Sighting Harry/Meghan like finding Waldo
The halo wears well.
If there was a takeaway to be had from Toronto’s ongoing swoon to the fifth in line to the British throne, it came, during the weekend, when Prince Harry cinched an oratorical slam-dunk at the Air Canada Centre. Making a speech that capped the opening ceremony for his Invictus Games, it had everything that’s made this royal an MVP of the Windsor bunch: real-guy emotion and can’t-miss passion, all while telegraphing just the right dash of larky informality that’s reshaping what royal duty looks like in this millennium.
Having spent an earlier part of the day by doing things like cutely riding around with a young girl (the daughter of one of the Invictus competitors) in a mini-Land Rover during a rally in the Distillery District, his speech actually reminded me of remarks made by his late mother, back in 1993. Her most powerful speech, held at the so-called Turning Point conference, Princess Diana caused a storm at the time for talking candidly about women’s depression, and, pointedly, the “haze of loneliness and desperation” that afflicts so many.
If nothing else, Harry is very much his mother’s son.
And that might have been the sum of the media narrative, had the evening not also been subject to a subplot of romantic shenanigans. As everyone, including the citizens of Jupiter, may have heard by now, Toronto’s Meghan Markle wound up showing up at Saturday’s ceremony as well, promptly rousing the gaggle of “royal reporters” in town (one reporter had cannily brought along a long-lens camera!), and immediately resulting in headlines, i.e. the one on People’s website — “It’s Official! Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Step Out for the First Public Appearance.”
Buried in the lead: that Harry (seated with the Trudeaus and U.S. First Lady Melania Trump) was in an entirely different section, four rows up and two hand-railings away, and the two did not actually interact. The notion of it being “public” and her being there “with” Harry is one best left to the semioticians.
For a subsection of the press who make their meals off the HarryMeghan story — one’s that been cooking for a year now, since being spotted right here in T.O. — it was “official” enough. On Twitter, things went predictably haywire, like the hard-hitting missive that, at one point, the Suits actress STOOD UP in the aisle “to let someone go past (to) their seat.” This, around the time a Canadian marching band was hitting the stage, complete with jaunty bagpipes.
For others, it became urgent to weigh in on what Meghan was wear- ing (purple Aritzia dress, Mackage leather jacket, FYI . . . both Canadian brands, and a possible declaration of sartorial diplomacy!) as well as her hair, which had a kind of wispy, middle-parted Ali McGraw-in-Love-Story thing going on (love means never having to say you’re sorry for not sitting together).
For me, what stuck out was how she was wearing her jacket: echoing a fashionista-trend that peaked in street-style images, in 2013, she was pushing the whole trend of not wearing your coat while still wearing your coat. See, ma? No arms! A de rigueur move for any celeb donning an outer layer — see: a shoulders-draping Kim Kardashian — Vogue has dubbed the trend “coat slinging.”
For some members of the royal press pack, though? The entire tableau raised a concern, not so much about the lack of arms as about the lack of intel. Though Markle famously went all-out public with their “love” in this month’s Vanity Fair, she was not included in any of the names, or information, provided by the palace — something that caused longtime monarchy-watcher Phil Dampier to tweet, “Harry’s press office refused to give any guidance she would be here. Why? What’s the point?”
An interesting question. It’s a synergistic dance between the Royal Family and the press that covers them — we must “be seen to be believed,” as Queen Elizabeth once famously put it — and if they were simply trying to avoid stories about Harry/Meghan, and put the focus on the vets (a good theory), why have her attend at all (in a separate section, at that)?
In fact, the where’s Waldo effect at the ACC only helped to maximize the drama. And, well, it all wound up having the same effect, press-wise, as it probably would have with her sitting near him in the VIP. (See: the Daily Mail, which quickly churned out a many-thousand-word piece about Meghan at the event, complete with a zillion photos!) So, what gives? (There is, alas, even a precedent for this sort of thing: when an ex-girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, attended a memorial concert for Diana with Harry, it was formally announced.)
Causing even more brow-raising: the eagle-eyed observation that when Meghan, and the friend she was with, sprung from their seats — shortly after Harry’s speech — they were escorted by a personal protection officer from Scotland Yard. Given that royal girlfriends don’t get taxpayer-paid security, what did that really mean?
And, yet, if the couple was trying to keep an engagement already on under wraps — as is one theory — showing up with a PPO (for any sharp reporter to see) kinda defeats the purpose . . . no?
The Meghan-watch goes on.