Elizabeth Holmes, a journalist who has been following the royals for years, has been sharing her thoughts on IG. Her last few posts have been on that reply from Buckingham Palace
READ RELATED: Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Have Themselves A Day: Bombshells Are Dropped
Many people are still dissecting the aftermath of Oprah Winfrey’s M interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Bombs aplenty were dropped, including touchpoints on race, what has come out on media, and even the couple’s financial situation. If you’re looking to understand this royal rumble further, we suggest giving Elizabeth Holmes a follow.
A San Francisco-based journalist and author, Holmes has been posting extensively (particularly in her Instagram stories) about the Sunday chat between the couple and the American billionaire. A graduate of St. Olaf College and Columbia University, she has been covering British royalty for years (specifically their fashion and its subsequent messaging), and has authored HRH: So Many Thoughts On Royal Style, which came out last November.
Covering royalty
The author sees the situation from a wide angle, able to see the situation from the lens of someone who has extensive knowledge. On her Instagram (@eholmes), she gives space for discussion (civil, of course) and makes annotations on posts and articles on the matter around cyberspace.
“This is such an important reminder of how messy this is. Especially the bit at the end of about the three competing households—three entities/offices within the firm,” she comments on a quote by Camilla Tominey on how there won’t be interviews forthcoming from the Queen. “There is Buckingham Palace, which represents the Queen; Clarence House for Charles + Camilla; Kensington Palace for Will + Kate. Originally the Sussexes were part of Kensington Palace, but then split and went over to Buckingham Palace. The three offices don’t always get along, and compete for attention.”
Holmes continues that these households also sometimes “brief” against each other. “Meaning have background (not on-the-record) on convos with the press about the work being done there—and so you can see there would be these chances for nastiness to creep in,” she says.
“This is office politics but with a FAMILY and being played out in the press,” Holmes writes. “Like I said: Messy.”
Analyzing the reply
The writer, who also contributes to the New York Times, InStyle, and Town and Country, also shared her thoughts on the March 9th statement that was issued by Buckingham Palace on behalf of the Queen.
“First of all, this was what I expected. That does not make it right or acceptable enough. But it is very much in line with how Buckingham Palace handles this sort of crisis,” she comments. “You are probably thinking: this isn’t like any other crisis or shocking to happen before! AND YOU ARE RIGHT. But I did not expect them to address it publicly—they just don’t do that. Never complain, never explain is truly their way of operating. SMT on that, but it’s how they operate.”
Then why release this statement at all?
“They had to say something—public interest/outrage is too high, and it would have gotten much worse if they had stayed silent. When Diana died, the furor over the Queen’s silence grew each day, until the Queen delivered a televised address (it took Diana dying to get that statement of support). So the palace had to say something, and this is what they said.”
Line by line
Holmes goes line by line through the short statement.
“’The whole family’—The Queen is speaking for her family, which I am taking to mean Charles + Will, too.
“’Saddened to learn the full extent’—the start of covering their tracks. This is saying they did not ALL know how bad it had gotten… while also suggesting that they each knew, to some extent, that it had gotten bad.
“’How challenging the last few years have been’—this is… an attempt to acknowledge the struggle and the prolonged time period. But wow it could have gone a LOT further. Meghan said she did not want to be alive. That’s more than challenging.
“’For Harry and Meghan’—calling them by their first names, not their titles. Meant to be personal.”
The writer points out in the following story more problematic parts of the statement, including the statement’s use of “race” instead of “racism.” She also points out the phrase “while some recollections may vary,” which she calls gaslighting. “This is their way of saying that family members are disputing Meghan and Harry’s account—and of course they are, because legacies are on the line. They must be living in fear of the papers identifying who said what.”
Holmes also broke down the couple’s clothes (including tidbits on the pieces) during the interview on what she thinks they are trying to convey.:
Elizabeth Holmes is on Instagram as @eholmes.
