What do people in the UK think about Harry and Meghan’s interview? 在英國，人們怎麼看哈利和梅根的訪談？

Harry and Meghan's interview sparked huge controversy and continues to be debated around the world. The claims made were at once both shocking and unsurprising; shocking that racist beliefs could still exist even at the heart of British culture, that the institution could be so uncaring towards Meghan’s suicidal feelings, and that this was all kept in secrecy; unsurprising, given the ubiquitous nature of racism in many institutions, and the feelings of some that gross inequalities inevitably come with having a royal family.

引起巨大爭議的哈利和梅根的訪談，在世界各地繼續引起爭論。對訪談中聲稱的種種情況，人們立即就感到難以置信，但也毫不意外；令人難以置信——在英國文化最中心的地方，種族主義的信念依然存在，並且整個王室對於梅根有輕生的念頭這件事，竟然會如此的漠然，以至對這事完全隻字不提；又令人毫不意外——想想在許多地方都隨處可見的種族主義，以及由於王室家庭的存在，而不可避免地使一些人產生的那種極不平等的感覺。

One month later, we see an unexpected trend: that of condemnation towards the interview in the UK, compared to the US, where the couple have received more unanimous support. While the overwhelming majority of Brits would agree that Meghan's claims, if true, were appalling and unacceptable, the royal family’s resolve to ‘keep calm and carry on’ in spite of the gossip that surrounds them is generally held in high regard. Therein lies a cultural distinction: the tradition of having, or not having, a royal family.

一個月後，出現一種不曾料到的情形：在英國，人們譴責該訪談，而較之於美國，卻更多的是，這對夫婦得到大家一致的支持。絕大多數英國人都會承認梅根所聲稱的種種情況——如果確有其事——令人震驚，無法接受，同時，對王室家庭在面對各種流言之際，依然決心“鎮定自若，勇往直前”，人們普遍表示敬佩。在此有一種文化差異：擁有王室家庭的傳統，以及沒有王室家庭的傳統。

The quiet, distant and tactfully worded reply that we saw from the Queen is a typical example of the family’s response to public drama. To give another, Princess Diana’s sudden passing saw an absence of the Queen for many days, with her emerging only after public discontent reached a disquieting level. Detachment from public drama is an art in which the royal family excels, for better or for worse. By refusing to pander to gossip, they arguably show maturity and an inability to be swayed by public opinion. Ultimately, this is what many like about them - they are a constant, a symbol of unity and family despite a chaotic world.

從女王淡定，疏離，措辭嚴謹的回應中，人們看到的是，王室家庭在應對情緒激動的公眾時的典型反應。再舉一個例子，戴安娜王妃意外離世時，女王消失了數天，直至公眾的不滿達到一觸即發之際，她才露面。疏遠情緒化的公眾，是一種藝術，王室家庭深諳此道，無論結果是好也罷，是壞也罷。王室家庭拒絕迎合流言——藉此清楚地表現出成熟穩重，不會為公眾輿論所左右。這正是王室家庭最終為大家所喜愛的地方——在紛繁雜亂的世界中，他們始終如一，他們象徵團結，他們是一家人。

In the US, the concept of a royal family, with its antiquated rules and harsh exterior, is more alien, not least because the national character is more gregarious and extroverted across the pond. To deeper understand the apparent cold, uncaring nature of the royal family, we ought to consider the personality of the Queen. Known to be more reserved, she highlights a stark contrast to most of the celebrities we see, particularly in US media. Indeed, the family was not founded on the charisma, charm or wit that is expected from others in the spotlight, and this is not likely to bend to appease modern populism.  

王室家庭，以及與之關聯的老套的規矩和正經刻板的外表，對美國人來說是一種陌生得多的東西，更別說大西洋彼岸的美國人那種更樂於交往，更外向主動的民族個性。要真正懂得王室家庭這種冷淡、漠視的特質，人們應該從女王的個性去考慮。她以尤為矜持而為人所知，這使她與大家看到的——特別是在美國的媒體上看到的——絕大多數名人形成截然鮮明的對比。是的，王室家庭不是建立在個人魅力，親和力，或是機智的個性之上——這些是人們對其他在鎂光燈下的人的期待。並且，王室家庭也不可能去屈尊取悅現代民粹思潮。

So why do some condemn the Sussex’s interview? Many have questions about their intentions. Was this an innocent sharing of their side of the story? It would be understandable, given the outrageous media attention Meghan received over the years. But still others argue that, regardless, the timing was inappropriate (Prince Phillip was in hospital), and distasteful, given the falsity of some of her claims (princes have to be the son of a future heir, and are not chosen based on skin colour). The general accusations of racism, while carefully avoiding specificities, also seemed too easy an attack. Was Meghan aware that her words could destroy the reputation of a long-respected institution? Either way, her intentions are drawn into question.

為什麼會有那麼些人去譴責薩塞克斯公爵和公爵夫人的訪談呢？這當中有許多人質疑他們的目的何在。這難道只是純粹在分享他們自己的故事嗎？考慮到這些年來，媒體對梅根的負面新聞轟炸，可以這麼理解。但是，不管怎麼樣，仍然有人指出他們接受訪談的時機不合時宜（菲利普親王當時正在住院），訪談的內容也上不了檯面，加之梅根所聲稱的一些內容有非事實之處（“未來繼承人的兒子才能成為王子”，以及“由於膚色原因不會成為王子”）。籠統地去指責種族主義，同時小心翼翼地避開具體的人和事，這樣的指責似乎也太過隨意。她的言辭可能會毀掉一個歷來受到尊重的王室系統的聲譽，梅根意識到這一點了嗎？不管是那種情況，梅根的目的都會遭到質疑。

Ultimately, Harry and Meghan's part in this interview means that their personal lives have been the subject of more global gossip than ever. Again, perhaps this was intentional, but it represents a conspicuous departure from their desire to 'lead a private life'. Fame seems inevitably to come with a degree of privacy invasion, but it might be wise to not exacerbate it. For this reason, many believe that Meghan and Harry's interview backfired. How it will influence the royal family in the future we have yet to wait and see.

總而言之，哈利和梅根在這次訪談中的作為，意味着他們的個人生活已經前所未有地成為範圍更廣泛的流言中的話題。前面提到過，這個結果也許就是有意為之的，不過，它明顯地違反了兩人要“過一種世外生活”的期望。有名氣似乎就會不可避免地招來對隱私某種程度的侵擾，但是，明智的做法恐怕是不要去助長這種侵擾。所以，許多人相信梅根和哈利的訪談是事與願違。這個訪談將來會怎樣影響王室家庭，人們拭目以待。