The New Yorker has a new article/commentary piece on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their now-formal Sussexit. I read some comments on Twitter that the New Yorker article was not a hit piece nor a glowing Sussexit commentary, and I sort of avoided reading it for a day. I just skimmed it this morning and… it’s mostly old news, repurposed in a New Yorker long-read. I guess some/many people who read it will not be as familiar with the ins and outs of the two-year-old smear campaign against the Sussexes, and the worst things I can say about this piece are that A) they quote too much from Camilla Tominey (who is a bridge troll/royal reporter for the Telegraph) and B) they both-sides the argument that Meghan was subjected to outright racism in Britain. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

No one knew what to do with Harry & Meghan: A distinguished British historian told me, “In the old days, before the First World War, what you did with the secondary royals was marry them off into other royal families, and that gave them something to do. In the days of the Empire, you could send them off to go and be governor-general, or to have a full-time military job. These days, being royal, but not being either the heir to the throne or the monarch—it’s very hard to carve out a job.” At the same time, the historian added, “it’s quite difficult ceasing to be royal.”

Camilla Tominey on Meghan: “When Meghan arrived here, she was really well received,” Tominey told me. There was happiness and relief that Harry had found such an impressive woman. “When we wrote the story initially, it was kind of couched in ‘How did he score this amazing girl?’ She was this extremely glamorous woman who had a lot to say for herself, and had an interesting past as a campaigner for women’s rights. She was a woman who meant business, and it looked like she would be an instant asset to the Royal Family.”

Tominey claims that Meghan wasn’t well-received within the palace: Tominey explained, Markle soon had critics inside the Palace who were less enamored of the very qualities that made her irresistible to the press: her showbiz lustre, self-confidence, and feminist habits of assertion. Reports emerged that, in the run-up to the wedding, she was being imperious. Tominey said, “I’ve put it down to a clash of cultures, in the sense that she had come from the celebrity world, which is very fast-paced and quite demanding. The royal world is very different—it’s much slower-paced, and hugely hierarchical. In the royal world, it’s ‘What should we do next?’ ‘Well, what did we do last time?’ ” Markle may not have comprehended how many unwritten traditions governed the institution she was joining. Tominey explained, “It’s a bit like ‘Downton Abbey’—there’s a hierarchy of staff who have been at Buckingham Palace for years and years, to serve Queen and country. And, therefore, for Harry and Meghan to be making demands, there was a bit of below-stairs chatter, particularly with the Duchess, that was ‘Well, hang on a minute, who do you think you are?’ ”

Tominey of the accusations of racism in the press: Reporters who cover the royals are indignant at the suggestion, and like to note that Harry himself used to be accused of racial insensitivity. (In 2005, he notoriously wore a Nazi outfit to a “native and colonial”-themed party.) Tominey said, “This narrative of ‘the press and the public have been attacking us,’ and ‘there’s a racial undertone,’ and Prince Harry talking about ‘unconscious bias’—people are scratching their heads and saying, ‘Well, last time I checked, nobody I know ever dressed up as a Nazi for a fancy-dress party.’ ”

Dickie Arbiter on whether the British press is racist: Dickie Arbiter, the royal commentator, told me, “For goodness’ sake, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, and the majority of the Commonwealth is other races—African, Asian, you name it.” The fact that some of the Queen’s best subjects are black is perhaps not the strongest defense of the royal institution, which is notably lacking in diversity.

[From The New Yorker]

I laughed out loud at “The fact that some of the Queen’s best subjects are black is perhaps not the strongest defense of the royal institution.” And Tominey’s argument is that Harry made a terrible mistake in 2005, so the British press is completely justified in waging a racist smear campaign against his wife more than a decade later, then gaslighting the Sussexes about that same racist smear campaign. And I’m really tired of the talking point – from courtiers and media alike – that Meghan was 100% accepted in the beginning. While her treatment in 2017 was mostly positive, in the lead-up to the wedding and in the first months of their marriage, the wheels began to come off of the British press’s machinery as they all collectively reveled in taking Meghan down. I do think it’s interesting that Tominey seems to be saying, in effect, that the bitterness and smears originated in the palace old-guard though. Anyway, old news.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN, Avalon Red.