NYT opinion piece on Meghan demands ‘racist’ royal family is dismantled

The New York Times has been criticized over an opinion piece which accused the British Royal Family of racism and suggested Meghan Markle had to pay with ‘her life’ to marry into the institution.

Under the headline ‘When Harry Met Meghan’, contributing opinion writer Roxane Gay said Harry and Meghan were ‘saving their lives’ by leaving royal life and ‘preserving what peace of mind they could salvage from the wreckage of the almost three years they spent trying to solicit support from the royal family’.

Gay suggests the privilege of the Sussexes ‘could not shield them from racism which, ultimately, forced the wedge between them and the royal family’.

She adds: ‘When Prince Harry met and married the American actress Meghan Markle, we saw, in real time, just how high a price the crown was willing to extract from an outsider, up to and including her life.’

The opinion piece is the latest in a string of recent articles published by the New York Times which are critical of the United Kingdom.

Harry and Meghan repeated many of the past accusations about life in the Royal Family in their Netflix docuseries. A New York Times opinion piece has been criticized for suggesting the couple ‘could not shield them from racism which, ultimately, forced the wedge between them and the royal family’

Piers Morgan said: ‘My god.. New York Times publishes a shameful trashing of Britain & our Royal Family, including demand for the Monarchy to be dismantled. This is what the Sussexes have done with all their lies – made the world view us as a bunch of callous racists.’

Other Twitter users also took issues with the opinion piece. 

One said: ‘Given the reputation of the formerly great NYT, have no fear. They are woke and going broke. No credibility now with formerly devoted readers like me. What they find “fit to print” is generally inaccurate.’

Another added: ‘It’s no business of the USA what we do with OUR RF. Meghan still wants the title and fame it affords while hating the family that afforded her the privilege. Odd that.’

Replying to the New York Times’s own tweet sharing the article, a person said: ‘Not really a balanced article. RF bent over backwards to protect Ms Markle. Public welcomed her and her mixed race was not an issue – the opposite. She hated being down the pecking order in terms of seniority. Refused advice. Couple arrogant and plans to be half in and out.

In the piece, Gay also writes that ‘even in royal exile, Meghan plays the part of a perfect princess’.

She describes Harry as ‘graceful and poised — but in the way of someone who has lived his entire life as an heir to the throne’.

Harry is currently fifth in line to the throne.

Gay adds: ‘It would be easy to dismiss the Sussexes and their plight. But their immense privilege could not shield them from racism which, ultimately, forced the wedge between them and the royal family.

‘In the end, racism was more powerful than familial bonds. The monarchy’s consistent unwillingness to protect Meghan Markle in the face of truly horrific tabloid coverage and online harassment was indefensible.’

Gay concludes: ‘And yet I also have this on my mind: Harry and Meghan seemed content to be part of the royal family if only the royal family had been willing to embrace change.

‘But the monarchy doesn’t need to be changed. It needs to be dismantled. If Harry and Meghan were to have acknowledged that, it would have made their story infinitely more interesting.’

In September, the New York Times was forced to issue a correction for a hit-job on the Royal Family after it fudged inflation data and stoked recession fears.

The embarrassing climbdown came after some readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions over their vicious coverage of the Queen just days after she died aged 96.

In November, police and prosecutors in Britain responded with fury after it was claimed the country’s modern slavery law is being used disproportionally against black drug dealers.

The New York Times accused Britain of employing ‘hardline tactics’ using a law written to prevent human trafficking to penalize ‘low-level drug dealers’.

In an article based on a landmark county lines case, the paper cited experts claiming ‘like other criminal justice tools, the modern slavery law is being wielded disproportionately against black people.’

Senior UK police leaders pointed out that official figures show there have been ten times as many white people prosecuted compared to black defendants over the last five years.