In the latest step in their meandering pursuit of achieving “privacy,” former British royals Prince Harry and Meghan Markle met with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday evening to “dish the dirt” on their royal experience of supposed victimhood.
In many ways, Harry and Meghan are perfect for each other. Harry’s fecklessness is partnered with Meghan’s desire for attention, and Harry’s cluelessness is counteracted by Meghan’s eye for cultural relevance. Binding these together are a shared adoration of victimhood, an evasion of responsibility, and a complete selfish disrespect for tradition.
Among the various moments of note was Markle’s unsubstantiated and noticeably vague claim that a member of the Royal Family expressed “concerns” over the color of their son’s skin tone and “how dark the baby’s going to be potentially and what that would mean or look like.” Harry supported this claim, but refused to specify who was the alleged “offender,” saying “That conversation I’m never going to share.” So brave.
Then, Markle claimed that her sister-in law, Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, made her cry in 2018, telling Winfrey that “A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something, pertaining, yes, the issue was correct about flower girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings.”
Most absurdly, and most importantly, Markle then compared herself to a Disney princess. “I was sitting in Nottingham Cottage and The Little Mermaid came on. And who as an adult really watches The Little Mermaid? But it came on, and I was like, ‘Well, I’m just here all the time so may as well watch this.’ And I went, ‘Oh, my God, she falls in love with a prince, and because of that she has to lose her voice,’” said Markle. She then added, “But by the end, she gets her voice back.”
Markle’s apparent affiliation with a cartoon princess uniquely summarizes the depth — or lack thereof — of her understanding of British history or tradition.
Central to Markle’s story is her blatant quest for attention and notoriety, with the stereotypically American view that membership to the British Royal Family is entirely synonymous with that of a Disney movie. For people like Markle, royalty are simply beautiful celebrities, with more jewels and worse weather, whom the huddled masses jostle to adore.
When reality hit — that British royalty have almost unimaginable levels of life-long responsibility — the Disney image was suddenly shattered. Sure, the position came with the widespread splendor and attention Markle sought, but she was not particularly interested in what it cost. She certainly wasn’t interested in being a pseudo-celebrity in a politically-obsessed world in a role which — by design — is apolitical.
After “escaping” the Royal Family — not before riding their status to fame — Markle then further demonstrated why she and Harry are perfect representatives of today’s society: their system of morality values and celebrates victimhood. They are viewed as virtuous heroes simply because something “bad” happened to them.
Does it matter that their definition of victimhood is laughable? Does it matter that their “bombshell” account of systemic racism was both unsubstantiated and made meaningless by its obscurity? Does it matter that their call for “privacy” involved a move to Hollywood — the notorious home of international privacy — and a willing embrace of ongoing (positive) media coverage? Of course not.
Harry and Meghan aren’t victims. They’re simply spoiled brats who decided that they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. When the bill came, they left, hoping to use their alleged victimhood in place of their monarchical status as a springboard to further fame.
When victimhood pays the bills, are we surprised that victimhood becomes the objective?
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.