Updated date:

Markle: A Storm in a Teacup?

markle-a-storm-in-a-teacup

The media has been full of Meghan and Harry and their, so-called, 'controversial' interview with American national treasure, Oprah Winfrey. The interview seemed, mostly, about the trials of Meghan Markle as a member, (albeit short-term), of the Royal Family. Harry, came in at the end, holding hands with his American wife, who is expecting their second child a girl.

The interview in some stages seemed contrived, that's not to say that Meghan, was not hounded by the media. Or that, her complaints against the Royals, were not valid. If real racism against Meghan and her first child, Archie, was real then obviously, it should be called out. But when the press was hounding Meghan or when an unnamed member of the Royal Family (The Firm), considered the colour of Archie, was it really racist? It's easy to say that, just because Meghan happens to be mixed race. For example, the press could have been hounding Meghan (as they did Diana and Sarah) because she was an American and spoke her mind, (Wallace Simpson, another divorcee American was hounded by the press in the 1930s). Also, as regards what a child will look like when born, the unnamed Royal may not have meant, what they said, in a racist way. After all, when it comes to our grandchildren, nephews, nieces, cousins, and our own kids, do we not ask the question, "I wonder who the unborn child will look like"? Will the child have the eye colour of their dad or the hair colour of their mum? Just because someone mentions skin colour, if you look at it like that, doesn't mean there was racial thinking. However, only the unnamed Royal, knew what they were thinking when they said that. Meghan could've genuinely regarded that as a racial slur or misinterpreted what they said. Either way, Meghan with Harry in tow, is making much traction and seeking publicity for it. Seeking traction because she wants her story to be heard because this is what she genuinely experienced, as a member of the Royals. Or, even if she misinterpreted what this Royal meant, she is playing the victim (genuinely) or she is seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill.

For me, it seems this interview, with Ms Winfrey, was staged. Both Winfrey and Markle are trained actors, obviously, they would have gone through the interview. What questions were going to be asked and what answers, Markle would give. Everything rehearsed, learning lines, feigned reactions, all part of an actors trade. For example, when Winfrey said "What"? in reaction to Markle mentioning the unnamed Royal mentioning skin colour, you could see that was feigned surprise.

If what the interview said is true about Archie not receiving state protection or a title, that is in indeed, unfair. Bearing in mind, that Prince William's children do have state protection and titles. One could surely surmise, that seeing as they are the children of the man, who one day, will be King, that is understandable. But Harry, being the brother of William and in line to the throne himself (should something unthinkable happen) then Harry's child/children should have automatic titles and state protection. One could speculate, as to why Harry and Meghan's children would not be entitled to titles and security, but also, that is all it would be mere speculation and conspiracy.

It seems whatever the rights and wrongs of who said what, a great gulf exists now, between Harry and Meghan and the other Royals. Personally, for me, I am no Royalist, so, therefore, I honestly couldn't care less. I don't wish any of the Royals any harm, but at the same time, the UK would survive without the House of Windsor. We have enough history to keep the tourists coming, forevermore. For me, the Commonwealth and the Royals are from a time long ago. So what can an institution still stuck in the past, (though they have modernised, since the days of Diana) bring to 2021?

It seems, in this day and age, we just love to hear scandal and gossip, especially if it has to do with celebs like the Royals. We put these people on pedestals and look on them, in some god-like way. But they are not gods, they are fallible human beings, like the rest of us fewer mortals. Does Prince Andrew have a case to answer? If he is as innocent as he claimed (in that car crash interview) with Emily Mailtiss, let him go to the States and clear his name?

All of this publicity, true or false, good or bad, does the institution of the monarchy no good. Of course, those who are Royalists will defend the monarchy, however, for many, the Royals are irrelevant to their lives, especially today's Millenials.

Finally, could Charles or William, be the last Monarchs to rule? Time, the public's patience, politics and future events, will determine this.



Related Articles