The reported feud between the Cambridges and the Sussexes doesn't show any sign of slowing down, and more and more journalists are weighing in … and falling on the side of Harry and Meghan.
Catherine Bennett recently published an opinion piece in the Guardian in which she refuses to be soft when speaking about how William and Kate have behaved toward Harry and Meghan. In particular, Catherine points out the many ways the pair, and especially Kate, have shown how they really feel.
She writes:
“In recent years it has been persuasively argued that younger members of the royals are more empathetic than their sourer, or weirder elders. And thus, as well as nicer, they are better qualified to connect with their subjects, and, in the long term, protect the family fortunes from, say, its members’ regrettable weakness for paedophiles, at home and abroad.”
However … it seems that this impression may not be one that is rooted in reality, at least when it comes to Prince William and Kate.
Catherine goes on to write:
“Courtesy of their hilarious double act in Westminster Abbey, it seems much more likely that William and Catherine are already, as inheritance edges closer, about as emotionally literate as Prince Philip, as careless of their status as Prince Andrew, and as supremely forgiving to outcasts as the late Queen Mother. With a few differences.”
Ooouuch.
If you follow royal news and stories, it's easy to see what Catherine is talking about here. Prince Philip, for example, famously moves through the world with few social graces. The man himself once told reporters, "I am rude, but fun." Well, it seems that the idea of "fun" is relative, especially if you're on the receiving end of one of Philip's "jokes."
The Netflix series The Crown surprised many, but not all, of us when the show portrayed Philip as a bit caustic and self-centered, particularly in the early years of his relationship with Queen Elizabeth. For starters, rumors of multiple affairs have chased the prince for decades. In 1957, 10 years after the two wed, the Baltimore Sun ran a story claiming that Philip was "romantically involved with an unnamed woman whom he met on a regular basis in the West End apartment of a society photographer."
And royal biographer Sarah Bradford has also confirmed these stories. She wrote, "He’s never been one for chasing actresses. His interest is quite different. The women he goes for are always younger than him, usually beautiful, and highly aristocratic … He has affairs and the Queen accepts it."
Philip has also made several racist comments over the years. In 1986, he told a group of British students who were living in China, "If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed." When he was asked about this later in life, he commented, "I’d forgotten about it. But for one particular reporter who overheard it, it wouldn’t have come out."
On top of that, in 2001 he told a 13-year-old that he could never be an astronaut because of his body. "Well, you’ll never fly in it, you’re too fat to be an astronaut," he said out of nowhere. The 13-year-old in question was definitely upset and commented, "I was bothered about what he had said. I was really cross. What gives him the right to be nasty to people just because he’s married to the queen?"
So it's not unfair to say that there's definitely a royal precedent for being rude. But Kate and William are part of the generation that is supposed to better than those who came before them, right? Well … maybe, maybe not.
Catherine Bennett posits that Meghan's refusal to just deal with the attacks made against her may be making Kate feel all kinds of feelings about her own life.
"All Meghan Markle appears to have done to deserve a comparable level of visible ostracism from Kate and William is to conclude — admittedly rather late, and with scant notice – that a lifetime dedicated to trailing mutely in their wake would be unbearable. As a result, one hears the left-behind royals may now have to open more things and meet more subjects than usual."
She goes on to say, "You can see why this might seem, as well as a nuisance, a rather pointed commentary on the ghastly, state-maintained life that Kate Middleton wanted for herself. But even so. It’s not as if Meghan taught Kate’s kids to Nazi salute. And even minus their pretensions to leadership in talking/reaching out, blanking rarely-seen family members in a church, in public, isn’t the most civilised example from the Cambridges, future leaders of the family that, according to its own website, symbolically unifies the nation."
And these are all excellent points. If Meghan and Harry's decision has stirred up negative feelings in Kate and Wills, it's up to them to settle those privately — not to insult and ignore the couple on a public stage. As Catherine puts it, "Some viciously divorced civilians do better than this every week."
And the kicker: William and Kate have to fake smile and get along with people as part of their jobs. "Moreover, beaming impartially at friends and enemies is not even, unlike the Cambridges, a vital part of their day job."
So they could probably manage to put on a cheery face for their family, right? It's not like she hasn't before. "Kate, in particular, has previously demonstrated huge professionalism in this respect, bestowing the same, dazzling smile on [Narendra] Modi, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping as she does, crouching down in the curious way that royals consider essential in all child-encounters, on an innocent tot."
"Whatever crime Meghan and Harry have committed to be denied the same favour, it presumably strikes the Cambridges as worse than — to pick at random, from the above guests’ specialities — sexual predation, brutal dictatorship and tolerating extreme violence against women and girls."
For Catherine, everything came down to the moment that William, Kate, Harry, and Meghan were reunited in Westminster Abbey on Commonwealth Day:
“In the Abbey scene, surely the finest among the multiple glories of Harry and Meghan’s season one finale, we see a seated Meghan, smiling and waving like a pro at the approaching, then suddenly unsmiling Cambridges, who turn their backs, converse with everyone but them, then fall — William going, unsuccessfully, for dignified composure, Kate pursing into an unforgiving little face that would have discomfited the chattiest of tyrants — to ignoring them for the rest of the ceremony. Meghan, meanwhile, radiates artless goodwill.”
And really, all Kate and William needed to do was smile and get through the outing. It wasn't longer than an hour or two, and Harry and Meghan were likely just as eager to get back to their own lives. A little smile and nod of the head would have been all that needed to happen, but Kate and William, for whatever reason, could not bring themselves to do muster even that.
At the end of the day, Catherine posits that it could be that at least a few royals feel like they were left behind, or even trapped:
“It probably wasn’t their intention to appear in the Abbey — as at the Albert Hall, or spotlit under an umbrella — anything other than defiantly, hireably, fabulous. That their proximity was enough, however, to make at least two royal masks slip, perhaps exposes the misery, as well as the cultivated pettiness, of those left behind in captivity.”
