I finished reading this new feature in the New Yorker about the Sussexes. I just wanted to get to the point first and then I'll take my time and add analysis to this thread. (a) It's not a hit piece, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-fractured-fairy-tale?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker&utm_social-type=earned via @NewYorker

(b) it's also not a piece for supporters per se--we already know all of this stuff, (c) it is very well written and there is some great turns of phrases and some useful analysis, (d) there are some things that could have been done better and some things that were left out,

(e) the tabloid reporters are a part of the piece--but I don't think they sink it because their views are counterbalanced, (f) I think this is a good introduction for a certain segment of mostly educated American society who has not been following closely and has probably

believed some of the tabloid reports, (g) I actually like that there is no real conclusion, etc.: we don't know where the story ends, (h) My biggest concern has been assuaged: I was worried this would be an irresponsible piece that would hurt the Sussexes--it is not.

Ok, let's start the real (and pretty long analysis): (1) I knew the piece had potential right off the top when I read this sentence. I think that has been one of the most fascinating things about the departure: the reaction has been over the top like that of a jilted lover. It is

not normal given Harry's place on the line of succession and all of the supposed talk of irrelevance. This hurt them deep. (2) I think this is where you realize that you're getting a piece that will let the reader and time decide. It asks a lot of questions and gives us some

evidence and views. But ultimately it never answers the question for us. (3) This analysis of the essential question that the Sussexes have been asking is spot on and it's something that has been glaringly missing from the UK coverage because they don't want to question the place

the monarchy. Instead the tabloids have pretended that this is all about them being spoiled. No, there are actual important questions that all royals, who are actually self aware, should be asking themselves. Harry's ability to be a straightshooter about the uselessness of

is the exception in the UK. (4) So I almost curse out the writer when she got into this long section about the first Duke of Sussex. What is the payoff? Well the disapproval from his family, their efforts to thwart him, and his insistence of questioning traditions and trying to

carve a role for himself. (5) I think the writer also does an excellent job at presenting the historical issue of secondary royals. This is a question that is not Sussex specific. Charlotte and Louis will find themselves there eventually. Here is one of my first critiques: this

was a missed opportunity. What the writer is basically saying here is that this institution has known about a problem for centuries but has never come up with a satisfactory solution for it. That's a flaw and should be called out as such. This didn't just happen to the RF. They

have refused to deal with it. That is horrible leadership. As @KateWilliamsme has written about, the other continental royals have come up with workable flexiroyal plans and yet nothing in the UK. How do you have a CEO that completely ignores that? The writer could have pointed

that out. (6) This entire part about Harry and his struggles to find a partner was well done. Again I think this points to flaws in the institutions. If modern women do not want to marry in it's because changes need to be made! Instead we blame the women. This is one of many

times that I wish the piece had more explicitly discussed sexism and misogyny. There were so many spots where you could tell that there is an unfair burden placed on women but I do not think the writer every synthesized that larger point into the piece.

(7) This may not sound like a major point but I'm extremely grateful that openly acknowledges how good she was at the job. That has COMPLETELY been glossed over in the UK press. She was killing it! Give the woman her props and her flowers.

(8) I was ready to find the writer and curse her out when Tominey enters the scene. Really???? She mentions that the Telegraph is conservative but that's not enough. In order to use her you would have to set up the bias a lot more clearly and show examples of some of the racist

mess she herself has written like Meghan's Mosque. This is a huge oversight on the part of the writer. (9) This was almost malpractice, I thought (I changed my mind later). Why would she quote Tominey at length about the welcome when there is evidence to show it is a lie.

(10) But the writer kind of redeemed herself by complicating that assessment and talking about how the press was salivating because they had a great story and could make money. I still think she should have made note of the Straight Outta Compton piece here but she talks about it

later on. (11) I have mixed feelings about Tominey on this part. I think she is accurate in describing the Downton Abbey nature of things. There was a cultural divide (partly because the RF is using a very outdated systemO However, she lets hang this suggestion that it was partly

Meghan's fault because she was making demands. We have yet to hear about something that Meghan asked that was extraordinary. Rather this should serve as another opportunity to question this system. Downtown Abbey was set a century ago. Why is this still going on?

(12) I first want to note that skipping to the Baby Shower skips over a lot of the abuse that began right after the Oceania tour. Having said that the Baby Shower was an important event in showing how far the media would go. What I appreciate about the piece is that it's a lot

more honest than the media was. The writer gets to the heart of the matter: they were worried the Sussexes were cutting them out of the money they could make. The press pretended that the Sussexes were doing all manner of wrong and hating on the UK when it was all about the

the money. The writer does a decent job of questioning the tradition, but not nearly enough. In what world is it ok to force a woman to show herself right after giving birth? The sexism is off the charts and yet the writer just keeps moving along.

(13) One of my favorite parts of the piece is the analysis of why Harry married Meghan. The media have made it seem like it was all about Meghan fooling him. No, it was clearly about her giving him something he had been missing. This is another implicit critique of the

institution. Supposedly surrounded by love why had he never been offered this compassion before. There is a huge blind spot in how this family operates and I wish it would be pointed out explicitly.

[An aside: I'm just dropping this here. No comment.]

(14) I was kinda stunned at this. You're telling me Tominey can empathize with Harry on not being part of the royals and yet has abused him and his wife for over 3 years? I can't with these people.

(15) Racism finally! I was waiting for it because she'd previewed it at the top. In some sense I feel this comes too late in the piece but strategically it may be a good idea to have readers completely in before going there. These people are terrible: do they think that because

Harry wore a Nazi uniform that completely lets them off the hook? We are so used to their gaslighting tactics. It goes to show what a cabined understanding of racism there is in the UK. They keep denying and yet their stories cannot hide the racism. Dickie even chimed in with a

a glorified white friends argument. The Queens "subjects" being black are very much in line with racism. Gotta love a white South African trying to tell us about how racism works. I'm glad that the writer undermined the argument right away with the Princess Michael example. She

totally missed the connection to unconscious bias that Tominey was just critiquing. Obliviousness is the very definition of casual racism and that has happened time and time again since Meghan entered the scene.

(16) Props for getting in this point about xenophobia as well. As I've been talking about for over a year we have a mixture of several isms including racism/sexism/classism/xenophobia. I'm glad that another ism was acknowledged.

(17) I was waiting for this. She finally gets into Straight Outta Compton. This completely obliterates a lot of the arguments that have been made by the tabloid reporters and I think that should have been said. However, the New Yorker has an educated readership so they should

get the point. (18) I'm all for the Obama comparison and we've made it before. Structurally racist societies have a tendency to want to declare victory over racism as quickly as possible to present themselves as evolved. It's a straight up lie.

(19) I like how she returned to the first Duke of Sussex at the end of the piece. It paints him (and by suggestion Harry) in a sympathetic light. There is a heroism to him sticking to his beliefs until death and being buried in a normal cemetery. He did not change the institution

but he was able to critique some of the hierarchy in his society and he was praised by the public for doing so. It's fascinating to see the contrast between the media then and the media now. The first Duke was applauded for his courage. The Sussexes are not.

The writer gives us some hope that that may change, but only time will tell.

(20) Bottom line: excellent writing and fair in many ways but missed opportunities in making some points more explicit and a blind spot on sexism issues. Finally, there is no acknowledgement of intersectionality and how these isms work together.

Footnote: The writer is @Rebeccamead_NYC btw. I didn't want to mention her at the top, lest this become about her specifically.