I think the positive comments show that whatever life and world politics throw at us, we all believe in romantic love. I would love anthropologists to explain why this is. Is their some part of the brain that has a desire for soft billowy white fabrics; hearts; flowers and sweet music?
Meghan has been married already, yet still believes in the romantic dream. There didn't seem to be much wrong with her first husband, but she ended it, or they did, and so she knows that love and flowers can fade, but she still believes: like the rest of us who are essentially wedded to the idea of 'the triumph of hope over experience '.
Meghan and Harry remind of those 1950s films and even Agatha Christie and other novels, in which the couple are adults and people in their own right. Usually at this stage in a relationship, the couple's roles might have polarised a little, with the wife often being responsible for the bulk of the childcare. ( It shouldn't happen in an equal society, but it tends to.) The children would seem to be a lot more a part of the couple's lives and their raisin d'etre.
With Meghan and Harry they are like a fictionalised couple whose children don't bother them, and they have all these grand dreams of saving the world, doing service, being a thought leader, whereas most of the couples I know are finding the emotional issues of their children more complex and taxing than they ever could have imagined. They think the teenage years and twenty something years will make it less taxing, but it gets more complex). Serving their offspring's needs seems to exhaust most people's maginative efforts. Witness the typical posts on Mumsnet . Even sex between the couple often takes a hit, after the kids come along.
You'd think Meghan and Harry would have set the record straight about how wonderful and misunderstood they are and just have gone back into family life - but 'No', it's on with the mission. This is like a novel or a film, to me.
I guess, theoretically, a lot of money can enable you to live out love's middle aged dream. They don't really work, work, as most people know it. They perform really. They encapsulate causes within the chrysalis of their love story and wait for the butterfly of cellulose fiction to emerge in wealthy splendour.
I think Meghan has an incredible talent for abstract thinking, because after a few mis-starts, choosing a clunky, inflexible context ( traditional royal life) and seeming to steer and push Harry around at meetings and functions, and banging on about feminism, she really has selected an apt and functional vehicle for her purpose: the love story frame does actually enable her to offer her gripes and ideas with a soft focus which is quite palatable. They come across as equals too.
You could never say that their Netflix moan binge wasn't palatable. I had to force myself to scrutinise behind the facade to critique the ideas. It was bland and watchable and they would come across as likeable and unbitter to viewers who didn't know their history or who were predisposed to like them.
Definitely the styling Meghan had gone in for has come a long way from the Oprah interview, during which I thought that Meghan was ill-judgingly styling herself as a 'geisha' wife, type of connotation: the Japanese kimono style dress and flat makeup and silent flat expression was sort of a meek look, and doing what she has done before of pushing Harry to lead. She came across as someone who felt that they had had their voice and agency taken away by royal life at the palace - which fitted her narrative. Some commentators didn't buy it, though, and found it ridiculous.
This take that she has done is better orchestrated. Re-inventing themselves as the young, free, hip Californian couple who were laughing about being silly and whoops, there is one of those 'Medieval Chain restaurants...ooh, no it isn't, it's a palace, and we've got to bow and curtsey...ha!ha! ha!... Give over, Dude!'
It's better framing and styling, this time. There's a cohesion there.
But, for me, what they want to say is still horribly hurtful and deliberately damaging against the Royal Family, their family.