Prince Harry’s Spare: Truth & Credibility

Right off the bat, I feel guilty for shedding further light on the already overtly-exposed and disgraced former (wait, still current?) prince. After all, in the last several years, his drama has become the gift that keeps on giving for tabloid newspapers and social media. His new memoir, Spare, focuses on the toxic nature of this coverage and yet in a paradox, feeds the same beast; which he’s acknowledged to an extent, if in the unyielding quest to have “his truth” heard. Having got caught up in the media blitz, after starting The Crown, I was just too nosy to not give the audiobook a listen. I thought his account merited an analysis to ascertain credibility, since it brings to question so many major issues: the nature of truth; our celebrity-obsessed gossip culture; mental health; and the monarchy’s role in today’s society. So rather than do a typical review, I thought I’d examine the book and Harry’s troubles through the lens of each of these points.

A) Speak Your Truth

This phrase annoys me. While experiences differ, I think we should try keep “truth” closer to fact than opinion, if we’re to judge any account. For the sake of this article, I won’t get hung up on it (since Prince Harry’s probably just using it in the popular cringe celebrity way) but let it just hover over the following points and consider what truth may be derived from the other side (i.e. the Royal Family’s). While I don’t think Harry is lying, his credibility and image do rest on the age-old folly of sometimes fitting facts and evidence to suit one’s conclusion rather than the other way around.

B) Gossip

I feel like most of us are guilty of consuming crass, yellow journalism and Harry, for all his personal objections, is too. For example, in discussing his father’s marriage to Camilla, he states that he was happy for both of them, even if he felt she had “sacrificed [him]” to the press in rehabilitating her image in the wake of Charles’ and Diana’s split. He keeps his assertions vague but suggests that at certain points, he became a whipping dog in order to make other members of the family look better. What exactly was said is kept on the back burner since there’s no solid evidence, though I’m inclined to believe his suspicions.

Indeed, this synergetic relationship between royal palace staff is paramount to Harry’s expose, even if the stories were later (and by him) confirmed true (Kate vs. Meghan, the boys unhappy Camilla, Harry’s drug use, etc.). To an extent, it’s become ironic for criticism on his part since Harry and Meghan have, at every turn, been exposing every bit of gossip they can in turn. Is this to be perceived then as Harry’s own scorched-earth retort? He’s laying it all out there so that it’s shown he has nothing left to hide? Beating the press at their own game? Perhaps these are the acts of a desperate man who’s had enough? Whether he’s been effective remains to be seen however. For just as he can lay it all out there, so too can new press reports and slants be spun. For many, Harry now appears more petulant, conniving and fame-hungry than ever. Meghan, who was (perhaps unfairly) characterised as being “difficult” is now seen by many as also manipulative. I’m not sure if this tell-all book, which delves into heavy gossip, does much to rehabilitate Harry’s image in terms of dignity (which is supposed to be the essence of a Royal). The question mark hovers over whether lowering himself to their standards is the way to go.

C) Mental Health

Prince Harry’s vendetta against the press is understandable, if not for the historical record, then for the personal trauma it’s caused him. In several interviews, he’s stated that he does not want to see “history repeating itself”, as regards what happened to his mother. Certainly, you could argue that his coverage has been extensive and overtly intrusive; even for a royal (perhaps as a means of contrast to the heir, the press wanted to dramaticise the tragedy of the “spare”). The effect of not being able to play out your mistakes in private can’t be underestimated. He’s never had a chance to live an ordinary life, even if his was a privileged one.

In this regard, I see a certain value to him “speaking [his] truth”. Perhaps shining a light back on those that have exposed him will eventually lead to the media holding itself to some account. Of course, to turn things around again, this still wouldn’t necessarily paint him in a good light, because there can be more than one truth if its subjective. And perhaps Harry’s doing himself more damage than anyone else by digging this hole further because for however famous he was ten or twenty years ago, he’s a hundred times moreso now.

D) The Role Of The Monarchy

Harry’s objections to having previously been forbidden to speak out against press coverage and claims made about him are understandable but par for the course as a member of the Royal Family. While monarchies are inherently wrong to many, they can at least serve a function as a symbol of their nation. To this end, the Royal Family has to be somewhat detached from politics, bias, and sensationalism. We’re (sadly) not really supposed to see them as everyday people. But- Britons admire this about the crown’s purpose; to transcend petty squabbles as the emblem of dignity and grace in an otherwise turbulent history. A tradition or constant with a code that outweighs any fads.

Of course, Harry would clarify that his criticisms are of the players and mechanics of the institution rather than the institution itself. To many, this is a difficult distinction to make, since these roles have been at play for many decades at least and are part and parcel. Criticism has been levelled at him in turn since he won’t relinquish his title as Duke of Sussex, retorting weakly in an interview with Anderson Cooper, “what difference would it make?” (He did offer initially to rescind them, apparently, before exiting the UK in early 2020 though he didn’t mention that in his response; some argue he can’t keep his story straight.) Anyways… even if you’re to believe Harry on a majority of these issues, this seems a tough bridge for many to cross. The difference is it would lend him credibility in a “put your money where your mouth is” way. Instead, to many, it seems Harry wants to have his cake and eat it.

But principles are one thing when it comes to defining what makes the Royal Family; what about when unprecedented criticism and racism enters the foray. Did Meghan not deserve a proper defence? Harry acknowledged that Camilla and Kate initially had some degree of negative coverage but argues it went that bit further with Meghan since there were racial undertones to much of the discussion and gossip about her, citing a 2016 Daily Mail article entitled “(Almost) Straight Outta Compton” as an example. Indeed, if assertions weren’t outright, there were a great many comments on her exoticism and cultural background. How racist these were in intent has of course divided the public but it’s fair to say there was an element of prejudice there that was absent with Kate or Camilla. Given his Nazi garb at a costume party and some choice comments in the army, it’d seem Harry’s hardly the cultural commentator we need but I give him credit for at least admitting to his own “unconscious bias[es]”. This could open up a whole other book of issues though.

The point here is that there’s a tug of war between tradition and evolution in the Royal Family. It seems, given the nature of their relationship with the press and the tensions that have built, some level of change is needed. The problem is Harry has become such a divisive figure that he may not be the one best qualified to discern these changes. Indeed, he may have done more damage since his detractors have rallied behind the crown.

While his assertions hold a great deal of emotional weight and probable truth for many, I think his financial and emotional circumstances are colouring every comment he’s made, adding to the sensationalism of this all. To make a strange link here, I would refer to the famous Brit Stephen Fry, who has said of his own autobiographies that as much as they are an examination of his life at a certain period, they are reflective too of who he was when he wrote them. I believe if Prince Harry had written this book a few years earlier, it’d be much different. And it’s very possible that in a couple of years’ time, he’ll regret this course of action. Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis (who penned a tell-all in the 80s) has spoken of how she regretted her decision and has since taken her book out of publication. In a recent interview, she commented on how there’s more to this than just “your truth”. There’s others’ too. Of course, we all know (as well as Harry) that we’re unlikely to get a Will, Kate, Camilla, or Charles’ memoir anytime soon.

Time will tell whether Harry’s controversial accounts will effect change that’s actually needed with royal-press relations or whether it just drags him down further on the road of meme iconography and social media slander / praise. For now, it’s all speculation because there’s so much flotsam here that it’s hard to see the horizon.

The 90s vs. Today: Liberal & Cultural Shifts

Millenials and Gen Z are often put at loggerheads with Boomers over a variety of socio and economic issues, primarily revolving around what’s been lost in privilege and ambition. To an extent however, our experiences parallel those of the youth in the 1960s when cultural revolutions stirred fresh bouts of hope and vigour for civil rights and a new quasi-enlightenment. Now, if we travel back to the 1990s, we can see quite a juxtaposition in the cultural values and liberal ideals espoused then, by the rising Gen X, against what’s promoted today.

In the 1990s, a new world was born from the metaphorical ashes of the Cold War. What was important in the 1980s became promptly unimportant in the 1990s. George H.W. Bush’s policies no longer reflected America as they had done four short years before and in 1992, the people were ready for a new kind of leader and Democrat (and you may interpret that “kind of” as you please) in Bill Clinton; a fresh young face of 40-something. In the meanwhile, the gaudy, glitz of 80s popular culture was eviscerated and torn a part by the ushering in of a more natural, albeit pessimistic dress sense and music scene. Nirvana rose to prominence in glorious fashion, even if it was against their singer’s instincts. Bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden followed suit, undoubtedly talented and unique in their own way, though far from what one could have imagined ten years before, occupying the mainstream Skateboarding took on a whole new dimension of popularity. Indie, auteur filmmakers emerged as the exciting current in cinema. The Simpsons undercut the idealistic family-centric tendencies of 80s television and the attitude which dominated youth culture got drawn as one of indifferences and cynicism.

It was a time buoyed by economic growth and hopeful prospects in America but, alas, the spirit of the 1940s, 50s, 60s, or even 70s wasn’t there. Perhaps this can be attributed to the age-old truth that successive generations will go against what their parents did before (or at least go in a different directions). Perhaps, a new attitude was born as a reaction to the overt-commercialisation and rightward trend of 1980s politics. It’s difficult to determine any one specific truth, especially when covering a subject as broad as generational divide. It’s fascinating, more so, when we reflect on these cultural values in light of what we see today.

A good case study for this cultural shift can be found in the Bill Clinton scandal. The Monica Lewinsky one. Today, we look back on it as an abuse of power and a classic case of sexism dictating media. We acknowledge that Lewinsky was treated unfairly, especially with the hindsight of the toll it took on her mental health. This wasn’t the popular perspective of the time however. People were certainly outraged that Clinton had acted the way he had but more so because he lied about it under oath and because of the headache the ensuing impeachment hearings caused (which eventually yielded a positive upswing for him in the polls, when people felt the Republicans were pushing it). Lewinsky, meanwhile, was subjected to a barrage of late-night jokes and dismissed by many as a silly, immature home-wrecker.

Was it a case of people back then lacking empathy? Well, the treatment Lewinsky was given by the media was cutthroat and cruel but for many, Clinton too had been given merciless scrutiny from the get-go; like no other president before. And for the most part, Democrats were happy with his performance. What was this scandal in light of the greater issues at hand then? Of course, today, this scandal still comes to the forefront of any profile on the 42nd president, which suggests perhaps that we take these work-relationship dynamics more seriously and/or have lost perspective on what’s actually important, feeding the outrage machine further.

This conveys that people were somewhat looser with political correctness in the 1990s. The decade before had been a PC one, in its own sense, albeit of a right-wing, religious kind; apparent notably via the relatively safe-handed approach taken to TV sitcoms and movies. Where the ’70s had reflected a Vietnam-era, mistrust in authority attitude (with the likes of Taxi Driver and Serpico), often with morally ambiguous protagonists, the 1980s saw the rise of a more capitalistic, spectacle type of entertainment. The good guys were once again the good guys.

Artists of the 90s sough to separate themselves from the 80s by creating less formulaic, hero-first works, by returning (in part) to the ethos of a now-nostalgic 70s. Quentin Tarantino was at the forefront of a new kind of cinema; a fantastic of 70s films, he instilled his with references to the greats, morally-ambivalent characters, and violence. Indie darling Richard Linklater meanwhile, made movies like Slacker, Dazed and Confused, and Before Sunrise about clever, if somewhat aimless characters just trying to figure their way out in the world. Plot wasn’t even a concern in these cases. Kevin Smith’s Clerks followed suit. And in these movies and TV shows of the time, what emerged was a prevailing sense of disillusionment with the ways of old, a “whatever, man”, middle-finger approach to the world.

Some of that independent spirit can still be found in movies today, though it rarely makes the mainstream or a cultural footprint as it did back in the 90s. And where many 90s shows (e.g. Seinfeld) couldn’t have given a damn about pertaining a moral message, today we’re seeing politics enter the narrative of even Marvel TV shows. The politically incorrect, apolitical tone of the 90s (and 00s’ media) is no longer cute but irresponsible. Critics and social media hounds are always ready to pounce if something “problematic” should arise.

This kind of activism really divides the cultural outlook of today against the 90s. Between social media, regular media, and the arts, everything feels politically-driven today. It’s easy to decry this but within the vortex of political correctness and cancel culture, one could argue that we at least try to care a bit more. “Woke” culture may lead to some seriously cringe Twitter posts by “allies” but at its essence, it demonstrates an active effort to diversify and better the prospects of others. Such thinking wasn’t necessarily disparaged in the 90s but authenticity was key to credibility in such instances (i.e. they had much a more acute BS radar). To sell out and commercialise yourself (or play to the masses) was just about the worst thing you could do as an artist. (Nowadays, musicians make songs for food delivery services.) With that said, the 90s seemed to glorify dangerous trends such as the ultra-skinny heroin chic look which showed that maybe there was simply just another orthodoxy to follow (bringing into question the idea of authenticity).

In so far as a narrative is concerned, history will often find fashion trends fading and returning. This applies to cultural outlooks too, in broad strokes. Just as we look back on the 90s and early 00s with rose-tinted glasses, so too did people in the 90s look back on the 70s (Dazed and Confused), and people in the 70s looked back on the 50s (American Grafitti). The lesson here is similarly broad but pertinent, given the self-righteousness of some liberals today: you’re not necessarily right about everything. So as heroin chic was seen to be a psychologically damaging trend, maybe too will we see the current body-positivity movement to be fraught with complications, sidelining health issues. Maybe Clinton’s neo-liberalism set the Democrats back progressively but maybe today’s progressives are undermining the electoral credibility of their party? History has to move on and we should not be apathetic about our cultural values but we shouldn’t arrogantly assume that we’ve reached the nadir of enlightenment either. Every generation could be marked out for its mistakes and embarrassing philosophies. I’m sure ours will be just another one.

The Culture Of Anti-Ageing

Perhaps it’s my early balding or perhaps (more optimistically) it’s my principles but the culture of anti-ageing has taken on a sinister and repugnant undertone. An obsessive zealousness now marks social media with regards filters, facial tweaks, fitness, and beauty standards. What were once the (albeit hushed) hallmarks of Hollywood and the elite (Botox, cosmetic surgeries, etc.) now seem to have become all-too-common, begging the question of when our desires become our expectations; and where we go from here.

One only has to compare photos of one’s parents or grandparents in their 30s or 40s or 50s compared to today to see that stylistically, things have changed. And not just fashion wise (although that has some effect). People use moisturisers a lot more nowadays and proper UV protectant suntan lotion and hydrate. Nutritional advice is a lot more varied. Supermarkets stock a wider selection of foods. Dietary requirements are better met. There’s many natural, progressive, and clever changes resulting in a more youthful complexion across all generations. So to some degree, we are all bound to look a little fresher than the boomers did back in the day.

However… while such changes are reasonable and encouraged, they’re inevitably bound to this notion that beauty ideals are an ever-changing target. When does taking care of oneself with the appropriate supplements and foods cross the line from being healthy to being health-obsessed? When do once extravagant routines become the norm? Well, with Botox, it seems as if we’re reaching that point. As Amanda Hess wrote in her New York Times’ piece “The Art of Botox” (last year), “[it] once suggested vanity, delusion, and self-consciousness, but now it has fresh associations; with confidence, resilience, even authenticity, as the idea of ‘having work done’ has come to be seen as a legitimate form of work.”

This is eye-brow raising stuff. Well, not for people with Botox. For others however, the idea of regularly injecting yourself with a needle to stiffen facial muscles seems extreme. At least, it did to me but again, it’s becoming increasingly common. So, maybe the taboo is based on ignorance. After all, if it promotes confidence and makes someone happy, who are we to judge? Well… there’s two points I’d counter with here: 1) does such a procedure then encourage one to follow onto the next step, e.g. plastic surgery and 2) is it use as a preventative not reflecting the very issues we try to tackle with the mental health of young women? With the latter point, Botox is increasingly being used from a young age (early 20s) to prevent the appearance of lines or wrinkles ever appearing. For all the horrible beauty standards advertised on social media, is this not us directly heading the wrong way? That’s a whole other level of pressure to contend with. And what does it say about how we treat older women with regards the ability to express themselves freely?

We live in a strange time as regards the discourse of beauty standards and mental health. Celebrities and influencers (like any dumb Kardashian) promote self-actualisation with cheesy quotes, while looking, themselves, like ageless narcissists. What follows is an uncanny-valley like, cognitive dissonance in rectifying the gulf between inner confidence and outer beauty. If you’ve spent hours on the make-up chair, gotten Botox, and surgeries, and applied filters, well then your message promoting such confidence or fighting unrealistic standards kind of rings hollow.

It may be an obvious point but Hollywood deserves blame. For how long now, has a male lead been coupled with a female two decades younger than him? Why are there so few roles for women past their 30s? (By which I mean women who actually look their age?) The same could be said for men, to some degree. It may all be a case of good genes but really how many men in their 60s do you know keep a full head of coloured hair? A lot of them look better in their 40s and 50s than they did in their 20s. That wasn’t the case back in the 70s or 80s. Something fishy’s going on there too…

Or how about beauty brands actively going out of their way to promote falsehoods. When Cara Delevigne was 25, she was chosen by Dior as the face of its “Capture Youth” line for which the target audience was women in their 30s? I won’t even try breach the nonsense of Kylie cosmetics or anything else that loathsome family promotes (to save you time, have millions and go to a plastic surgeon, then add some blush or something, I don’t know). Let’s, at least, not presume innocence on the part of these companies. The beauty industry thrives on the insecurities of its consumers and when you campaign against something as common as ageing, the possibilities are endlessly toxic.

Look, one can’t determine what’s right or what’s best for anyone else. In many cases, exercise and proper dieting will do you wonders. In many other cases, tweaks are (not needed) but implemented to instil confidence. Sometimes the buck ends there and sometimes it’s a shallow confidence that can never be satisfied. The bigger, albeit darker picture that emerges from this train of thought is that, consciously or not, we are pushing the boundaries of what’s expected with beauty standards. And in this culture of anti-ageing, ugly perversions emerge that undercut a so-called “healthy” lifestyle.

We Need More Critical Thinking

With the assessment of many analysts and key figures, including Obama, that fake news’ stories shared on social media played a role in the outcome of this election, it must be recognized that there has been a significant lapse in critical thinking in America. Think about it- when you scan your Facebook feed, do you stop to read each and every article shared or do you just scoop the headlines into the back of your mind. I’m guessing, like me, you do the latter because there’s only so much time in the day and most of these stories seem trite and annoying. What you don’t realize however, read or not, is that a general impression is formed in your subconscious, resulting in a predisposition that can’t often be accounted for personally. For example, in the election cycle, we heard from a lot of people that Hillary was “crooked,” but we rarely heard from most of them exactly why (at least, in detail.) This resulted in the mass insemination of a wild notion that while Trump was none too desirable, Hillary was “just as bad.” If only, we had questioned these people as well as ourselves…

The media landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Whereas Fox was always an anomaly in rationale prognosis, the other major networks such as CNN and MSNBC could be relied on, for the most part, to provide us with important news (if a bit left-leaning). Now, with the social media age, there’s so much flotsam out there that it’s become difficult to distinguish the bullshit from the professional and even then, the professionals get it wrong. (Thanks for those national polls, guys!) Many people are quick to out the amateurs in the comments’ section but even there, the gulf between credibility and crazy is wide. Is Obama the hero so many have painted him to be or is he an Islamic fundamentalist determined to take America’s guns away and flush them down the toilet? At this point, the level 1 critical thinker might surmise that the answer always lies somewhere in the middle. It’s all about balance, right? Sadly, it’s not that easy either. Critical thinking does not mean delving a line in the center of a Republican and Democratic thought; it means examining the very fabrics and grounds on which arguments are created.

Let’s take a case in point to illustrate the importance of this evaluative method: the Iraq War. In 2003, America launched one of its most dodgy exploits to date with the invasion of the Kuwaitan neighbor. Most people will tell you it was a disastrous campaign that has brewed trouble for the world since and only a few less will further that the grounds on which it was built were dismally unfounded. To sharply dispel any immediate backlash, I am going to formally state first that I do not think this war was a good idea. What I am going to attempt to do however is add a wrinkle to the clear picture many people have of it.

It all started in 1991 when George Bush Sr. declared war on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, believing such acts of aggression could not be tolerated. The mission was simple; to restore Kuwait’s territory and drive Saddam’s forces out. After an extensive air campaign, the battle was short and sweet for America. The casualties were relatively low for them, victory was swift, and the president’s approval rating rose to 89%. For many however, Bush Sr. made a critical blunder in failing to follow on through to Baghdad and dispose the despot. He felt, in this scenario, there were no grounds for this course of action. And so order was restored seemingly though Saddam remained in power, violating UN sanctions placed over the course of the 1990s, with repeated reports of chemical weapons being used against his own citizens.

In 2001, the World Trade Centers fell and the Age of Terror took hold of America. Many argued at this point that Bush II set his sights on Saddam before Afghanistan (the Bin Laden problem) was even on the books. This is a leap for others. Here, I believe, the truth may actually lie in the middle as the Bush administration’s policy was clearly set after a ridiculously named “war on terror.” Iraq, W. argued, had to be seen in a different light in this new world context. Did it? Or had it merely become convenient for the Republicans to enact the invasion they had been plotting for years? It became very difficult for moderate thinkers to thread the line between a revived and fervent patriotism in the wake of 9/11 and the dissent of liberal caretakers, who opposed the idea of an American New World Order. Finally, of course, the date was set when W’s intel (a gut-wrenching use of the word) declared their belief that Saddam held weapons of mass destruction (or later, the “capacity” for such weapons). The rest of the story played out then quite clearly. The war began. The statue fell. Saddam was taken. The casualties mounted. They didn’t get out. A surge took place. An economy fell. Another man took office. They began to withdraw. Insurgencies rose. A new terror formed.

Iraq was no prime example of interventionist success but its significance was different to many people. Some believed it was the most unnecessary and immoral act America had committed its sights to since Vietnam. Some believed it was a necessary precaution to take in an era of heightened international tensions. It wasn’t right to let a man like Saddam lead a nation, in many people’s opinions. His absence created a void from which organisations such as ISIS would arise however. Hindsight is 20/20 as well. Great critical thinkers such as the late Christopher Hitchens, who often rejected well-revered establishment figures such as Henry Kissinger and their philosophies, felt that America’s commitment to the sanctions placed in the 1990s meant they should have taken action much earlier. Others then, will always contend, that it is not America’s right to dictate the rights of another nation.

I chose Iraq as an example, not because I believe, it will mystify many who had blankly accepted it as a falsely premised war, but because it exemplifies the simplicity with which so many people view these matters. It’s important to question those who you have agreed with 99% of the time. It’s important to think on the other side once in awhile because while I reject the notion that sanity lies squarely in the center of the political aisle, I do believe that neither side has proven itself to always be on the right side of history. So with the dawn of a new dark era in America, let’s hope that people will begin to base their opinions on facts again and not just conjecture. 2016 marked a great lapse in logical and critical thinking for America, among other nations, because fear and anger fueled the fire. In 2017, let’s restore the approach (Nixon once noted) Eisenhower took to solving problems; through cold eyes.

The Washington Walrus

Uncompromising ~ Thorough ~ Contemporary

Menu