Sorry, Prince Harry, but ‘Megxit’ is not a dirty word

Before we begin, I must issue an urgent warning. On Tuesday, I wrote a column about a certain California-based former actress. It prompted a polite request from a reader. Her dearest wish in life, she wrote wistfully, was to go a single week without hearing about either the Duke or Duchess of Sussex. Yet, once again, the goblet of hope had been dashed from her lips, and she had been forced, against her will, to remember that the Sussexes existed. Now she was beginning to wonder whether her simple dream would ever come true.

Naturally, I replied to apologise for any distress caused. I wholly understood her position. She was, I acknowledged, far from alone in harbouring this innocent desire. On the other hand, however, data from The Telegraph website clearly indicated that a sizeable number of readers retained a strong interest in articles about the Sussexes.

I therefore proposed a compromise. In future, I promised, any article I wrote about this couple would carry a content warning, such as those that appear before an offensive film. Something like: “WARNING: CONTAINS SUSSEXES. Includes scenes of sanctimoniousness, solipsism and wild self-pity. Also features language that some readers may find upsetting, such as ‘speaking our truth’ and ‘unlocking positive, compassionate and creative spaces’.”

Thanks to these warnings, all who wish to live a Sussex-free existence will be able skip the article, and go about their day undisturbed.

In light of this promise, it is my duty to announce that the following article contains explicit and graphic references to Sussexes. All who read on do so at their own risk.

On this occasion, I’m writing not about Meghan, but Harry, the artist formerly known as Prince. I hadn’t meant to write about him, but sadly he has left me with no choice. In his latest public tirade, he has accused all journalists who use the word “Megxit” of misogyny. And, having used the offending term myself, I feel it incumbent upon me to defend my actions.

“Megxit,” declares the Duke, “was, or is, a misogynistic term.” I find this remark surprising. So, for the Duke’s benefit, I could take this opportunity to clear the matter up for him.

Contrary to his claim, the term “Megxit” was not designed to express hatred for women. Certainly, it contains the first syllable of a woman’s name –

Even the Duke must concede that Meghanandharryxit doesn’t work as well

specifically, as the Duke has so perceptively discerned, the woman to whom he is married – but that has nothing to do with sexism. It is because “Megxit” sounds a little bit like “Brexit”, a contemporaneous political event of which the Duke may be aware.

If not, perhaps the Duke would be interested to learn that “Brexit” is a portmanteau term formed by eliding the words “Britain” and “exit”, creating a shorthand means to describe the departure from the European Union – an economic and political alliance of more than two-dozen states – by Britain, or more precisely the United Kingdom, an island nation situated off the north-west coast of France.

As, at roughly the same time, the Duke and Duchess announced a departure – or “exit” – of their own, some humorously inclined headlinewriters decided to mark the event by devising a similarsounding portmanteau. It may of course be argued that the portmanteau places undue emphasis on one half of the couple in question. On the other hand, I think that even the Duke would have to concede that “Meghanandharryxit” would have worked less well as a pun.

I hope this explanation sets the Duke’s mind at rest. I fear, however, that it will not, such is the intensity of his animus towards the media. At the same event at which he deplored “Megxit”, he railed against what he called “pirates with press cards”.

This antipathy, of course, is nothing new. In February, the Duke said he and his wife had left Britain to escape the country’s “toxic” media.

Personally, I would find this reasoning easier to understand if the country they’d chosen as their new home were not the United States. Whatever may be said against Britain, it does not produce the National Enquirer, an American magazine the front page of which has in the past two years featured such headlines as: “Monster Meghan Exposed”, “Harry Trapped in Marriage from Hell” and “I’ve Made a Terrible Mistake … Please Take Me Back!” (a headline illustrated with photos of an anxiouslooking Harry and a wearylooking Queen).

At any rate, it’s all terribly unfortunate. Perhaps my reader had the right idea. In order to avoid angering the Duke further, all journalists should take a solemn vow never to write about the Sussexes ever again. Not a single, solitary mention of them.

Admittedly, it might make it harder for the Duke to sell copies of the autobiography his publishers have reportedly paid him $20 million for. But I think this is a sacrifice we should be willing to make.