This foray back into the entertainment industry was testing the water in more ways than one. They and their advisors needed to feel their way towards success, which meant maximising the Sussex brand and its earning potential while boosting the couple’s prestige. Make no mistake about it, this was one brand where there was a holy alliance between money and reputation. One was intended to feed the other, and there was a whole team in the background working away at making the Sussex brand successful in every way possible. Meghan and Harry’s American advisors fully intended them to be on a par with the Obamas in terms of earning capacity. But comparisons with the former Presidential couple seemed optimistic. Just as how Harry does not compare with Barack Obama in practical terms, in personal terms, how does a former cable television network ensemble actress and blogger, with political aspirations but no political experience and only a handful of personal appearances to her credit, compare with a successful lawyer, university administrator and two term First Lady like Michelle Obama? The Obamas were at the forefront of the world’s stage for eight years. They were admired for their accomplishments and their successes. There were many millions of Democrats who voted for him and still admire them. During their eight years in office they did not denigrate treasured national customs and institutions. They did not complain about how hard done-by they were, did not take on the press in an attempt to neutralise or control them, nor did they jump ship to earn themselves more money than they were already making in their appointed roles.
For all the optimism of their financial team, the Sussexes were not the equals of the Obamas in terms of status and accomplishment, nor did they have the wealth of experience or the scale and scope of vision of the presidential pair. What they did have was huge ambition and self-belief, and these, together with their royal status, should play well in the United States even as they have lost respect in Britain.
* * *
To fully appreciate the danger the Sussexes now find themselves in, one needs to understand that at all levels of society there are gradations. This is as true of a local hospital in Missouri as it is of a bank in San Antonio, the social world that David Patrick Columbia covers in the New York Social Diary, or a palace in Europe. Status is like wine. It doesn’t always travel well, though sometimes what is second or third rate in one place becomes first rate in another.
Meghan discovered that fact to her advantage when she moved to Canada and found herself embraced by a category of person who would have shunned her in her native habitat. The lesson was reiterated in Britain, once it became apparent that she and Harry were headed for the altar. The press presented her as a bigger star than she had ever been, and Andrew Morton, who had boosted Harry’s mother’s reputation in a panegyric, did the same thing for Meghan in his pre-marital best-seller Meghan: An American Princess. Whether all this exaggeration clouded her judgement, and she forgot the lessons of her roots, or she simply wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand the dynamics of the situation she found herself in, or she was indifferent to any externals save her own ultimate desires, Meghan misunderstood the power of the monarchy and the relative fragility of the royals within the system. As Anne Glenconner put it, Meghan thought that marrying into the Royal Family assured her of ‘instant popularity’ and an exciting and easy life spent travelling in ‘a golden coach’, when in fact the royal way of life is hard and often boring to boot.
Had Meghan been born into an established family, she would have appreciated that the whole is infinitely greater than its parts. Great families and great institutions value the individual, but they also know that each individual is dispensable. No matter how important, powerful, rich, talented, beautiful, intelligent or anything else you are, you are on this earth for only a limited period. Durability becomes a matter of each individual making his contribution in the knowledge that he will be replaced and hopefully his family or institution will continue to flourish, with him having added something to it rather than subtracting from it. The greatest mark of success is that you leave things better off than you found them. It is this balance between your own importance and your relative unimportance, your replaceability and your unique irreplaceability, which gives the holders of great positions the sense of proportion necessary to fulfill their destinies. The King is dead; long live the (new) King.
These were nuances which Meghan might well have understood, but since she gave no indication of having done so, the only conclusion onlookers could come to was that the whole thing was way above her head. One of the greatest insults you can level against an individual in the British Establishment is that he is out for himself, rather than out for the greater good. One of the greatest insults you can hurl at someone is to say that he is exploitative. There is an awareness of the necessity for each person or cause to leave room for others. Greed is not good, nor is being mercenary. Striking too hard a bargain is not seen as a virtue, the way it can be in certain segments of American society, but as a vice. You add to your cause, and if you benefit personally, so much the better, but you never put yourself before your cause, nor do you squeeze such a good deal for yourself that you are sucking into your province what by right would have gone to others had you left enough space for them to benefit as well. Balance, justice, fair play and decorum also play invaluable parts in this way of life. ‘There is a time and place for everything,’ is one of the cornerstones upon which the edifice of all well brought-up traditionalists was constructed. For instance, when you are attending a premiere of a movie and the proceeds of the event are going to a charity with which you are involved, you do not hustle the CEO and the director for a job for your wife as soon as you meet them. You at least have the good grace to wait until the after-party, though Harry and Meghan were able to get away with this flagrant breach of etiquette because the people at Disney believed that they, being royal, were begging for charity and not themselves, and that they, being royals, were above the cut and thrust of commerce. This illusion has now been well and truly dispelled by their admission that they wish to achieve financial independence. The danger is that now that they are commodities who will have a price for their services, their presence will be less prestigious than it would have been when they stood to make no personal gain from any of their transactions.
In the world whence Meghan originated, and to which she has returned with Harry, many people consider it admirable to be as aggressive as Harry and Meghan were with the Disney CEO. Hustling has its purpose, and to hustlers that is more important than the place in which it is exercised. However, not everyone regards such directness as desirable. I spoke to several well-placed people in Hollywood (producer, director, heir to the heritage of one of the Hollywood Greats etc.) who thought Harry’s conduct let the side down. Such conflicting attitudes again highlight the clash of one world’s values against another’s. But it was noteworthy that the condemnation was exceeded by the admiration, which demonstrates why Meghan and Harry will always have followers, especially in her homeland.
While Harry remained a senior member of the Royal Family, he undoubtedly had a great position. This was enhanced by the perception that he had something which money could not buy. Added to this was his reputation for being a down-to-earth, affable guy. He also had the physical attributes to shine within the role. Position plus personal assets always have a potentiative effect, the position exaggerating the personal qualities and vice versa. HIs mother was a case in point. Diana would never have been known as a great beauty had she not become the Princess of Wales. Nor would a Princess of Wales, who lacked her style, charm, personability and graciousness, have become the worldwide star which she was.
The danger for the Dianas and Harrys of this world arises when they receive consistent feedback about their personal qualities exceeding the value of their elevated positions. Once they begin to believe the hype, they are on rocky ground. The temptation to overestimate your personal worth while denigrating the worldly advantages which exaggerate it can become irresistible, unless you take the attitude that
Prince Philip stated he and the Queen took when, in the early days of their marriage, especially after her accession to the throne, they were revered as the most desirable, glamorous, appealing couple on earth. They decided that they would go about their business as if none of that acclaim existed. Taking the praise with a pinch of salt, they felt, was the only way to avoid having their heads turned. The ways their lives turned out proves the wisdom of their choice.
For Harry and Meghan, the danger of their initial popularity was not only having their heads turned, but also misjudging their appeal and how it could be made to work for them. Any miscalculation could do long term damage to their ‘brand’, and could result in them setting out on a path thinking they could become more commercially successful than was possible. The fact that Harry had no experience of the American way of life, crucially to include commerce, while Meghan had no real knowledge of how their royal position could be converted to maximum financial advantage, meant that they were, to an extent, the blind leading the blind, and therefore liable to make mistakes, not the least of which might be in what their true earning capacity could be. Yet there are indications that Meghan is indeed the brilliant tactician, strategist and businesswoman that Nelthorpe-Cowne assessed her as being. She has organised the best business brains for Harry and herself, and has positioned them so that they will become Hollywood’s regnant royal couple. In America, where people are often taken at face value, and where one’s estimate of one’s worth is frequently used as a benchmark of one’s true value, Meghan’s positioning of Harry and herself as regal, hyper-glamorous, stylish, down-to-earth, caring, woke, left-wing, yoga- and nature- and family-loving conscionables who care deeply about the world, their fellow humans, the environment, animals, children, and family life, has been supremely clever.
There is no doubt that Harry and Meghan made a bold move when they left Britain for California via Canada. It takes courage to strike out onto such an unscripted path. I am told that Harry’s ambitions were simple enough. He wanted a happy wife and a happy family life with her. I am also informed that Meghan’s ambitions were also simple, albeit different. They were a cocktail of elements which owe more to the dreams created by Hollywood - and which have influenced just about everyone in the world - than to the values of an older and more traditional way of life. She is Hollywood given flesh. The values she espouses, no matter how heartfelt, are basically new, cutting-edge ones. She often talks about change, but she has no cohesive overview, nor does she ever bog herself down in what the consequences of change would be. Change always brings about new problems, but these are never mentioned, much less defined; nor are the potential solutions addressed. Noble though Meghan’s motives might be, she is actually a novice in the world of realpolitik. Rhetoric does not solve society’s problems, though superb rhetoricians throughout the ages have been able to employ this gift to gain support for themselves from the public.
The palace understood that it was never going to be enough for a royal to simply deliver moving speeches. From their point of view, every word spoken by a royal must be carefully considered so that public expectations were not played upon, whether through ignorance, cynicism, ambitiousness, or even naiveté, as public expectation raised too high would result in unwanted disillusionment.
Meghan’s values, being the values of a new and to a large extent untried world order, inevitably came into conflict with the tried and tested values of an older, tried and workable order. She seemed not to understand to what extent she had set herself up to be in conflict with not only the British way of life, but with the more traditional elements within America as well. Yet any examination of the difference between Haves and Have-Nots will show to what extent Meghan’s values were those of a Have-not clashing with those who already have.
In any society, whether it be a constitutional monarchy, a free republic, a totalitarian regime, even a Communist state, the emphasis of Haves has always been on preservation and survival, while those on the make have traditionally valued change and acquisition. One was not necessarily better than the other. Each had its merits, depending on the circumstances of an individual. One might even say each was desirable, for those who were materially lacking and aspired to a richer life could not do so without changing their circumstances. They needed to aspire, while, for those already in possession of assets, the emphasis switched from more and more to keeping what one had, not only for oneself, but for future generations. Obviously, the traits, skills and mind-set were different for each group, but of one thing you could be certain. Once those who had aspired had achieved, their focus invariably expanded to include the goals of preservation and survival that were the characteristics of the Haves.
It will be interesting to see at which point in her development Meghan switches from acquisitiveness to preservation. To date, Meghan has moved from a No Money world to a New Money then an Old Money one when she married Harry. She and Harry have set about joining the Real Money world, in the stated hope of making enough for them to end up with having Real Money. Old Money, New Money, No Money and Real Money all have distinguishing features, and each has impacted upon the couple’s lives.
Old Money has the grand houses, castles, and palaces that are stuffed full of chattels which would seriously deplete the bank accounts of New Money and even make a dent with Real Money, should they be able to buy the items which are seldom if ever for sale. Old Money might not have readily realisable assets, but what they have is an accumulation of riches, now mostly in everything but cash, which New Money can only replicate, in a contemporary setting, by consuming its funds in a latter-day version of the real thing. Old Money also has some things that New Money and Real Money cannot buy. It has history, tradition, and breeding. These can be very discomfiting to a newcomer like Meghan, for the one thing that someone like her would find difficult is relating to people who, because of their heritage, are so unconsciously themselves that they wear their every advantage lightly and take no one, including themselves, too seriously. This conflicts with neophytes who are far more conscious of themselves and invariably take themselves far more seriously.
The philosophical differences between Old Money and New Money are at the root of many a misunderstanding. Several of Harry’s friends have confirmed that Meghan never fitted in with his old crowd. Not only did she not fit in, but she pointedly made no attempt to do so. From the very outset, her attitude was, ‘This is me. I am inflexible. I bend to no one.’ It is ironic that she would have had this attitude, bearing in mind that she had gone out of her way to scale the heights of Canadian society, and had done so successfully by doing her utmost to fit in. But there are differences between the upper reaches of Canadian and British society. Canadians of all classes are more similar to their American counterparts than to the British. They are also more simplistic than the British. Here, use of language, pronunciation, phraseology, body language, overt and unstated demeanour are radically different. If you are an American or Canadian who is authentically yourself, you will fit in without any difficulty into all strata of society in Britain. On the other hand, if you are a personality whose development has been as self-conscious as Meghan’s, the only class in Britain into which you will fit comfortably is the arriviste. This is because all other segments of the British population are renowned for their adherence to the mores of the worlds in which they function, with only the arriviste adopting new modes of behaviour and the attitudes to go along with their newfound status.
Had Harry been an entrepreneur who had started out in a council house in Dagenham prior to making a fortune and acquiring the trappings of wealth while remaining proud of his working class roots, or had he done a Cecil Parkinson and replaced his ordinary origins with a ‘classy’ persona, Meghan would have been perfectly at home in Britain, and would have found both scope for and comfort in her new way of life. She would then have lacked the option of returning to her birthplace as a great star, and would doubtless have settled in a way she never did as a royal. Meghan’s revulsion a
gainst Harry’s friends was not surprising once you realised what her origins and interests were. Although she was really of the No Money category, she had had enough worldly success to have acquired New Money tastes and attitudes, all fuelled with a generous amount of self-awareness. Meghan was intelligent enough to realise that Old Money, whether in the US or the UK, generally finds many of New Money’s practices vulgar and crass, and therefore unpleasant to be around.
New Money, on the other hand, finds what it regards as the prissiness and restraint of Old Money constraining, tiresome, and boring. It is also seriously disconcerted by the sudden way Old Money often lapses into unrestrained political incorrectness, riding roughshod over New Money’s treasured politically correct attitudes. Inevitably the values of these two worlds collide, and there is no doubt that they did with someone as dogmatically woke and politically correct as Meghan. Of special objection to her was their relish for the traditional country lifestyle, with its emphasis on blood sports; but worst of all, their supreme distaste for personal publicity. Also odious to a luxury-loving fashionista like Meghan was their tolerance of personal discomfort, born of their lifestyle’s activities such as hunting, fishing, shooting, and stalking, not to mention the tendency for their houses to be seriously under-heated. This, of course, was because Old Money homes are usually so large (a small house might be thirty rooms, a large one two or three hundred) that only the rooms the family uses on a regular basis will be heated constantly. Even when you stay in beautifully appointed castles like Naworth, you walk from one warm room to another via something on the more Arctic side. Old Money understands that comfort is always relative, that each individual must sacrifice some of what he would prefer in an ideal world if he is to retain the endowments good fortune has provided him with in this one. New Money does not accept like trade-offs like this, the New Age concept of Having It All being something it lives by, or at the very least, aspires to. Old Money would never waste its time on trying to have it all; it knows from generations of acquisitiveness that you can’t. It even goes as far as disapproving of such a mandate, dismissing it as greed. Over the centuries, it has learnt that possession might be nine tenths of the law but retention requires self-sacrifice.
Meghan and Harry Page 41