Our view: What critics of Meghan’s family don’t get
Though a product of a bygone era, the British monarchy continues to make itself oddly compelling.
Witness this weekend’s wedding of Prince Harry and the American actress Meghan Markle. Markle is a divorced, American, biracial older woman. She also — as the British tabloid press has breathlessly reported — comes with a royal coach-load of family baggage.
Not long ago, this would have been unthinkable. Harry’s father, Prince Charles, was all but forced into a loveless marriage to the former Diana Spencer, who was 13 years his junior and probably not ready to make a lifechanging decision. As far as the royal family was concerned, she met the two criteria that mattered: She was noble and, most likely, a virgin.
Now we see how far the monarchy has come. It took a small step toward modernity in approving the marriage of the future King William V to commoner Kate Middleton. And it has taken a great leap — a long overdue one — in approving Harry’s marriage to Meghan. It should be commended.
The British media, particularly its tabloid press, however, are another matter. They seem to have appointed themselves as the defenders of the disgruntled traditionalists discomfited by the fact that the Windsors are about to commingle their royal blood with that of some American ruffians.
They can’t get enough of the fact that Markle’s father — who divorced her mother in 1987 — has been behaving erratically, blowing hot and cold over whether he’d attend the wedding and staging a paparazzi encounter in what was apparently a botched attempt to garner sympathy.
They have taken even greater delight in going after Markle’s half siblings, who’ve thrust themselves into the spotlight to criticize her, promote themselves and — in some cases — try to cash in on the situation.
Piers Morgan, the tabloid editor and television personality who once worked for CNN, called Markle’s family “the worst kind of vile, dysfunctional money-grubbing misfits.”
One wonders why all this intense criticism. Is it to put these wayward relations in their place?
Hardly. Granting them a platform and repeatedly drawing attention to them does just the opposite.
More likely, considering the smugness and the judgmental tone, the purpose of the put-downs is to underscore what is undeniable but should be unremarkable: Neither Markle nor her family is perfect.
The tabloid press doesn’t seem to understand that many of its readers identify with Markle, maybe even more so after all the reportage. They look at her mixed racial heritage, divorced parents, failed first marriage and dysfunctional family and say — Yes! That’s me.
The world is full of people like Markle. They come from broken, blended, reassembled, modern and unconventional families. They might have varied racial and economic backgrounds. And they might have relations they would not want over for Easter dinner.
What they have in common is they know that what matters most is what they make of their own lives.
It’s funny how the British monarchy, whose primary historical purpose has been to confer status and legitimacy through birth, seems to understand this. It’s both sad and funny that the self-appointed guardians of culture that reside in the British media do not.