What’s on my mind? Watching and listening to Meghan Markle is like entering the Hall of Mirrors. The many Markles before you - short, tall, wide, small - do not necessarily represent reality.
In reading about Markle, as I’ve been doing for several days, I’ve encountered numerous contradictions. It’s been a week since Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, and I’m starting to understand the rabid frothing at the mouth that goes with expressing even the slightest criticism of her.
“Racist!” That’s how I was demonized on Twitter, many, many times in a single day. But oddly, one day later, all that unrestrained fury vanished, as though it had never happened. Which perhaps, it never had. That’s the disruptive, obsessive behavior of social media trolls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Two days later, when someone on Twitter referred me to a new YouTube posting about Markle, an onscreen message flashed and disappeared in roughly one second. In all caps, it read: BARB: WE NOW HAVE TWO OF THEM! I immediately cut the connection.
There’s a whole lot of “Markle-as-Saint” goin’ on, as well as a whole lot of “royal family demonization.” Finding the “truth” is like picking through a minefield, but I will say I disagree with Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Elizabeth Wellington, who on March 8 wrote:
“It becomes clear in [the Oprah/Markle] interview that Harry was effectively cut off because his wife is Black. If that’s not racist, I don’t know what else is. What else do you call being stripped of royal security and your family no longer taking your calls? But this is the kicker: Even before a child was born, the palace discussed removing the honorifics Prince and Princess from the couple’s future children.”
WHOA! Wellington’s summary comes directly from Markle, who haltingly told Oprah: “The idea that the first member of color in the family not being titled in the same way that the other grandchildren would be … It’s not their right to take it away, to change the convention for Archie. Why?”
Wellington writes of Markle’s “incredulous” tone, “as if she still didn’t believe it.” Well, I don’t believe it, either, with plenty having emerged to debunk it. More about that, later.
Buckingham Palace’s politely restrained post-interview statement was as enlightening for what it didn’t say as what it did: “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.”
(“Saddened”? “Enraged” is probably more accurate. “Challenging”? “Willful and selfish” works for me.)
The statement continues: “The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning.” (Of course - but Markle’s vague claim remains unproven.)
“While some recollections may vary (a tactful and deliberately ambiguous phrase), they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately (Message to Markle: Stifle.). Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” (Harry’s in the dog house; Archie’s guileless; and Meghan …)
I defend her right to say it, but disagree with Inquirer columnist Elizabeth Wellington’s view that Markle and son Archie are the victims of racism. I’ve never met Markle, and don’t give a fig about the color of her skin.
Having watched the Oprah interview and the following day’s out-takes; having read numerous articles, current and historic; and having carefully considered on which side of the Markle v. monarchy controversy I stand, my opinion is that many of Markle’s self-serving comments to Oprah Winfrey were disingenuous.
“Some recollections may vary ...” as the Palace stated. But after days of digging into this, I’d say many recollections differ from Meghan Markle’s.
In forming that opinion, I’ve taken the published comments of father Thomas Markle and half-sister Samantha with a very large pinch of salt. I’ve also done my best to disregard the reporting from extremist and malicious sources.
So into the Hall of Mirrors, to reflect on Meghan Markle, in a couple of days.
© Nicole Parton, 2021
