Meghan and Harry: The fairy tale of the royal fairy tale

Whether the Queen is watching television these days? When zapping through the programs - we suspect Her Majesty is not streaming - on Sunday she had the choice between Brexit, Brexit, Brexit or a documentary by the ITV broadcaster who got a coup.

Harry - grandson of the queen, number six in the line of succession - and his wife Meghan grabbed their beef in a 60-minute TV documentary allegedly about their recent Africa trip ("Harry and Meghan: An African Journey") on the table.

With an openness unrecognized in royal circles since the death of Diana, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex described the burdens of being a British Royal. And that is of course understated.

Actually, it's about psychic terror. To the constant attacks of a tabloid press, which penetrates with all, even illegal means in the privacy of the Windsors. The more a protagonist tries to avoid it, the more furious the attacks become.

And it's about the fundamental question of what it costs to afford an anachronism like the monarchy in the 21st century - and who has to pay the price in the end.

Her friends had warned her

The camera is on Meghan, she and the journalist Tom Bradby are in the countryside, she answers his questions and is close to tears.

"When I met my husband, my friends were really happy for me because I was so happy, but my British friends said, 'He's certainly great - but you should not marry him, the tabloids will destroy your life.'"

"Very naïve" she answered: "What are you talking about? This is nonsense." She simply "did not understand" which pressure you were exposed to in this role. And that would have "complications".

WATCH: Meghan reveals her Harry's friends: "you should not do it because the British tabloids want to destroy your life." Pic.twitter.com/tOUKlubKY3

Even Harry, who, as the "Guardian" reports, has been friends with filmmaker Bradby for more than 20 years, revealed himself: since he was husband and father, he feels what his mother Diana had to endure: "I have a family now that I have to protect, everything that she ( his mother, editor ) had to go through, becomes painfully alive again, every day, and I'm not paranoid, I just do not want the past repeating itself. "

DPA

Charles and Diana in 1989 with their children Harry (left) and William: The princess died in 1997 in Paris in a car accident

"The past" culminated on August 30, 1997, when Diana was literally hounded to death by a news gathering in Paris: paparazzi tracked the sedan in which the princess was sitting, the car slammed into a car tunnel against a pillar, and shortly thereafter Diana succumbed to her internal injuries. Harry was twelve years old.

The press has "blood on their hands," said Diana's brother Charles Spencer a little later, his sister had been the "most hunted personality" of modernity.

The world was appalled and for the most part fell into a mass psychotic state of mourning. No more, it was said then, should a story be repeated like the Diana, this poor woman photographed to death. The British press pledged to respect Williams and Harry's privacy, a "gentleman's agreement" with the royal family, not legally binding and apparently not made for eternity.

Alleged Zicken-alarm instead kitschig-royale romance

William, the elder of Diana's two sons and future king, and his wife Catherine seem to have come to terms with the media: there are carefully staged press events that give well-informed access to the three children as well, reporting as much as possible benevolent.

In the case of Harry and Meghan, however, the story of a cheesy-royal romance has been swiftly reversed into a nickel-like family drama, including a zig-zag alarm and a fraternal brawl. Screenplay and direction: the gossip press.

In the fall of 2017, the announcement that Harry was going to marry American actress Meghan Markle was like a comet smashed into the dodgy Royal coverage. Everything about this woman was refreshingly different from what Windsor brides used to be: she's older than Harry, divorced, has a job, her mother is African-American.

An addition like Meghan in the British conformist kingdom promised opportunities for the monarchy. With her, the Windsors could offer a new identification figure. If it can give a useful role to a modern monarchy, then it can be a positive projection, an integrative force. For Meghan - self-sufficient, ethnically diverse, feminist - in an ideal way.

Everything was a bit simpler: Meghan vs Kate.

Clive Mason / Getty Images

Sister-in-law, no friends - and that's ok, is not it? Catherine and Meghan 2018 at Wimbledon

With reliable predictability, the boulevard pounced on the imaginary or newly written differences between the two women, a "story" was born - Battle of the Bitches, battle for the limelight, who is the fairest in the country?

In fact, the two women distinguish, above all, that Catherine was steeled in a year-long process for her role as the future queen, while Meghan - like Diana Spencer in the early '80s - catapulted almost overnight into her new position. She, however, unlike Diana, as an adult, reflected woman.

photo gallery

8 pictures

And Meghan, it seems, is not in the mood for this game, the mock war with her, which increasingly gave her the role of exhausting stranger. Side by side, readers of relevant magazines were shown how embarrassing Meghan has behaved again: she hits a car door with her own hands (she has staff for that), she brings American friends to watch tennis at Wimbledon (she does not like English?), She alienates her husband his brother buddy, William. Also with the new family home of the Sussexes in Windsor was settled: too expensive, too distant (was that your idea?).

Who wants to live like this, pay this price? Meghan obviously does not want it, she defends herself.

When asked if one can not afford the long-term pressure of the press given the wealth and privileges enjoyed as a Royal, she says in the ITV interview, "If it's fair, yes. But when people say things, which are simply not true, and they are told and they are allowed to continue to say these things - I do not know anybody who would say in that situation, that's ok. "

In early October, the Duchess sued the tabloid Mail on Sunday for publishing a handwritten letter from Meghan to her father.

Harry sued the other two British boulevard Dickshiffe, the "Sun" and the "Mirror," for allegedly overheard phone calls. The fact that in the UK certain media make use of these illegal means was revealed, among other things, in the scandal surrounding the "News of the World". The sheet was discontinued in 2011. Whether this also applies to the outrageous practices of some "reporters", may be doubted.

Controversial among observers is how this battle will end. What can Harry and Meghan achieve - and why the whole? Especially since it should go in the lawsuit against "Mirror" and "Sun" to allegations that may already be barred.

There are the stupidest interpretations

Journalist Roy Greenslade warned in a conversation with the BBC that the lawsuit could turn out to be counterproductive and was not really necessary, that the press was not as powerful as it had been in Diana's time: "Does Harry take a sledgehammer to crack a nut? ".

Also, the differences between the brothers in dealing with the press are now evident: Harry admitted a clouded relationship with William, and the show is "worried," the BBC reporter Jonny Dymond, as Meghan and Harry obviously on their own try to take action against the press.

The groan after the ITV broadcast is immense, there are the stupidest interpretations. It was "Diana's Legacy" that her sons should stick together, the Daily Mail, and now this rift among brethren! And the "Telegraph", set these days more on pro-Brexit propaganda, wants to know sourly what actually says "the Queen" to these confessions on television?

Perhaps the key moment in my interview with Meghan Tonight. pic.twitter.com/grIsq7f5QX

A good answer was Meghan herself, in the Sunday interview: It's not enough just to "survive" a situation like hers. Rather , one has to live , develop, be happy.

That does not sound like she's willing to pay the price of living as a British Royal for too long.