The Daily - Harry and Meghan. (And Why Their Saga Matters.)

Episode Date: January 23, 2020

In a moment of national insecurity, with the future of the United Kingdom seemingly hanging in the balance, a new royal couple offered the vision of a unified, progressive future. But the same forces that pushed for Britain to leave the European Union have now pushed Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, to leave the country.Guest: Mark Landler, the London bureau chief of The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: A wish to carve out more “progressive” roles has led to the loss of perks, privileges and titles — a more thorough break than the Duke and Duchess of Sussex seem to have expected.The couple’s push for greater independence has resurfaced the same questions that animated the Brexit debate.Black Britons expressed support for Harry and Meghan. “Thank God they are free,” one Londoner said. “All of this is about her race. I know it because as a Caribbean woman who did not grow up here, I have experienced it myself.”

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily. Today. Why the story of Harry and Meghan matters. It's Thursday, January 23rd. Okay. Mark Landler, looking at the headlines and your byline, I've been wondering how it's been for you over these last few weeks to go from the Brexit beat to the Megxit beat. The Brexit beat to the Megxit beat. Well, I guess the first reaction I had was that it's kind of interesting that after 27 years at this newspaper,

I've risen up to the exalted position of being a gossip reporter. Mark Landler is the London bureau chief for The Times. But as I dug into it more and more, I realized that for all the soap opera quality to Harry and Meghan, the story actually does have a deeper dimension and a deeper context. And Mark, where in your mind does the story begin? Well, I think it really begins with a fairy tale. You have to go back to May of 2018 and the wedding of Prince Harry and his American bride, Meghan Markle. And on one level, this wedding had all the elements that one would expect from a royal wedding. It was held at Windsor Castle in the Chapel of St. George.

The chapel where it was held is actually also the resting place for English kings that literally go back centuries. The couple left afterwards in an open-top carriage. And so you had all of this majesty and pomp. And yet, on another level, you had some elements that were strikingly new and different. You had, for example, a gospel choir that sang Stand By Me during the service. You had an African-American bishop... Now in the name of our loving, liberating, and life-giving God... ...delivered a homily in which he quoted Martin Luther King.

Once said, and I quote, we must discover the power of love. There are a dazzling array of celebrities. I know. Idris Elba. Massive celebrity. Oprah Winfrey. Oprah Winfrey. Oprah Winfrey.

This is a surprise. I don't think people were expecting her, but she is here. So you had this ceremony that really was both a throwback to the grandest old ceremonies of the British royal family, and then something genuinely new.

And at the center of all of it was this beguiling person, this figure of Meghan Markle. And what made her, in your words, so beguiling? Well, a couple of things. First of all, she's an outsider. She's an American marrying into the British royal family. But beyond that, she's a very particular type of American. I'm Rachel Zane. I'll be giving you your orientation. She's a television actress. I'll be giving you your orientation. She's a television actress. Good. You've hit on me.

We can get it out of the way that I'm not interested. No, I'm sorry. She's three years older than Prince Harry. She's divorced. She's self-supporting. She's a professional woman. But really, above all, she is biracial. She has a white father and an African-American mother.

And that, more than anything else, made her a very different, very radical new member of a family that really hasn't changed much for centuries. And Mark, how are the British people thinking about all this and thinking about her as they watch this wedding? Well, among young people, there was just a jolt of excitement. You had this vision of a young person coming into the royal family, which just by itself was exciting. The queen, after all, is in her 90s. Prince Charles, the next king, is in his 70s. And then there was the nature of this person coming into the family. Their relationship was doing a lot to change the views that the younger black generation would have. Because when I was growing up, I would never have thought this would happen.

Young people thought of her as perhaps a vehicle for changing an institution that at some level they revered, but probably thought of as somewhat outmoded. But... I'm just very dubious. Then there are the older generation. That somebody who's made her life in those sorts of films, been married before, comes over and has to become an active member of a very, very traditional family. I think that could be quite difficult.

And for them, Meghan Markle was a challenging figure. She's had a completely different life. She didn't really know the British royal family or how it operated or what her life would be like. And she is clearly used to being her own woman, operating... All the things that made her exciting to young people made her to older Brits more of a threat to the fabric of the royal family, a family they revere as embodying the best of Britain

and the greatest times in British history. As understood by a certain type of Brit. Indeed, as understood by someone who thinks of British history in the most traditional way. And how does this attitude begin to manifest itself? Well, fairly quickly after the wedding, there had been this rapturous coverage of the ceremony. you began to see coverage and headlines in the British tabloids that started taking a slightly harder, meaner look at Harry and especially at Meghan. And it's worth pointing out quickly that the tabloids are, across the board, conservative publications. These are papers that really play to very traditional ideas of the meaning and the value of the monarchy.

So what you begin to see are a series of articles. Some are actually asking valid questions about the lifestyle of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. For example, during one summer, they took two flights on vacation on private jets. And this raised a reasonable question. During one summer, they took two flights on vacation on private jets. And this raised a reasonable question. Prince Harry is a major campaigner for climate change. You can't lecture us and the rest of the world on climate change when you're taking private planes everywhere. And the newspapers pointed out that taking these private jet flights

left an enormous carbon footprint. Also, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle embarked on a very expensive renovation of the cottage that they were gifted by Queen Elizabeth on the grounds of Windsor Castle. This is known as Frogmore Cottage. And the couple authorized a $3 million renovation that was paid for by taxpayer money. She's a multimillionaire from her time as a Hollywood actress. He's a multimillionaire from all the money he's had over the years. Two multimillionaires asking the British public, the taxpayer, to contribute two and a half million pounds

to renovate an entirely different property to the one that they've been offered, I think is a bit off, like the crucial point as well. And while some of that was perhaps legitimate, you also began to see just a more petty flavor to the coverage. And it's really perhaps most visible if you look at the coverage of Meghan Markle side by side with that of Kate Middleton, who married Prince Harry's brother, William. And what does that show? Well, for example, the Express covered a very similar incident, which is both women talking about their love of avocados.

And the two headlines kind of tell the tale. In the first headline about Kate, it says, Kate's morning sickness cure? Prince William gifted with an avocado for pregnant duchess. Same story, same newspaper, about Meghan Markle, and the headline is, Meghan Markle's beloved avocado linked to human rights abuse and drought.

Millennial shame. It's like literally the polar opposite take on the exact same piece of fruit. It's very hard to actually be that radically different about an avocado, but the British press figured out how to do it. While this is at some level humorous and not extremely serious, it did over time bleed into more sinister types of coverage of Meghan Markle really around her mixed racial background. So you began to see descriptions of her in the press as, quote, exotic, or headlines

that said that Harry's new girl is, quote, straight out of Compton. In other words, portraying Meghan as kind of a coming up from the mean streets of Los Angeles. And so there is an element of it that is deeper and more problematic and gets at out and out racism. And certainly portraying her not just as an entitled millennial, but as an altogether more threatening figure. So you're seeing this kind of more conservative aspect of Britain and their view of Markle reflected in the British press. That's right. But it isn't just the press, because there is another very conservative institution here, one that is perhaps even more important, and that's the House of Windsor itself. And that's the House of Windsor itself. And Meghan Markle, by all accounts,

has a very difficult introduction to the family. There are many reports that Kate Middleton is not particularly welcoming to her new sister-in-law. There is a sense that she is simply not being approved of her lifestyle. There is a family event where one of the older aunts shows up wearing a brooch that is interpreted as kind of a racial slur against Meghan. And Harry begins to feel a sense of aggrievement on behalf of his wife. And that then causes a rift between Harry and his brother William. One of the first tangible examples of this is when Harry and Meghan announce

that they want to move out of Kensington Palace, which they share with Kate and William and his family, and move into their own place. And you begin to see more and more evidence of distance between Meghan and Harry on the one hand and everybody else in the family on the other hand. So all of this culminates when the couple go on a long tour of Southern Africa. It was a journey through Africa, but not always the one they expected. And they bring along a television journalist

who they're close to, Tom Bradby, who's making a documentary about this trip. And he has what turns out to be a remarkably revealing interview with each of them during the course of the trip. When I first met my now husband, my friends were really happy because I was so happy. But my British friend said to me,

I'm sure he's great. But you shouldn't do it because the British tabloids will destroy your life. So Tom Bradby asks Meghan Markle, I don't know what the impact on your physical and mental health or all the pressure that you clearly feel on that.

How are you doing? Are you okay? And she looks visibly moved, visibly emotional. You add this on top of just trying to be a new mom or trying to be a newlywed, it's, yeah, well, I guess, and also thank you for asking, because not many people have asked if I'm okay. But it's a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes. Bradby follows up by saying, would it be fair to say she hasn't been okay? And Markle thinks about it for a moment and replies.

Yes. Wow, just telling the world in what sounds a little bit like a cry for help, I am not doing okay. And that is very much the way it's interpreted. And I think also it's the way that Meghan Markle intended for it to be interpreted. She knew she was going to be asked that question. I don't think there was anything accidental about the reply, nor do I think anyone misinterpreted who she meant when she said, not many people have asked if I'm okay. By that, she meant members of the royal family. But it doesn't end there. As this journey wore on, another human story emerged

of a man still wrestling with the legacy of his background, of his birth, and the tragic death of his mother. Tom Bradby then has a very emotional interview with Prince Harry where he says a couple of things. One, he says that his grief for his mother Diana is still a wound that festers. Every single time I see a camera, every single time I hear a click, every single time I hear a click,

every single time I see a flash, it takes me straight back. And so then later he tells Bradby that he's also grown distant from his brother William. Part of this role and part of this job and this family being under the pressure that it's under,

inevitably, you know, stuff happens. But look, we're brothers. We'll always be brothers. We're certainly on different paths being under the pressure that it's under, inevitably, you know, stuff happens. But look, we're brothers. We'll always be brothers. We're certainly on different paths at the moment, but I will always be there for him. And as I know, he'll always be there for me. He's openly acknowledging a rift between them. And that is a very powerful thing, because remember, for the British public, these two brothers are sort of imprinted in memory as the young boys who walk together behind their mother's casket after her death. And so to hear

Harry openly acknowledge what perhaps people whispered, that's a very, very big deal in terms of both the emotional dynamic within the royal family, but also the image the royal family has with the British public. So this all seems to set the stage for what happens next. Tonight, the surprise announcement from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle reportedly blindsiding the Queen. After returning from a long trip to Canada, they say they intend to step back as senior members of the royal family. That's right. It sets the stage for what is an epic breakup between Harry and Meghan and the royal family and really between Harry and Meghan and the British people.

We'll be right back. So, Mark, what does happen next in this story? Well, so this is the part of the story that most people know. The couple spend several months thinking and planning their new life. They talk it over with members of the royal family. Buckingham Palace slow rolls them, tells them to take their time. It has to be thought through. It's complicated.

The tabloids, particularly the Sun newspaper, get wind of the fact that they may be leaving the country. And suddenly they decide to tell the world that they have this plan for a new lifestyle. And all hell breaks loose. And I got some breaking news and it is about Harry and Meghan. In a statement, they said, we have chosen to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to, and here is the key bit, step back as senior members of the royal family

and work to become financially independent while continuing to fully support Her Majesty the Queen. I mean, it's virtually a letter of resignation, isn't it? Harry and Meghan didn't consult with any of their relatives before releasing that statement, meaning even their closest family members had no idea how this was going to work. Buckingham Palace is now in crisis after it was blindsided by Prince Harry and wife Meghan's announcement. And a few turbulent weeks later, after a lot of tense negotiations. How you can spend half your time in North America and still continue to honor your duty to the Queen,

the Commonwealth and all your patronages, I do not know. It is literally impossible to do so. They have actually gone ahead and started this new life. A smiling Meghan was seen out for a walk with her son and the couple's dogs. In leggings and boots, no need to follow a royal dress code. Hmm.

So they pulled it off. They pulled it off. Not without a lot of heartache and a lot of pain and a lot of controversy. But in the end, by acting as precipitously as they did, they managed to force the palace to deal with something that it really would have preferred to put off indefinitely. So they really forced the issue successfully. And in brief, what does this mean about their status

within the royal family? How did that shake out? Are they still royals? Well, they are still royals. Prince Harry is still a prince. He's still sixth in line to the throne. They still have the titles of his royal highness and her royal highness. But in a very big concession to the queen, they agreed to stop using those titles. They've also agreed to repay the cost of renovating their cottage in England. And they've also importantly agreed to give up direct public funding of their activities. So it's a real break. And it truly does not only liberate the couple, but it will impose some pressure on them to earn enough money to finance a lifestyle that is, by anyone's account, very extravagant. Mark, what has been the reaction inside Britain to this seismic disruption to the royal family?

Well, first of all, it's enthralled and riveted the country. One British newspaper today dedicated the first 17 pages of its edition to this announcement. Yeah, this is amazing. With days of banner headlines and breathless TV coverage. But the reaction has very much broken along familiar generational lines. I understand why Prince Harry and Meghan have done it. I think you can see, like, Prince Harry, obviously, his wife is just getting kind of hounded by the press,

often in kind of racially dodgy ways. And you go, of course he doesn't want any part of it. I can completely understand that. If Harry's happy and Meghan's happy, that's all that matters. Among young people, there was a great deal of sympathy for Harry and Meghan. Among the older generation, it's been very different. All you can see is that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are behaving like spoiled brats, totally entitled.

There's a sense that Prince Harry and Meghan exploited the goodwill of the Queen. They blindsided Buckingham Palace by putting out their announcement the way they did. And also that they kind of want to have it both ways. Robert on email says if Harry and Meghan want to relinquish their royal status, then get on with it. At the moment, they're behaving like self-indulgent rich kids being supported by the taxpayer. They want to have their cake and eat it.

It confirms some of the worst suspicions that people had about Meghan Markle as this relationship first began. Meghan Markle as this relationship first began. Mark, at the start of this conversation, you promised that you would tell us why all of this matters beyond the human drama and what it reveals about Britain. So, here's your chance. You're right. I did promise that. And here's the greater significance. Harry and Meghan are not just leaving Britain at any old time. They're leaving Britain at the very moment that Britain is leaving the European Union, that it is finally carrying out Brexit. Right. And I think this timing is

crucial to understanding how this debate is playing out in Britain. Because as you see the country charting a new identity, casting off from Europe, there's a great deal of uncertainty, of uneasiness about the future of this country. What kind of a role will it play in the world? Will it be diminished? Will it be isolated? What will the post-Brexit Britain look like? So at this time of national uncertainty, there's a yearning for symbols. There's a sort of an urge to reach out to things that symbolize British history and the immutability of the British idea. And there's no greater symbol of that than the monarchy. Right.

And so this idea that suddenly this brilliant young couple, this shining symbol of the future of the monarchy, would wind up turning their backs on it and leave Britain comes at a particularly vulnerable moment for the British people. And as it turns out, the people who are hardest on Meghan Markle are also generally the people who voted for Brexit. And it's one of the great paradoxes of this story that their resistance to Meghan Markle, you know, their complicity in making her life miserable has led to this outcome that has convulsed the royal family, has threatened an institution that these people care so deeply about. So I think that's the importance here.

It's not just a debate that breaks down along generational lines. It's a debate that breaks down very much along Brexit lines. Did you vote for staying in the European Union or for leaving? How you voted in that case weighs very much in how you feel about Harry and Meghan.

The same forces that pushed for Britain to leave the EU and are now craving its greatest symbols of nationalism in the form of the monarchy, they are the same forces who have inflicted all of this on Meghan and on Harry and perhaps driven them to leave the monarchy to weaken the monarchy. It's a perhaps classic case of getting what you wanted until you realize that it's not really what you wanted. That's right. until you realize that it's not really what you wanted. That's right. And in that regard, it's a lot like the Brexit debate itself.

The people who voted to leave imagined some greater Britain. But instead, they may wind up not only with a much diminished country, but with a much diminished monarchy. Mark, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Mr. Chief Justice, senators, council for the president and my fellow House managers. On Wednesday, Democratic House impeachment managers began laying out their case to senators for convicting and removing President Trump from office, accusing him of a corrupt scheme to pressure Ukraine into tarnishing his political rivals. If not remedied by his conviction in the Senate and removal from office,

President Trump's abuse of his office and obstruction of Congress will permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government. While the Senate has so far refused to allow for witnesses, the House impeachment managers brought them to the floor anyway, in the form of video clips of current and former officials who have already testified before the House, including former National Security Council official Fiona Hill and European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election,

DNC server, and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were important to the president. At one point, the Democrats even played a clip from President Trump himself. If foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI? I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. There's nothing wrong with listening.

Maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. There's nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, we have information on your opponent. Oh, I think I'd want to hear it. You want that kind of interference in our elections? It's not an interference. They have information. I think I'd take it. And in an extraordinary attempt to contain a deadly outbreak, Chinese authorities are shutting down all outbound transportation from a city of 11 million people in central China. That city, Wuhan, is the center of the outbreak of the coronavirus,

a pneumonia-like disease that has already killed at least 17 people in China and infected people across multiple countries. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.