HARRY AND MEGAN RIFTS AND REPERCUSSIONS
After Meghan and Harry’s sit-down with Oprah, Vanity Fair’s Katie Nicholl sifts through the aftermath
the duke and duchess of Sussex’s Oprah interview was bombshell after bombshell. It was, without doubt, the most explosive interview given by a member of the royal family since Princess Diana’s infamous Panorama appearance in 1995. (Of course, the Duke of York’s 2019 Newsnight interview, where he discussed his friendship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was a car crash – but as damaging as it was for him, it had less impact both globally and within the family.)
The repercussions of the Oprah interview – during which Meghan accused a senior unnamed member of the royal family of racism, claiming they asked how dark their as-yet-unborn son Archie would be, and said she was denied help by the Palace when she felt suicidal during that pregnancy – are being felt now, nine months later. And it has caused a huge divide in the royal family.
None of the royals has met Harry and Meghan’s second child, Lilibet Diana, yet. And none of the family has seen Archie for over a year. Harry was also absent from the party hosted by William at Kensington Palace in October, to thank those who have been involved with the Diana memorial.
It’s believed the Queen did not see the Oprah interview – but, obviously, she was fully briefed in terms of its content. The Queen has weathered many crises during her nearly 70-year reign – but this would have been a difficult one because it felt so personal. Insiders say that she has really been aware of the difficulties between William and Harry, and she’s been deeply saddened by the rift between the brothers.
I know that Princess Anne and the Wessexes have been very disappointed with Harry over the interview. But my understanding is that Zara and Mike
Tindall and Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice have really done what they can to try to make sure Harry doesn’t feel excluded. The cousins want nothing more than to see the brothers on good terms.
William and Harry’s relationship was not good beforehand, but the Oprah interview was the final straw for William. The word that kept being repeated by Palace insiders was ‘anger’ – incandescence, in fact. William couldn’t believe Harry was throwing the royal family under the bus with such damaging accusations. He also couldn’t understand why they’d brought his wife into it – Meghan said Kate made her cry before her wedding – when, in the past, Kate has largely acted as a peacekeeper between the Cambridges and the Sussexes. William felt betrayed, too, as Harry knew full well that, in his position, William could not have a right of reply.
The silver lining is that the whole furore has brought William and Kate even closer. The friendship trio of Kate, William and Harry is no more, but Kate has shown where her loyalties lie. There’s very much been a role reversal in their marriage, as Kate has helped William through Covid, and has been a shoulder to lean on as his relationship with his brother struggles. Over on Harry and Meghan’s side, it’s fair to say the pair feel aggrieved by the criticism that is constantly piled on them by the press, especially when Prince Andrew faces allegations of sexual assault (which he strongly denies). There’s also a frustration from Meghan and Harry that they do not seem to have been heard by the Palace, and the issues they raised in the Oprah interview appear to have been brushed under the carpet by the family (very much like the Andrew scandal).
Next year is an incredibly important one for the royals. It’s the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, but with Andrew potentially facing a civil court case over Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre’s claims that he sexually assaulted her, and the upcoming season of The Crown – which isn’t expected to paint Charles and Camilla particularly well – it’s not guaranteed to be a jubilant Jubilee year.
As for Harry and Meghan, they’re going to be doing the opposite of keeping a low profile. They have a $150m deal with Netflix, and there are rumours of a fly-onthe-wall documentary (Harry was seen wearing a wire in New York).
I don’t see reconciliation on the cards. We’re left with a king-in-waiting and a rival prince, with two ever growing empires. If there is a reunion for the Jubilee, it will probably be for public appearance’s sake.
having kids comes with multiple delights – smears of yogurt on your clothes, sleepless nights, strange smells – and a hefty bill. For many women, their entire wage packet goes on childcare, as they try to maintain a career and caring. In the last decade, nursery fees for under-fives have risen three times faster than pay. But if it costs so much, why are so many who work in the sector dependent on food banks, and so many nurseries going out of business?
The weekly cost of a nursery place for a single two-year-old is an eye watering £263. Have more than one child, and you need to be in the top 25% of earners to avoid getting into debt if you want to work and need a childminder at the same time. Yet in an industry where 98% of employees are women, poverty is a way of life: 50% of childcare workers earn less than £17,000 – 43% say they struggle to save £20 a month. In the pandemic, thousands of nurseries went out of business. The Government found billions for roads and potholes, yet simply offered mums a pat on the back for homeschooling. Women paid the price for this blind spot – 46% of mothers who lost their job said a lack of childcare was a factor in their redundancy.
When it comes to childcare, this Government is always cutting corners. Official documents show the Government deliberately chose not to provide the funding needed to cover the cost of free childcare for three- and four-year-olds, making it even harder for nurseries to stay afloat. The recent Budget didn’t help either. It provided just £2.40 a week for every child – despite the Chancellor finding £3 billion to reduce the cost of beer. Saving our nurseries doesn’t even require new money to be spent. Currently, the Government is sitting on billions in unspent childcare tax credits. Rather than reinvesting this cash previously earmarked for our kids, they are standing by as places in nurseries become even more scarce and expensive and childminders leave the business.
The consequences of this are clear – children are missing out on a quality early years education, and many women give up their careers, or struggle to balance work and family and feel like they are failing both. It also hurts our economy – Women’s Budget Group research shows free childcare for all kids over six months old would pay for itself because it generates higher tax returns and reduces the welfare bill too.
This hasn’t happened by accident – there is little political will to address childcare costs or even discuss the topic at all. Outside Parliament, campaigners Pregnant Then Screwed and Grazia are raising this issue, leading to September’s Westminster debate on the subject, but it shouldn’t need this activity to make politicians pay attention to an issue that affects every family in the country. As I said at the debate: ‘There is an army of mums out there who are mad as hell that they are being ignored.’ (I had my then-newborn son with me in a sling as MPS don’t get maternity cover. I’ve since been told that that breaks the rules of Parliament, which are now under review.)
Correcting this oversight means ensuring more mums, especially of young children, have a seat at the decision-making table. In America, the Votemama project is helping to get mums selected and elected to office at all levels of government. Here in the UK, in partnership with Pregnant Then Screwed we are launching ‘This Mum Votes’ (thismumvotes.org.uk) to make the case for universal childcare, and help support mums standing for office to campaign for it.
Without an intervention, our children will be grown up, raising their own families and mums will still be locked out of politics. We can’t afford to wait or ask nicely for change any more. Mums everywhere deserve not just to be heard, but to have an equal say. Stella is the Labour MP for Walthamstow
Before I started working on Framing Britney Spears, my only reference points for her were the schoolgirl costume and the time she shaved her head. Even 13 years later, that 2007 image of Britney grinning, clippers in hand, defined her for me.
At the time, my team was putting together a series of documentaries for The New York Times and our senior story editor, Liz Day, pitched the idea to look back at the media coverage of Britney with a post#metoo lens. It was never supposed to be about her conservatorship – the courtordered agreement that gave her father Jamie control over much of her life – but the more we dug into how Britney was portrayed versus how those close to her described her, we realised we had this huge mystery to unravel. How had someone who was once considered to be so in control of her career had nearly all control taken from her? Why was this woman who is making millions of dollars for hundreds of people, performing one of the most successful shows in Las Vegas, in a situation where she was deemed incapable of making decisions about her own life?
We made a list of 1,000 names of everyone who had ever worked with Britney, and I started going to the court hearings about her conservatorship to talk to fans. Eventually, women who worked with her started talking to us, and their perception of her as this kind and astute businessperson, even as a teen, was wildly different to the media coverage I was watching from the late ’90s and early 2000s. That footage still gives me nightmares – the way she was shamed for her sexuality and dismissed. I’m the same age, 40, as Britney now: watching that back made me realise that treating her like that had made it OK to treat me like that. I got so angry watching the footage that I couldn’t sit still, I had to get on my exercise bike in my living room!
Now, interviews get put online so regular people can respond in the comments and on social media, but back then there was no accountability for this type of coverage – misogyny was just ingrained in our culture.
In making our follow-up documentary, Controlling Britney Spears, we got hold of sealed court documents that showed Britney had been communicating to the court that she wanted to end the conservatorship as early as 2014; that she felt it was too controlling and she didn’t want her dad involved. She had been advocating for herself for years to no avail.
Now, so much has changed with her conservatorship. First, Jamie was removed as her financial conservator and then finally, after 13 years of control, the court removed it altogether. She is finally free. I think Britney’s determination would have seen this happen even without our documentary – she would’ve continued to challenge the court. But I do think we helped reframe how the public saw Britney and in turn that exploded public support for her case.
My fear was that viewers would see the media coverage in the documentary and have the same reaction they did then, that she was ‘crazy’. But after its release, when I saw #Wearesorrybritney was trending, I was floored – people finally realised how wrong the media coverage was and how much she’d been humiliated. Before the documentary, people thought it was OK to make fun of Britney but now I don’t think that’s publicly acceptable to do – that’s my proudest achievement.