Is America finally getting bored of Harry and Meghan? It’s starting to look that way. Only a few months ago the pair were media darlings in the US; now they have become a bit of a joke. The animated sitcom South Park gave the first big blow to their stateside brand a couple of weeks ago with an episode featuring a couple bearing an uncanny similarity to the Sussexes. In the episode, titled The Worldwide Privacy Tour, the pair travel the globe with placards saying: “Stop looking at us!” and chanting: “We want privacy!” Harry’s memoir, Spare, is parodied as “Waaaagh”. The couple also get advice from a PR expert who tells them to portray themselves as victims. Not terribly flattering stuff.
Now the comedian Chris Rock has taken aim at the couple in his new Netflix special, Selective Outrage. He dismissed Meghan’s claims about racism in the royal family, saying: “Some of that shit she went through was not racism”, but “in-law” behaviour. He also joked about how it was odd Meghan seemed surprised by the fact the royal family might harbour archaic views. “It’s the royal family! They’re the original racists. They invented colonialism,” Rock said.
Polls also reflect a shift in US-based attitudes towards the pair: their approval ratings have plummeted since the South Park episode. According to polling commissioned for Newsweek, Harry’s popularity has dropped 48 points since December and Meghan’s is down 40. Now Prince Andrew, the guy who palled around with a convicted sex offender, has higher US approval ratings than the Sussexes. Though, to be fair, that seems to be because fewer people in the US know about Andrew’s tawdry dealings than they do in the UK. Because Andrew isn’t parading himself on the US media 24/7 like Harry and Meghan, it’s easier for someone stateside to forget who he is. If only we all had that luxury.
How are Harry and Meghan responding to this seeming shift in attitudes? Well, let’s just say they haven’t exactly put out a statement saying they think Rock and South Park are hilarious and they love nothing more than laughing at themselves, ha ha ha. On the contrary, there were rumours that they were so upset by the South Park episode that they were considering legal action. While they’re certainly fans of calling their lawyers, a representative for the couple told the Guardian that reports the pair might sue were “baseless” and “boring”.
I’ll tell you what’s really boring: the neverending pity-me-please performance the two are foisting upon us. As a staunch anti-royalist I was sympathetic to the couple to begin with – my enemy’s enemy is my friend and all that – but the constant oversharing has jumped the shark. Particularly since it becomes more obvious by the day that their grievances are less to do with systemic inequality and more to do with feeling they didn’t get a big enough slice of the born-with-privilege pie. I mean, come on, you can’t go around complaining about how backwards the royals are while insisting that we plebs refer to you as Duke and Duchess. You want some credibility? Give up your stupid titles.
Another unsolicited piece of advice for Duke and Duchess: read the socioeconomic room! You may have noticed that “eat the rich” storylines are a big theme on TV at the moment. From the latest season of Netflix’s You to the White Lotus to Succession, there are more rich-people-are-awful-sociopaths storylines on the telly than you can shake a silver spoon at. This isn’t a weird coincidence. It’s been noted that storylines about rich people tend to vary depending on the economic climate: in good times onscreen obscene wealth can be enjoyable escapism; in bad times it’s more of a hate-watch. And, I don’t need to tell you, the world is currently going through “you need to take out a second mortgage to buy eggs” sort of times.
Finally, Harry: I know you weren’t exactly the most committed student, but maybe pick up a history book. The US has something of a reputation for losing patience with British aristocrats.
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
