The Heavy Brother

In a recent article, a Megan Markle "insider" revealed she had "mild concerns" about her husband's memoir and that the book was a Harry-only project: "is this the way she would have approached things? Possibly not... she would never have got involved in promoting such a personal project."

The couple has not denied the story.

That is extraordinary. 

Here’s a wife, THAT wife, concluding her husband had gone too far. She could have easily added, "especially regarding William." 

Or noted about the timing, "what will we lose if we wait until after the Queen is gone, you know, just out of deference to her, since she is your grand-mother and is quite elderly." 

The book tells the story of a young couple very much in love but nearly undone by a racist press and a hateful family, despite their best-faith efforts. The reader is told Harry and Meghan left England because (1) the racist press constantly taunted her with racial tropes, headlines, and articles; and (2) the Squad as I call them (Charles, Camilla, William, and Kate), did not support the newlyweds. Instead, they "leaked" or "planted nasty stories" that raised the anti-Meghan fever.

 

“Fed to the wolves,” in her words. 

There is a third strand: that the Royal Family had always treated Harry as a never-to-be-king. But this is a more elastic argument. Harry realized it only after meeting Meghan and it's unclear whether that alone would have pushed him out of the Royal Family.

Harry's life is no secret. He is the younger of two boys who came from an unhappy marriage. He lost his mother at age 11, a few years after his parents divorced.  His father then married the very woman who had contributed to the divorce. Harry and his brother William experienced it all together. In time, they grew and appeared, by all accounts, close and reasonably happy. When William fell in love with Katherine and through their lengthy courtship, no stress or awkwardness was detected. After the wedding, they became a merry band of three. 

In 2016, Harry met and fell for Meghan, an American divorcée who was working as an actress in Canada in a cable TV series. Grey's Anatomy it was not, but she was enjoying success. A self-made millionaire. She was bi-racial (white dad, black mom) but had assiduously avoided labeling herself "black." She said racism was irrelevant to her life before marrying Harry and moving to England: "most people didn't treat me like a Black woman, so that [racism] talk didn't have to happen for me." 

But move to England she did, and racial and family pandemonium ensued. 

According to the couple, the British press pilloried Meghan, and Windsor Palace refused to help. Instead, they conspired with her tormentors. The reasons offered for that behavior were alternatively “jealousy,” as Meghan was beginning to out-dazzle other stars in the royal galaxy; a desire for rehabilitation at her expense (give the media a new villain to go after); a general family stodginess allergic to shows of emotions and genuine conversations; a broad (race-based?) dislike of Meghan by Palace staff. 

So unbearable was the pain that she considered suicide: "if I am just not here anymore, all of this [hatefulness] will stop." At the time of that “very clear” conclusion, she was pregnant with her and Harry’s first child. A Windsor son, as it turns out.

The late Queen Elizabeth was still alive.

Harry, remembering his mother, understandably panicked about his wife's mental and physical plight. He opted out of royal life and moved his young family to California by way of Canada, after the Royals rejected their half-time work proposal.

Last month, he published his memoir, following a three-part documentary just weeks earlier. Both ventures have met with unparalleled success. 

Since the announcement of the publishing contract and even following Queen Elizabeth’s death, there was little doubt the memoir would smirch the Royal Family in the same mold as Oprah’s interview. Still, the ferocity of the book was startling. The author drew blood. He managed to be both petty and piercing: that’s quite a feat! 

In the universe of would-be Sussex enemies, logic would expect Harry to target, as first line of fire, his father and stepmother who caused irreparable suffering to his beloved mother; then the Queen, who had crafted and overseen such a wretched institution (according to him) for 70 years. Ultimately, it was her decision to reject the half-time royal model. And Diana herself, who had agreed to birth a second child only to provide “a speck of marrow” for the first, if ever needed. Only then would William appear on scene. 

But logic is in short supply in Harry’s world. So he declared his brother his “archenemy” and unleashed his uber-vitriolic slings and arrows at him and his family.  

Some choices are trivial. For example, Harry’s insistence on using William's nickname. Was it a term of endearment among family members? Well, not anymore. Harry has blown it to bits, making sure it is now commonplace.

Here’s his description of William, with whom he walked behind their mother’s coffin: "I … really looked at him maybe for the first time since we were boys. I took it all in, his familiar scowl, which had always been his default in dealings with me, his alarming baldness, more advanced than my own, his famous resemblance to Mummy which was fading with time, with age...  I love him deeply."

Please allow a fictional parallel paragraph, as if shared during a PTA meeting: "I looked at my sister Lane, really looked at her maybe for the first time. I took it all in, her yellow laughter, which had terrified me my whole life; the sagging skin on her arms…Her hips had widened and were larger than mine now. Any trace of her days as a ballerina had disappeared. Time and age had not been kind to her... I love her so much." 

It is hairy to imagine what he would say about William if he didn’t love him so much. 

Harry seems to have a visceral need to belittle his big brother. He went as far as showing the "now-fixed" necklace William allegedly broke during a television interview.  And, he attacked his wife: Kate "grimaced" when Meghan asked to use her lipstick. 

What explains that singular, sardonic rage? 

Of all the people in his universe, why William?

The book supplies no answer.

Harry has said there are 400 pages of material left, more than enough for a second tome. Unlike his first effort, that one would presumably contain only “things” that happened between his father, his brother, and him. So I am willing to admit his attacks on William might have ample justification, but he didn't share them. Simply put, the book doesn’t explain the book.

To be fair, there are spatters. William had the bigger bed (or was it the bigger room) in the Palace and got more breakfast sausages; he told his little brother to stay away from him at Eaton; he argued with him about charities; he called Meghan "difficult"; and of course, he sent his brother down to the floor, to the breakable dog bowl.

 

None of which justifies the Prince’s fury at his brother. 

The closest explanation seems to be William’s relations with the British media. The big allegation is that his office “leaked” that Harry was going to move to South Africa and renounce his title and other similar stories. If true, this would fall squarely into the “annoying” box. Even maddening. But the words “heartbreaking” or “sick” belong in an altogether different category. 

This is not to defend the media. There were, in fact, chilling, contemptible words and pictures that would terrify anyone. Racism really can be quite vicious. How utterly devastating to see one’s brand new, precious, perfect baby portrayed as an animal. What kind of despicable being would think that picture funny or harmless? Did none of the Royals understand, even partially, the pain—and the threat—that such a gesture inflicted? A modicum of even faith-less empathy on such occasions would have served as a balm, if not a cure. Harry and Meghan said none was forthcoming. It true, they really are owed an apology by their relatives, starting with his father, since the Queen is gone. 

It's worth repeating. Most reasonable people can easily see why the couple might have chosen to leave England: harassing media, some coverage overtly racist, and a family that stayed at arm’s length. Or even the weather. Maybe they just preferred the States or Canada or Botswana. 

But that same reasonable frame undoes much of Harry and Meghan’s narrative. For one thing, the millions made. Moreover, there was the small matter of the countless arcane rules to be obeyed, restricting their freedom. They must have experienced each one as a request to dull their "resplendent" selves. Literally walking in William and Kate’s shadow, for example. 

Recall Harry and Meghan’s disdain for Frogmore Cottage. Countless people would have been gleeful or at least grateful to live in the world’s most exclusive address, a few yards from the residence of the Queen of England, especially without having worked for or earned any of it. But for the Sussexes, it was one more indignity. The Firm was forcing them unfairly to settle for less, less than William and Kate had, less than they deserved, less than who they were. 

Peacocks are not called to be turtles. 

In the final analysis, I find Harry’s arguments unconvincing. 

Even the overarching issue of safety falls apart when scrutinized: how is California safer than Canada? This may have been news to people around the globe.

More seriously, the couple strictly withheld pictures of their children for three years. Like some Hollywood actors who "show" their little ones by showing a hand or a back. Annoying, but understandable. That was my initial take on Harry and Meghan’s approach. Given their high profile and controversies, I reasoned, they’re just protecting their children. Good for them!

But then Netflix. And there were those little angels, on screen every ten minutes. In their yard, at the beach, with animals, eating, playing, meeting their grandmother Diana. 

What happened to the incessant talk of safety and privacy? Did the public really need to be invited into their son’s bathroom? 

And a most fundamental question: why not just walk away. Without the rumpus. 

"Dear family, you do you and we'll go do us. Firm life isn't for us. Let us agree on Christmases at Balmoral. And the Trooping of the Colour each summer."

How different would the lives of all parties be.

Harry says he needed to tell "his" side of the story, in "his" words. Fair enough. But that is not what he did. He told his story but also those of Charles, Camilla, William, and Kate. Even little Charlotte wasn't spared! 

The self-appointed prince of "personal truth" and "personal agency," the loudest defender of "privacy" took it upon himself to publish stomach-churning details, real or imagined, about folks who must have never imagined he would. And never granted him permission to do so. He asserts, for example, William was "tormented by guilt for not speaking up" when Charles rejected their mom. (William would have been 11 or 12 at the time!) Clearly, the reader is not supposed to hear in that declaration a gross invasion of William's privacy. 

I believe Harry and Meghan did it for money. The book, the media blitzes, the series, the original interview, all of it was to earn millions, to prove they were profitable investments.

 

That motivation, however, is more defensible than it might sound.

 

He came home to a wife threatening suicide. And his family offered no hugs, physical or figurative. Memories of his mom's fate haunted him. So he panicked and decided to leave.

But he could not simply leave as most of us would leave a job or a city. He had to land in a certain way, given his identity and exposure. This was more than some craven desire for a 12-bathroom estate. He had to establish that he could be financially independent away from his family; that he could afford, on his own, the complete freedom Meghan and he so craved. That's laudable. 

And there was the crucial matter of 24-hour protection. Freedom and safety are costly when one is an ex-royal. I imagine there is a material difference between 25 and 100 million dollars. 

Still, one cannot absolve Harry. Not just because of his acerbity towards his brother, but for a trait that is even more staggering: his hubris. 

He looks innocent, almost childish, easy going. But his words betray the contrary. For example, he insists the book is actually a love gift to the House of Windsor. It hurts right now, so they don't believe that but in time they will thank him. Like young children who don't grasp that broccoli is actually good for them. They are seeing in part while he is seeing the whole. 

He splashed a newspaper headline showing he was more popular than the Queen--before she died.

To be sure, he is willing to consider reconciliation but only if the Squad apologizes to Meghan and to him. He did not seem to contemplate any circumstances under which he might apologize to them. Not even for spewing and standing by the claim of royal racism for years, only to reject the whole idea in a recent interview: "we never said that; it was the British press." Oprah? 

Harry fancies himself “the Fixer.” He is so able that he should raise his brother’s children. “Though William and I have talked about it once or twice and he has made it very clear to me that his kids are not my responsibility, I still feel a responsibility knowing that out of those three children, at least one will end up like me, the spare. And that hurts, that worries me,” he casually put forth from his morally enlightened, fully therapized self, as if he was discussing their birthday presents. 

I thought of my family. On what cursed planet would it ever occur to me to utter those words to any sibling about my nieces and nephews? And what family members would have ever dared say such a thing to my husband and me? Even my mom and dad would not have, though they may have been sorely tempted at times. 

Who invades such a solemn bond? 

Well, someone who learned early he wields inordinate power; that he can 'get away' with things. Who then paints himself as the supreme victim: all his life, he was told he was not first in line to be king. 

 

In essence, Harry has attained a most enviable status within certain media outlets: “I said it. That settles it.”  Regarding those lucky few people, doubts are not allowed. Not even questions. What they say is either ignored or accepted and repeated and defended.

For example, when William’s godmother asked a black British woman more than once what country she was “really” from (and touched her hair—good grief!), the Fixer swooped down and ruled “she meant no harm.” No one asked him who had appointed him the Great Czar of Race Affairs.

Imagine how the NY Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The View, Cosmopolitan, People, Yahoo News, how they would have crucified William if he had said that. I suppose Harry does not see his own relationships with those outlets as "sick."

And what if William had told Harry and Meghan, repeatedly, that they were such incapable or uncaring parents that he (William) and Kate should raise Archie and Lilibet, presumably in England, instead of them in Montecito?

That surely would have been “relentless harassment,” no?

“Whaaat,” would have gasped Oprah, “Hold up. William offered to raise YOUR children because HE was worried about how they would turn out if you raised them? Wow.” 

Meghan would have fallen to the floor and threatened to disappear in a flood of tears--along with her babies, sending Harry scurrying to the airwaves to explain that the declaration was a betrayal of the highest order that demands accountability. 

But he can say it, having been a victim of the Royals and being married to a "black" woman. 

Perhaps that very woman already spoke to him, one late night, after the kids had gone down, while the bedside sconces were dimming, "Harry, my love, enough. Please spare us."

I am beginning to like her again.

Bravo, Montana!

What if I told you Haiti can become livable in four months? I am tempted to say four weeks.

How, do you ask? The way every other country has: through responsible leadership. That simple. That fast. 

We need ethical folks overseeing the police force and the Central Bank. We need responsible authorities to name impartial judges. We need conscientious civil servants to maintain accurate archives. We need honest officers in customs and the tax offices. We need just prosecutors. We need agricultural experts to help our farmers and our environment. We need decent agents in our prisons and compassionate professionals in our hospitals. We need visionary business owners who comply with labor laws. We need moral clergy men and women. And loving moms and dads who actually raise their children.

All of it begins with good political leaders.

Except we're too defeated to believe that's possible. Too afraid to demand it. We are convinced we would need guns. Or money to buy guns. Or to buy the people who have the guns.

Which brings us to the Montana Group.

They tried. They really tried.

For more than 18 months, starting to meet well before the assassination of President Jovenel Moise, those Haitian citizens from various backgrounds saw a steaming volcano and thought they should defuse the explosion.

Haiti had not seen such a thing before. Teachers, union members, pastors and priests, Voodoo activists, former ministers, business professionals, politicians from opposite spectrums, rural farmers, urban youths—gathered all by themselves. No “technical support” or “capacity building” or laptops from any "partner." Just a bunch of Haitians who said to one another, “you know, we’re here; let’s propose something.” And they kept it going!

At the hand of the UN, such an initiative would have swallowed USD 2,500.000 whole. Imagine the material and equipment budget lines! And the costs associated with experts, all from lands not Haiti. Workshops and the “baseline survey” alone would have sipped the first million.

Reactions to the Montana Group echoed in rounds.

First, there was the Prime Minister’s tweet: “the Haitian constitution does not grant a small of group friends the right to gather in a hotel and elect a president.” Brilliant!

There should have been a straightforward rejoinder: “Indeed. On the other hand, the Haitian Constitution does grant to small groups of foreign officials gathered in embassies the right to choose a prime minister.”

I ached to launch the hashtag #omwenseAyisyenyoye. #atleasttheyareHaitians. But I didn’t. (See above.)

The actors supporting Ariel Henry chimed in: “the MG is a failure, an utter failure”; “Fritz Jean had been a serious person, but his involvement with the GM was political suicide. He’ll never, never, never amount to anything ever again”; “Magalie Comeau is just as responsible as Ariel Henry for where the country is today”; “the whole Montana thing is finished, done.”

As for the international community, they proved Ronald Reagan’s prescience when he warned, “trust but verify.” Between an illegitimate and duplicitous (criminal?) prime minister and a group of more credible Haitians, they chose the former. 

Then there was the Haitian population. Punch-drunk from blow after blow by politicians of all stripes, they yawned at the initiative.

That was the Montana Group’s first mistake. They did not have a strategy to rally public support. The courtship would have been arduous, but they stopped at hello. They thought their awe-some-ness sufficiently obvious and alluring.

Their second mistake was less forgivable: they accepted bread crumbs for cake from the kingmakers (read: the international community) and realized too late they were never really invited to the feast.

Still, oversized egos and credulity are not crimes. Not in a country that faces drug trafficking, kidnappings, and hordes of uncontrolled guns.

So, yes, chapeau, Montana!

Congratulations to you all, especially the leaders. How brave you were to start this journey, with no money and no security guards. Not having been "convened" by foreigners.

You must have anticipated the invectives and the contempt that would come your way. Did you at least manage to ride around Port-au-Prince in armored Patrols? 

This Haitian heart gives grace for all of you. For a while, and perhaps yet still, you showed the beauty that is possible when woven by Haitian hands. 

That model fed my soul.

Thank you and blessings. 

An Identity-based Fight

We in Haiti face a monster goliath, the red flesh of those with guns and cash, with official license plates. Lots of overlap. A tiny group with raw power. They kill and let kill. They don't cry. They dare us rise. 

We the people are David's brothers. We are afraid and resigned. We don't believe we can fight and win. So we keep crying and dying.

Oh for a David! How praiseworthy he was! 

He did not fast. He didn't create an action committee. He didn't read white papers or crisis analyses. He didn't launch a political dialogue. He didn't seek a broad agreement or national consensus. He didn't organize a donors' conference. The whole Goliath mess wasn't even his job!

But he knew identity, God's and the Israelites'. He asked, "How dare you? Do you not know who we are?" Then he stepped up.

We need a David to recall who we are, take offence at our intended shame, and say "no way."

He will have to ignore the it-will-take-50-years-to-change-Haiti crowd; reject those who recite all day long "things are really complicated in Haiti"; avoid the analysts who label optimism or faith naïve; laugh at the experts who insist on the failed traditional projects. And stay alive somehow. And make an honest living.

That's a lot to ask of a human being. 

Unless chosen of God.

Picking and Choosing

Thinking is disheartening. Anger, injustice, traumas, poverty, biases, racism, pride, sexism, blind beliefs, lies, violence, broken friendships, abuse, failures, all subvert joy and optimism. And we haven’t mentioned cancer.

Full disclosure--I am a liberal Christian. Broadly speaking, I believe in traditional Biblical teachings on God, the fall, the Israelites, praise and prayer, Jesus, his death and resurrection, sin and salvation, a second coming, heaven and hell. But I don’t believe a human being exists five seconds after conception. And recently, I was floored when the US Supreme Court ruled that proof of innocence was not sufficient to halt an execution.

For a while, I believed if Christians of good faith from different traditions came together, with honest hearts and rigorous intellect, the rest of us could count on them to reach a minimum consensus on essential issues: “how then shall we live?” Or at the very least, “what must we do to be saved?”

But a young Evangelical pastor and a Catholic professor, among others, have disabused me of that notion. They seemed so very reasonable at first, almost loving. Ted Cruz they were not!

So I watched, daring to hope for strong arguments. None came.

The pastor went after “progressive Christians,” comparing them to “parasites.” He tried, he really tried to say he was debunking “progressive Christianity” and not “progressive politics.” Then he used Barak Obama as the face of unacceptable religion. You know, Pastor Barak Obama. He derided him for preferring the Sermon on the Mount to the book of Romans, for “using one part of the Bible to refute another.” Such Christians can be called that only with “quotation marks.” And as if on cue, the pastor added Evangelicals like him suffer much hostility for their faith; they are victims of today’s American culture. I am tempted to conclude he took the same rhetoric course as Prince Harry.

The professor, for her part, decried the “woke” movement, warning it grew from socialist roots. As if that was enough. As if there was an 11^th amendment: “thou shall reject all socialist tenets.” She also accused the “wokists” (that is a word, right?) of minimizing fathers. The “they-don’t-believe-in-fathers” line was new to me. But that of course is a strategy—attacking an issue through its worst expressions, however rare.

So, most unfortunately, there is no broad Biblical consensus that I trust for essential life or spiritual issues (marriage and divorce, money, politics, abortion, nationalism, miracles, women as pastors, etc.). 

Who exactly will make it to heaven?

Only those who are predestined, who accept Jesus as their personal savior and have a personal relationship with him, who are transformed through water baptism and the Holy Spirit? Those who love the Lord with all their heart, mind, and soul, who love their neighbors as themselves, whose lives reflect Paulinian morality? Those who have faith, who love justice and mercy, who pursue righteousness, who are holy and have a pure heart?

Is it a combination of those conditions, and if so, which ones? Is there a hierarchy?

A few years ago, I was struck by the importance of forgiveness: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” That passage and some others indicate God will not forgive those who don’t forgive their fellow human beings. Can we get to heaven if we don't forgive?

More answers would come, I suspect, with more knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, history and anthropology, Church fathers and traditions ... 

But for now, I remain at square zero. The Bible is bigger than I can grasp, and I trust no scholars, seminary professors, or independent researchers to teach me its essential truths. They, like me, come to Scriptures with their own biases. And sadly, our religion serves our prejudices.

So yes, I pick and choose the Biblical principles to follow. I grant the highest priority to Jesus’ teachings, then everyone else: the OT prophets, poets, leaders, storytellers; NT writers Paul, James, Timothy, etc.

As a result, I am guided by three principles. First, the unassailable characteristics of God. He is holy; He is eternal; He is love; He is glorious; He keeps his word; He does not change; He is omnipotent and omniscient; He is jealous; He is obsessed with "the least of these"; He is good; He loves justice AND mercy. He must also love beauty: He made the earth and a whole lot of people quite beautiful. Second, his son Jesus brought not just the initial but the complete salvation message to us when he lived on earth. So if he didn’t talk about an issue, it’s non-essential. Third, I am a 90-percenter. That I believe something does not make it good or even accurate. I could be wrong.

This is sure to make the “all of Scripture crowd” see red. They will declare such an approach anathema, since the whole Bible is “God-breathed and inerrant.”

To that, my answer is stupidly simple: you do it too--a most unsatisfactory response. We should not decide what is acceptable by what others do. So let me try anew: I do this for I must. We all have to, lest we twist ourselves into varied “interpretations.”

One need not be a Biblical scholar to see the myriad of Protestant denominations are but a result of “picking and choosing.” For that matter, the pastor and the professor discussed above would vehemently disagree with each other regarding what the Bible says about Mary.

I grew up in a church that insisted women cover their heads during services. My late mother went further and refused to wear pants until her death. Pants were for men and therefore forbidden. Neither she nor my dad wore wedding rings though they were married for more than 50 years. God bless them! How many proponents of the “whole Bible” approach have divorced and remarried? How many require women to cover their heads in church?

This is not a matter of ‘anything goes.’ It would be good to recall the Bible is an anthology, not a single book. A Shakespeare scholar may not agree that Hamlet is his greatest work, but he would not be taken seriously if he chose The Merry Wives of Windsor. And neither would anyone who pretends all the plays are of equal weight.

God, the Supreme Being, could have produced a Bible without any contradictions, real or apparent or cultural or political or linguistic. He did not. Maybe he wanted to tell us, “stay humble; you know less than you think.” 

We should meditate on that.