U.K. media reaction kind of justifies Sussexit, doesn’t it?

By: Jen Zoratti Posted: 3:18 PM CST Thursday, Jan. 16, 2020

Can you believe it's still 2020?

Read this article for free:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

*No charge for 4 weeks then billed as $19 every four weeks (new subscribers and qualified returning subscribers only). Cancel anytime.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/01/2020 (1574 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Can you believe it’s still 2020?

We’ve packed a lot of news into the first three weeks of the year. Australia is burning. A plane carrying 176 people, including 57 Canadians, was shot out of the sky just after takeoff from Tehran amid escalating tensions between Iran and the United States. And Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a.k.a. Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced they’d be stepping back from their roles as senior members of the Royal Family and, later, that they are peacing out to Canada, where they will live part time.

The coverage about that last item has been breathtaking in both its disproportionate volume and its whiplash tone, oscillating between outrage (but our taxes!) and breathless excitement. The New York Times suggested the royal couple will inject some “razzle dazzle” into “the sprawling, bone-chillingly cold country.” On social media, Tim Hortons offered the royal couple free coffee for life, as though that’s an enticing offer. Bless.

The coverage about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepping back from their roles in the Royal Family and moving to Canada part-time has been breathtaking in both its disproportionate volume and its whiplash tone. (Kirsty Wigglesworth / The Associated Press files)

I’ve also seen a few grave comparisons to Prince Edward’s abdication of the throne in 1936, which is a rather dramatic overstatement of what’s happening here. That decision changed the course of history. This decision, as far as the fate of the monarchy is concerned, amounts to little more than a change of postal code.

Besides, it’s not like it’s William we’re talking about. Harry probably isn’t going to be king. (Though, I mean, at this point, neither is Charles. If I was a betting woman, I’d wager that we’ll be celebrating the Queen’s 110th birthday in 2036. So long as Earth is still here, that is.) The stakes are relatively low. Why not let the sixth in line and his family have the chance at a different life?

Even Harry’s grandmother, at least publicly, seems remarkably cool with his decision. “My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” the Queen wrote in a statement this week. “Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

Their wish is not difficult to understand or respect, despite the many column inches spent parsing it. Setting aside the arguments about the allocation of Canadian tax dollars to this move and whether or not they can ever be independent, Harry and Meghan are making an admirable decision for their family. It takes guts to buck what’s expected of — and for — you, especially when the blueprint is generations old. It takes guts to admit that something isn’t working, especially when that thing looks good, from the outside at least, on paper. And it takes guts to make a choice that prioritizes the safety and health of your partner.

Harry has not exactly kept his displeasure with the British media, and the sexist and racist way it covers Meghan, a secret. After their son Archie was born, a BBC broadcaster tweeted out a photo of a well-dressed chimpanzee with the caption “royal baby leaves hospital” (he was later fired). When her sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, eats an avocado for morning sickness, it’s adorable. When Meghan eats avocado toast, the Daily Mail explores “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.” When Kate cradled her baby bump, she was the picture of motherhood. When Meghan did the same, it was called “annoying.” Two women, cast by the press as diametrical opposites.

The couple's decision to step away from royal life has been dubbed Megxit by some. (Mark Lennihan / The Associated Press files)

After Archie’s birth, Meghan gave an interview to British reporter Tom Bradby about her postpartum life. She struggled to hold back tears when he asked her that most simple and human of questions: Are you OK?

“Not many people have asked if I’m OK,”

So perhaps it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that the coverage of the couple’s decision to make a break for it has been decidedly anti-Meghan, their decision framed as something “she’s” doing “to” the royal family. She’s been accused of coming between two brothers and splitting up a family. She’s frequently been compared to Yoko Ono. Even the term Megxit is steeped in sexism. As BuzzFeed‘s Sandi Rankaduwa points out, the term, “while quippy, puts the onus of the duke and duchess’s joint decision on Meghan.”

Really, it’s a Sussexit. Harry is just as much a part of this decision as Meghan is. After all, he knows, more than anyone, the devastation a cruel and constant spotlight can cause. He had a front-row seat to how the media relentlessly pursued his mother, Princess Diana. He was only 12 when she was killed in the 1997 car crash in Paris, which he’s long blamed on paparazzi. Forgive him for wanting to say goodbye to all that.

jen.zoratti@freepress.mb.ca