‘Two most spoiled brats in history’: pundits furious over Harry and Meghan’s step back
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step back from public life has provoked vitriolic attacks on the couple and hyperbolic predictions on what it could mean for the monarchy.
The announcement came after Prince Harry and Meghan criticised media intrusion and launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday. This, along with reports that the couple’s decision has upset the Queen, appears to have fuelled the ferocity of the reaction.
Meghan and Harry are “the two most spoiled brats in history”, according to broadcaster and former Mirror editor, Piers Morgan.
After the news broke on Wednesday night, Morgan launched a Twitter tirade against Meghan and Harry that has continued on Thursday. He said the death of his mother Diana did not give Harry “licence to treat the Queen so appallingly”.
The Daily Mail devotes its first 17 pages to “the Rogue Royals”.
Its columnist Sarah Vine, who has always been suspicious of Meghan Markle, wrote this:
It’s almost as though nothing matters to this couple apart from their own immediate happiness and gratification, as though they are incapable of seeing beyond their own little bubble of privilege. It has often been speculated as to whether they might end up walking away from Britain. But the timing of this announcement could hardly be more insensitive, or more indicative of the how little either seems to understand the true nature of their roles as royals.
She adds:
The woke, somewhat humourless and very entitled Harry we see before us now is almost unrecognisable as the rumbustious fellow we knew and loved.
As Vine suggests the Mail was much more indulgent towards Harry in the days when pictures emerged of him dressed in a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party. Now it has crowned him the Prince of Woke:
He was once the fun-loving young royal famously caught with his trousers down playing strip billiards in a Las Vegas hotel suite with his mates.
But Prince Harry has since swapped partying for posturing on a range of ‘woke’ issues with his wife Meghan Markle.
From preaching about environmentalism to carving emotional messages in cupcake icing sugar, Harry’s hobbies have markedly shifted over the years.
His cheeky grin was once a staple at Royal events, and his overseas trips would showcase a charismatic young man who would always try to have a laugh.
In the Daily Express, meanwhile, columnist Virginia Blackburn addressed the couple more in sorrow than in anger, asking: “Is it Meghan’s fault?”
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that having grown up in a country that considers the Kennedys to be aristocracy, Meghan didn’t understand that being a Windsor is not like being a celebrity … it was about getting on with the job.
As for Harry, Blackburn echoed the nostalgia elsewhere for the bad boy prince of old, asking: “What was he thinking?”
Harry was one of [the royal family’s] most popular members, adored by all and sundry. We forgave him readily for the Vegas antics. We were even sympathetic during his photographer-punching stage. He was a prince looking for love, just like the rest of us. And now what?
The dismay was not limited to the rightwing press. In the left-leaning Mirror, Rachael Bletchly argued that Harry is guilty of hypocrisy:
Harry has selfishly turned his back on the institution the Queen has fought to modernise and secure for him and his children… The Sussexes strutted back from their extended holiday gushing about how keen they were to get back to work. Well, good riddance. I for one have had a bellyful of Harry’s eco-warrior hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, the Times relishes the prospects of the Sussexes becoming financial independent. “Royal couple face being forced to pay rent after going it alone,” is the headline stretching across a double page spread in the paper.
Talking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hugo Vickers, a royal biographer, likened Harry and Meghan’s circumstances to those faced by Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson.
If they’re not careful to end up as sort of slightly tarnished celebrities. If you set up an alternative court, it’s not going to work. it’s very sad actually.
Not everyone was disappointed by the news, however. Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, scented big trouble. Speaking to Sky News he said:
There is a serious problem for the royal family because if the younger generations are not that keen to carry on the world duties as Charles and the Queen have done, then I think that the long term future of the monarchy is in doubt.
In a statement on Republic’s website he added:
The royal family is in trouble and with the next succession on the horizon their problems are only going to get worse.
Farewell to the 2010s…
… will the 2020s offer more hope? This has been a turbulent decade across the world – protest, populism, mass migration and the escalating climate crisis. The Guardian has been in every corner of the globe, reporting with tenacity, rigour and authority on the most critical events of our lifetimes. At a time when factual information is both scarcer and more essential than ever, we believe that each of us deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
You’ve read 11 articles in the last four months. More people than ever before are reading and supporting our journalism, in more than 180 countries around the world. And this is only possible because we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.
We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.
None of this would have been attainable without our readers’ generosity – your financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.
As we enter a new decade, we need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
Image Source:*Frank Augstein/AP
Source:theguardian.com
