Don’t you get it, Harry? You’re not a victim. You’re a rich man who can pay for his own sodding security | Marina Hyde

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Prince Harry's Struggle with Wealth and Public Perception Following Royal Exit"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Prince Harry has transitioned from being a working royal to a wealthy private citizen, which has prompted a significant shift in his mindset. Despite his newfound wealth, he appears to struggle with the realities that come with it, particularly regarding personal security. The article draws comparisons with other wealthy individuals, such as Beyoncé and Kim Kardashian, who manage their security costs without publicly lamenting their financial burdens. The notion that Harry might expect public funds for his security after choosing to step away from royal duties is viewed as misguided. His recent interview with the BBC, following a failed legal challenge for taxpayer-funded protection, is characterized as an attempt to frame his choices as victimhood, reflecting a disconnect from the expectations of wealthy individuals who generally do not complain about such expenses.

The commentary further critiques Harry's public persona and his approach to discussing financial matters, suggesting that he lacks an understanding of how to navigate his position as a wealthy person. The article points out that Harry's past grievances about finances and security contradict the experiences of other high-profile celebrities who manage similar challenges without seeking sympathy. It also highlights the irony of Harry's media presence, as he criticizes the press while simultaneously engaging with it to promote his own narrative. The author argues that if Harry truly despises the media, he should reconsider how he interacts with them, as his public disclosures seem to serve as a source of income for those he opposes. The overall tone questions Harry's awareness of his privilege and the expectations that come with his wealth, suggesting he may benefit from a better understanding of his new reality.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a critical perspective on Prince Harry's recent statements regarding his security needs, drawing attention to the disparity between his wealth and his claims of victimhood. The author, Marina Hyde, argues that Harry's situation is one of privilege rather than persecution, suggesting that he should take personal responsibility for his security measures as a wealthy individual rather than seeking state support.

Wealth vs. Victimhood

The central theme of the article revolves around the juxtaposition of Prince Harry's wealth and his portrayal as a victim. The author likens Harry's complaints about security to those of other celebrities who manage their own risks without seeking external assistance. By citing figures like Beyoncé and Kim Kardashian, the article emphasizes that wealthy individuals typically understand the implications of their status and do not expect public funding for personal security.

Critique of Harry's Mindset

Hyde's critique extends to Harry's mindset, suggesting that he struggles to adjust to his new life outside the royal family. The article highlights a perceived lack of awareness regarding the responsibilities that come with wealth. This framing positions Harry as out of touch, contrasting his struggles with those of ordinary citizens who face real challenges without the financial resources to mitigate them.

Manipulation and Media Strategy

The article implies that Harry's narrative may be a strategic manipulation to garner sympathy and public support. This could be seen as an attempt to play the victim card in the face of personal choices that have led him to his current situation. The author draws parallels to Donald Trump's communication style, suggesting that Harry's approach lacks the efficacy needed to resonate with the public fully.

Public Perception and Implications

The underlying message appears to be a challenge to the public's perception of Prince Harry. By framing him as a wealthy individual seeking to portray himself as a victim, the article aims to shift public sympathy away from him. This could have broader implications for how the public and media engage with Harry and Meghan in the future, potentially impacting their popularity and public support.

Trustworthiness of the Article

The article presents a strong opinion, supported by comparisons and anecdotal evidence, making it a subjective piece rather than a straightforward news report. While it raises valid points regarding wealth and responsibility, the language and tone suggest a bias against Prince Harry. This impacts its overall reliability, leaning towards a critical commentary rather than an objective analysis.

Broader Context and Community Reception

This commentary likely resonates more with communities that value personal responsibility and are critical of perceived entitlement among the wealthy elite. It may appeal to those who see Harry's situation as a reflection of broader societal issues concerning privilege and accountability.

Economic and Political Considerations

While the article does not directly address economic or political ramifications, the narratives surrounding public figures like Harry can influence public sentiment and, by extension, societal norms regarding wealth and privilege. The framing of such stories can contribute to wider discussions about taxation, public funding, and the responsibilities of affluent individuals.

Potential Use of AI in Writing

It is conceivable that AI tools could have been utilized in crafting this article, particularly in structuring arguments or generating comparisons. However, the distinct voice and subjective analysis suggest human authorship, with AI possibly aiding in refining language or providing data points.

In summary, the article serves to challenge Prince Harry's narrative of victimhood by emphasizing his wealth and the responsibilities that accompany it. Its critical stance and subjective framing contribute to a perception of Prince Harry as out of touch, thus aiming to shift public sentiment against him.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Prince Harry wanted a completely new life and he has got one. He is no longer a working royal, but a rich person. His Rich Highness. This involves a change of mindset in a mind that is somewhat hard to describe as quick on the uptake.

Being rich is all well and good, of course, and the duke certainly moaned enough about money when he was still within the confines of royal duty, to hear insiders tell it. But the reason you don’t see Beyoncé out there on the talkshow circuit whining about how much money she has to spend on security – easily eight figures a year – is that she, a very rich person, seems to understand that regrettably it goes with the territory, and that you have to pay for it out of your riches.

Next week, Kim Kardashian is expected to take the stand in the Paris trial of the robbers who tied her up and subjected her to a truly horrific ordealwhen she was staying in the city in 2016. At no point during her examination is she expected to say that François Hollande, who was president at the time, should have intervened via the workings of the state to provide security. (Or to stop herbodyguard going out to a nightclub with Kourtney and Kendall, let’s face it.)

As well as beingbiologically unable to sweat, Prince Andrew had this weird condition where he couldn’t have a listen to himself, and you do worry Prince Harry has inherited the same gene. On Friday, in the wake oflosing his legal challengeover taxpayer-funded police security when in the UK,Harry gave an interview to the BBC. It took place in another one of thoserandom spare Montecito mansionshe and Meghan seem to borrow when they want to demand foreign taxpayer cash/make televised pasta for an obsequiously grateful hairstylist.

Alas, in its attempts to make his own behavioural choices seem like victimhood, this interview was almost Trumpian – although without that master communicator’s ability to stick the landing. Alleging “establishment” conspiracy, playing the victim of his own decisions, saying the quiet bit out loud about how the law of the land should just do what his family wants … If you were playing bullshit bingo you’d have got a full house in seconds.

Perhaps one of his many very rich friends could give him a primer on what being a very rich person involves? Rich people who have earned their own money understand that publicly gnashing their teeth about the cost of security is the quickest route to ridicule and contempt from a public that has infinitely less than them. Doing it for broadcast in a country the day after local elections where the most toxic issue on the doorstep wasmeans-testing the winter fuel allowance… well, have a listen to yourself, Harry Antoinette.

Or indeed a read of the comments below the video in the various media outlets in which it has since been shared. As an enthusiastic adopter and scatterer of labels and pop psychology in recent years, Harry may be confused to find the same now being applied to him. You can’t move for people saying “this is what narcissistic injury looks like”, or accusing him of “victim blaming” his family, or calling him a “nepo baby”. Weirdly, nepo baby is not one he heard when he was in the royal family – quite amusingly, given that’s literally the entire point. See also “entitled” and “privileged”. He seems not to have clocked on to the fact people have had enough of the holier-than-thou act. Perhaps he needs unconscious pious training.

Either way, Harry’s a rich person now, and the rules are different. Again, could someone get him up to speed? That said, if they do, it will come too late to have headed off some of his more eye-popping etiquette breaches in the society he has chosen. As far back as theOprah interview, Harry was already pissing on his new employers, explaining of his mega-money deals with Netflix ($100m) and Spotify ($20m): “That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford security for us.”

Oof. I bet Netflix and Spotify executives loved that explanation from the talent. This is like burning your bridge, then someone building you a new $120m bridge, and you deciding to burn that one down too because you’re too stupid and rude to understand how to behave. Again, you don’t see a whole load of rich celebrities kicking back on the talkshow sofas and honking: “I literally did this movie because my agent told me I had to do it to pay for my dinosaur bones acquisition habit.” (Even though I suspect that has actually been the case for a number ofNicolas Cage projects.) Perhaps this is why Spotify’s head of podcast innovation and monetisation came todescribe Harry and Meghan as “grifters”after their deal came to an end, with the Sussexes having served up precisely 12 episodes of a single podcast series that was not even in the same zip code as a hit, whatever Spotify’s kindly in-house charts might have suggested.

Arguably the most bizarre irony of all is Harry’s ongoing insistence on melting down in the media. If he detests the media so much, he could always stop making them money by conducting his private business in public, driving traffic and engagement for those he considers his sworn enemies. Unless provoking another row that could be lucratively explored in documentary form is covertly the whole point? In which case, perhaps he’s cottoning on to a life in business after all.

Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in ourletterssection, pleaseclick here.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian