Credit… Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated Press
On the heels of the interview, many Black Britons felt a measure of vindication, after Meghan and Harry made it abundantly clear that racist abuse played a role in their decision to leave the country, but also frustration that some in Britain were still skirting the issue.
For years, Black people have been calling out the problematic portrayals of Meghan in the British press, and the failures by swathes of the British establishment to recognize the issue.
Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, a lawyer and activist, has frequently spoken out about the racism directed at Meghan. In a heated back-and-forth on “Good Morning Britain,” she took Piers Morgan, the journalist and a staunch critic of Meghan and Harry, to task.
He asked for a reaction to what he called the couple “spray-gunning his family on global television” while Prince Philip, Harry’s grandfather, is hospitalized with a heart ailment.
“You want to deny that the royal family has any racist undertones or actions against the first biracial person, simply because you are in love with the queen?” Dr. Mos-Shogbamimu, who is Black, responded, as Mr. Morgan accused her of “race-baiting.”
“You can love the queen and be able to call out the actions done by the royal family when they have got it wrong,” she added.
Nadine Batchelor-Hunt, a British political correspondent, said that Meghan’s treatment — from the British media and also in her allegations of questions about her son’s potential skin color — embodied deep-rooted racism experienced by Black people in Britain. Ms. Batcheor-Hunt applauded Meghan’s “fearlessness,” and said that as a mixed-race woman, Meghan’s comments resonated deeply.
“In my family, we don’t really care about the monarchy,” Ms. Batchelor-Hunt said. “A lot of our ancestors were enslaved under the banner of the British Empire in the name of the crown.”
But allegations of racism from within the royal family, both from Meghan and Harry, had given the royals new relevance, she said.
“Seeing her speak so openly about it is really liberating,” she said, “which is why I think a lot of young people, particularly a lot of Black people, care so much.”
Many noted that the allegations made by Meghan during the interview also highlighted a blind spot in much of the British news media when it comes to race, with the ranks of royal correspondents nearly all white.
“This is a story which is predicated on race,” said Marcus Ryder, a visiting professor of media diversity at Birmingham City University. “And what we have is that we have a British media that has so far been slow to recognize that this is actually a racial story.”
Mr. Ryder also said the allegations illustrate the incongruity of a hereditary white royalty and British leaders’ stated commitment to diversity.
“We keep talking about issues of diversity, and how well does diversity sit with the hereditary principle?” he asked. “What she’s saying is that there seems to be a conflict.”
Credit… Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated Press
Hours after the interview was broadcast in the United States on Sunday, Britain was grappling with the shock wave rippling across the Atlantic, exposing a deep royal rift.
For some, the interview was a moment to reflect on the decidedly different public personas of Prince Harry and Meghan, as they broke with the dutiful silence expected of the royal family and brought a more American approach. But for many Black Britons, the interview offered a scathing assessment of the royal family and resurfaced barely submerged tensions over entrenched racism in the country at large.
“It’s very hard listening to the interview not to focus on some of the salacious details and the family drama,” said Marcus Ryder, a visiting professor of media diversity at Birmingham City University. “But what we’re talking about is a major part of the British state, it’s a major institution.”
The racism allegations made during the interview could have major implications for the monarchy, he said, where payments to family members and household expenses come in part with public funds.
“Once you realize that, and divorce it from the idea of the personal family drama, what you have is a Black woman who was the first, in the modern era anyway, to enter that British institution,” Mr. Ryder said, “and makes allegations of racism at the very top.”
Support Our News Campaign
Shop our Store
Click Here To Shop
Meghan’s statement that someone in the royal household had questioned whether her son would be “too dark to represent the U.K.” was a major problem, he said. (On Monday, Ms. Winfrey said that Harry had asked her to clarify that neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Prince Philip was the source of the comment on skin color.)
The Daily Mail,
a British tabloid that lost a privacy case against Meghan last month, led on Monday morning with the all-caps headline: “I wanted to kill myself.” While it trumpeted Meghan’s comments about her mental health, it called the discussions about race “ a sensational claim.”
Other major news outlets published biting commentary, while some social media users denounced the couple’s infidelity to the family and others firmly defended them. The reaction illustrated divisions between those who view Harry and Meghan as victims and those who disapprove of their behavior and of their willingness to criticize the monarchy publicly.
The palace has said nothing in the aftermath of the interview. It remains to be seen whether the palace will investigate Harry and Meghan’s claims as enthusiastically as it pledged to look into the claims that Meghan had bullied royal staff.
But many agreed that the interview could have wide-ranging implications for the House of Windsor.
“I’ve always said that the royal family would come out at best looking out of date, out of touch, perhaps unwelcoming,” Katie Nicholls, the royals editor at Vanity Fair, said in an interview on Sky News shortly after the broadcast. “But this is so much worse than that.”
Credit… Henk Kruger/Agence France-Presse, via Pool/Afp Via Getty Images
Why is Archie, the young son of Prince Harry and Meghan, not a prince? That emerged as a murky question in the aftermath of the couple’s generally revealing interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Meghan said that the royal family had decided before he was born not to grant Archie the title and the designation, His Royal Highness, suggesting that it was linked to their concerns about the color of the baby’s skin.
Under a royal convention, established by King George V in 1917, Archie was not given the title of prince at his birth, since he was a great-grandson — not a son or grandson — of the reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Were his grandfather, Prince Charles, to ascend the throne, Archie would automatically assume the title of prince, provided the royal family sticks to the rules.
But Meghan said that during her pregnancy, the royal family discussed changing the rules to deprive Archie of the princely title permanently. “I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie,” she said.
Around the same time, she said, there were “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.”
At the time of Archie’s birth, in May 2019, British newspapers reported that Harry and Meghan had no problems with his not being a prince because they wanted their son to have as normal a childhood as possible. He would be known as “Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor,” the double-barreled surname of Harry’s family.
In the interview, however, Meghan disputed this contention. The title itself was not important, but it entitles its holder to security protection, which she said mattered deeply to her and to Harry.
Under the convention, Prince William’s eldest son, George, was a prince at birth because, as the firstborn child of the firstborn child of the Prince of Wales, he is a direct successor to the throne. But the queen issued so-called “letters patent” that insured that William’s other two children, Charlotte and Louis, were also a princess and prince at birth — something she did not do for Archie.
Meghan said she had viewed this as discriminatory treatment. She said she had objected to Archie not being a prince because “it’s not their right to take it away,” and because of security concerns. She expressed anger at “the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of color in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be.”
For viewers to come together in this age and in this economy for television at an appointed time — interrupted by commercials even! — requires a high bar.
The ratings aren’t in, but tonight many watchers were reminded of the skill, empathy and just all-around mastery of communication and focus of Oprah Winfrey as interviewer. Even if it was all showbiz, even it was all an act, for viewers it felt engrossing and moving.
Ms. Winfrey, of course, was one of the creators of interview television when she wasn’t busy winning Tonys, Peabodys and getting Oscar nominations. “The Oprah Winfrey Show” began in 1986 and concluded, 25 seasons later,
with more than 5,000 episodes, in 2011. She has said she has interviewed 37,000 people.
It was 1993 when Ms. Winfrey interviewed Michael Jackson in an event that stopped people in their tracks. (Prince Harry was not yet a teenager.) It was at the time the
most-watched televised interview in history, with tens of millions of people tuning in. ( The New York Times reported 62 million viewers; Ms. Winfrey claimed 90 million worldwide.)
In 2019, she
revisited the Jackson situation, interviewing the two subjects of the documentary “ Leaving Neverland,” who accused the singer of sexually abusing them when they were children.
Journalists on Twitter paid tribute to the techniques Ms. Winfrey used in the interview, which was simultaneously intimate and charged, kind but firm. The power of her attention is riveting.
Behind the scenes, nearly every interview ends the same way, Ms. Winfrey
said in a recent interview herself. The participant, no matter how wealthy or famous, asks: “Was that OK? How was that? How did I do?”
Subscribe to the newsletter news
We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe