The telegraph
Oprah thinks that I ‘attacked’ Meghan? It’s time for me to speak my truth
Could it really be true that my column about the Duchess had been a factor in the Sussexes' decision to leave Britain?
MICHAEL DEACON
PARLIAMENTARY SKETCHWRITER
10 March 2021 • 7:00pm
Michael Deacon
During the interview, Oprah launched into a stern monologue about the iniquities of the British press
During the interview, Oprah launched into a stern monologue about the iniquities of the British press CREDIT: SUPPLIED BY DIGITAL/EROTEME
There were many startling moments during Oprah Winfrey’s programme with the Duchess of Sussex. For me, though, the most surprising aspect was this.
I was in it.
Admittedly, my very minor cameo hasn’t generated quite as much global attention as the rest of the programme’s contents. But to me, at any rate, it was an unexpected twist. About 40 minutes in, Oprah broke off briefly from the interview and launched into a stern monologue about the iniquities of the British press.
“When Meghan joined the Royal family in 2018,” intoned Oprah, “she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks.” Immediately, the screen flashed up a small selection of headlines from British newspapers – each presented as examples of the cruel and vindictive coverage that had plagued Meghan during her time in Britain and had left her with no option but to quit.
One headline in particular, however, caught my eye. Because it was the headline to a column I’d written myself.
For a moment, I sat there, wearing an expression not dissimilar to the one that Oprah herself was wearing for much of the interview. An expression of mute, astonished bewilderment, as if her guest had suddenly turned into a hedgehog.
Goodness, I murmured. Could it really be true that my column about poor Meghan had helped drive her out of Britain? What an awful thought.
On the whole, though, I decided that it was unlikely – for a fairly simple reason.
My column was published on December 19 last year, more than 11 months after Meghan announced she was stepping down as a senior royal. So unless Meghan has access to a time machine, I tend to suspect that my influence on her decision was, at most, negligible. Especially as, up to that point, I’d never written a single word against her.
Yet here was my column, being held up to the world as a brutal tirade that had helped make Meghan’s time in Britain unendurable. Perhaps Oprah and her team had been so blinded by horror at what I’d written, they hadn’t noticed the publication date. They certainly hadn’t shown the date on screen.
Even so, I’m not quite sure why they would have found the column horrifying. Because, as can easily be ascertained by reading it, it was a brief and innocuous piece on the age-old observation that America and Britain are two nations divided by a common language.
One reason that some British people had struggled to see eye-to-eye with Meghan, I’d suggested, was that we tend to shy away from emotional language. We’re a stiff, socially awkward bunch who communicate via understatement, irony and sarcasm.
Meghan, by contrast, grew up in California, where people love to gush and emote. They’re perpetually feeling “humbled”, “empowered”, “passionate”, “inspired”. Hence my column’s headline: “The real problem with Meghan Markle: she just doesn’t speak our language.”
