Judith WOODS
What does equality look like in the 21st century? How to convey, in our highly visual age, a marriage of equals? If a picture paints a thousand words, how much more inspirational is a photograph of the power couple extraordinaire?
We’ll unpack all that in a moment – but first, might I respectfully suggest it’s most definitely not that toe-curling image of Prince Harry and Meghan on the front of Time magazine?
I’ve seen better Elvis-on-the-moon Photoshop fails than this excruciating attempt to capture the essence of brand Sussex. Is it a hideous misfire? Or does it give a genuine, terrifying glimpse into their relationship dynamic?
For a start, Meghan is clearly wearing the trousers – great, big white trousers that seem to be sending a message, although I’m struggling to know what it is other than product placement for Vanish Oxi-action Gold. Which it quite possibly could be for this commercially savvy pair.
Harry, meanwhile, has been shrunk to fit and is perched behind her, back (quite literally) against the wall. I couldn’t think who he reminded me of and then the penny dropped: that cruel Spitting Image puppet of Liberal leader David Steel, portrayed as a tiny, adoring sidekick-cum-ventriloquist’sdummy to the SDP’S David Owen.
I know right? You can’t unsee the resemblance now. That abiding image did for Steel as an homme sérieux of the political centre. God knows the outcome for Harry.
Here is our high-ranking, muchloved royal who dedicated 10 years to the Army, rising to the rank of Captain and undertaking two tours of Afghanistan, projecting an image of airbrushed emasculation. Dressed all in black, he is the yin to his wife’s shining yang.
Bizarre. Unfathomable. Comical, too, but also troubling. In our timepoor culture, the so-called “optics” have become all-important, with carefully curated pictures intended to provide a snapshot of just about everything you need to know about a person, a couple.
It’s not what someone says anymore, but the subliminal message communicated by their choice of clothing, their accessories and their pose, that matters.
Here, Harry appears to be very much an accessory. In other pictures, his wife adopts (without a shred of irony) that much-derided wide-legged power stance employed by politicians seeking to project an image of strength and dominance.
I’m not sure why he’s even there, to be honest. Embarrassed, I have to look away.
It would be less bewildering if Harry and Meghan didn’t have the ultimate role models in his grandparents. Throughout her 73 years of wedlock, Her Majesty the Queen somehow managed to communicate her position without feeling the need to stand like a Portsmouth pub bouncer at chuckingout time.
Her relationship with the late Prince Philip was complex, yet equal; she ruled the country while he ruled the roost. He was her consort, but never, ever her inferior.
Of course, Harry’s parents, Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales were very different. They spent much of their 15-year marriage covertly, and indeed overtly, vying for attention and admiration. Latterly, they were like a manic version of those folksy little weather stations: either the man comes out of the little house or the woman comes out, but never together.
By contrast, their elder son Prince William and his wife Kate seem to have struck a wonderful balance in their marriage; their ethos is one of cooperation rather than competition. Each generously – and, indeed, very astutely – gives the other an opportunity shine.
Harry and Meghan’s ostentatious role-swapping – the soldier ceding to the warrior of woke – is crass and clunky. Equality isn’t about mimicking the other gender. Equality isn’t about conspicuously ceding privilege or disingenuously dismissing difference.
Former prime minister Theresa May and her husband Philip were mocked by the PC brigade back in 2017 when she revealed that, at home, they had “boy jobs and girl jobs”. Sexist? Only to the young and foolish.
It makes perfect sense to me and an entirely equitable way of carving up domestic chores. That’s equality.
Prof Dame Sarah Gilbert might never have created the Covid vaccine had her partner not taken a step back from his career when she had their triplets, born prematurely in 1998 and all now studying biochemistry at university.
She says: “My partner gave up work shortly after they were born because we couldn’t afford a nursery for three of them, and I earned more than he did.” That’s equality.
Of course, women have many more battles to fight. During the pandemic, they were hit particularly hard in terms of being furloughed, made redundant or expected to put in extra hours while doing the bulk of homeschooling.
And over and above the Motherhood Penalty, an analysis by the Fawcett Society has calculated that women in their mid-30s may never get equal pay during their working lives, unless urgent action is taken to speed up closing the gender pay gap, such has been its “devastating” impact.
Achieving a fairer society is predicated on both genders challenging assumptions, overturning prejudice and pushing for change together.
In the field of diversity, there’s an oft-repeated phrase: “If you can see it, you can be it.” Girls still suffer from the early stereotyping that limits their opportunities; they need relatable role models.
In many ways Meghan, Duchess of
Their showy roleswapping – the soldier ceding to the warrior of woke – is crass
Sussex has broken the mould. Together with Harry, she has set up their philanthropic, non-profit Archewell Foundation.
But you wouldn’t know it from her Time portrait. She obviously believes this is her moment and so here she is in the spotlight.
In a truly equal marriage, however, neither partner is relegated to the shadows so the other can shine.