FOR all its slick modernity there was one reassuringly old-fashioned thing about Harry and Meghan, the long-anticipated, much-hyped Netflix film by the Sussexes about the Sussexes – the best bits were in the trailers. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
With no previews available, press and punters alike gathered at 08.00 GMT (midnight in Silicon Valley, home to the streaming giant) for a “Netflix global event”. Here, finally, was the chance for the royal couple to have their say. “No-one knows the full truth. We know the full truth,” Harry had declared.
In the event, there were no startling revelations, no truth bombs, no villain unmasked. Instead there was a general stream of grievances and observations, all of which have been aired many times before. Is there a soul anywhere who does not know Prince Harry loathes the press?
The couple did bring a lot to the table if what you were after were details of how they met and fell in lurve, interspersed with lots of moody black and white photos and never before seen pictures and videos.
The arty shots made the film look like the world’s most expensive perfume ad, while the use of the other material rather made a mockery of their protestations about privacy. Or doesn’t it count if the privacy being invaded is your own?
In one scene we heard the couple’s son, Archie, speak (with an American accent), and watched Meghan cut roses in her garden and have walks on the beach. It did not look like a bad life. Indeed, from where many are standing this winter it seemed heavenly.
We learned that Harry (“Haz”) had been half an hour late for their first date; how he had lost girlfriends in the past because the media harassment was too much; and that most of the memories of his childhood were of being “swarmed” by the paparazzi.
His devotion to Diana shone through. “I am my mother’s son,” he says, adding that Meghan is so like Diana. You could have spent the next hour unravelling that assertion on its own, but hey, no time for that when there are much more important things to talk about, like Meghan’s role in the seminal drama, Suits.
Meghan (“Meg” or “M”) told her own story, with several friends, Serena Williams among them, chipping in. She was presented as an innocent abroad who knew little to nothing of the royals. Asked by director Liz Garbus how she learned the British national anthem, Meghan said: “I Googled it”.
Her acting career was covered in astonishing depth, and her various stints as a volunteer and spokesperson for good causes set out in full. She came across well, as did Harry (not as daft as he looks), but who wouldn’t when the material is so skewed in your favour and no-one questions your assertions?
Despite the lack of anything new so far, the press can be expected to take offence at length. Given the way they are presented as thugs with cameras one could hardly blame them. Again, in all the talk about the media exploiting the royals there is no mention of royals using the press for their own ends.
Perhaps the film will toughen up now that racism has been raised. In the first episodes the subject is mostly dealt with through interviews with historians, which hardly makes for exciting viewing. These segments are not the only time the film drags. Six hours is a looooong time to spend on anyone, Suits or no Suits.
Will honour be satisfied now that Harry and Meghan have had their say? I doubt it.
A row has already erupted over some of the footage used. A caption at the start says that the royal family declined to comment on the content of the series, but Buckingham Palace has disputed this.
Whatever Harry and Meghan are doing here it is not suing for peace.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel