++In telling Oprah about her struggles with mental health, Meghan shed light on the stigma of asking for help. +
++One of the most emotional moments in Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Sunday tell-all interview with Oprah is when Meghan opened up about the suicidal thoughts she experienced during her pregnancy with Archie. +
++“Look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he has suffered, but I knew that if I didn’t say it, then I would do it,” Meghan told Oprah. “I just didn’t want to be alive anymore.” +
++Meghan explained that the relentless, negative media coverage of her — and the palace’s unwillingness to refute false stories — caused her distress. She also said her request for mental health care was denied by the royal family; when she then went to the palace’s human resources department, she said she was told they could not help her, as she was not a paid employee. +
++Meghan’s account paints a bleak picture of royal life, and further elucidates the effects of the UK’s harmful and racist tabloid press. But her story is also one of resilience, and helps to eliminate the stigma around and bring broader awareness to mental health issues. +
++To understand more about the impact of Meghan’s story, I spoke with Elana Newman, a professor of psychology at the University of Tulsa, as well as the research director at the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, a project from Columbia University that trains journalists on how to report about trauma, mental illness, and conflict. +
++This interview has been edited and condensed. +
++What were your initial thoughts about the interview, and Meghan Markle’s admission that she’s had suicidal thoughts and actively sought therapy? +
++I see it as powerful and courageous. It’s incredible in terms of addressing the stigma of suicidal thoughts, because publicly talking about this is very important. The interview can raise that dialogue. +
++Some people have such shame and keep it secret. The fact that Meghan said she sought help and then that was thwarted, that also addresses the issue of how we need to improve services and access to mental health resources for people who are suicidal. +
++I don’t know this for a matter of fact, but I’d be curious on the usage of suicide hotlines today, in response. +
++Do we often see a demonstrable impact when a celebrity talks about living with trauma? +
++I do think Megan Markle talking about suicide has incredible cultural impact. The same was true with Princess Diana and her struggles with eating disorders; that broke through a lot of stigma as well. +
++There’s a lot of distrust, stereotyping, shunning, and avoidance of those affected by suicide, including family members who’ve had loved ones die by suicide. It’s something that people are uncomfortable with, and so they don’t want to talk about it. That cultural milieu prevents people who need help from seeking it, and Meghan’s interview can be very helpful in empowering people to do so. +
++Meghan has talked about being mistreated by the media, and the Oprah interview means there will be even more coverage of her, and about very serious and sensitive topics. The Dart Center trains journalists to talk to people experiencing trauma and to write those stories accurately and sensitively. Have you seen this kind of coverage improve? +
++There are certainly more conversations about how the press frames trauma now. People are changing their thoughts about, for example, how you interview rape survivors, and people are thinking about the ethical issues and informed consent. In terms of suicide reporting, in particular, it means providing resources and not focusing on the details. +
++In the 20 years that I’ve been doing this work, I think that there is more dialogue. People are doing more innovative reporting, even in the ways that they approach these stories. +
++For example, saying, “How do we look at this?” instead of going over the gory details about suicide. “How is this dialogue going to improve the conversation?” and “What are the next steps?” are questions we should be asking. +
++So what are the next steps? +
++The next steps here are continuing to educate people about the myths about suicide. There’s a conversation about increasing accessibility, too. I mean, if a princess asked for help, and couldn’t get help, what does this say about accessing mental health care? For me, that’s a real question. +
++What does this say about our own system in the US? If you’re feeling sick and it’s hard to get help, can you imagine what happens when it’s a stigmatized illness? Imagine the energy it takes to ask for help, and then to have that denied. +
++What you’re getting at, I think, is how the conversation we should be having is about inequity. Meghan Markle is a princess and has a lot of resources, and she still struggled to get help. People in poverty or without health insurance do not have those resources, and the story is radically different for them. +
++That’s the story there. What do we need to do to change that? What are the next steps? Because this indicates, if a princess can’t get services, what about the rest of us? And what will it take as a society to enhance access to mental health care? +
++In the interview, Harry and Meghan talk positively about therapy. That seems really big, too. +
++We don’t have these questions and stigma about treatments for blood pressure, for diabetes, or for [other] ailments. Mental health issues are and should be the same. I think the other, more radical issue for me is the whole issue of having health care and mental health care be associated with your employment. +
++It raised that question to me as a citizen. Here’s somebody who goes to their workplace, which isn’t [formally or technically] their workplace, but she was doing work for them. And they’re saying, since you’re unemployed, you don’t get benefits. +
++We need to look at how we help all the citizens of our nation get mental health care and get effective treatments. +
+
++Here are the answers to your most burning questions about Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview. +
++Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s revealing interview with Oprah Winfrey has shocked the world, but for those of us who don’t have an intimate knowledge of the royal family, there might be as many questions as answers. +
++While it seems clear that Meghan and Harry faced racism from the British press and suffered from a lack of support from within Windsor Castle, it can be hard to sort out rules and rankings, especially as an American. What is “the royal institution?” Has Harry lost his title, and was Archie denied a royal title due to all the drama? And in their exodus, how will Meghan and Harry make money? It’s enough to make anyone’s head spin. +
++Victoria Arbiter, a royals commentator based in New York, spoke with Vox to clear up all the confusion and to discuss the repercussions of the bombshell interview. +
++There’s a lot of confusion around terms like “the institution” and “the firm” and “the royal family.” Can you clear up the difference between those three titles? What is “the institution”? +
++It’s a very complex and complicated answer. “The institution” refers to the institution of monarchy — the business of monarchy — so its public role. Within the institution of monarchy, there are palace aides. There will be private secretaries that oversee the diary and the day-to-day handlings of senior members of the royal family. There is a communications team that handles the press. Within the royal household, there are people that oversee the day-to-day running of the monarchy, whether it’s those that are working in the kitchens or those responsible for winding up the Queen’s clocks — that is a job. The institution of monarchy is the big picture. +
++And what is “the firm”? +
++Now as for the firm, this is quite interesting. George VI, the Queen’s father, was the first person to have coined that phrase. What he was referring to was the family business. So historically, “the firm” has referred to senior working members of the royal family. +
++In the interview, Meghan jumps between saying “the institution” and “the firm.” I don’t think she is saying “the firm” in context to referencing senior members of the family. I think she’s using it in the same vein as she’s using the phrase “the institution.” +
++And then there’s the family? +
++This is where the lines become quite blurred because the queen is the head of the institution. She is the monarch and she runs the show. But at the same time, she’s Harry’s grandmother. So it’s difficult in that respect because the buck rests with her. +
++While Harry and Meghan were very effusive in their praise of the queen, and they reiterated multiple times how wonderful she has been, still, she’s the head of the institution of the monarchy. So in criticizing the institution, they’re essentially laying blame on the queen as well. They’re not doing it directly. And I think they would be saddened if they realized that’s how it comes across because I genuinely believe their great affection for the queen. But it’s like, if you were to criticize Apple, the blame for whatever that criticism is really does rest with the CEO. It’s similar in that respect. +
++So the firm is more of the upper-level royals, such as the queen, who uphold monarchy? +
++I don’t think Meghan was using the words “the firm” in reference to the family in this instance. It appeared that she was alternating between saying “institution” and “firm” but meaning the same thing. +
++The senior working members are within the institution of monarchy. But [the institution] also references all the aides that see to the day-to-day running. There were several times that Harry and Meghan said they went to the institution to complain about XYZ issues. There was one point where they did say “senior palace aide.” So the institution can represent the senior members of the working royal family, but can also represent senior members of staff that oversee the day-to-day running of the royal family and indeed the monarchy. +
++But historically, “the firm” has referenced senior working members of the royal family. +
++Meghan and Harry referenced a kind of HR system in place. What is the royal HR system like, and how similar is it to the typical HR departments that Americans in particular might imagine? +
++The HR department is human resources, just like at any other company. Because while Buckingham Palace is a palace, it is also the seat of the British monarchy and it is a working office. There is a human resources department because they have a responsibility to protect the staff and to make sure that everything is being done in an ethically moral fashion, just like any business. +
++So if an employee complains, the HR department is responsible for investigating that claim. Meghan said in the interview that she went to HR to say that she needed help, and she wasn’t getting it. Human resources, whichever member of staff it was, said, “We can’t help you because you are not a paid employee.” Which she wasn’t. She was a member of the family. But I think Meghan was sort of looking for help wherever she could find it. That was one area where the door was closed. +
++But the human resources department would operate just the same as any other business. It is there to protect the welfare and well-being of employees, to make sure there is no harassment and that everything is operating in a safe, acceptable, and professional fashion. +
++It’s interesting because it functions as a business, but it’s also an actual family. How does money work for the royals, and specifically how do Harry and Meghan make money? Do royals get salaries or any other equivalent? +
++This is especially complicated. How Meghan and Harry choose to make money moving forward is entirely their business. We know that they have a very lucrative deal with Netflix and Spotify. We know that Meghan has invested in a vegan coffee brand. We know that they are represented by an agency that oversees public speakers, so there’s a number of ways, but how they choose to do that is their business. They are private citizens and just like anybody else, and they now have to earn a living. +
++What about other members of the royal family? Does taxpayer money go toward them? +
++When it comes to the royal family, there is the Sovereign Grant, which is a percentage of money that’s given to the monarchy each year, and that oversees the business of the monarchy. It pays for anything related to business expenses that are incurred by the running of the British monarchy in its role as public officials. A lot of them have individual investments. We don’t know about that. That is not our business. That is money that they had through inheritances and through investments, but it is not public knowledge nor public business. But the Sovereign Grant is given to them by the government, and it is essentially taxpayer money. +
++The royals are not paid. They do not receive a salary. They are given the funds to run their offices and to oversee their business expenses, but they don’t get a paycheck each week. There are certain things, like any clothes, for example, that Kate buys privately, to wear in her private time, she pays for those herself. But there will be a certain amount of money that is assigned to her from Prince Charles to cover her professional wardrobe. She has to wear hats and certain outfits that are expected and are deemed appropriate for the job that she’s doing. There are business-related expenses, as there are in many professions. +
++So Meghan and Harry were cut off from royal security. I’m wondering how royal security works and if this is tied to that budget. Is that something royals are typically provided with? +
++Scotland Yard decides which royals are given taxpayer-funded security. That is determined based on the threat risk. Senior working royals are going to have a far greater threat risk than someone else. Charles, Camilla, the queen, William, Kate, and Harry and Meghan before they left, all had taxpayer-funded security. +
++Their security was removed, but what was not addressed [in the interview] was the fact that British taxpayers fund the police officers that are assigned to look after those royals. They were living in Canada as private individuals. They then moved to the United States. They couldn’t justify to the British taxpayers why they were still having taxpayer-funded security, even though they were living in another country and they were no longer senior working members of the royal family. +
++Now, Harry was right that the threat assessment risk hadn’t dropped. He was just as much a target as he was before, but the royal family answers to the British public, and the British public needs to know that they’re getting value for their money. If they found out that their taxpayer funds were going to protect two private individuals living 6,000 miles away, there would have been an outcry. So that’s why Harry and Meghan lost their taxpayer-funded security. +
++As for her son, Archie, and his royal title, why was he denied a royal title? How are titles granted throughout the royal family? +
++In 1917, George V, who is Harry’s great-great grandfather, issued letters patent. The letters patent dictated who would have titles moving forward. It was really in an effort to streamline the monarchy so that there weren’t dozens and dozens of HRHs and princes and princesses. According to that letters patent, the children of the sovereign, the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line, and the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the HRH and a title, meaning prince or princess. That was it. +
++In 2012, the Queen amended the letters patent to include all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The reason she did that is because she had just overseen the changes in the laws to succession. Meaning, that if a daughter was born first, as the first child, she would retain her place in line, as opposed to being set aside in favor of the younger-born brother. So if the Queen did not change the rules, it would mean that if Charlotte was born first, she would be Lady Charlotte. The queen was just tying up loose ends. She was just making sure that she crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s. As it turns out, the boy was born first so it didn’t matter. +
++Under those rules, at this juncture, Archie would never have been born a prince or an HRH. That goes back to 1917. It has absolutely nothing to do with being born to interracial parents. +
++Under these same rules, once Prince Charles becomes king, his status automatically jumps up. So Archie will be a prince when Charles becomes king, based on the rules laid out in 1917. Now, as the son of a Duke, Archie does have a courtesy title. He is entitled to be known as the Earl of Dumbarton, one of Harry’s titles. He could be known by that, but Harry and Meghan chose not to do that, and for him to just be Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. +
++But Harry is still considered a prince? +
++Harry is, yes, because Harry is the grandchild of the sovereign. But under the 1917 letters patent, he’s the second son of the Prince of Wales. It’s only the eldest son of the Prince of Wales whose children have titles. +
++Some people are wondering if the queen and Prince Philip are related. Is this just a rumor, or are they biologically related? +
++They’re husband and wife. They’re both descendants of Queen Victoria, but not in any weird, icky, funky fashion. They’re removed enough. +
+ ++
++
++Georgia Republicans passed no-excuse absentee voting in 2005. Now they want to end it. +
++Georgia lawmakers have introduced more than 20 bills seeking to curtail voting rights this year, including legislation the Senate passed 29-20 today that would repeal no-excuse absentee voting for the vast majority of the state’s voters. +
++The new bill would require voters to be absent from their precinct, have a physical disability or care for someone with one, observe a religious holiday, be unable to go to the polls because of their job, be at least 65 years old, or be covered by military absentee voting protections in order to get an absentee ballot. It also establishes ID requirements for requesting an absentee ballot, further complicating the requirements to receive one. +
+++NEW: Republicans in the Georgia Senate narrowly approved SB 241, an omnibus voting bill that would end no-excuse absentee voting 16 years after Republicans first enacted it. #gapol
+— stephen fowler (@stphnfwlr) March 8, 2021 +
29-20 vote includes 4 Republicans that didn’t vote.https://t.co/BH9OAYjxnS +
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22354452/Screen_Shot_2021_03_08_at_2.13.03_PM.png)
+