“Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic”: Walter Bagehot, Victorian political analyst, on the British Monarchy.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s decision to “let in daylight upon magic” and give a no-holds barred interview to media royalty Oprah Winfrey has plunged the royal family into yet another public relations crisis, the greatest perhaps since the death of Princess Diana. Mystery and mystique have indeed been compromised.
We didn’t need The Crown or a two-hour interview to tell us that the royals are not a touchy-feely lot. They appear stiff and stuffy. Still, emotional repression may ironically have contributed to their very survival.
We also guessed that the couple’s relationship with their family was tenuous, yet there was still mystery surrounding their decision to leave the United Kingdom. The obvious reason, certainly the one the public was fed, was the relentless and toxic intrusion of the tabloid press.
But that interview shone a light further. ‘The Firm’ was accused of perpetuating falsehoods, of lacking compassion, and not offering proper support and protection to the couple and their unborn child. Most incendiary of all was the apparent concern over the latter’s skin colour; while at soap opera level, petty sister-in-law rivalry over bridesmaids’ dresses stole the show.
Public opinion was both heated and divided. It’s interesting here how people, myself included, can become so exercised about people they don’t know and have never met. And, more significant still, about what is only one side of a story. There are at least two sides to most stories and people, to say nothing of context and nuance.
Those who never trusted Meghan (and the blindsided prince) were appalled by the couple’s hypocrisy. Claims about media intrusion couldn’t be taken seriously. Surely if you valued your privacy and wanted to disappear from public life, then you should do so without involving millions of viewers? The ‘escape plan’, replete with lucrative Spotify/Netflix deals and tell-all interviews seemed focused on elevating and prolonging that irksome public profile. How finally could you possibly reconcile loving and respecting your grandmother with a two-hour thrashaton about everything she represents, while her husband was lying in a hospital bed?
Then there were those who saw Prince Harry as a rebellious hero and whistleblower who’d put his wife and child first, and Markle as a role model who could have modernised the monarchy. They applauded the couple’s courage and honesty, insisting they had every right to set the record straight. They saw Buckingham Palace’s diplomatic response, brief yet barbed, as a wholly characteristic example of obfuscation and double standards.
Many believe this will divide the family (and the UK) further; others feel it’s a chance to heal and bring about lasting change.
I am tired of hearing that Daphne was unfairly vilified and that this somehow created a climate which contributed to her murder- Michela Spiteri
When it comes to the UK, it is perfectly possible to admire the queen and yet regard the family as dysfunctional. It is possible to think the Oprah interview completely unedifying, to regard Meghan as manipulative and agenda-driven, and still believe she was ill-treated by the press.
It is also possible not to believe any of the couple’s claims and not be in any way racist or unfeeling.
What lessons then for us? We have our own deep divisions and need for healing. But that can’t happen until we are prepared to confront uncomfortable truths and see all sides.
Here goes...
It is possible to want justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia and also for her victims.
It is possible to believe she was deliberately silenced – murdered in the most horrific and cowardly way – and still characterise her as a bully who cowed many into silence and terrorised half the nation.
It is possible to regard her as an investigative journalist and also recognise the irresponsible, toxic and often cruel tabloid blogger who frequently overplayed her hand.
It is possible to revere her as Malta’s ultimate victim and yet insist that, for many, her writing was death by a thousand cuts.
It is possible to recognise that she was fearless and reckless - a law unto herself – and still be outraged by shocking details of her murder, for which there can be no justification.
If you agree, no matter how begrudgingly or tentatively, then you have rejected atavism and started on the long road towards thinking outside the box. Erasing the collective narrative and dissociating yourself from groupthink can never be easy in a community like ours.
If you have made that magnanimous leap, then you will perhaps accept that it is unrealistic to think that Daphne could get away with saying what she liked and not expect some kind of pushback. Obviously, we are not talking murder here. But we need to acknowledge that she did not have brakes or boundaries and felt journalistic rules didn’t apply to her.
Not only was Daphne never reined in, she was very rarely taken on because of widespread fear of a reprisal. But those that did retaliate can’t be blamed.
I am tired of hearing that Daphne was unfairly vilified and that this somehow created a climate which contributed to her murder. As if freedom of expression only existed for her and everyone else had to keel over and suffer in silence. She always gave much better than she got, and for that reason she was opposed and, yes, dehumanised. As she herself dehumanised and character-assassinated so many.
We don’t yet know whether her murder came from vindictive rage, personal vendetta or from an altogether darker place. Although it might have been a combination of all those things.
There is no blood on the hands of those who called her out, not even by association; if there is, then there is blood on the hands of those who cheered and enabled her when she went off the rails.
We need to get over this together, honestly. Everybody deserves justice and truth. Daphne certainly, and yes, even Daphne’s victims, ordinary people who are electronically tagged and smeared for life.