Thoughts on E. Holmes? I have So Many.....

It is time we stopped having so many thoughts on Harry and Meghan.

Another day, another outrage. When it’s not about a baseball hat, it’s about a private citizen attending a birthday party for an unelected official.

Last week, E. Holmes, in her usual manner, took to Instagram to stir outrage — asking if Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, went to the World Series on the same day As Ever launched. Of course, there had to be a hidden meaning behind Meghan attending a baseball game for leisure. Even worse, Holmes attempted to link them to the Prince Andrew situation, suggesting they were doing the Windsors a favour by offering up a royal story. I actually gasped.

Why would Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, offer such a favour — especially since Meghan was thrown to the wolves to protect Andrew from accusations of sexual crimes while she was a working royal? Yet the most significant outrage, apparently, was that Harry and Meghan wore L.A. Dodgers hats. As if Meghan — born and raised in Los Angeles — had never been seen wearing one before! And Prince Harry, sitting in the owner’s box, was wearing the hat of a city where he pays taxes and where his wife grew up.

The comments section, along with much of the internet, was filled with entitled voices crying, “He is the son of the King — he should be representing the Commonwealth!” I was aghast. He is suddenly reminded that he is the King’s son, yet denied the privileges of being one. His security clearance remains revoked, even though his threat level — and that of his family — remains high. Despite this, I’ve never seen any of these people advocate for his safety, least of all E. Holmes, the supposed arbiter of truth.

More recently, the former head of counter-terrorism gave an interview to the Telegraph’s Victoria Ward. One might think this would prompt Holmes to post an analysis or ask for opinions after watching the interview. But that, of course, isn’t clickbait — nor does it generate outrage. Instead, she profits from dehumanising two people who have become little more than fodder for her platform. Prince Harry, meanwhile, remains charming, hilarious, and even apologetic to the Canadian, though he and his wife should never have had to endure such vitriol.

---

A New Week, A New Outrage

This week brought a new outrage. Prince Harry and Meghan were seen attending Kris Jenner’s 70th birthday party — a celebration hosted by Jeff Bezos and his wife at their Los Angeles home.

Now, I dislike Jeff Bezos. But I understand nuance. I don’t pretend to be shocked that multimillionaires and billionaires socialise with one another. I also admit to being a hypocrite because I shop on Amazon. Still, I reserve my outrage for public and elected officials — the people I can vote for and hold accountable — not for private citizens whose products or services I can choose to boycott.

It’s also worth reminding E. Holmes of her demographic: 53% of white women voted for Trump, compared to 92% of Black women who voted for Harris. Holmes would do well to hold her own audience to account, since many of the nastiest comments on her page come from them. Black and biracial women, as a whole, rarely vote against their interests.

Holmes continued her commentary, feigning outrage over Bezos while drawing insulting comparisons between Harry and Meghan’s attendance at a birthday party and the royal family’s participation in Remembrance services. She failed to mention that the week prior, Prince Harry had been in Canada attending veterans’ events, where he was once again accused of “overshadowing” his brother, who was in Brazil.

Unlike his brother, Harry actually served in active duty for 10 years, with two tours in an active war zone, while many of his relatives wear medals they did not earn. Holmes also omitted details from Spare about how the Palace spitefully denied Harry’s request to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph — or how, in 2021, he and Meghan laid a wreath at the Los Angeles war cemetery only to be mocked for “pretending” to be working royals. What, exactly, would have been acceptable to E. Holmes this time? He attended a party on November 10th in L.A., which, due to the time difference, coincided with November 11th in the U.K. Does Prince Harry not deserve to show respect like other Veterans?

To compare them with a family that scapegoated them while protecting Prince Andrew left me with bile in my mouth. Two people navigating life under harassment from an institution should be allowed to seek powerful allies who can protect them from the cruelty of an institution and their friends in the press that refuses to leave them alone.

---

Kate, Grace, and Hypocrisy

This brings me to Kate, the Princess of Wales, who was recently seen with none other than Donald Trump. Naturally, E. Holmes rushed to defend her, saying it was an “official engagement.” Yet it hasn’t escaped my notice that during Trump’s 2019 visit, The Times reported that Prince Charles and Prince William refused to meet him, leaving the Queen to greet him alone.

Tom Sykes of The Daily Beast even noted that “William, Harry, and Kate deny Trump what he most wanted: a photo,” describing their avoidance as a “provocative move.”

Kate has missed multiple state dinners over the last two years and pulled out of Ascot, only to reappear at Wimbledon, her favourite event. Forgive me for thinking that if she hadn’t wanted to be seen with Trump, she could have quietly briefed the press about her reluctance. Yet this time, Kate and William told People magazine they had a private meeting with the Trumps and it was “warm and friendly.” Unsurprisingly, Holmes omitted this entirely. The white woman is granted endless grace, infantilised, and never held responsible for her own choices.

Let us not forget: Trump is an elected official whose racist and economically harmful policies have caused real suffering — the very kind Holmes claims to care about. Yet the outrage is reserved for two private citizens, one of whom can vote and almost certainly voted against him.

Holmes may call herself an “honest royal commentator,” but I haven’t seen her post about the backlash Prince William faced for taking a private flight to Brazil for the Earthshot Prize. Most of that criticism came from right-leaning conservatives — the monarchy’s own base.

If she can ignore that, she should also refrain from fuelling misplaced outrage against two private citizens simply enjoying a baseball game in Meghan’s hometown.

---

What Does E. Holmes Really Want?

Let’s not forget her racist coverage from 2018 to 2021 — commentary that made many of us cry, with our stomachs twisted in knots and genuinely fearful. From Binder Gate, where she insisted Meghan was pretentious for carrying a folder (when it was most likely to hide her bump), to her alarming commentary that persisted daily throughout Meghan’s first pregnancy. I will never forget the numerous “So many thoughts” posts, especially when Meghan was in NYC for her baby shower. One of her comments was: “Are you cradling your bump to subconsciously protect your baby, or out of habit, or to remind the world you are pregnant? Because I’m pretty sure we all know that.” Another: “Curious how Henry, the media hater, feels about making private moments into photo ops?”

Then there was the outright racism — talking about Meghan wearing tights that were not her skin colour, with the caption: “Hold the phone, NUDE PANTYHOSE. Hi, Kate.” Because guess what? E. Holmes’s companies don’t think of us, women of colour, when making “nude” tights. There was also her constant commentary on Meghan’s hair — and every Black woman knows how sensitive and personal that subject is. It’s too painful to type out in full, but I’ll include screenshots below. Just straight-up mean, racist white woman energy.

And should I call out her hypocrisy? She remains a contributor to The Wall Street Journal — a paper close to the Trump administration and whose parent company has been involved in numerous phone-hacking scandals. That same company had to issue an apology and settle with Prince Harry for illegally gathering information. This makes her nasty comment about “Henry the media hater” sting even more.

Her so-called “transformation” after the Black Lives Matter movement felt performative. I will never forget the dehumanisation of Black women — of Meghan — that we were forced to witness.

Her new tactic seems to be using guest writers, often women of colour, to criticise Meghan — a transparent attempt to deflect accusations of racism.

Many Meghan supporters were shocked when Holmes was granted press access to their events and received PR packages from As Ever. They showed her a grace she has never shown them.

So if E. Holmes happens to read this, I hope she asks herself: Why should a biracial woman be used as sport — picked apart, mocked, and demeaned at every turn?

How is that fair? What is the endgame?