In light of recent events, it is worth wondering whether there was some hidden wisdom in the old interdiction on British royals marrying American divorcees. And yet Edward VIII, when faced with a choice between the monarchy and the woman he loved, at least chose to abdicate rather than throw the British government into crisis.
In the modern day, it is impossible to imagine Meghan Markle showing such grace or dignity. And so an uneven battle is pitched: Markle can appear on television and claim anything she wants, her account accepted uncritically by Oprah Winfrey and most of the American public, while the Royal Family, held back by tradition and decorum, must limit itself to mealy-mouthed statements on how “some recollections may vary.”
Brendan O’Neill, writing for Spiked, had the best take on the Markle/Oprah interview that I have seen yet, when he argued that the interview represents a “conflict between the contemporary cults of victimhood and identity politics… and the older ideals of duty, self-sacrifice, stoicism and keeping your sh*t together.”
But it goes further than that: Markle’s interview was perhaps the most quintessential exercise in wokeness that we have seen in years. Generations to come (hopefully more sensible than our own) may look back on the interview as the movement’s pinnacle moment. To this end, it is worth watching carefully and attentively.
First, the obvious: for someone of Markle’s social position to claim such extensive victimhood on the basis of race is utterly preposterous, particularly in an era when so many others have a better claim to suffering. (Perhaps the teenagers driven to suicide by pandemic and lockdown might be worthy of some notice?) For Markle to go further, and posit without evidence that members of the British Royal Family are racist, is about as low a blow as can be dealt.
In her assertions on this matter, Markle is deliberately vague. She is careful not to implicate any individual Royal, instead blaming the “Institution,” and yet an institution is made up of individuals, and the alleged comment about the skin color of her son was made (if it was indeed made) by one or more individuals. If it is germane to come forward with the comment, thereby casting a pall over all Royals, then why not name names? The Commonwealth has the right to know if its Head of State is racist.
This is emblematic of how wokeness operates: the allegation must hold the weight of a conviction. By specifying the allegation, Markle would make it refutable.
Beyond that, Markle seems intent on searching for complaints and assuming the worst. She bemoans that no one taught her how to be a Royal, that she had to Google the lyrics to Britain’s National Anthem. No doubt, if the Royals had instructed her on customs, she would have complained about being “whitewashed” and made over in their image, which – if Meghan’s account is even true – is probably why they steered clear of doing so.
Here we see the double-bind and the unfalsifiability of wokeness, in which whatever anyone says or does can be twisted to have ill intent, if the listener desires it to be so. It is prosecution without defense.
Similarly, insofar as Markle was treated unfairly by the British tabloid press as compared to Kate Middleton (a claim that Markle and Oprah both accept as axiomatic), it probably stemmed less from her being black than from her being American. But the intent has been preemptively determined, and Markle’s emotional truth cannot be denied.
Markle’s claims of suicidality, also coached in “your truth” language by Oprah, are a direct allegation lobbed at the Royals: they drove her to the point of suicide. For this allegation, Markle provides no corroboration whatsoever, only her word. Anyone, during any time of difficulty, could probably legitimately claim vague suicidal thoughts. All of this, too, stands in conflict with the woke notion that mental health is a matter of mere brain chemistry.
Finally, the format of the interview itself is revelatory. Markle first speaks alone with Oprah, and then she and Harry appear together. Why not Harry alone, for a chance to speak his truth independently? In wokeness, women can speak alone but men cannot.
Harry, with what little he does speak, reveals that he was actually, all appearance to the contrary, terribly unhappy for the first 34 years of his life, until the beautiful Meghan Markle came to spirit him away, a sort of reverse damsel-in-distress story. It is too conveniently archetypal a tale to be taken entirely at face value.
And yet, perhaps Harry hating his job was the point. The opulence of royalty cannot come without some drawback, some sense of reciprocal duty. In the words of Harry’s great-grandfather, World War II-era monarch King George XI, “The highest of distinctions is service to others.” In our era, the highest of distinctions is service to one’s brand name and ability to claim coveted victim status, and Markle’s interview proves it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member