Wednesday night brought a sudden downpour of emotional news for our dry, weary land: it came out that Prince Harry and Meghan were reversing their so-called “freedom flight” to California and coming back to live in the UK. Nature is healing! Is that… is that how the saying goes? Either way, everyone in Britain has taken the announcement brilliantly, and the price of fatted calves shot up at the news that the reverse Megxit is happening soon—we just need a good headline name for it. Megain? Megraine?
Naturally, our minds quickly turned to what it all meant. One of the funniest things about covering Meghan and Harry is how their choices are always treated like we’re analyzing the brilliant chess moves of 19th-century masterminds. We keep imagining we’re dealing with a couple of Bismarcks or Clausewitzes, when really we’re looking at a resting actor and the “chief impact officer” of a company that offers tech solutions for men crying in their cars or something like that.
So, of course, everyone is obsessively digging into their motives. There’s definitely some eye-catching speculation out there. Some think Meghan being willing to set foot on our toxic shores can only be a way of hinting that the king’s time is running out. Or maybe Harry just wants to spend more time with his £9.5m legal bill. Others have spicier takes. I saw a few horrified Sussex Squad Americans on social media suggesting the only possible explanation is that Prince Harry is simply an unbeatable sex god. Let me explain. I’m sure the diehard squad members won’t mind me projecting their own psychological projections onto Meghan, but the logic seemed like someone saying: “Sorry, so you’re suggesting I move back to live on top of an active volcano, in a plague-ridden failed state run by psychopathically violent warlords. Who’s asking?” 1990s-era Keanu Reeves. “BRB, just calling the movers.”
Of course, there are plenty of other takes. In Hong Kong, they used to have an acronym for bankers who weren’t smart enough to get good jobs in London but could move out there and do well: Filth (Failed in London, try Hong Kong). It’s not as catchy, acronym-wise, but I guess we could be looking at a Fimuk situation—Failed in Montecito, try UK. No doubt we’ve all forgotten the full details, but I believe Ellen DeGeneres has been on a similar path. It’s possible the Sussexes just couldn’t keep up with the elite jam-makers of California, and Meghan thinks the home counties jam scene will be less competitive. I look forward to her sharing that opinion with the local Women’s Institute at her earliest convenience.
Or, look, maybe the real reason for this move is something in between all these things—but who wants to waste time on nuance right now?
What we do know is that it’s definitely happening, and the couple’s kids are enrolled in a school for September. Early thoughts? Mainly that someone’s class WhatsApp group just got an incredible new member. Speaking as someone who’s been through those digital pits of passive aggression, let me say the absolute last thing you need is someone whose stated life philosophy is to “create wonder in every moment.”
Seriously. You can’t risk getting a message like this at Christmas or in high summer when you’re barely hanging on until the holidays. “Thinking about end-of-term presents, I thought it would be really magical to create a mirror with our children’s handprints as the frame. I can organize it?” Really? Because I’ve been hurt before. But go on. “Literally all I’d need from you ladies is a clay cast of your daughter’s hand with a pressed daisy picked by moonlight embedded in it. If anyone hasn’t pressed flowers before, I’d be happy to offer a (fun!) tutorial at my place on Tuesday afternoon.””ter drop-off.” Aaaaaaaagh. Please, I have a job. I can’t do any of this. You know what everyone loves? John Lewis vouchers. Please. PLEASE. As for other events during the school year, we might as well call the Vatican right now, because I can assure you we’ve got a guaranteed bake sale martyr on our hands right here.
Still, this is all very sad news for the United States of America and its now decimated entertainment industry, as Harry and Meghan leave behind failed deals with Spotify and Netflix, among others. Then again, have they? In recent years, the Sussexes have been held back by having exhaustively told the only story of theirs that anyone cares about. I can hardly believe I’m typing this, but it turns out no one wants to watch documentaries about global justice activism or polo. But this week’s news could easily reignite the only kind of content Netflix’s degraded first-look deal with Meghan would be extremely interested in having a first look at: the one where their life is made miserable by a toxic family in a toxic country with a toxic press. And then you make TV all about it.
It’s a bit like when there’s been a hugely successful movie with a crazy, high-concept situation, and the producers of the sequel just have to figure out a way to get the characters back into the same crazy, high-concept situation, or at least a similar one, so they can go back to the money well for a second time. Having been on a bus that can’t slow down, Speed 2 finds Sandra Bullock on a runaway cruise ship. Home Alone 2 sees Kevin once again left behind, this time in New York instead of Chicago, where the same burglars have somehow reappeared. In Finding Freedom 2, it’ll probably work best for the Sussexes to embrace the absurdity with a cheeky one-liner. When Harry and Meghan are battling relentless tabloid attention, poisonous family dynamics, and crazy public hostility, let’s hope he turns to the Netflix cameras and quotes Bruce Willis in Die Hard 2: “How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?” I don’t know, mate – but I assume you’re getting first-dollar gross on the box office.
skip past newsletter promotion
Free newsletter | Weekly
Sign up to Matters of Opinion
Guardian columnists and writers on what they’ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and more
Enter your email Sign up
after newsletter promotion
In the meantime, the shock news continues to spark an hourly carousel of #onlyinBritain questions. What’s going to happen on Remembrance Sunday? Will this mean “rival courts”? Hand on heart, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that there are, amazingly, a whole lot of people who are even more ridiculous and even more emotional than Harry and Meghan. And – also amazingly – they are not the population of the state of California.
Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist
What a Time to be Alive! by Marina Hyde (Guardian Faber Publishing, £20) is released in September. To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs about Marina Hydes satirical piece Its Harry and Meghan in Finding Freedom 2 Back in Blighty
General Background Questions
Q What is Finding Freedom 2 Back in Blighty
A Its a satirical article written by columnist Marina Hyde for The Guardian It imagines a sequel to the real book Finding Freedom about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle but this time its a comedy about them returning to the UK
Q Is this a real book or a documentary
A No Its a humorous madeup concept Marina Hyde wrote it as a piece of political and royal satire to poke fun at the media circus surrounding the Sussexes It is not a real project
Q Who is Marina Hyde
A She is a British journalist and columnist known for her sharp witty and often savage satirical writing about politics celebrity culture and the British Royal Family
Q Why is it called Back in Blighty
A Blighty is a British slang term for Britain The title suggests the couple is returning to the UK after living in the US which is the central joke of the piece
Q What is the tone of the article
A Its highly satirical sarcastic and comedic Its not meant to be taken seriously or as factual reporting its a parody of royal media coverage
Content Themes
Q What is the main plot of the satire
A It imagines Harry and Meghan moving back to Britain in a desperate bid to regain public sympathy and win the PR war The humor comes from the absurd situations they get into which mock both the royals and the medias obsession with them
Q Does the article contain real news about Harry and Meghan
A No While it references real events it twists them into exaggerated fictional scenarios for comedic effect
Q Who is the target of the jokes
