It’s rare to witness a royal event intertwined with academic debates and mental health discussions. Yet, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, found himself in such a situation during a conversation with renowned social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. What started as a casual chat quickly spiraled into a series of slip-ups, startling revelations, and sharp critiques, which not only challenged Prince Harry but also questioned the Royal Family’s image.
The original topic was meant to focus on the effects of smartphones on mental health, but it didn’t take long for the conversation to veer off track. Before long, it touched on Meghan Markle, family loyalty, and accusations of hypocrisy. Known for his expertise on modern society’s moral and psychological challenges, Jonathan Haidt did not hold back. While his intention was to discuss technology’s impact on mental health, what unfolded was far more revealing. Haidt suggested that Prince Harry might be facing more than just issues of royal image—he might, in fact, be controlled by Meghan Markle. This bold statement ignited a worldwide debate.
The conversation began on a significant topic: the mental health crisis among young people and the role smartphones play in exacerbating this issue. Both Haidt and Prince Harry had spoken on this subject before. Haidt has been vocal about the harm caused by social media, while Harry has supported mental health initiatives like “Heads Together.”
Initially, the two agreed on the negative impact of smartphones. Haidt shared research on rising rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among teens. Prince Harry, in turn, discussed his own mental health struggles, largely due to constant public scrutiny. However, the discussion soon took a different turn. Haidt’s questions became increasingly pointed, steering the conversation away from mental health and toward a deeper exploration of Prince Harry’s public image.
The most shocking moment came when Haidt hinted at a long-held suspicion: Prince Harry might not be acting independently, but rather as a spokesperson for Meghan Markle. What had started as a simple discussion on mental health evolved into a storm of accusations and revelations. Haidt bluntly suggested that Harry appeared to be a puppet controlled by Meghan Markle. He noted how Harry’s behavior and political views had noticeably shifted after marrying Meghan.
Haidt implied that Meghan was the one calling the shots—from their decision to step back from royal duties to their relocation to America. This line of questioning left Prince Harry visibly uncomfortable. While he attempted to steer the conversation back to mental health, Haidt persisted, asking how Harry balanced his royal responsibilities with his new public image as an advocate for change. Harry struggled to respond, with his rehearsed answers failing to withstand Haidt’s tough questioning. The conversation left Harry visibly rattled, with his words increasingly contradictory.
As the conversation intensified, Haidt delved into Prince Harry’s decision to step back from royal duties—a move that shocked the world and, for some, painted Harry as a traitor to the British monarchy. Haidt’s questioning was calm but cutting, asking, “Do you feel that by stepping back, you betrayed the institution that raised you? Your family, the monarchy, the very people who shaped your identity?”
This marked the moment when the conversation reached its peak. Clearly taken aback, Prince Harry tried to justify his decision, explaining that it was made to protect his family and his mental health. But Haidt was unsatisfied with this explanation, probing deeper. Why hadn’t other members of the royal family made the same choice? Was Harry truly different, or was Meghan’s desire for a Hollywood life influencing his decisions?
As Harry fumbled through his answers, Haidt’s critique sharpened. He pointed out the inconsistencies between Harry’s words and actions. How could Harry advocate for mental health and self-care while abandoning the royal institution that had supported him? This line of questioning left the audience on edge as they witnessed Harry struggling to maintain his composure.
Perhaps the most damning moment came when Haidt turned the conversation to the apparent hypocrisy in Prince Harry’s new life. How could someone who craves privacy choose to live one of the most public lives imaginable? Haidt questioned how Harry and Meghan’s multimillion-dollar Netflix deals and high-profile interviews aligned with their stated desire for privacy.
“Isn’t there a contradiction here?” Haidt asked, his voice laced with disbelief. “How can you advocate for mental health and privacy while constantly putting yourself in the public eye?”
Predictably, Harry’s response was defensive. He argued that his public work allowed him to focus on causes he cared about without the constraints of royal obligations. However, Haidt remained unconvinced. He pointed out that Harry’s very public nature—through interviews, podcasts, and Netflix productions—only seemed to fuel the same media attention he claimed to be escaping. The hypocrisy was undeniable, and Haidt wasn’t afraid to point it out. Harry’s actions spoke louder than his words, leaving him exposed to harsh scrutiny.
As the conversation drew to a close, the fallout from Haidt’s piercing critique was palpable. Prince Harry wasn’t just revealed as a royal grappling with modern life, but as a man seemingly unaware of the contradictions in his own narrative. Haidt had skillfully exposed what royal watchers had suspected for years: Harry’s journey from prince to activist, from royal insider to American outsider, was rife with complexity, contradiction, and possible manipulation.