I didn’t watch it. Did you? I have spent some of this morning noting the volume of social media and traditional media coverage of the Sussexes and Oprah, and wondering what it all means. Specifically, what does my disinterest mean? Some of my friends, and people for whom I have a high regard, seems to be particularly animated. Am I weird? Dissociating? Un-empathetic?
I have not met the Duke or the Duchess. I know little about them. He had a huge trauma in his childhood, seems to have had occasionally questionable fancy dress selections, seen some military action, which must play havoc with the mind, and married a girl from overseas. She was an actress and seems to hold and often to want to share, strong opinions. They have a child and are expecting another to be born in the summer.
Watching another family, even from afar, is always fascinating and a bit of an education. It affords us the opportunity to compare it with our own. Her Majesty’s family appear to be somewhat dysfunctional. That does not make them exceptional. I am not anti-monarchist. I have come, over many years to like being in a country ‘ruled’ by a monarch. Her Majesty seems to me to be the personification of ‘duty’. Very easy to admire. Her daughter seems to have a similar sense of that short word. It is less clear to me what the male children personify, but it seems likely that it is less honourable and distinguished.
But, I do not know them. And like most people that I don’t know, I am not interested in reading about them or watching their lives on a television screen. I am no republican, but I would welcome a bit less monarchism. I am not sure about the deference to tens of people from one family.
It is possible to take a stance about the way that Harry, the ‘spare heir’, has decided to split. Psychoanalysts have a good understanding of splitting. Melanie Klein studied splitting especially closely. Throughout life we deal with frustrations and disappointments, none more so and so frequently than in infancy. These frustrations can feel so intolerable that we split people into very good and very bad. Our world is binary. We denigrate some people absolutely and entirely in order to make a virtue of those around us. People who do not gratify us are pure evil; people who meet our needs are pure and perfect. It seems that Piers Morgan may be exercising some splitting currently. The clips from his TV show today are illuminating.
Looking at the responses to the interview brings up another concept familiar to psychotherapy. Projection. Projection is unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else. A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. I was, probably still am, frequently guilty of projection. I recall how often I used to talk about how I disliked attention-seeking people who showed off, or were what I called “arrogant”, especially at work. What I came to realise was my contempt for them was born of envy. I wanted the attention they had. Expecting attention, was my own in-built arrogance. I wonder what the many comments I have read today, few of which compliment either of the Sussexes, might reveal about the commentators’ own projections.
I think more about why the British revere this family so much. We have had a lot of media coverage about how Brits are plucky, and independent. The Prime Minister thought it might explain our reluctance to follow guidelines for virus control, as compliantly as our European cousins. Yet, the attitudes to this one family suggest that Brits are keener to be subjects, and to display reverence and followership, rather than independence and autonomy. I admit to finding that bemusing. Then, I wonder what it says about me. Do I have an anti-establishment attitude, perhaps built on an infant response to my parents’ displays of authority?
An uglier version of the ‘excitement’ about the interview is that it introduces issues of white supremacy, of bloodstock ‘dilution’, of racism and colonialism. It may be that none of that happened, but the media finds it productive and commercial to conflate the role of one young woman joining the monarch’s family into its current ‘culture wars’ hobby horse. I am not sure. The Sussexes have never really interested me. Charles Moore, one-time Telegraph editor describes them as “self-absorbed and irrelevant”, but seems to be part of a tribe making them relevant by expressing his own view.
I am not sure about “self-absorbed” but I can agree on “irrelevant”, but the widespread interest in them does interest me, not least because I wonder if I am out of step. I do believe that the responses of the public and the commentariat tell us more about these individuals, their own feelings, past traumas, and the power of in-group and out-group psychology, than it does about Oprah’s high-profile guests. But it would not be the first time I did not ‘get it’ and missed something powerful, anthropological, social, political and psychological going on. Which I need to analyse! Anyway, I did not see it, will not see it, and was much more impressed by the Hammers winning 2-0 versus Leeds United.
Second Innings 