Talk:Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

the emergence of harry and meghan the celebratory circuit of chat shows and interviews and guest spots, press conferences and interviews, and all the tedious tweeting and instagramming bollocks is significant in and of itself but is not readily apparent if viewed through a lens of them just being being the new kids on the celebratory block who just happen to have a royalty gimmick going for them. it very much misses the relationship the british tabloid press has with royal family, very much misses the nature of 'royal' stories in the media in general, the specific relationship the press harry and meghan had as royals and what it is now as celebs, harry's relationship with the press, his mums relationship with the press, and why the blandest of political opinions generate a media frenzy and 'controversy' is reported with such glee.

a fundamental factor here is they are celebrities now. they are no longer 'royalty' in any official capacity. celeb news reporting, showbiz news and gossip columns, is different to royal news. its trash but compared to royal news its pulitzer prize winning investigative journalism. 99% of all royal stories from the royal correspondents in the press is absolute dog shit. its complete dross about bullshit royal protocol that only royal correspondents care about, and shit like what queen likes for her tea. anything actually interesting or in the public interest doesnt get given to royal correspondents to break because they are worse than the worst gossip columnist. royalty by tradition, dont say nothing to the press, and dont respond to anything that appears in the press. there is an agreement of sorts that the press dont intrude on their privacy too egregiously, only when members are caught with their pants down in public do the press really get the chance to do any salacious exposes that you'd get in heat magazine for some z list celeb. the press hate it obviously but the royals are good at staying stum, and importantly, the press killed princess diana, harry's mum. really hounded her to her death. they've effectively been lying low since.

the british tabloid press has been chomping at the bit go after the royal's personal life just they used before di's death. harry was seen as the press's route back to good old invasions of privacy. a couple of youthful indiscretions amounting to typical lads behaviour got the long lens twitching. then his military career and subsequent charity work meant he was engaging with the press by necessity to a degree that charles and william, both actually will be kings, one after the other, and essentially forbidden from taking an opinion on anything just would not be able to. and harry blames the press for his mums death. he can be prodded, provoked in making himself the story. then he married meghan. she has a showbiz background. tweets would be second nature for her. and she is american. and mixed race to boot. in this febrile climate of race relations. she was always going to chafe under the royal media silence. political neutrality in all areas is paramount for british royalty. its how we can ignore the inequality of the institution of the monarchy. i dont think anyone in their right might mind would begrudge markle having something to say about events in the us with the blm protests. but thats the 'in' the press needed. shes made herself the story, and her messy family relations provided more fuel to go on the attack. a royal giving favour to a political cause? thats fair game for the tabloids. harry seeing his missus treated like his mother was treated by the press, responds and the headlines are harry attacking the press. this is like christmas for the british tabloids. its not been this good for them since they killed diana.

this is why they are celebs now. harry felt he could not respond as a royal because the royals do not respond. so he stepped back from royal duties. he is royalty, but no longer officially royal. hes a celeb now, and they can sue and go on oprah. he can have an opinion now, as milquetoast as they are, just having them is contraversial which is why they are pored over incessantly. the cultural war thing is almost secondary - the son of princess diana being a bit woke was not a surprise to anyone. but questions of political neutrality and 'cashing in' on their royal status is adequate cover for demonising markle and going after a royal with gusto, revenge for having to restrain themselves for so long. princed andrew might literally be a paedophile, but the royals closed ranks so there was no mileage there. but harrys not a royal anymore. the press can take the gloves off.

i feel harry has made a mistake personally. im not sure sure what else he could have done, and he clearly needed the freedom to fight the press for his wifes sake and the whole they killed his mum thing. i just cant help but think its a little self defeating in that its giving the press what they want. no matter how bad the press will look, they dont care. they will throw enough mud over and over and over, that it will stick to harry and meghan, even without substance. piers morgan though - what a fucking prick. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)