Guardian: The Sussexes are ‘in their Flop Era’ in America, because of the ESPYs!

The ESPYs are still scheduled for Thursday evening. I’m expecting both Prince Harry and Meghan to turn up at the event. I also expect Prince Harry’s acceptance speech for the Pat Tillman Award for Service to be well-received in the room and well-received overall. That’s what the Derangers expect too, which is why they’ve been throwing a huge tantrum about it for two weeks. It reminds me a bit of when everyone knew the release date for Prince Harry’s memoir and so the same deranged individuals all tried to get their hits in before Spare so they could create wall-to-wall negativity. They ended up giving the book millions in free publicity. So it is with the ESPYs – I guarantee that there were will be added interest and added international attention to the ESPYs because of Harry.

As for people getting their hits in… they come across as especially desperate. There’s that Lee Cohen guy who gets paid to write unhinged columns in the British media, all about how much he hates the Sussexes and the Obamas. Well, he’s got some thoughts on the Pat Tillman Award too, but I’m not going to excerpt anything from it. There was this piece in the Guardian which irritated me, written by Arwa Mahdawi: “Harry is the divisive duke – and Meghan is making jam. Can the Sussexes escape their ‘flop era’?” Some lowlights:

When life gives you lemons, make luxury lemon marmalade and sell it to your celebrity friends. That’s what Meghan Markle seems to be doing anyway. Ever since their break with the royal family, the Sussexes have been struggling to find their feet – so much so that last year, Rolling Stone declared they were in their “flop era”. Still, despite setbacks, the pair are steadfastly trying to build their brands. Meghan, in particular, has been busy with her new lifestyle company, American Riviera Orchard. The brand hasn’t launched yet, but she’s been teasing its offerings by sending influencers gift baskets with fruit preserves in them.

While Meghan has had her hands full with homemade jam, her husband seems to have found himself in something of a sticky situation. The Duke of Sussex is now facing a backlash after being nominated for the Pat Tillman award for service at the 2024 ESPYs, a sports-themed awards show hosted by the cable network ESPN. The award is named after a former American football player who turned down a $3.6m contract in order to join the US army after 9/11 and was then killed by friendly fire. It’s given to “a person with a strong connection to sports who has served others in a way that echoes the legacy of [Tillman]”. Last year the award went to the training staff of the NFL team the Buffalo Bills, after they saved the life of Damar Hamlin, a player who suffered a cardiac episode on the field. This year it is due to go to Prince Harry for his work on the Invictus Games, a sports competition for wounded soldiers he is credited for founding in 2014.

Mary Tillman’s criticism of the “divisive” duke has set off a flurry of bad press on both sides of the Atlantic. Lord West, a former bigwig in the Royal Navy, has said that it is bad publicity for the duke and he should turn down the award. Pat McAfee, an American sports pundit, complained on his radio show that ESPN was “obviously trying to piss people off” by selecting Prince Harry.

Harry has no end of haters in the UK; almost anything he does is bound to be criticised by sections of the British press. But the fact his award nomination is getting so much backlash from Americans speaks volumes about how badly his brand is faring in his new home. The novelty of the newlyfleds, it seems, has worn off; America is growing tired of the Sussexes. And while Harry and Meghan are used to bad press by now, sources told the Telegraph that the fact this bout of criticism relates to Harry’s military record, of which he is very proud, is “a particularly bitter pill to swallow”. Still, rumour has it Meghan might be releasing a rosé wine soon. Perhaps Harry can wash it down with that.

[From The Guardian]

The British press has been trying to make “America is growing tired of the Sussexes” happen since 2020. It’s a line British commentators feed to their domestic audience, because they’re too lazy to explain the nuances of American culture to their readers – the overwhelming majority of Americans view the Sussexes as just another celebrity family living privately and doing their own thing. The Sussexes do not live or die on their public support here in America, so stop spending money on dumb polling of “what do Americans think of the Sussexes?” ESPN is also telling Britain pretty clearly what THEY think of Prince Harry. And that really upsets this forced narrative of a “flop era.” Speaking of flop eras, where’s Kate?

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

171 Responses to “Guardian: The Sussexes are ‘in their Flop Era’ in America, because of the ESPYs!”

  1. Tessa says:

    Since the queen died the royal family has been struggling and ate booed and picketed. So media try to divert attention from this

    • swaz says:

      The British Media has been struggling too, they’re stuck in the same dialogue 🙄🙄 they sound like a broken record, Harry Harry Meghan Meghan 🙄🙄 I mean isn’t there someone in the UK that’s worth talking about ??? THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING THE WINDSORS IN THEIR FLOP ERA 😎NOT MY KING.

      • Christine says:

        Well said! We ARE watching a flop era, and it is for sure the Windsor’s

      • Josephine says:

        Exactly. Chuckles and his side-piece are flops and everyone knew they would be. But I think the press and royalists have been so disappointed to learn that the entitled egg of rage and his lazy, pick-me, mean girl wife are the bigger flops.

    • la sottise says:

      Donations must be down for The Guardian and with the obvious disaffection with the conservative government and conservative press, perhaps the Guardian is employing a strategy it believes will win over to its paper some of those disaffected readers from The Times and The Torygraph, so they pull out every British media favorite Whipping Couple. Especially given the traction the story got pre-election and they are hoping to capitalize, maybe it was on hold due to election coverage.

      The thing is , people are really fed up with the overall need of the media to always cutting people down, manufactured outrage and the constant negative tone and voice about people – anyone really, trying to move away from the media led narrative. The Guardian doesn’t have to and should not just write positive articles about The Sussexes, that’s not their job, but it should not write unsubstantiated articles about them either, if they really want to partake in the nation’s media national pastime- why not take a Guardian approach, stick to its brand of ‘fearless, investigative journalism’ and not succumb to ‘commercial influence’? Last week they were gleefully celebrating readers revolt over at The Times but they have to copy The Times to generate buzz?
      As we all know the British media articles about The Sussexes aren’t balanced or facts based, they are rooted in presenting an agenda narrative that you can draw a through line from today to 2019. It is not even hidden, it’s so obvious, it’s visible from the international space station.

      I was surprised to learn recently that there is a growing trend of media experts from the U.K. who advise U.S. companies and organizations about how to defang the British Media , in that how to ignore them, give their articles space and time to then measure the true effectiveness of the shouty shrieking headlines and instead turn it around by monetizing the interest generated among the audience reach without confronting/engaging the actual media outlet.

      The Guardian is literally rerunning the same article from last year with the edits being – substituting this manufactured controversy for the last one. It is ironic and if you look at it from your other eye, knowing the previous article she wrote was almost the same tone and voice, you could say it’s an actual tongue in cheek comment on media standards -an Art piece that is a criticism of its tabloid competitors, not really an article.

      It’s so cyclical, they go round and round the same narrative, it’s like watching a group of cars at place de Concorde just going round and round and round and you are on the sidelines wondering why can’t one of the media cars just veer off in order to move forward and not be led.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Interesting analysis.

      • Kit says:

        I agree there’s a lot of lazy reporting around. Copy and paste stuff, not acknowledging sources.

        Once news was considered a societal good and people who owned serious news media weren’t all billionaires or investment firms. But now news has become entertainment and has to generate click baits.

        It’s harder and harder for readers to find useful and reliable information. I think a lot of this is by design. News gathering and reporting is being controlled with what’s being covered, spun, left out, and the way it’s being covered. The public is given a narrative to follow and we are dumber or distracted by it. Meanwhile, real destruction of our democracies and societies goes on. It doesn’t seem to matter anymore whether it’s Russian or Chinese or greedy billionaires who are doing this, because its the common people who’s being harmed .

      • Deering24 says:

        “I was surprised to learn recently that there is a growing trend of media experts from the U.K. who advise U.S. companies and organizations about how to defang the British Media…”

        And not a moment too soon, given how many Tory-types are getting top jobs in US media…

      • kirk says:

        “The Guardian is literally rerunning the same article from last year with the edits being – substituting this manufactured controversy for the last one.” — nice catch @la sottise!
        I’ve always maintained that ALL britmedia goes cra-cra when it comes to the Sussexes, even the normally lucid Financial Times. The Guardian is no exception. Although some part-time contributors are sympathetic to Sussexes, there are particular Guardian writers who give them zero slack and plump up every manufactured ‘controversy.’ In a universe with many options for reader-supported journalism, the Guardian won’t be getting my dime because Sussex-hate.

      • Glossop says:

        Great analysis. Unfortunately the Washington Post has been fanged by the British media. The new CEO/chief editor choice (Lewis) is absolutely appalling. Bezos could do so much better with all his money, but I guess he just doesn’t have the decency or the class. MSM here seem to be hell bent on destroying democracy.

  2. Hypocrisy says:

    I’m looking forward to watching the awards show, already made plans to see it with a neighbor since I don’t have ESPN. I also want it to be over so the British tabloid media shuts up! My god the over the top reaction has me believing they are a nation of “psycho-Karens”. (Absolutely everything the Sussex’s have done has been a success that has to bruise their fragile Karen egos)

    • Bamaborn says:

      Yes, my family is planning a 14 day cruise through Europe next April to celebrate my aunt’s 90th birthday. I’ve given it a hard pass just in case the ship docks somewhere close to that ratchet island.

      • JanetDR says:

        Let’s not trash the whole place! A beautiful island with some lovely people.
        I’d say the media is out of control, but look at ours (in the US) worse every day.

      • Yvonne says:

        I’m glad that you’re not going on a cruise because they are a environmental carbon spewing nightmare.

        That said, you probably shouldn’t make a habit of avoiding entire countries (as well as family holidays with elderly relatives) just because of the behaviour of a handful of newspaper columnists. It seems a tad disproportionate.

      • Lady D says:

        …and funny.

      • Jaded says:

        England is actually a beautiful place with loads of fascinating history so please don’t paint the entire island and all its people with the same brush we use to bash the tabloids and politicians. I’ve been there 4 times and loved it (I had an English boyfriend for 5 years so we back-and-forthed quite a bit).

      • Sarah says:

        It’s not a handful of media journalists that’s the lie they tell and you. It’s widespread, toxic, harmful, and not at all funny. America has enough problems we don’t need these lowlife English tabloid trash spread out throughout our media. We may have our problems, but we’re vocal. When I get tired of everyone’s opinion I think at least we have one and share it openly including complaining about the consequences of sharing them. Not North Korea or England.

      • Cersi says:

        Strange, that’s exactly how I feel about the UK now. The royal family has allowed themselves to be tarnished by these constant negative articles. My opinion is that they look down on people from the US so why spend our money over there. If I didn’t know it before, I certainly know it now. Salt Island and its inhabitants are not worth my time. What a nasty bunch of people.

      • Lorelei says:

        I hope that people wouldn’t be dissuaded from visiting the US just because of Trump and Fox News. They don’t represent the majority of us, and there are some beautiful places in this country.

        (I would, however, completely understand if they stayed away because of the insane gun issues)

    • Sarah says:

      The Guardian has had both pro and anti monarchist writers for over a decade. This article isn’t not nice. It’s gross and filled with lies. Arwa Mahdawi’s articles about Harry and Meghan are filled with venom and right wing lies and talking points. Her and Marina Hyde regularly play fast and loose with facts in regards to Harry and Meghan. I don’t think of either of them as journalists. Just nasty opinion piece writers. Consistent? They don’t go after the royals costing them money with the same energy at all which is why I don’t like either one of them. Marina sometimes.

    • Gabby says:

      @Hypocrisy, it’s kind of charming that you think the British tabloids will shut up once the ESPYs are over.

      The BTM narrative will turn the page to……”how DARE Harry host IG in a Commonwealth country, especially while the king and KKKate have cancer”

      We have months of that to look foward to, so just settle in and get comfortable.

    • Isabella says:

      It would’ve been insulting for Harry to turn this honor down. Think of the headlines then. “Harry insults dead soldier.”

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        This @Isabella. They want Harry to turn down the honor that he has fully earned so they can write countless articles about Harry disrespecting another military man. Using words from Kate Beckinsale, (paraphrasing?), These people need to shove a pineapple up their a@@.

  3. equality says:

    So winning a prestigious award signals that you are in a “flop era” and citing TWO whole Americans criticizing this signals “SO much backlash from Americans”? Are the readers of this BS this lacking in critical thinking skills?

    • Ginger says:

      This reminds me of a Newsweek poll that said Americans are sick of H&M and the polled……1,000 people here in the U.S. and our country has a population of 333 million.

      Harry has the best selling non fiction book of all time., the highest viewed documentary on Netflix, Meghan’s number 1 best selling children’s book but yeah, they are flopping so hard. Come on.

      • sunnyside up says:

        According to the British press The Bench was a flop. You learn something new every day. Can’t believe anything you read in some newspapers.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        These paid for “polls” have access to demographics & voter information. Targeted pollsters. As far as I’m concerned, these polls were directed to people who wear white hoods.

    • Giddy says:

      We should all hope to “flop” as hard as H&M.

      • booboocita says:

        Exactly. I want some of the failure the Sussexes enjoy.

      • TheFarmer'sWife says:

        I wonder how the British tabloids define success for people other than the Sussexfuls? But then, the tabloids are all about the clicks, and it doesn’t matter who they hurt in the process. I was listening to Amy Winehouse in the car the other day and remembered how the Brit tabloids hounded her relentlessly, writing terrible awful things about her until she unalived herself. Thankfully Harry saved his wife, his child, and himself. He’s never coming back, Salty Isle; get over yourselves.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      It’s sad, innit? I think it’s due to the gin. The royalist press must be imbibing mass quantities of it around Cloppy the King’s Favourite Nag.

    • BeanieBean says:

      They’ve been given their list of terms to hit in every article: divisive, backlash, Hollywood, failure.

      • sunnyside up says:

        And in every other story about the royals squeeze Harry and Meghan’s names in just to get the clicks, especially if it is nothing to do with them.

  4. Denise says:

    I’m really disappointed in Guardian. They are not a tabloid but they prove more and more how superficial and frivolous they are, far from the serious, opinion making image they want to project. What is their beef with Sussexes?

    • Proud Mary says:

      Please stop expressing disappointment in any British news media. The Guardian is run by people who used to work for the Daily Mail. The surprise is when any British outlet is fair to the Sussexes, not the other way round.

      • wolfmamma says:

        I did not know that about The Guardian. When I read that article last night though, I realized that the Guardian is like all of the rest of the news media right now. Broke my heart. I thought they were better than that.

        PS I’m watching the ESPYs … for the first time ever.

      • sunnyside up says:

        As a regular reader of the Guardian I find this article most surprising and disappointing.

      • Christine says:

        Exactly. It’s what made Omid Scobie stand out, so obviously the entire establishment had to discredit him as Meghan’s bestie.

      • Deering24 says:

        Proud Mary–jeez, these Tory-creeps are everywhere, aren’t they. Given the backlash against Biden, I’d bet money there is a lot of money pushing right-wing journalists into influential positions in general.

    • Ginger says:

      The person that wrote this wrote the exact same thing last year. She often writes hit pieces on H&M

    • martha says:

      The Guardian is left-of-center and republican (small r – abolish the monarchy) by and large. They generally go after anything royal, royal-adjacent, Conservative Tory, MAGA, etc. They really aren’t a tabloid.

      Unfortunately and unfairly, H&M occasionally get caught in the fire. This disappoints me because The Guardian is my favorite newspaper and generally very reliable.

      (A few of their journalists and columnists have worked at tabloids before – it’s a small world. For instance, Marina Hyde, my favorite columnist was secretary at the Mail 20 years ago. She says royal reporters actually think they’re personal friends with royalty. Deludinoids! (She’s got great media-centered podcast on YouTube called “the rest is entertainment”

      • Julia says:

        It doesn’t really take any stance on the monarchy but i would not describe it as republican. It just doesn’t do over the top royal propaganda like the other uk papers. It is not adverse to click bait and H&M stories are always that. I personally don’t rate it as a paper but every one is entitled to their own opinions.

      • Yvonne says:

        This.

        The Guardian are anti-monarchy and anti-aristocracy. They are never going to be nice to Harry and Meghan so long as those two still have their titles. It’s a matter of principle and being consistent.

      • Eurydice says:

        @Yvonne – not being nice and outright lying are two different things. What should be consistent in a news outlet is presenting facts.

    • Nic919 says:

      The guardian allegedly being left of centre shows the chokehold the BRF has on all UK media. If they were real republicans they would be praising the royals who left the tax payer supported fold. The fact they aren’t shows they have a huge bias. Harry is showing that royals don’t need to be living off the trough and his efforts about phone hacking should be commended but since the guardian can’t be arsed to see that Harry’s example shows how the monarchy can end, they repeat pro monarchist talking points.

      • Yvonne says:

        But they still have the hereditary titles which are an unavoidable symbol of inequality, toffs and feudalism.

      • Lawrenceville says:

        What are you going on and on about “hereditary titles”? This article has absolutely nothing to do with Harry and Meghan titles but more to do with lies and innuendo. What happened to reporting facts even if they are about titled individuals? I mean, people don’t have to write syrupy articles about Harry and Meghan (or really about any individual) I get it; but at least state facts, just state damn facts. Which can’t be said about this Marwa woman article. Harry is divisive how exactly? And the backlash and outrage all across America is because Pat Tillman and Pat Mcafee said something? That’s the entire nation of the United States? And don’t even get me started on the fact that this woman has been writing hateful hit pieces about the Sussexes for years, way before the ESPY award was ever announced. POC are most hateful towards their own kind it’s so sad. This woman did not have to write anything about the Sussexes if she didn’t want to state anything factual about them, it’s just that simple. All this “they have to lie about them because they have a Sussex title” is just ridiculous.

    • Proud Mary says:

      I really think its a bit misplaced to keep referring to the Guardian as “left of center.” What does that even mean? I think you can gauge their politics by their stance on specific issues: what was their stance on Brexit? How did they treat Jeremy Corbin? The Guardian at a minimum, is controlled opposition. Where’s the proof that they are “anti-monarchist?”

      • sunnyside up says:

        They have said so,.

      • Lawrenceville says:

        @Sunnyside, as the wise man once said, don’t tell me what you are, your actions speak louder than your words. The Guardian is NOT anti-monarchy by any stretch, they’ve shown time and time again.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @sunnyside up, when did they say so?

      • Darkwing Duck says:

        They did do that extensive series on the cost of the monarchy which is often cited approvingly by republicans? Being anti-monarchy and being pro-Harry and Meghan should be understood to be different things, Harry fully approves of the institution of the monarchy , he doesn’t want a republic either. In fact for the likes Arwa Mahdawi the not ‘giving up his titles’ has provided cover to complain about him.

        I’ve seen people make the mistake of thinking that just because a British outlet is critical of the Windsors or does pick up on some of the hypocrisy of the Royal Rota, they are ‘good’ on this subject. The Guardian and the Private Eye occasionally provide good reporting or comment but they have both prone to misrepresenting and attacking Harry and Meghan too.

        The only British publication that is consistently supportive of Harry and Meghan, at this time, is the Byline Times. And that is subject to change….

        Tangentially I was a bit surprised in the Taylor Swift/Prince William comments, last time I read them, that many commenters were citing Taylor’s relationship with Matty Healy as I guess evidence of racism and thereby anti-Meghanism without also considering that Healy’s mother, Denise Welch, is a rare strident and consistent voice in the UK media in support of Harry and Meghan?

        We are all just guessing what people are actually like based on their associations but I give Healy the benefit of the doubt on that particular issue. His Mum really has put herself out there quite bravely, I would say, because a large part of the reason Graun writers do these anti-Sussex pieces is because they want to stay cosy in the UK media bubble where writers shift from left to right presumably to stay employable (Alison Pearson is one that comes to mind to me, her transformation has been horrifying, needless to say I don’t think she actually believes a single word she writes these days).

  5. Tessa says:

    Those harry And Meghan trash ers do not speak for Americans.

    • Lawrenceville says:

      Exactly. And like, how many times have Brits reminded us how the British tabloids don’t speak for the entire nation of UK and how we shouldn’t paint everyone in the UK with a broad brush we do the tabloids?

  6. Pinkosaurus says:

    I’m sure this is why William keeps showing up in public. The minute the awards are over, he will again disappear for weeks/months so at least we will be spared the gawping, clenched jaw and moose knuckle for a bit.

    It’s so unfortunate that England does not have even one truly reputable and independent news outlet not beholden to the establishment. Even the BBC and Guardian are so compromised despite what they say.

  7. OzJennifer says:

    Whenever I think about subscribing to The Guardian I remember so many articles like this, and then I don’t.

  8. Dee(2) says:

    This is what annoys me about the Guardian, and why I have a bit of an eye roll when people are gushing over it being such a great source of British journalism. Beyond the fact that a simple Google search would have shown this author that there isn’t any huge “backlash” from Americans. This isn’t being covered daily on GMA, the View, Today or Morning Joe. The NYTs, Post, Axios, and Vox isn’t covering this. This is a totally BM held tantrum and probably organized petition. But beyond that it’s the sneering way their columnists always speak about their ” celebrity” and American lives as if they find it all so gauche and beneath them. They may not be as unhinged as the tabloids but that sense of superiority is still there.

    • Julia says:

      The writers at the Guardian mostly come from the same private schools/elite backgrounds as the journalists at all the other uk papers. Keep that in mind when reading their content. There is not much diversity of thought in British media.

      • Dee(2) says:

        Oh I know. It’s the same thing here in the US. A good portion of the media went to Ivies or Seven Sisters schools and grew up in the northeast corridor. Being ” liberal” or “conservative” coming out of those cloistered environments doesn’t have much air between it.

    • Kit says:

      I like the Guardian, but I’ve also mentioned previously , some of the regular columnists have a bias toward M&H. Some columnists like Marina Hyde can be funny, but in a very catty, snarky way. I agree that at times they like to weave the classics or some philosopher’s idea into their writing to make them sound smart (guess you got show off you Oxbridge education somewhere), but when you read the piece in total, it’s just blather, and not particularly witty.

      There’s also a bit of superiority among its writers and readers toward Americans and other former white majority colonies (Canada). Americans take the brunt of the ridicule due to the fact that despite all our problems, we are richer, bigger, the heavyweight so a bigger target.
      I find the Brits in general see themselves better when it comes to race relations and social safety net compared to the US. Some talking points: they banned slavery much earlier and unlike the US they didn’t commit genocide against American Indians. Of course, there’s a lot of whitewashing because many who were once under British rule would differ here.

      Based off my UK relatives, ex pat workmates (relocated to Canada), and friends, life isn’t easy in the UK if you aren’t white. It’s worse if you aren’t wealthy. It’s very noticeable once you leave cities or go to white neighborhoods. America is open about its problems. There’s a sizable group of black (and growing brown &indigenous) voices that through its young history captured the tortuous history and diverse, yet rich culture. These historical figures are well known and talked about. You don’t see similar treatment or acknowledgement of non-white Brits historically. I think this is where there’s a big difference. White Anglo America had to share the country with people whose ancestors were here before English discovery (indigenous and mixed/ Métis/Mestizos) and those who were enslaved. My Latino friends (many with indigenous heritage) laughed and would say yeah, Texas forgets we are the original “Texans”.

      • Simba's Mom says:

        👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

      • blueberry says:

        I think a lot of this is true about Europe in general. It’s especially galling when it comes from colonizers who plundered, starved, and enslaved people around the world and then wanna act all injured with decedents of those people have the audacity to immigrate there. They have very little tolerance or acceptance of what doesn’t fit with their nationalist image.

      • Nic919 says:

        The blank looks when you mention the word reconciliation and land acknowledgement to a British person just shows they had no idea what their government did when they came over to the Americas.

  9. Cassie says:

    Once again they fail to mention he is getting the award for the amazing work he does with Invictus which he founded 10 years ago .

    It’s what they DON’T say that makes people believe the rubbish they write .

    • Proud Mary says:

      It’s intentional. It’s an attempt to flood the records with lies, so that when people look him up, this is all they see. Their desperation heartens me, because it shows the monarchy is dying.

    • Ciotog says:

      It even says that Harry is “‘credited for” the Invictus Games, as if he weren’t the real founder.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I noticed that word choice, as well. How snotty.

      • Jais says:

        I had to skim the excerpt bc it was such misleading lies but wow. That is a snotty and deliberate choice. He is credited for the IG bc he founded it. The article is just a strait up smear. No respect given to the writer. What a shitty thing to write about. There are veterans out there who have benefited tremendously from the IG but this article is part of a smear to undermine and destroy it. F*ck this noise.

    • sunnyside up says:

      It doesn’t mention either that Tilllman’s widow was part of the decision making process.

  10. Nanea says:

    I have no idea when and where Arwa Mahdawi took a wrong turn.

    I used to like reading her columns, until…

    I read this one, because I was curious about the Sussexes “flopping”.

    Yeah, well, suffice to say the Sussexes are still thriving — and Arwa Mahdawi flopped. Massively, and in a way the Squad won’t help her up again eventually, or hand her a towel when she wants to get rid of the egg on her face.

    This is a classic own goal, Guardian.

    • Jks says:

      I didn’t know Arwa was such a spiteful idiot until now.

    • Proud Mary says:

      William and Charles are calling up all their favors. I can see them now, saying, “don’t we have a friend at the Guardian?” I’m waiting for the NY Times got get in on the fun.

      • Nanea says:

        But Arwa moved to Philadelphia (?) via NYC a few years ago, because her wife is American.

        I mean, there’s always Catherine Bette, or Zoe Williams, or… others in the Opinions section who live in the Greater London area.

      • Kit says:

        Arwa built her rep on writing as a voice for the minority. Makes sense. But she has a beef against M&H. The Guardian used to do more investigative and was more biting toward the monarchy. But you know, columnists and editors got to pay bills.

        The paper as a whole is better than most. For whatever reason, these days, the Guardian is much more tame and respectful toward the royals. It still treats the royals like a daft, but lovable aunt who has one too many G&T. The exception being M&H once they moved to the US and found success and happiness. With M&H , the Guardian now follows the other British media’s nastiness.

      • sunnyside up says:

        A lot of people on this site appear to be Guardian readers and of course supporters of Harry and Meghan. She has scored an own goal.

  11. Tessa says:

    Some real flop tour photos should be shown like Kate and Williams Caribbean tour.

  12. Cathy says:

    I have a question for the Americans reading. Do you use “divisive”? I’ve never heard an American use that word which makes me wonder if this is a flag to words being feed to Pat’s mother by someone from the UK?

    • Tessa says:

      I think pats mother was given a script. It is not spontaneous and uses these words like divisive which make good headlines for the dm

    • DeeSea says:

      Yes, “divisive” is a commonly used word by Americans. But I do think Pat’s mother was given specific talking points.

    • Skyline says:

      Cathy, that’s an interesting question. As an American, I wouldn’t use the word divisive in a context like this. If I was going to say something that was similar to the word divisive, I might use the word controversial. Even if ESPN gave an award to someone controversial, I’d think they could make that choice. I mean, in a country this size, no awardee is going to have lived exactly the way that millions of other people would have told him or her to live.

      The apparent implication of calling Harry divisive, here, is that only someone more unifying should get the award. On my own, I wouldn’t have thought in those terms. Why should the awardee be unifying? Isn’t celebrating someone’s good work going to unify the people watching, at least for purposes of this work and this award?

      • BeanieBean says:

        Exactly, it’s an inappropriate word choice.

      • sunnyside up says:

        I would have thought that the vast majority would be unified by Harry’s work. Who is going to oppose helping wounded servicemen and women. It would even be supported by anti-war people.

      • kirk says:

        @Skyline – thought-provoking commentary on the use of the word ‘divisive.’ Sounds utterly ridiculous when you realize it’s being used to diminish someone at an event put on by people who celebrate competitive sports.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Imho, the word “divisive” is used when referring to a issue/position/person who isn’t pale, male and conservative or makes older, white men uncomfortable.

      • Deering24 says:

        Yup. Right-wingers and racists _love_ to pull that word out of their arsenal to accuse POC of being racist when the latter points out injustice.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, it’s a commonly used word, but it’s used to mean someone or something that divides. In this case, the Guardian is using “divisive” to perpetuate the lie that Harry is dividing the American public.

      • Jais says:

        When put like that, it becomes really silly. Prince Harry is not dividing Americans. We are not up in arms about him. Some like him. Some don’t. And some don’t pay attention.

    • Simba's Mom says:

      Martin Luther King was called “Divisive” and “Controversial”. Standing up for yourself, Speaking your Truth or Experiences is labeled this way. Those with Power can’t justify their actions or beliefs fall back on these terms. In other words — Shut Up! — I create your Narrative, History, and Treatment. It is better in the US, we are much more open, and people call out hypocrisy. By Definition, Americans don’t know their “place”. The Revolutionary War was Divisive. It worked out for us though. 😎

      • Deering24 says:

        Eheheheheh. Folks called MLKJr everything but a Son of God back in the day–especially “commie.” It’s hilarious how the current right-wing holds him up as a standard us contemporary POC utterly fail to meet…🤮

    • Christine says:

      It’s a favorite of the political pundits.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Yeah, it’s a word that might be commonly used–when appropriate, which it’s not when describing Prince Harry. That’s a deliberate choice & it comes from the Great Salty Isle.

    • bisynaptic says:

      “Divisive” is sometimes used by the right wing to denigrate and dismiss a person or idea they find disagreeable or threatening.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Yes. Americans use that word. It’s been used a lot discussing the orange one.

  13. Tessa says:

    There are,promos for the show on abc tv and harry is prominently featured.

  14. SussexWatcher says:

    Two Americans have voiced their upset at Harry getting the award. Two. And at least one of them was probably paid to do it. The UK media is in a mass state of clinical-level delusion. Nothing they say, or try to convince their readers of, is accurate.

    Harry is loved everywhere he goes – even in the UK. Meghan is loved everywhere she goes – even in the UK. They still get more press (even after being gone for 4 years!) and drew bigger crowds than W & K. This is why Prince Egg the Petulant wanted to get rid of them.

    The British press just doesn’t understand that the influence they hold over the British people just doesn’t carry over here in America. We’re not going to be brainwashed by the likes of the Daily Fail or even the Guardian to hate Harry and Meghan. Move on and focus on your Leftover Royals!

    • Yvonne says:

      The British press really doesn’t have the type of influence it used to. Almost all the titles have spent five years relentlessly attacking Kier Starmer and Angela Rayner and they just won a landslide.

      • sunnyside up says:

        It was Farage that gave Starmer the extremely large majority, by splitting the Tory vote. Starmer only got 33.7% of the vote.

    • Angeid says:

      👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

    • Lorelei says:

      @SussexWatcher, seriously! I think if I polled everyone I know, not a single person would even be aware of this award because they don’t follow the RF/Sussexes like I do. This isn’t huge news that “everyone” in the US is worked up about FTLOG.

  15. Hypocrisy says:

    The Sussex’s work, and actually create something. They are self funded so polls are not how we in America gage their popularity but viewing minutes, listening hours and book sales are the numbers we look at. From the number I have seen the Sussex’s have absolutely nothing to worry about.

  16. Eurydice says:

    The Espys and the Tillman foundation chose Harry for this award. How is this proof that Americans are getting tired of Harry?

  17. Carol Mengel says:

    Yes, where is Kate. She said herself that she has good days and bad days. So on the good days, do what the British taxpayer us paying you to do and do some work. The whole thing is just an excuse to not do any work for as long as possible. I have stage 4 stomach and liver cancer. I volunteer and go to church and live my life. She is an absolute disgrace. And the British media should be ashamed of not calling her out on it.

    • Serenity says:

      Oh, Carol, I’m so sorry to hear about your cancer. I have terminal stomach cancer too and today is a bad day so far; woke up while vomiting in my sleep. I get emotional easily and this story has me in tears. The absolute f*cking GALL of these hit pieces hurts me for H&M. I’m so upset for the crap they get for simply breathing, while the palaces are protected no matter what they say or do. I wanted to see a change in this before I go; it’s not going to happen though. 😢 I will love Harry and Meghan and the great work they do until my last moments–come on, UK, send someone to ask ME my thoughts about H&M and I will rip you to shreds in the polite way my NOLA born grandmother taught me. Grrr😡 I’m in Louisiana still; call me.

      Carol, all good thoughts and prayers for you, ma’am. ❤️🤟💐🌹🌺🌷🌸🏵️🌻🌼

      • Carol Mengel says:

        Thank you Serenity. All positive thoughts with you. Stay strong. You are truly a beautiful woman.

      • Nic919 says:

        You are brave and strong and all positive thoughts are being sent.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Carol & Serenity–best wishes, truly. Please don’t fret about the Harry & Meghan nonsense, or Kate’s prognosis. 💐🌞⭐️

      • bisynaptic says:

        @Carol and @Serenity, Best wishes to both of you. ❤️‍🩹

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Wishing both you, Carol, and Serenity the very best. …

    • Jaded says:

      @Carol Mengel and @Serenity — healing thoughts, love and prayers to both of you. I too am fighting invasive bladder cancer and had bowel resection surgery in March, and am currently awaiting chemo. But we soldier on don’t we, unlike a certain Princess whose so-called cancer appears more to be more of a ruse to get out of work and negotiate her separation from her rage-monster husband. I’m getting married today, by the way, and Mr. Jaded has been the most enormous support through all of this, something I don’t think William is capable of.

    • Babz says:

      both @Carol and @Serenity, you ladies amaze me. In the midst of severe illness, here you both are, fighting for what you believe, and living your lives as fully as possible. This comes with my heartfelt good wishes and admiration for you both, along with many, many prayers. 🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️

    • Serenity says:

      Thank you all so much; now I’m crying again but it’s happy tears. I’m truly humbled by all of you, and your strength gives me hope for us. ❤️ We will continue to fight together! 🙏

      Jaded, congratulations on your marriage; Mr Jaded better know how lucky he is! ❤️🌹 Much happiness to you both 🥰🙏

    • Kit says:

      @Carol and Serenity. Ditto to what many have said here. Sending positivity and virtual hugs to you both.

  18. Amy Bee says:

    Whatever. Another British journalist writing a piece about Harry and Meghan to make some money.

  19. ML says:

    A lot of British people I’ve met spout these opinions. I often enjoy what Arwa Mahdawi writes, and deeply appreciate that she’s a queer POC immigrant. I do not agree with her views on the Sussexes.

  20. TN Democrat says:

    I can’t believe the Guardian published this tripe. The Guardian usually presents the UK version of fair/balanced/honest news and doesn’t usually slum into full blown tabloid coverage. (It relies on donations like Wikipedia and NPR). This article is disgusting.

  21. sunnyside up says:

    Not the sort of thing I expect from the Guardian, they are a republican newspaper in the sense of, lets get rid of the monarchy and they are leftie, I read it a lot because they tend to tell the truth. They very rarely say anything about the monarchy. But on this subject there is too much repeating of what is in the right wing press for my liking. Pity they didn’t mention the putting forward of Harry came from Tillman’s widow and that Mary his mother, doesn’t normally have anything to do with it but this time she was encouraged by the Daily Mail.

    • Yvonne says:

      I think the Guardian would argue that they are just being consistent with their anti-monarchy and anti-aristocracy values by going after anyone who calls themselves Prince, Princess, Duke, Duchess, King, Queen whatever.

      • Julia says:

        When did the Guardian say they were anti monarchy? They haven’t held this position for years. They are less right wing than the other uk papers so less fawning about the monarchy and more willing to criticise but they have not espoused an actual anti monarchy, anti aristocracy platform.

      • Yvonne says:

        This is from a Guardian view editorial in 2022:

        “Who is the head of state does matter. Birthright is not the right way to choose one.”

        Beyond this, it’s almost impossible to find any positive coverage of any royals when you actually read the Guardian. Asking if the Guardian is anti-monarchy/anti-aristocracy is like asking if the Mirror supports Labour, its so obvious to people who pay attention to the whole newspaper landscape (not just the Harry & Meghan bits) that it almost doesn’t even need to be said.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Sunnyside up, what makes this a hit against the Guardian is that instead of having an opinion and using the FACTS this is just more of the same that’s already been written by the British tabloids. That makes them much the same as the others. If the Guardian doesn’t understand that (which obviously they don’t), I won’t waste my time reading anything by them.

    • Kit says:

      There’s the reporting side of the Guardian that used to be more investigative about the royals’ financial shenanigans. These days, the paper has been deferential toward Charles and Kate. Perhaps it’s the cancer. Some columnists are snarky and make fun of the royals, but it’s mild stuff. I’ve noticed that M&H are often used as pejorative foils when discussing the royals or even about subjects like the environment or other things which really has nothing with the two. The Guardian also likes to lump Andrew with Meghan and Harry. But even Andrew doesn’t get as many negative mentions as M&H. To me that’s telling.

      I donate to the Guardian and am a long time reader. I was happy to see Margaret Sullivan, a respected veteran American journalist/editor (worked at WaPo and NYT), a Guardian columnist.

      I’m a bit of an underdog champ, in case you can’t tell 😉

      • sunnyside up says:

        What annoys me most about the article is that she has left out the important facts about why Harry is getting this award, I too have read the Guardian for years and my father used to read it when it was known as the Manchester Guardian.

  22. Nerd says:

    Mary Tillman was either approached by the trashiest UK tabloid or she approached them, either way the backlash is UK created as usual. Anyone who uses any UK media as a means to get their opinion across about something that is happening in the US, isn’t necessarily someone who’s opinion is credible. The US is too big and has too many reputable media outlets to use for someone who is genuinely a good person who is judging a former soldier’s character on a global stage. The fact that any UK media was the initial outlet used takes any credibility off the table regarding criticism of Harry. The support for Harry is far greater than any hate that is being created by the UK media and they will continue to ignore that fact and not mention the more credible people who actually know Harry and what the Invictus Games have managed to do for so many soldiers and their families. The fact is that the Invictus Games is globally helping veterans and their families and to try and ignore that and not celebrate that doesn’t look good on the UK media and those attacking a veteran who created something that was created to help soldiers and their families regardless of where they live.

    • sunnyside up says:

      The Mail isn’t the worse but the Mail is the best selling newspaper in Britain, doesn’t say much for us Brits. What’s even worse is that most of their readers believe what is written, or at least they appear to.

  23. sevenblue says:

    lol. I wished I was in my flop era like H&M. They just did a successful visit to Nigeria. Then, when they tried to create bad headlines about some fees, the Governor of California himself defended them and praised the work they are doing there with their foundation. They are writing that H&M are failing since they left. They are gonna continue to write it at least for next 10 years.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Right?! A “flop era” like Meghan and Harry’s would be my best era!!

    • Jais says:

      This is just what I came to say. May my flop era be as floppy as the Sussexes’ bc their flop era seems like one I’d like to have. But sure, guardian writer, go on about the Sussexes’ flop era🙄

  24. alexc says:

    So the training staff of the Buffalo Bills football team was given this award last year but the veteran who founded the Invictus games isn’t worthy? The piece is ridiculous and I usually really like this writer.

  25. OriginalMich says:

    Not a single one of these “journalists” who make their living participating in the ongoing character assassination of two people who have spoken openly about how such cruelty affected them could withstand a day of what they have dished out for years.

  26. Noor says:

    The Guardian journalist Arwa thinks it is fun to join in the bullying , to bully Prince Harry out of a prestigious award. The bullying is doomed to flop

    • sunnyside up says:

      I hope so, I would be horrible to see him giving it up. He really deserves it. He has done a brilliant job with Invictus changing it from a small British charity into an international event.

    • goofpuff says:

      Don’t really think she can call herself a journalist anymore. She’s more tabloid writer now.

      A journalist sticks to the facts. She’s all opinion with no facts to back anything up.

  27. Lili says:

    it seems the British media don’t understand some basic things. Meghan and Harry are not performing monkeys and as such don’t have to churn out drivel just to stay afloat.

  28. RRN says:

    Oh, now I see. Its articles like these that make William think he can conquer America. Because he is convinced America hates the Sussexes so that means they must love an egghead. And then he’ll face egg on his face situations like that sports match they attended at Boston and got booed.

  29. heygingersnaps says:

    So this is why I don’t give money or subscribe to the guardian anymore because even if they try to position themselves as different from the other media here in this backwards island they still can’t help themselves. I’d rather support my local media who is trying to go back to where journalism should be (investigative, no clickbait, etc).
    Most people here are so brainwash even if they don’t think they are because they consciously or unconsciously consume poisoned media either through that free Metro papers available on the buses and trains or they click on the tabloids and “respectable” media

  30. JCallas says:

    Americans don’t care. . Even right wing news outlets are either defending Harry or ignoring the “controversy” altogether.

  31. Carman says:

    Whatever the British have in the water needs to stay over there. We don’t want your shit-infested “journalism” either. Stop trying to explain America to Americans, cuz you always get it wrong.
    And I’m cancelling my subscription.

    • Yvonne says:

      In fairness, I don’t think they’re trying to explain America to Americans, they’re trying to explain America to the British.

      It doesn’t seem to be easy to explain the nuances of foreign culture to a home audience, given some of the international coverage I’ve seen of the French and British elections in recent days.

  32. B says:

    Harry is winning his 2nd award of the year and its July. The Nigeria trip showed the Sussexes have successfully merged the Archewell Foundation with the Invictus Games. Their trip to Canada successfully raised the profile of IG’s upcoming inaugural winter games. I won’t even get into the anticipation for ARO and Meghan’s podcast.

    The Sussexes are as far from a flop as the Windsors are from a smart decision. At this point the British press is just desperately telling its readers are you going to believe what your eyes see or what I tell you.

  33. aquarius64 says:

    Us Weekly ran a story about Harry and the Tillman award on July 9. They reached out to Harry’s press rep and they got Harry is still accepting the award and any stories about his feelings are ‘speculative and without merit”. The office also said they were not given guidance on the situation (to me, it says the Tillman Foundation and ESPN have not rescinded the award. The UK media is mad it couldn’t pressure a US charity and US sports channel to take back the award nor pressure Harry to turn it down. I think the BM was counting on the US press to continue the non troversy, espically with Tillman’s mother voice her dissent. It probably would have if Mary Tillman gave an interview to NBC as requested, but she turned it down. Therefore no need to per sure further.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I wonder why Mary Tillman turned down NBC’s request for an interview? She had no qualms about talking to the DM.

      • QuiteContrary says:

        I hate to say it, but I wonder if she expects now to be paid for interviews, having likely been paid by the DM — American news organizations don’t shell out money for interviews.

        The DM really is trash — exploiting a grieving mother just to get back at Harry, who deserves this award for the Invictus Games.

        And note to Arwa: Harry isn’t just “credited for founding” the Invictus Games — he WAS the games’ founder.

      • Jais says:

        I wondered if bc the DM advertised their interview with her as an exclusive if she had agreed to only speak with the DM.

      • Libra says:

        I think you’re correct. The DM have got her locked up so look forward to post award outrage from Mary Tillman.

  34. Laura D says:

    I was furious when I read this article and made a point of reminding The Guardian that I cancelled my subscription because of their H&M clickbait articles. I accept that there are people who dislike H&M but, I EXPECT Guardian journalists to put forward balanced articles using facts. This was an opinion piece which was based around hearsay and misinformation.

  35. Colleen says:

    They live in a multi-million dollar mansion in Montecito, go to fabulous restaurants and vacations and have very rich and powerful friends. May we all “flop” so hard.

  36. Eden75 says:

    I know they spoke to Pat Tillman’s mother, but does all of this backlash and crap not seem like it’s saying that the award and sacrifice was just nothing? Seriously, it is an award in the name of a man who gave up literally all he could for his country. Just seems to be the pinnacle of disrespect.

    On another note, an old friend competed in the IG and he said that Harry was involved, honest, friendly and willing to speak to anyone and everyone who wanted to talk to him. I think that says a lot about Harry as a person and a vet, that even the most damaged are worthy of his time.

  37. NShoegirl77 says:

    He’s not “credited” with founding the IG, he did found the IG.

  38. Lady Esther says:

    Arwa is not a journalist but an opinion writer, same as Martina Hyde. They are all about getting clicks and building their reputation. There is a reason why opinion writers are kept separate from actual journalism not only at the Guardian but at most reputable newspapers.

    The Guardian’s journalist coverage has been the only voice in British media to cover various Royal scandals, including – and this is just off the top of my head –

    1) The Panama Papers, which exposed how much wealth QEII and the RF have socked away over the years, tax-free

    2) Philip’s will and why the RF in general gets to hide their wills for 100 years IIRC

    3) The issue of how the RF receives vast amounts of jewels as a “representative of the Crown” which then disappear, can’t be accounted for and are described later as the RF’s “personal” property. See also: art and other valuables

    4) The RF’s fight to be exempted from many UK laws including most notably those concerning environmental protection and diversity

    5) The RF’s vast wealth, where it comes from and how they hide it in general

    6) Charles’ move to up the RF allowance over the next several years, despite the whole “slimming down” rhetoric via windfarms and other property exploitation that benefits them directly

    No other British media, tabloid or otherwise is reporting on any of this. The Guardian is the only source of reliable reporting on the RF (some of it in tandem with other reputable newspapers and organisations, like the Panama Papers). I think it’s vastly unfair to tar them with the brush of “these days, the Guardian is much more tame and respectful toward the royals” just because of one opinion columnist’s disapproval of Harry and Meghan.

    • equality says:

      Sounds like an abuser with the excuse that when they aren’t abusing, they are all kinds of good to the victim. Opinion pieces aren’t expected to be based in fact and aren’t edited or approved?

    • Kit says:

      The Guardian reported on the shady finances of the royals, but when you check, except for #6, the rest are old news. And that’s my point. Where was the breakdown financials on the coronation? Or a hard look at PoW fiefdom and tax arrangement and more investigation into how the royals benefit by legal exemptions as a landlord.

      The Guardian also followed the royal propaganda re: MIA Kate. And the paper failed to take a hard look at MSM, including well known, respected ones for fueling the frenzy. It chose to issue blame on social media, influencers, and conspiracy theorists, but never addressed the reasons why people were speculating. The Guardian didn’t address the tacit royal approval of the tabloid’s usage of various photo/video of Kate either.

      I call hypocrisy here. The Guardian likens itself to be above the tabloids, but it covered the MIA Kate intensely during this period, just like the NYT/WaPo. It too never paused to examine its own role in driving the OTT coverage, but it was good at excoriate the public, SM, and more low brow press for it.

      This article is more typical of its royal coverage.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/08/princess-of-wales-sends-apology-to-irish-guards-for-missing-parade

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/25/conspiracies-tagged-kategate-grow-despite-kensington-palace-video

  39. Saucy&Sassy says:

    It must be really boring for the bm during the Summer months when the royals disappear into the nether. It’ll be a Summer fille with Sussex gaslighting. Again.

  40. bisynaptic says:

    This article makes one dumber for having read it. Shame on the author and shame on The Guardian, for having published it.

  41. AC says:

    I used to enjoy reading the Guardian, but recently they have become all the same. A dying breed that doesn’t know how to adapt to changing times and changing trends. So they have articles on bull crap. The real flop era is actually the UK living through all these years with their failed govt policies.

  42. blunt talker says:

    The Guardian has exposed themselves as royal liars to protect the UK royal family-they are not anti-monarchy-they pretend to be anti when abusing and gaslighting the Sussexes-if they are not going to tell its readers that the Sussex family is not supported by the UK taxes-and that Harry is the founder of the IG for over ten years then they are not giving factual data-they using smearing tactics like the Daily Mail who leave facts out of their articles about the Sussexes-they are a shitstain on the world of journalism.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment