PETER YOUNG: Harry and Meghan

THOSE looking for explosive new disclosures will be disappointed. Despite the huge anticipation generated by the much-hyped trailers of Netflix’s documentary purporting to tell the story of the life together of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, last week’s airing of the three-hour long volume one was judged by many to be nothing more than a remorselessly repetitive and tedious rehash of old information – notably the Oprah Winfrey interview of last year – and it contained no new bombshell revelations. Judging from this, it is unlikely that the rest of the “docuseries” will contain any jaw-dropping new ones either.

Netflix claims its production is an ‘unprecedented and in-depth documentary series’ about Harry and Meghan’s “love story” and those who have watched it say it is undoubtedly a slickly presented narrative about the couple. But it is heavily one-sided and selective, with no dissenting voices permitted. It is dominated by details of the couple’s perceived grievances about the Royal Family and the UK media and their claims of being badly treated by both; and we are surely in for much more of the same when Harry’s promised tell-all memoir, Spare, is published early next year.

This documentary looks to be primarily for US audiences who tend to remain fascinated by the Royal Family, judging, not least, by the success of “The Crown” TV series which is said to “take liberties with reality” and whose authenticity is, at best, questionable. According to people close to the Royals who are in a position to know, some of the events which “The Crown” purports to portray are simply untrue and did not happen.

It is said that the Royal Family are particularly upset by the Netflix documentary’s criticism of the late Queen and her Commonwealth legacy. It depicts this voluntary association of more than 50 countries as a continuation of the British Empire that was guilty of extracting wealth from the rest of the world. That is, of course, a gross oversimplification both of the history of Empire and the role of the modern-day Commonwealth and, as such, is wholly misleading.

It is generally agreed - both within the Commonwealth and more widely - that The Queen herself should be credited with ensuring that this body, which works to improve international co-operation in numberless different spheres, has survived and thrived over the years. It became a key part of her life and its growth and influence is regarded as one of her greatest achievements. Moreover, such criticism in the documentary is now being seen as particularly deceitful, disloyal and hurtful given that Harry was president of The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, supporting youth empowerment in Commonwealth countries, before he quit being a working Royal.

Since the documentary is essentially a repetitious account of existing grievances, littered with falsehoods, it is said that Buckingham Palace does not consider it worth engaging with. So it comes as no surprise that there has been no official reaction on its part. Reportedly, King Charles and the Prince of Wales will not enter a tit-for-tat war of words. They will maintain a dignified silence and carry on with business as usual – in royal parlance, “getting on with the job”. But insiders are said to have dubbed the $150m Netflix series a “circus”.

Meanwhile, observers have reflected that the late Princess Diana, who was herself a devout monarchist and attracted huge public affection during her many years of service as a leading member of the Royal Family, would be appalled at the damage Harry is doing to his father and brother.

When Harry announced in 2000 that he and his new wife would be stepping aside from royal duties and no longer be “senior working royals”, many people criticised him for failing to honour the obligations and responsibilities deriving from his birth. But they respected his right to choose another path if that was what his new American wife and he really wanted. However, far from just moving to California to obtain some privacy and to lead a so-called normal life, both of them have gone out of their way to cause maximum trouble and embarrassment for his father and brother as well as the Royal Family as a whole -- and, most importantly, for The Queen herself. They have relentlessly attacked it as an institution, for reasons that most people consider unjustified, spurious and mischievous – not least accusations of racism with, apparently, zero real evidence; and Harry is now even talking about “unconscious bias” which is so vague as to be impossible to refute.

The extraordinary outpouring of loyalty, affection and love in reaction to the passing of The Queen in September is clear evidence of the strong public support of the monarchy in Britain. It now seems that more and more people regard the complaints by Harry and Meghan of being treated badly by the Royal Family and the media as partly contrived grievances. The majority are becoming increasingly fed up with their constant whingeing and now condemn it. “Why don’t they just keep quiet and get on with their lives” is the growing cry. What is more, there appears to be increasing hostility to Harry trashing his own heritage to which he owes his privileged life style and, indeed, everything he has. The tedious nature of his and his wife’s continuous nasty campaign to discredit and smear his own family, as well as Britain as a whole, shows pure malice, duplicity, hypocrisy and vindictiveness on their part – and for many this is hard to forgive, so that public patience is wearing thin.

The question now is whether the currency of Harry and Meghan is starting to wane? In the international media there have been some withering comments about the Netflix documentary like references to “a vague ‘B’ actress and a fallen prince” and to selling to the highest bidder the story of their “undying vacuousness”. But the test will come when people finally lose interest in the whole charade. If this happens as the public progressively grow weary of it all, Harry and Meghan may still want to battle royal institutions and the media. But, as has now been said, it may turn out that their real battle will be to maintain ongoing relevancy.

A NEWSPAPERMAN PAR EXCELLENCE

IT WAS truly shocking and saddening to learn last week the shattering news of the untimely passing of Eugene Duffy. It was hard to take this in because, even though everybody knew, of course, that he had travelled home to England for medical treatment, he had been tight-lipped about his medical condition. Although we spoke regularly, I for one was unaware that he was seriously ill.

Eugene was a journalist of the highest order who, from my own observation, played an important role in maintaining the high standards of The Tribune as well as being responsible for a number of innovations during his five-year stint as managing editor. He was simply very good at what he did and I believe he truly made his mark here in The Bahamas, not least in dealing so competently with the major issues and problems resulting from Hurricane Dorian and the coronavirus pandemic.

He was an experienced operator of the traditional Fleet Street old school where the skills and commitment required for real journalism were honed and which gave the UK press such a high reputation. He believed in the continuing importance of newspapers in the modern digital age of alternative sources of news and information; and, to my eye, this shone through in the way he ran The Tribune.

He worked for a long time with the Daily Mirror group in London, notably during the editorship of the ebullient and controversial Piers Morgan, and he had many an amusing tale to tell of those times, not least about reporting on the shenanigans of the notoriously flamboyant and dishonest Conservative MP Robert Maxwell who was universally known as Captain Bob. There has been an outpouring of tributes to him in the UK in which he has been described as a legend and the backbone of the Daily Mirror and a colossus in the newspaper world.

It was good to have regular contact with Eugene through contributing to editorials and later as a weekly columnist concentrating on international affairs. We talked all the time and I found him incredibly well informed about what was going on in the world. Exchanges with him were invariably interesting, stimulating and refreshing. I used to marvel at his capacity for quickly absorbing texts submitted to him, identifying the essential points and then coming up almost instantly with apt and penetrating headlines. When I once congratulated him on this, he replied in typically self-deprecatory fashion that he surely ought to be good at it after so many years of experience.

In the numerous tributes to him over the past week, there have been many references to his warmth as a person underneath that tough, no-nonsense and, on occasion, somewhat brittle exterior. There was always a healthy dose of cynicism tempered by an endearing sense of humour, all of which made him so likeable to others. But above all, you knew where you stood with him for ‘he told things as they were’, not least when he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he did not much like a particular draft column. This happened to me once when he said he had had enough of my writing about Brexit which was starting to bore the pants off people – and needless to say I quickly changed tack.

In what turned out to be his swan song, he received much praise for organising and publishing within 24 hours The Tribune’s excellent supplement to mark the passing of The Queen in September. The speed and imagination he showed in putting this together – including getting his columnists to contribute text at a few hours’ notice -- was remarkable but surely not surprising to those who knew what he was capable of.

I shall miss him enormously as a colleague and a friend. He was a true professional who excelled at what he did and was an example of the very best of Fleet Street journalism. Under that sometimes bluff front, he was a notably kind and caring family man who will be missed by so many. I should like to offer deepest condolences to members of his family. May his soul rest in peace.

ENGLAND’S FOOTBALLING DREAM IS OVER

FOOTBALL’S showpiece on the global stage is now down to the last four semi-finalists as the World Cup in Qatar approaches its end. After completion of the quarter-finals at the weekend, Argentina, Croatia, France and Morocco remain to fight it out with hopes of lifting the trophy in a week’s time and be crowned world champions. In dramatic confrontations involving penalty shootouts, Croatia beat the favourites Brazil while Argentina finally prevailed over the Netherlands by the narrowest of margins. But perhaps what has sent shockwaves through the footballing world was Morocco’s historic win over Portugal, making them the first African team ever to reach the semi-finals of a World Cup. Although Portugal were the clear favourites, Morocco’s victory was no fluke since they had earlier performed well in defeating Belgium and Spain.

But for this correspondent, all that was overshadowed by England’s narrow loss to France at the quarter-final stage on Saturday. The tension was high as the match went down to the wire. England, who were trailing by one goal to nil at half-time, later were down 1-2 before a penalty was awarded to them deep into the second-half. This would have brought the scores level and extended the match into extra time. However, their normally reliable skipper, Harry Kane, who currently equals England’s goal scoring record, fired the ball over the crossbar and all was lost.

This defeat was all the more brutal and painful for the players and supporters alike because England had played well and for most of the match were on top of a talented French team. But they failed to take their numerous chances. Moreover, they fancied their prospects against Morocco in the semi-final and had genuine hopes of going all the way and lifting the world cup for the first time since England’s historic win against Germany in 1966.

But it was not to be. Nonetheless, amidst a familiar sense of missed opportunity, with a mix of youth and experience this England team appears to have a promising future – and its supporters will now be looking for the glory of winning ways in major tournaments to come.

Comments

DillyTree says...

If the Royal Family and the monarchy are so terrible, why doesn't Harry and Maghan give back their titles instead of trademarking them and desperately trying to stay relevant by using the titles? Don't they have anything else to offer? Of course not, ergo the pathetic moaning.

At some point, I hope King Charles strips them of all titles and they are, as they wish, ordinary folks having to make a living on their own. So sick of them in the news!

Posted 14 December 2022, 3:13 p.m. Suggest removal

themessenger says...

That woman is a shameless opportunist, well versed in the art of manipulation, Harry needs to grow a pair, she has singlehandedly destroyed his relationship with his immediate family.
If they're both so offended, they should renounce their titles and any privileges associated with the same and try working for a living for a change instead of this have my cake and eat it too attitude.

Posted 14 December 2022, 3:41 p.m. Suggest removal

Commenting has been disabled for this item.