistance — a dignified silence — even in the face of Harry’s repeated digs at his family (including a sarcastic hint that his family isn’t able to live together either, or to work as a slightly mangled hint from Meghan as to what his “lost” relationship with his father may or may not be).

But Meghan – and Harry – might do well to remind themselves as they fire off their latest salvo that their constantly maligned relatives across the pond might be willing to take just so much.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11158161/Its-hard-know-begin-unpick-Meghans-extraordinary-statements-writes-REBECCA-ENGLISH.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490 It’s hard to know where to begin to undo Meghan’s extraordinary statements, writes REBECCA ENGLISH

Andrew Kugle

WSTPost is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@wstpost.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button