The prince's spokesperson criticised 'the racial undertones of comment pieces'
This morning, Prince Harry issued an unusually forthright statement about his personal life, condemning the media’s racist harassment of his girlfriend, Meghan Markle.
In the statement, the prince acknowledges that given his position and privilege, but says the past week ‘has seen a line crossed.’
“His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”
Of course, we encourage robust interrogation of the role of the royal family in British public life, but Harry’s unusually hard-hitting statement (for a royal) is a welcome intervention in the fight against the racist, sensationalist, invasive elements of the British press.
Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly, the worst offenders completely missed the point. ‘Ooooh, Prince Harry has a girlfriend!’ was the (slightly paraphrased) first response of both Mail and Sun, followed by articles littered with exactly the sort of invasive paparazzi shots and racially-inflected descriptions that the prince’s statement invoked.
While they acknowledged his comments on racism, both papers assumed he was talking about some other racist and abusive media trolls with a national platform. Classy.
Meanwhile, the Evening Standard‘s royal correspondent, Robert Jobson, criticised Harry for speaking out at all. While ‘his decision to hit out and go public shows he will do everything he can to defend his lady’, it distracts attention from the crucially important business of Prince Charles’s ongoing visit to the Middle East, and Harry’s own visit to the Caribbean.
It’s rather touching that Jobson thinks that if the Daily Mail didn’t have a prurient story to run about a prince’s private life, they would cover a set of completely unremarkable royal tours instead.
What’s unforgivable is his implication that Meghan Markle is not entitled to complain about ‘legitimate press interest’ because ‘she is a well known actress, used to milking publicity for her own gains, who writes copiously on social media about her lifestyle and background.’
What that means in Standard-speak is that an actress who publicly discusses her African descent is not entitled to defend herself against racism.
Funny that those most committed to preserving the British royal family are also so committed to making their lives hell.
Kensington Palace has issued a statement this morning about the harassment currently being experienced by Meghan Markle and her family. pic.twitter.com/EuFZ4fmUIj
— Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) November 8, 2016
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
12 Responses to “Prince Harry slams racist media – the Daily Mail misses the point”
Mick
Prince Harry’s had punch-ups with pressmen and raw memories of how his mother felt. He was bound to lash out, calling out the names which float the national air in this PC universe. And having been in the army, he would speak as he thinks he finds.
It HAS been the trolls in the social media – the same void inhabited by LFF and others too – unbridled enough to let vent. The papers can’t be genuinely heavy-handed themselves, or at least not since the reforms after Diana’s death.
And the ‘racism’? It can’t be much to speak of if LFF lathers but doesn’t reproduce the evidence. You mean THIS….?
“Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”
I’d like to be told I could enhance blue blood with whatever I’ve got! I can understand pent-up frustration but the Left only ride this as a vehicle. Hence this LFF diatribe against Her Majesty at 90. (The head of state isn’t there to rule, as you know and prefer.)
Judithsb
Your photos of this woman are not acceptable. You don’t have Harry with his shirt unbuttoned
Mick
That had better be sarcasm!
Carey
“exotic” omg how many times has that been used (what does that mean exactly?) and isn’t the Mail on Sunday accused all the time of racism and sexism – rightly though by no means exclusively. It also has Great British journalism’s more than fair share of unfactual unresearched tripe. Lets deal with a couple more of the concerns: front page Sun “Harry’s girl’s on Pornhub” “steamy sex scenes” , Daily Mail “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton”, lets look at the term ‘blue blood’ Aufa Hirsch reports : ‘The terminology says it all: “blue blood”, from the Spanish sagre azul, coined in the late 1500s to distinguish between the racially superior white Christian nobility (with pale skin revealing blue veins) and the Jews, Muslims and West Africans whom Europeans were increasingly ousting from their continent.’ and we ignorantly continue using language – ‘exotic’ vs ‘blue blood’! The point was made by Robert Booth and Lisa O’Carroll that what concerned him (Harry) was “dangerous relationship” in which newspaper reports and comment pieces that he considers racist and sexist sparked a torrent of vitriol against Markle on Twitter and other social media platforms as well as in comment sections below online news stories. Yes I can quite understand that. Lesser mortals have said something similar over and over. Personally I am not a royalist, and I remember Phillips infamous racism and Harry appearing at a party in a Nazi costume, but this attack on the media and its ongoing racism and sexism is welcomed.
Mick
Aufa Hirsch is a nut. Blue blood was just lazy shorthand for indigenous nobility, as Spanish landowners’ white skin made the blood in their veins more visable. The lower classes were immigrant or Islamic invader stock, so were duskier. This was just as much lazy shorthand for landowner, as ‘racist’ is for supposedly half of us who voted Brexit! (‘We’ murdered Jo Cox, remember!)
Exotic means just what it says. In fact, that news quote is racist against whites, if nobody else; yet liberals still scream like their beards were caught in a door, in case an ethnic minority is offended somewhere.
Political extremists bait each other on social media. They deserve each other, for better that than fighting normal people.