REACTIE POWNED OP KLACHTMAILASTRID ESSED AAN DE OMBUDSVROUW
ZIE KLACHTMAIL OMBUDSVROUW [Ombudsvrouw heeft deze klachtmaildoorgestuurd aan Powned. om hen de gelegenheid te geven om eerst te reagerenMet als aantekening, dat Astrid Essed deze klachtmail ook cc aan Powned had toegestuurd, zie klachtmail]
REACTIE POWNED OP KLACHTMAIL ASTRID ESSED Robert Alting <robert@powned.tv>To: Astrid EssedFri, Jun 11 at 10:47 AMDag mevrouw,
Er kwam een klacht bij ons binnen over het item over Tofik Dibi. Hierbij de reactie. Dibi is benaderd voor reactie, maar op onze uitnodiging zijn kant het verhaal te vertellen is niet gereageerd. Dat is zijn goed recht. Verder hebben wij mensen uit de Joodse gemeenschap benaderd die wij zeer kundig achtig om te reageren over ophef in de Joodse gemeenschap. In dit geval ging het over tweets van Tofik Dibi die hij na een pro-Israël-demonstratie de wereld in stuurde en waar Annabel Nanninga in de gemeenteraad van Amsterdam vragen over had gesteld. Deze tweets hebben wij in het item laten zien en deskundigen op laten reageren. Daarnaast is de voxpop een gangbaar journalistiek-instrument om in te zetten om de ‘stem van het volk’ te horen. NOS, Nieuwsuur, RTL Nieuws doen niet anders en wij ook niet. Het conflict Israël vs Palestina is een gevoelig onderwerp, maar dat hoeft volgens mij geen reden te zijn om dit onderwerp niet te behandelen. Over een tal van onderwerpen laten wij duiders, opiniemakers, journalisten en columnisten aan het woord. In die zin zijn wij niet anders dan BEAU, OP1, Nieuwsuur, De Telegraaf of welk ander journalistiek medium dan ook. Als Dibi volgende week weer tweets de wereld instuurt die online voor ophef zorgen dan zullen wij weer duiders oplijnen. Het enige dat ons misschien te verwijten valt is dat we wellicht expliciet hadden moeten benoemen dat Dibi niet bereikbaar was voor commentaar. Daarnaast is het denk ik goed om te vermelden dat wij groot belang hechten aan een pluriform medialandschap waarin alle geluiden gehoord mogen en zelfs moeten worden.
Mvg,– Robert AltingEindredacteur PowNedT: 035-7733434robert@powned.tv
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Tofik Dibi Story/Reactie Powned op klachtmail Astrid Essed aan de NPO Ombudsvrouw
REACTIE ASTRID ESSED OP ANTWOORD ASSISTENT OMBUDSVROUW
Astrid Essed Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 2:56 PMTo: Wilma de Weerd <ombudsman@npo.nl>
AANMevrouw de WeerdAssistent van de ombudsman voor de publieke omroepen
Geachte mevrouw de Weerd, Ik heb uw reactie op mijn bij de NPO Ombusdsvrouw, Mevrouw M. Smit,in goede orde ontvangen.Uit uw reactie blijkt, dat de kennelijke procedure is, dat de Ombudsvrouw ineerste instantie mijn [klacht] mail doorstuurt aan de betrokken omroep, teweten Pownews[Powned] en mocht ik van hen geen antwoord ontvangen, dat ik mij alsnog tot de Ombudsvrouw kan wenden.Hiermee ga ik accoord en wacht dus een reactie van Powned[news] af.Mochten zij binnen een week [nog] niet hebben gereageerd, dan wend ik mijalsnog tot u. Ik ga er dan vanuit, dat de Ombudsvrouw mijn klacht ook daadwerkelijkin behandeling zal nemen. Vriendelijke groeten Astrid EssedAmsterdam www.astridessed.nl
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Tofik Dibi Story/Reactie Astrid Essed op antwoord assistent Ombudsvrouw
On Monday, June 7, 2021, 02:29:56 PM GMT+2, Wilma de Weerd <ombudsman@npo.nl> wrote:
Beste mevrouw Essed, Hartelijk dank voor uw mail. De ombudsman heeft deze mails doorgestuurd aan PowNed met de vraag of zij in eerste instantie op uw klacht willen reageren. Mocht u geen antwoord ontvangen of bent u het niet met het antwoord eens, dan kunt u zich alsnog tot de ombudsman wenden. Deze procedure staat op onze site: Klachtenprocedure – NPO Ombudsman.
AAN:NPO OMBUDSVROUWMevrouw M. SmitOnderwerp: Onjuiste en tendentieuze berichtgeving Pownews overde ”Kakkerlak Tweet-Tweet Israel” van ex politicus en huidig bestuursadviseur van het Stadsdeel Amsterdam Nieuw West, de heer Tofik Dibi
Geachte mevrouw Smit, Ik heb in de loop der jaren veel slechte en tendentieuze berichtgevingde revu zien passeren, over allerhande onderwerpen, maar dit slaat werkelijkalles en daarom-dat zeg ik maar alvast vooraf- verwacht en eis ik van u, dat uhiertegen optreedt, met name omdat het Pownews betreft:Raadt u het al?Hebt u er al meer mails en berichten over ontvangen?Ik hoop van wel DE ZAAK TOFIK DIBIWAT IS ER HIER AAN DE HAND? Wat ik van de achtergronden weet, is het volgende:Naar aanleiding van het Israelische optreden in het bezette Oost-Jeruzalem en het tevens bezette Gaza [1], vonden er een aantal demonstraties plaats,waaronder een pro Israelische, op 20 mei jongstleden, georganiseerddoor het CIDI onder het mom van ”Voor Israel, tegen Hamas” [2], waaraan ookvijf Tweede Kamerleden deelnamen [van de partijen PVV, SGP, Christen-Unie,Groep van Haga en JA21] [3]Ook lieten de Kamerleden zich fotograferen, omwikkeld inIsraelische vlaggen. [4] Ex politicus Tofik Dibi, solidair met de Palestijnse zaak [5], uitte zijnafkeer van dit alles met de volgende Tweet op zijn Twitteraccount: ”Tofik@Tofik DibiAls antwoord op @Tofik Dibi Ik sluit af met de wens, dat alle Kamerleden die met de Israelischevlag [plaatje van de Israelische vlag] op de foto gingen in een doorCIDI georchestreerde goedpraterij show van misdaden tegen de menselijkheid bij hun eerstvolgende terrasbezoek pas na 1 uur geholpen worden in hetEngels en buikgriep krijgen van iets op t menu 8.28 p.m. 21 mei Twitter for iPhone. ” [6] Uit mijn informatie blijkt, dat Dibi daarop forse haatmail over zich heenkreeg [7], waaronder een aanval van Telegraaf journalist Mike Muller [8] En dan weer naar aanleiding van de aanval van Telegraaf journalistMike Muller kwam Tofik Dibi met de geruchtmakende ”kakkerlakken tweet” ” Als antwoord op @TofikDibiJe tl zodra iemand van de T je adresseert Daaronder een plaatje met door elkaar krioelende kakkerlakken 9.17 p.m. 21 mei 2021 Twitter for iPhone” [9] VOORAF GEZEGD: Beide Tweets vind ik persoonlijk kinderachtig en weinig verheffend.Zeker een ex politicus zou beter moeten weten. Ik persoonlijk ben een verklaard tegenstander van de Israelische bezettings enapartheidspolitiek [10], maar ik erken volledig het recht van mensen,die daar anders over denken en ergo pro Israel zijn, om te demonstreren.Het getuigt van weinig stijl om ze ziektes te gaan toewensen.En ook verwijzingen naar kakkerlakken, in casu Telegraafjournalisten en/of Telegraafhetzes, zijn onacceptabel. POWNEWS BERICHTRGEVINGATENDENTIEUS MAAR DAT GEZEGD HEBBENDE: Dat geeft nieuwsprogramma nog niet het recht, de hele zaak te gaanverdraaien en erger nog: Een tendentieus, leugenachtig en absoluut onacceptabel nieuwsitem te maken,waarin Tofik Dibi’s Tweets totaal uit zijn verband worden gerukt enzij als anti-semitisch worden gebrandmerkt.Dat is niet alleen tendentieus, het zijn gewoon aperte LEUGENS! POWNEWS[POWNED] INTERVIEWNaar het Interview, dat ik onder noot 11 keurig voor u heb getranscribeerd: DE BUIKGRIEP TWEET Al bij het begin van de uitzending begint de Pownews, bij mondevan de interviewster, met haar beschuldiging: Ik citeer:”’Een opvallende tweet van de altijd zo woke Tofik Dibi:Hij twiiterde er lustig op los en het had een opvallend anti-semitisch karakter….Waarna de buikgriep” tweet in beeld wordt gebracht [12]Daarna merkt de interviewster op:””De vraag is:Moet dit verhaal een staartje krijgen?” [13] NOW WAIT A MINUTE!De buikgriep tweet is kinderachtigDe buikgriep tweet is smakeloos Maar wat heeft dat met anti-semitisme te maken?Anti-semitisme is immers:”Discriminatie en racistische behandeling van Joden op basis van hunetniciteit en religie.” [14]Waar in deze tweet is het woord ”Jood” gevallen of is er naar Jodenverwezen?Lees nog eens de Tweet:”Tofik@Tofik DibiAls antwoord op @Tofik Dibi Ik sluit af met de wens, dat alle Kamerleden die met de Israelischevlag [plaatje van de Israelische vlag] op de foto gingen in een doorCIDI georchestreerde goedpraterij show van misdaden tegen de menselijkheid bij hun eerstvolgende terrasbezoek pas na 1 uur geholpen worden in het Engels en buikgriep krijgen van iets op t menu 8.28 p.m. 21 mei Twitter for iPhone. ‘ [15] De reacties zijn voorspelbaar:Zowel mevrouw H Luden [directrice van het Cidi] als mevrouw E Voet[hoofdredactrice van het Nieuw Israelitisch Weekbklad], die worden geinterviewd, gaan vrolijk met de anti semitisme beschuldigingen van Pownews mee. [16] KAKKERLAKKEN TWEET Nog erger vind ik de Pownews hetze over de zogenaamde ”Kakkerlakken Tweet” door Pownews ook genoemd de ”Kakkerlakken Tweet Israel” [17], terwijl er door hem geen enkele link werd gelegd tussen Israel enkakkerlakken, maar in verband werd gebracht met de Telegraaf aanval.Lees maar over wat ik er in bovenstaande over gezegd heb. Maar veel, veel erger dan Israel vind ik de link, die Pownews legt tussende mogelijke associatie, door Dibi, van Joden met kakkerlakken:Dat dit door Pownews bewust is gedaan, is goed te zien aan de reactievan mevrouw Voet [hoofdredactrice Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad] Ik citeer haar in het Pownews interview:””Het was werkelijk buiten alle perken, hij had het over…dat ie mensen, die bij de demonstratie waren geweest voor Israel, dat ie die buikpijn toewenste en hij had het ook nog een keertje over…..[Er komt een screenshot van een Tweet van Tofik Dibi in beeld, zie teksthieronder] Tofik@ TofikDibiAls antwoord op @TofikDibiJe tl zodra iemand van de T je adresseert Daaronder een plaatje met door elkaar krioelende kakkerlakken 9.17 p.m. 21 mei 2021 Twitter for iPhone [Esther Voet, hoofdredactrice Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad]:”…..kakkerlakken. Nou weten we allemaal dat kakkerlakkenongedierte is, het is een ding dat vaak bij antisemieten wordtgenoemd he, Joden zijn kakkerlakken, dus ik stond wel een beetje versteld.” [18]Dat de dame in kwestie versteld zou staan als Dibi ECHT Joden metkakkerlakken had geassocieerd, is meer dan logisch en dat zou absoluut onacceptabel zijn en ja, anti-semitisch, maar het is gewoon NIET waar en dat weet Pownews heel goed!Dat Pownews daarnaast voorbijgangers interviewde, die natuurlijk ookeen geheel vertekend beeld kregen voorgespiegeld, is meer dan griezelig en zelfs gevaarlijk te noemen. [19]Het enge aan het door Pownews verdraaide kakkerlakkenbeeld wordt nog versterkt door de genocide in Rwanda in de jaren negentig, toen de vervolgde bevolkingsgroep, de Tutsi’s, ook werden afgeschilderd als ”kakkerlakken” [20]POWNEWS BERICHTGEVINGBSCHENDING VAN HOOR EN WEDERHOORNaast genoemde tendentieuze en ronduit leugenachtige Pownewsberichtgeving rond de Tofik Dibi Tweet heeft Pownews zich ook nogschuldig gemaakt aan een andere ernstige journalistieke misser:Het niet toekennen van het recht op Hoor en WederhoorWant niet alleen werden alleen mensen, die het politiek met Dibi oneens waren over Israel [mevrouw Voet en mevrouw Luden] aan het woord gelaten, wat erger is, is het feit, dat Dibi zelf niet de kans kreeg, zich te verdedigen.En zeker met zoiets ernstigs als een anti semitisme beschuldiging had datzeker het geval moeten zijn.POWNEWS BERICHTGEVINGCLEUGENACHTIGEen belangrijke derde pijler waarin Pownews ernstig en bewustde fout in is gegaan, is het absolute leugenachtige karakter van het nieuwsitemDat is in strijd met een belangrijk criterium uit de ”Leidraad voor deJournalistiek” [21]”De Leidraad gaat uit van een paar belangrijke principes:”Goede journalistiek is waarheidsgetrouw en nauwgezet.” [22]Nu, mevrouw Smit:Ronduit LEUGENS heeft Pownews hier gedebiteerd, door een”Buikgriep Tweet” van Dibi, die weliswaar niet van bon ton getuigde,”anti-semitisch” te noemen, terwijl het woord ”Jood”, noch enige”Jodenhaat” erin voorkwam!”’Tofik@Tofik DibiAls antwoord op @Tofik Dibi Ik sluit af met de wens, dat alle Kamerleden die met de Israelischevlag [plaatje van de Israelische vlag] op de foto gingen in een doorCIDI georchestreerde goedpraterij show van misdaden tegen de menselijkheid bij hun eerstvolgende terrasbezoek pas na 1 uur geholpen worden in hetEngels en buikgriep krijgen van iets op t menu 8.28 p.m. 21 mei Twitter for iPhone. ” [23] Door een ”kakkerlaktweet” door te laten gaan voor ”anti-semitisch” of[wat ook niet zo was], een associatie suggererend met Israel, terwijl deze sloeg op een reactie van Dibi op een Telegraaf aanval”’ Tofik@TofikDibiJe tl zodra iemand van de T je adresseert Daaronder een plaatje met door elkaar krioelende kakkerlakken 9.17 p.m. 21 mei 2021 Twitter for iPhone” [24]Waar is hier een verwijzing naar Joden?Waar naar Jodenhaat?Waar naar Israel? Tijd, dat een dergelijke vorm van leugenachtige voorstellingen van zakenwordt aangepakt!En dat kan en moet gebeuren door u, mevrouw de Ombudsvrouw!Het is UW taak! SAMENVATTEND De Pownews berichtgeving inzake de Tofik Dibi Tweets en zijn persoonis ronduit onethisch, demoniserend, tendentieus, leugenachtig en doet geen recht aan het fundamentele journalistieke principe”Hoor en Wederhoor”Daarom is dit Pownews item in flagrante strijd met de Leidraad voorde Journalistiek [25] en derhalve een taak voor u als Ombudsvrouw, Mevrouw Smit, om handelend en disciplinair op te treden Ik ga ervan uit, dat u bovenstaande schending van de journalistiekeethiek serieus neemt en daadwerkelijk in actie zult komen Vriendelijke groeten Astrid EssedAmsterdam NOTEN VOOR UW GEMAK EEN LINK NAAR DE NOTEN https://www.astridessed.nl/noten-1-t-m-25-bij-brief-aan-npo-ombudsvrouw-over-de-zaak-tofik-dibi/
GAZA NOG STEEDS BEZET GEBIED, VOLGENS INTERNATIONAAL RECHT:ZIE
”Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHISRAEL: DISENGAGEMENT WILL NOTEND GAZA OCCUPATION https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/10/28/israel-disengagement-will-not-end-gaza-occupation TROUWNIEUW DIEPTEPUNT: ZEKER 26 DODEN BIJ ISRAELISCHEAANVAL OP WONING VAN HAMASLEIDER16 MEI 2021 https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/nieuw-dieptepunt-zeker-26-doden-bij-israelische-aanval-op-woning-van-hamasleider~b3ec7c35/ [2] CIDI MANIFESTATIE VOOR ISRAEL IN DEN HAAG20 MEI 2021https://www.cidi.nl/cidi-manifestatie-voor-israel-in-den-haag/
CIDI heeft met een manifestatie in Den Haag de politiek opgeroepen om achter Israels recht te staan om zijn burgers te beschermen tegen de aanhoudende dreiging van raketbeschietingen door Hamas vanuit de Gazastrook. Honderden mensen kwamen bijeen om hun solidariteit met Israel te tonen.
Op dezelfde middag debatteren leden van de Tweede Kamer met buitenlandminister Stef Blok over de huidige geweldsexplosie in Israel. CIDI en CIJO, in samenwerking met Christenen voor Israel, riepen voorafgaand aan het debat de solidariteitsmanifestatie bijeen om een signaal af te geven aan de Nederlandse politiek.Het conflict tussen Israel en Hamas woedt nu al meer dan een week. Er zijn ruim 4.000 raketten op Israelische burgers afgeschoten door Hamas en Islamitische Jihad. Israels zelfverdediging wordt telkens weer onterecht veroordeeld door een kleine deel van de Tweede Kamer.Een aantal Kamerleden was ook bij de manifestatie aanwezig. CIDI en CVI boden hen een manifest aan met de oproep om de invloed van terreurorganisaties in Europa te bezweren, Israel in zijn recht op zelfverdediging te steunen en antisemitisme grondig te bestrijden.Bij verschillende pro-Palestijnse demonstraties in Nederland werd de terreurgroep Hamas openlijk geprezen, en werd met leuzen opgeroepen om Joden af te slachten. Het mag niet zo zijn dat Joden in Nederland het moeten ontgelden voor het defensiebeleid van Israel.Verschillende sprekers betuigden hun steun voor de oproep van CIDI, waaronder Ronny Naftaniel, voorzitter van het Centraal Joods Overleg, Bakir Lashkari, die als vluchteling uit Irak 45 jaar geleden naar Nederland is gekomen, en rabbijnen Binyomin Jacobs en Tamarah Benima.“Wij laten Israël niet los. Omdat het een democratie is. Omdat het een rechtstaat is. Omdat het een veilig thuis voor de Joden is,” aldus CVI-directeur Frank van Oordt. Koerdisch vluchteling Bakir Lashkari deed een oproep voor “vrijheid, veiligheid en stabiliteit voor Israël. Shalom Israël, shalom Koerdistan!” Rabbijn Tamarah Benima legde het uit: “Vrede is het allerbelangrijkste in het Jodendom. Shalom, we bidden om vrede. Vrede voor iedereen ter wereld.” Zij voegde wel toe: “Maar als er duizenden raketten vanuit een autonoom Urk geschoten werden op Hogeveen, wat zou Nederland dan moeten doen?”Daarom roept CIDI op om Israel te steunen, ook binnen de Europese Unie en de Verenigde Naties.Israel heeft het recht, en ook de plicht, om zijn burgers te beschermen tegen de raketten uit Gaza.Hamas moet als terroristische organisatie aangepakt worden. Zij beoogt de vernietiging van de staat Israel en offert de bevolking van Gaza daarvoor op.De Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties moet opgeroepen worden het recht op zelfverdediging van Israel te erkennen.De verwerpelijkheid van antisemitisme is niet-onderhandelbaar. We roepen de Nederlandse regering op om daadkrachtig stappen te ondernemen tegen racisme, antisemitisme en haat.Zoals CIDI adjunct-directeur Naomi Mestrum de manifestatie afsloot: “Wij zijn hier vandaag om te laten zien dat Israël niet alleen staat. Am Yisrael Chai!”
EINDE BERICHT [3]”Onder de aanwezigen zijn ook vijf Tweede Kamerleden van partijen die de gewelddadige Israëlische overheersing van de Palestijnen onvoorwaardelijk steunen: de PVV, SGP, ChristenUnie, Groep Van Haga en JA21.”THE RIGHTS FORUMPOWNEWS BESCHULDIGT TOFIK DIBI ONGEFUNDEERD VANANTISEMITISME4 JUNI 2021https://rightsforum.org/nieuws/pownews-beschuldigt-tofik-dibi-ongefundeerd-van-antisemitisme/
Tofik Dibi is een van degenen die zijn weerzin laat blijken over de solidariteit die de vijf volksvertegenwoordigers aan het Israëlische bezettings- en apartheidsregime betuigen. Op Twitter wenst hij het vijftal toe dat zij bij een bezoek aan een terras een uur op hun beurt moeten wachten, in het Engels bediend worden en aan hun consumpties buikgriep overhouden.Het komt Dibi op Twitter direct op grove verwensingen te staan……….. THE RIGHTS FORUMPOWNEWS BESCHULDIGT TOFIK DIBI ONGEFUNDEERD VANANTISEMITISME4 JUNI 2021https://rightsforum.org/nieuws/pownews-beschuldigt-tofik-dibi-ongefundeerd-van-antisemitisme/ [8] https://twitter.com/_MikeMuller/status/1395811042069041157
[9] Tofik@TofikDibiJe tl zodra iemand van de T je adresseert Daaronder een plaatje met door elkaar krioelende kakkerlakken 9.17 p.m. 21 mei 2021 Twitter for iPhone
BRON Het komt Dibi op Twitter direct op grove verwensingen te staan, en nadat ook Telegraaf-journalist Mike Muller hem aanvalt krijgt hij een bataljon zogenoemde trollen achter zich aan. Daarop plaatst Dibi een foto van kakkerlakken met de verklarende tekst: ‘Je tl [tijdlijn] zodra iemand van de T [Telegraaf] je adresseert.’
REL ROND TOFIK DIBI NA KAKKERKAK-TWEET ISRAEL Tekst [Interview Powned] ”[: ”…Dat hij niet weet, dat Arabische inwoners in dat gebied nota benenaar Tel Aviv emigreren, omdat ze daar hun leven niet zeker zijn. Dus hoe werkt dat in dat hoofd?” [POWNEWS][Interviewster]”Een opvallende tweet van de altijd zo woke Tofik Dibi:Hij twiiterde er lustig op los en het had een opvallend anti-semitisch karakter…. [Presentratrice presenteert in beeld een tweet van Tofik Dibi met als tekst: Tofik@Tofik Dibi Als antwoord op @Tofik Dibi Ik sluit af met de wens, dat alle Kamerleden die met de Israelischevlag [plaatje van de Israelische vlag] op de foto gingen in een doorCIDI georchestreerde goedpraterij show van misdaden tegen de menselijkheid bij hun eerstvolgende terrasbezoek pas na 1 uur geholpen worden in hetEngels en buikgriep krijgen van iets op t menu 8.28 p.m. 21 mei Twitter for iPhone [Vervolg presentratrice 0.23] ”De vraag is:Moet dit verhaal een staartje krijgen?”[Hanna Luden, directrice van het CIDI]:”Ik was verbijsterd, ik ben eigenlijk geschokt.Want ik heb zoiets van die tweets die….hij probeertneem ik aan, hoop ik, dat hij probeert kritiek te uiten, maar het kwamover als haat, niet als kritiek en dat is precies het probleem.”[Esther Voet, hoofdredactrice Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad]:”Het was werkelijk buiten alle perken, hij had het over…dat iemensen, die bij de demonstratie waren geweest voor Israel, dat ie diebuikpijn toewenste en hij had het ook nog een keertje over….. [Er komt een screenshot van een Tweet van Tofik Dibi in beeld, zie teksthieronder] Tofik@ TofikDibi
Als antwoord op @TofikDibiJe tl zodra iemand van de T je adresseert Daaronder een plaatje met door elkaar krioelende kakkerlakken 9.17 p.m. 21 mei 2021 Twitter for iPhone [Esther Voet, hoofdredactrice Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad]:”…..kakkerlakken. Nou weten we allemaal dat kakkerlakkenongedierte is, het is een ding dat vaak bij antisemieten wordtgenoemd he, Joden zijn kakkerlakken, dus ik stond wel eenbeetje versteld.”[Een voorbijgangster]”Je ziet hier veel Joodse mensen lopen met keppeltjes en zo,maar ik heb begrepen, dat er ook….keppeltje niet durven opte houden, omdat ze bang zijn voor problemen.”[Een voorbijganger] ”Onbegrijpelijk, dat de Gemeente toch eigenlijk zelf eh, in huneigen, hoe noem je dat, personeelsbestand, dat eens moet aankaarten.”[Hanna Luden, directrice van het CIDI]: ”Het is natuurlijk een ex politicus, het is een hoge ambtenaar in Amsterdam,het is een boegbeeld in dezen, en dan moet je goed op je woorden engoed op je beelden passen.”[Esther Voet, hoofdredactrice Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad]:”Ik begrijp niet wat er in het hoofd van Tofik Dibi omgaat.Hij is binnen de Marokkaanse gemeenschap, staat hij bekend bijvoorbeeldom zijn homosexualiteit, dat hij daar openlijk voor uitkomt, hulde, hulde!, maarhij heeft, hij zegt dingen over Israel, waarvan ik denk, man, heb je ook ooit als homosexueel in Gaza rondgelopen, of in Ramallah rondgelopen.Ik denk, dat hij niet weet, dat Arabische inwoners in dat gebied nota benenaar Tel Aviv emigreren, omdat ze daar hun leven niet zeker zijn, dus hoe werktdat in dat hoofd?[Een voorbijgangster]:”Ik vind het belachelijk, maar ja, heel veel moslims denken er zo over, denk ikJe ziet ook dat in Amsterdam hier ook niet opgetreden wordt, als er vanalles geroepen wordt bij demonstraties tegen de Joden.En dan zeggen ze ”ja, anders gaat het escaleren” , maar ik denk, ik vindhet belachelijk, dat het zomaar kan.”[Hanna Luden, directrice van het CIDI] :’Hij moet heel helder afstand nemen van ….. die zaken, daar moet hij echt heel helder afstand nemen.Nou hoop ik, dat hij het ook gaat doen, want uiteindelijk hebben we met zijn allen als samenleving veel meer aan een discussie, gesprekken, dan aan elkaarcancelen de hele tijd.”[Interviewster vraagt een voorbijgangster]: ”Denkt u, dat hij ook, eh ja, berispt gaat worden of een straf krijgt?”[Voorbijgangster]:”Ik denk het niet. ik denk dat Femke Halsema daar zelf heel uitgesprokenmeningen over heeft …”[Interviewster]”Ja….”[Voorbijgangster]:”En zelf ook met twee maten meet.Maar ja, dat is mijn persoonlijke mening.”[In beeld komen twee opgeplakte posters:Onbekend maakt onbemind?Lees het Joods Tijdschrift 2020-2021 EN daarnaast hangend: ”Buitenreclame geeft geen vervelende pop”[Met bloemetjesachtergrond [Voorbijganger]”De mensen zouden eigenlijk door een aantal mensen gehoord moeten worden, in het openbaar”[Voorbijganger, andere dan voorafgaande]:”Uit de functie zetten. Of excuus aanbieden of anders uit de functie.”[ Esther Voet, hoofdredactrice Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad]:”Ik denkt, dat het een …straf wordt. Ik heb het gevoel, dat Tofik Dibi nietvoor niets zit op de plek waar hij nu zit, weet je, het hypocriete is ook, datTofik Dibi zich voorstaat op bestrijden van anti-semitisme aan de ene kanten aan de andere kant doet hij het zelf.Dus dit is totaal hypocriet, waarmee hij bezig is.” EINDE INTERVIEW POWNEWS
[15] Tofik@Tofik Dibi Als antwoord op @Tofik Dibi Ik sluit af met de wens, dat alle Kamerleden die met de Israelischevlag [plaatje van de Israelische vlag] op de foto gingen in een doorCIDI georchestreerde goedpraterij show van misdaden tegen de menselijkheid bij hun eerstvolgende terrasbezoek pas na 1 uur geholpen worden in hetEngels en buikgriep krijgen van iets op t menu 8.28 p.m. 21 mei Twitter for iPhone BRON: ”Op Twitter wenst hij het vijftal toe dat zij bij een bezoek aan een terras een uur op hun beurt moeten wachten, in het Engels bediend worden en aan hun consumpties buikgriep overhouden.” THE RIGHTS FORUMPOWNEWS BESCHULDIGT TOFIK DIBI ONGEFUNDEERD VANANTISEMITISME4 JUNI 2021https://rightsforum.org/nieuws/pownews-beschuldigt-tofik-dibi-ongefundeerd-van-antisemitisme/ ZIE OOK ALS BRON VOOR TWEET TOFIK DIBI YOUTUBE.COM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgQmAVtjOegREL ROND TOFIK DIBI NA KAKKERKAK-TWEET ISRAEL [16] LEES HET INTERVIEW
”Op bijeenkomsten die door onder anderen Basebya zouden zijn georganiseerd, werden de mannen toegesproken en werden liederen gezongen, aldus justitie. Die hadden niet alleen als doel om de militie op te warmen voor geweld tegen de ‘kakkerlakken’ – ‘inyenzi’ – zoals Tutsi’s werden genoemd, maar ook om hen bang te maken.” ADLEVENSLAG GEEIST TEGEN GENOCIDEVERDACHTEYVONNE B. https://www.ad.nl/buitenland/levenslang-geeist-tegen-genocideverdachte-yvonne-b~a0fc9602/
De 65-jarige Yvonne Basebya moet levenslang de gevangenis in van het Openbaar Ministerie (OM). Donderdag eiste het OM bij de rechtbank in Den Haag de uiterste vrijheidsstraf omdat de vrouw in 1994 in Rwanda zou hebben meegedaan aan de genocide op de Tutsi-bevolking. Bij die genocide, die voortkwam uit een burgeroorlog die in 1990 was uitgebroken, werden in 1994 in ongeveer 100 dagen 600.000 tot 800.000 Tutsi’s en gematigde Hutu’s vermoord. De Hutu’s zagen de Tutsi’s als vijand van de staat en vereenzelvigden hen met het Rwandese Patriottistisch Front, dat tegen het overheidsleger streed. Het verwerd onder Hutu’s tot een ideologie om alle Tutsi’s te willen uitroeien. Begin april 1994 mondde dat uit in een bloedige geweldsorgie.
Volgens het OM heeft Basebya twee jaar lang een militie van jonge mannen geleid, die werden opgehitst om Tutsi’s aan te vallen. Op bijeenkomsten die door onder anderen Basebya zouden zijn georganiseerd, werden de mannen toegesproken en werden liederen gezongen, aldus justitie. Die hadden niet alleen als doel om de militie op te warmen voor geweld tegen de ‘kakkerlakken’ – ‘inyenzi’ – zoals Tutsi’s werden genoemd, maar ook om hen bang te maken. Dat Basebya niet zelf een kapmes of knuppel ter hand heeft genomen, maakt haar niet minder verantwoordelijk, vindt het OM.
Drijvende kracht Sterker nog: ze was de drijvende kracht achter de orgie van geweld in haar woonomgeving, vindt de officier van justitie. ‘En daarmee een van de meest verantwoordelijken daarvoor.’ Ze woonde in de wijk Gikondo van de hoofdstad Kigali. Dat ze relatief rijk was en goed opgeleid doet haar zaak ook geen goed, zo meent het OM. Ze kon nadenken en, doordat ze geen analfabeet was en en niet financieel afhankelijk, haar eigen keuzes maken. ‘En dat heeft ze gedaan’, aldus het OM.
Basebya is volgens justitie ‘een echte dader’. ‘Juist bij zware delicten zijn het de echte plegers die achter de schermen blijven en anderen het vuile werk laten doen.’ De vrouw zou achter drie moorden zitten die justitie ziet als genocide, omdat ze passen in het streven alle Tutsi’s uit te roeien. Verder beschuldigt justitie haar onder meer van nog een ‘gewone’ moord, van poging tot genocide, aanzetten tot genocide en bedreiging van Tutsi’s. EINDE ARTIKEL [21] LEIDRAAD VOOR DE JOURNALISTIEK https://www.rvdj.nl/leidraad
LeidraadDe Raad voor de Journalistiek heeft een Leidraad vastgesteld, waarin wordt beschreven wanneer sprake is van zorgvuldige journalistiek en wanneer niet.De Leidraad is ook te downloaden als Pdf-bestand.Mag een journalist iemands privacy schenden? Wanneer dient een journalist wederhoor toe te passen? Kan een geïnterviewde erop staan dat de tekst die hij of zij vóór publicatie ter inzage heeft gekregen, wordt gewijzigd? Moet een journalist die een gesprek opneemt om er delen van te kunnen uitzenden, dit altijd van tevoren laten weten? Mag een columnist of een cartoonist iemand beledigen? Aan welke voorwaarden moet een embargo voldoen?Het beoordelen van klachten is de voornaamste taak van de Raad. De Raad baseert zich in zijn werk op de Leidraad, die aan iedereen – zowel binnen het vakgebied als aan het publiek – duidelijk maakt wat van journalisten en goede journalistiek mag worden verwacht.De Leidraad gaat uit van een paar belangrijke principes: goede journalistiek is waarheidsgetrouw en nauwgezet, onpartijdig en fair, controleerbaar en integer. Zij laat zich toetsen en gaat op open wijze om met opmerkingen, reacties en klachten.Zelfregulering is belangrijk, zeker voor journalisten en ‘de’ journalistiek. Media spelen een belangrijke rol in de samenleving, op veel manieren en op een groot aantal platforms. Zij controleren gezag en organisaties, instituties en bedrijven. Ze spelen een belangrijke rol in het democratische proces. Goede journalistiek kan alleen in volle vrijheid en onafhankelijkheid worden verricht. Daar hoort verantwoording en transparantie bij. Zelfregulering is de beste manier om hier vorm en inhoud aan te geven. De Raad voor de Journalistiek is uitdrukking en instrument van die zelfregulering.In 2007 heeft de Raad zijn eerste Leidraad gepresenteerd, die in de jaren daarna op enkele punten is gewijzigd. Net als de journalistiek heeft de Leidraad onderhoud nodig. Daarom heeft de Raad zijn Leidraad in 2015 herschreven en aangepast, met het oog op de huidige digitale tijd. Daarbij volgt de Leidraad de herkenbare journalistieke weg: van idee, via research en registratie, tot publicatie, transparantie en reactie. In juni 2018 is in punt A. van de Leidraad een passage toegevoegd waarin tot uitdrukking is gebracht dat kwetsbare groepen extra bescherming verdienen. In december 2019 is de norm ten aanzien van bronbescherming verruimd. In mei 2021 zijn criteria toegevoegd voor verzoeken tot anonimisering.De Raad zal regelmatig bezien of er aanleiding is de Leidraad aan te passen. Journalistieke normen liggen immers niet voor de eeuwigheid vast. De Leidraad moet daarom voortdurend onderwerp van gesprek en discussie zijn. file:///C:/Users/Essed/Downloads/Leidraad%20-%20aanpassing%202021%20(1).pdf
Maand na maand, week na week, dag na dag, hittegolf na hittegolf, bosbrand na bosbrand, overstroming na overstroming. Canada, Oregon, Siberië, India, China, Duitsland, België en Nederland, Californië, Griekenland, Italië, Turkije… Het gaat maar door, het gaat maar door.
Er spelen hier twee factoren, twee dimensies van dezelfde rampzaligheden.
Gemeenschappelijke factor nummer een: klimaatverandering, die temperaturen doet stijgen, met extreme weersverschijnselen van hittegolf en droogtes tot plensbuien als gevolg. Die klimaatverandering heeft een oorzaak: uitstoot van broeikasgas, vooral vanwege productie, voedsel- en energievoorziening en vervoer. Die oorzaak is te bestrijden, en dat gebeurt volstrekt onvoldoende.
Gemeenschappelijke factor nummer twee: beroerde bestrijding van de veelal catastrofale gevolgen van droogte, hitte en overstroming. Niet overal is de nalatigheid even erg, niet overal even hard verwijtbaar: er gebeuren ook echt dingen die nauwelijks waren te voorzien en waartegen je je ook maar moeilijk kunt beschermen. Maar adequaat is de rampenbestrijding vaak bepaald niet, en dat geld maar al te vaak ook voor de zorg voor slachtoffers.
1
Laten we eens wat specifieker worden. In Jakoetië, in het noordoosten van Siberië, woedden in juli gigantische branden. Die komen na vijf jaren met zomerse snoeihitte, en in een zomer die volgens de Guardian door functionarissen beschreven worden als ‘de droogste in 150 jaar’.(1) De verschrikkingen doen zich voor in wat de NOS aanduidt als ‘Ruslands koudste regio’. Weinig kou dus.’Volgens lokale functionarissen is daar sprake van de droogste en heetste zomer in meer dan 100 jaar. Temperaturen van boven de 38 graden sloegen alle hitterecords.’(2)
Gevolg is een smerige smog die de gezondheid van bewoners bedreigt. Bewoners beschrijven de branden als uitzonderlijk groot. En ze noemen oorzaken: ‘van de klimaatcrisis tot slechte paraatheid van de regering, tot een verbod op het verwijderen van droog gras, bezuinigingen op bosbouwdiensten, beweerde brandstichting en vooral de hete zomers’.(3) Daar zie je de twee factoren. Het klimaat is op hol. Het bestuur is niet adequaat voorbereid op de gevolgen. Die gevolgen zelf dragen weer bij aan de klimaatcatastrofe: ‘Niet alleen worden er door de branden enorme hoeveelheden broeikasgassen de lucht in gepompt, ook de Siberische permafrost smelt, de ondergrond die eigenlijk nooit helemaal ontdooit’.(4) Door dat smelten komt steeds meer methaan vrij. Dat methaan, je raadt het al, is zelf weer een broeikasgas. Zo voedt de klimaatramp zichzelf.
Dit soort rampen krijgen ene paar nieuwsberichten, maar ze worden al snel door soortgelijke ellende elders uit de publiciteit geduwd. Vaak zijn er zelfs meerdere rampen tegelijk gaande. Terwijl Jakoetië brandde, sloegen ook in het zuiden van de Amerikaanse staat Oregon de vlammen om zich heen een hele grote vuurzee, in wat de Bootleg Fire genoemd werd. Het is de op twee na grootste brand in de geschiedenis van de staat. De geproduceerde hitte is zo groot dat de brand zelf heftige weersverschijnselen op gang brengt. ‘De intensiteit en extreme hitte kan de wind dwingen om er om heen te gaan, wolken te creëren en soms zelfs zogeheten vuurtornado’s op te wekken – kolkende kolommen van hitte, rook en sterke wind’, zo wordt in Common Dreams de New York Times geciteerd. Common Dreams schrijf er doodleuk bij: ‘De Bootleg Fire is een van de minstens 83 grote branden die woeden in 13 staten”, alleen al in de Verenigde Staten dus.(5)
Ook waar de boel niet brandt heeft droogte rampzalige gevolgen. Een enkel voorbeeld, uit Californië. In die staat werd een waterkrachtcentrale stilgelegd.(6) De reden: het water in Lake Oroville staat te laag, vanwege de langdurige droogte. Het waterpeil in dat meer daalde al twee jaar gestaag, en nu dreigt te laag te worden om turbines goed aan te drijven. Daarom ligt de Hyatt-centrale, een stroomleverancier die 800.000 huishoudens kan voorzien, stil. Stroom van elders halen kan wel, maar dan moeten leidingen natuurlijk niet beschadigd raken door bijvoorbeeld bosbranden elders.
Intussen trekken branden elders aandacht. Nu.nl op 32 juli 2021: ‘Griekenland, Italië en Turkije kampen nog altijd met hevige bosbranden. Dat leidde zaterdag tot nieuwe evacuaties.’(7) Op 5 augustus bleek Athene door de naderende vlammen gevaar te lopen.(8) Op 7 augustus konden we lezen dat mensen van het Griekse eiland Evia geëvacueerd zijn wegens het vuur. In Athene kwam as van brand elders omlaag. ‘Griekenland maakt de zwaarste hittegolf in dertig jaar mee. Ook kampt het land met droogte’, aldus Nu.nl dat ook bericht dat bestuurders zeggen dat er te weinig materiaal is om de branden te bestrijden.(9) Weer de twee factoren: het klimaat zorgt voor hitte en droogte. Het bestuur zorgt voor tekorten om de gevolgen te helpen op vangen. Het zelfde kapitalisme dat de rampen veroorzaakt via broeikasuitstoot, ondermijnt tegelijk de bestrijding van de gevolgen via bezuinigingen. Double fun, maar dan omgekeerd.
2
Het is zaak om die beide factoren te benoemen. Alleen wijzen op gebrekkige rampenbestrijding laat de diepere oorzaak – en daarmee de mogelijke lange termijn-oplossing, die intussen steeds onmogelijker wordt – onbenoemd, evenals de verantwoordelijke machten voor die klimaatramp. Maar alleen wijzen op de klimaatramp en de noodzaak om fossiele brand- en grondstoffen en voeding op dierlijke basis uit te bannen en zo meer, ziet over het hoofd dat mensen nu in de ellende zitten, en dat zelfs het ogenblikkelijk stopzetten van iedere broeikasuitstoot de huidige branden, droogte en overstromingen niet stillegt. Mensen hebben nu hulp en bescherming nodig, en waar regeringen die niet bieden, worden mensen logischerwijs heel boos.
Dit is een punt dat Kaveh Madani in een iets ander verband maakt met betrekking tot de watertekorten in de Iraanse provincie Khuzestan en de protesten daartegen. Ja, daar speelt klimaatverandering een rol: daar wordt de droogte door in de hand gewerkt. Maar dat is geen reden om Iraanse bestuurders en het bewind waar zij deel van uitmaken, vrij te pleiten. Hun besluiten, hun keuzes, hun prioriteiten hebben ervoor gezorgd dat dat het beschikbare water zo ongeveer overal terecht kwam, behalve daar waar bewoners er iets aan hebben. Alles aan het klimaat toeschrijven laat die bestuurders vrijuit gaan, en dat is niet goed. Dus: ‘maast die wereldwijde strijd (tegen klimaatverandering, PS) moeten we onthouden dat plaatselijke beslissers aansprakelijk zijn voor vermijdbare mislukkingen van milieubeheer die resulteren in de degradatie en het lijden dat we nu zien’, zo sluit Madani – zelf als voormalig plaatsvervangend vicepresident in Iran een d van die beslissers – diens artikel af.
Dat punt houden we beter even in gedachten als we het over Turkije gaan hebben. Ook dat land beleeft een ramp van verschroeiende hitte en vlammenzeeën. Die nam amper verantwoordelijkheid ‘Sommige politici en regeringsgezinde media suggereren dat de Koerdische organisatie PKK achter de natuurbranden zit, al is hier geen bewijs voor’.(11) Natuurlijk, geef de schuld maar aan Koerdische verzetsstrijders!De geloofwaardigheid van dat verhaal was meteen al minimaal. In buurlanden Griekenland, Italië en ook in Albanië en Noord-Macedonië, woedden soortgelijke branden. Daar hebben ze helemaal geen PKK om de schuld aan te geven.
Het is goed om de houding onder de Turkse bevolking te zien. Mensen waren niet tevreden over de aanpak van de ramp, en soms rechtstreeks boos op de autoriteiten. Bijvoorbeeld Kemal Deniz, een Turkse nederlandeer met een huis in in de Turkse stad Antalya. ‘“Mensen zijn hier geschrokken en verdrietig. Ze voelen zich machteloos en niet goed geholpen door de Turkse overheid” , zegt hij. Velen zijn boos omdat er alleen wordt geblust met helikopters en niet met blusvliegtuigen.’ Dat laatste is intussen veranderd – klaarblijkelijk door buitenlandse hulp – maar dat neemt de eerdere indruk niet weg. EN dan is er de zelfgenoegzame regeringstoon. Deniz nogmaals: ‘Erdogan (de Turkse president, PS) sprak op televisie geen medeleven uit, hij zei alleen dat Turkije goed bezig was met blussen.’(12) Het lijkt Rutte wel, over COVID-19.
Meer onvrede, meer contrast. Can Turan, wonend in Leiden maar met Marmaris als plaats van herkomst, beschrijft de evacuatie van toeristen. Die ‘is niet goed gegaan. Sommige zijn in transportboten naar Marmaris gebracht, maar die boten raakten heel snel vol en over de weg kon je niet gaan. Gelukkig is er veel Turkse gastvrijheid. Er kwamen veel vissersbootjes die allemaal meehielpen om mensen in veiligheid te brengen.’(13) Geen adequate overheidsaanpak. Wel de hulpvaardigheid van doodgewone mensen waar het uiteindelijk op aan komt. Can Turan spreekt ook van ‘mismanagement door de overheid. We hebben veel te weinig voorzieningen om bosbranden te bestrijden.’ Geldtekort kan zoiets trouwens niet zijn, want voor bommenwerpers, tanks, pantserwagens en heel veel traangas is merkwaardigerwijs ruimschoots budget. De Koerdistan Unie van Gemeenschappen KCK maakte al een soortgelijk punt, in een verklaring waarin het presidentschap ervan de beschuldiging dat de PKK achter de branden zit, nadrukkelijk weerspreekt.(14) Beetje overbodig wellicht dat laatste, gezien de minimale geloofwaardigheid die de regering intussen rond de branden nog heeft.
Hier en daar is de woede al behoorlijk fel. The Guardian besteedt er uitgebreid aandacht aan(15) en laat bijvoorbeeld een bewoner uit de omgeving van Marmaris aan het woord. ‘Ik sterf en smeek al vijf dagen [de autoriteiten om te helpen]’, zegt die. ‘Ze zeiden dat ze zouden helpen als het vuur bij huizen komt. Welnu, hier ga je, het is bij de huizen. Hoe ter wereld kan zo’n regering, zo’n management bestaan?’ En hij voegt toe: “God verdoeme ze allemaal. Als ze ook maar enige vrees van God hebben, of een geweten, dan zouden ze af moeten treden.’
Er is reden voor zulke woede. Die is losgekomen ‘nadat de regering toegaf dat het land geen bruikbare blusvliegtuigen had’. Aan waterkanonnen heeft het land minder tekort – die worden intussen als blusmateriaal ingezet. Erdogan maakt zich intussen enigszins belachelijk door naar rampgebied te reizen, theezakjes naar mensen te gooien en te beweren dat er zoveel steun komt bij wederopbouw ‘dat “anderen wiens huizen niet zijn afgebrand zouden willen dat die van hun ook afgebrand zouden zijn”’.
The Guardian citeert ook nog deskundige wat betreft bosbeheer, Erdogan Atmis. Die zegt: ‘het budget voor bosbrandpreventie is gereduceerd, en managers op het directoraat-generaal voor bosbeheer die werkelijk deskundig en ervaren zijn wat het bestrijden van branden betreft, zijn uit hun baan gezet en vervangen door pro-regeringsmensen.’ Intussen waarschuwden autoriteiten TV-stations dreigend: ‘Voortdurende live verslaggeving over de branden “demoraliseert de mensen” en kan bestraft worden’. Van de beschuldigingen richting PKK horen we intussen vrij weinig meer.
Het is duidelijk: de regering van Turkije heeft een blusprobleem maar ook een geloofwaardigheidsprobleem. Dat komt er van als de prioriteit van de overheid ligt bij repressie van andersdenkenden, oorlog tegen Koerden en lucratieve prestigeprojecten. Dus ja, die branden worden in de hand gewekt door klimaatverandering. Maar al die boze mensen die nu hulp nodig hebben, en die naar boven wijzen, naar bestuurders en regering als verantwoordelijk voor wanbeleid en asociale prioriteiten, die mensen hebben groot, heel groot gelijk. Dat geldt in Turkije, maar feitelijk overal waar klimaatverandering soortgelijke rampen helpt ontketenen en de overheid mensen goeddeels laat barsten. Mensen zijn wel wegens kleinere aanleidingen aan een revolutie begonnen.
YOUTUBE.COMGAME OF THRONESA LANNISTER ALWAYS PAYS HIS DEBTS4.16-4.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUg2Q4A13Ss
CHAPTERS RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEEN
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
FINAL
[END OF THE CHAPTERS, NOW READ MY ARTICLE!]
[Written between 10 March and 7 August 2021!]
Readers!At 10 March anno Domini 2021 I did a promise to you, that I wouldcomment on the Sensational Oprah Winfrey interview with PrinceHarry and his wife Meghan Markle [1], who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties [2]However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne [3],which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! [4]Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. [5]HAHAHA/NO, That’s a half joke!I think one of the reasons is, that here I saw a Couple, that chose foreach other, despite the racist backlash Meghan Markle had from the beginning [6]and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf [7].Seems like a modern fairy Tale and Why not?People are allowed to dream, to juice the very life! That was the Fairy Tale side of it.But like a bad dream in ”Alice in Wonderland” [8], it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first [9], but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later. But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued [10], even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” [11]The petitioner considered the titles as ” ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’and considered them as ” ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. [12]Be that as it may [indeed, in 21st century monarchs and royal titles are a thing apart], but is this just an outburst of republicanism [13]or…it is more?Because, when it were just them ”holding royal titles”, then why especially directed against Prince Harry and his wife and not against the rest of the royal family, like Prince Harry’s elder brother, Prince William, heir to the throne after their father the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles?[Prince Willam is the Duke of Cambridge] [14]Seems suspicious to me! Because the whole case felt unfair to me, I send an email letter to the Council of Brighton, in which I wrote among else: ”Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;” [15] I was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr R. Watson, Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council” ””Dear Astrid Essed,
Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.
Best regards,
Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”
[16]
The haters did not win! [17]
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
But like Prince Harry rightly stated in his declaration to defend his then
fiancee Meghan Marke [18], there has been a nasty, racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle from nearly the beginning the press [and others]
knew, that she had a love relation with Prince Harry. [19]
Of course it were not all journalists and the whole press:
Espexially low class ”journalist” Piers Morgan [20] led the smear campaign for resaons he knows best, followed by other journalistic
nobodies [21]
By the way:
This Piers Morgan journalist is so obsessed by his vendetta against
Meghan Markle, that he recently [march 2021] left the ITV Good Morning Britain show program because of his [again] hateful remarks about Meghan Markle, even though she and her husband left the country for a time already [22]
The reason for his nasty remarks led in the Oprah Winfrey interview [23]
and the remarks Meghan Markle made about her mental state of health
[suicide thoughts] [24]
I refer to that later.
But of course not the whole press was led by either racist or hateful
[or a combination of the two] moties against Meghan Markle:
For example journalist Zoe Williams did a good job with her
article in the Guardian ”Whatever Meghan does, she’s damned. Let’s not
repeat history.”, fighting the nasty villification of Meghan Markle. [25]
Am I saying now, that Meghan Markle is a Saint?
Of course not!
Everybody makes mistakes and she will have made hers:
But here I am fighting the abnormal negative attention, with often
racist undertones Meghan Markle got [26] and I am glad that there were
journalists, who played fair play!
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Anyway, partly because of that continuing smear campaign against
Meghan Markle [27], Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, who became happy parents of a son, Lord Archie, on 6 may 2019 [28], decided
to step back as senior royals, splitting their time between the UK and
North-America. [29]
That was in january 2020. [30]
The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it [31], as if Meghan Markle
made that decision alone…..!
Cherchez la Femme…../HAHAHAHA
First the Royal Couple went to Canada, later they moved to L.A. [Los Angeles] [32]
According to my information, they now live in Montecito [33], where Meghan Markle expects their second child [34], a daughter, as they revealed
in the Oprah Winfrey interview. [35]
A special Blessing after the miscarriage Meghan suffered last year! [36]
By the way, I forgot to mention, that after leaving England, Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle signed contracts with Netflix and Spotify [37]
A Shrewd Couple!
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
As I wrote before, in the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and
Meghan made up their mind, not to return to their royal tasks and
duties. [38]
Also we have seen Prince Harry and his son Lord Archie’s right on
succession to the throne remains the same. [39]
But [and that’s understandable, since they don’t do the
Royal Job anymore] that they lose their royal patronages. [40]
Prince Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, issued a declaration,
stating, confirming this grand step of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan,
stating ”While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family” [41]
The Statement of the Queen also referred to the fact, that
the royal patronages were withdrawn:
”Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.'[42]
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
So far, so good.
Now the interview with Oprah Winfrey
That D….mnd interview. [43]
Now assuming, that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke the truth
with Oprah Winfrey, did it shocked me?
For a part, yes.
For a part, no, since I already learnt [and wrote about] the racist smearcampaign against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by the press. [44]
But now the Royal Family was involved, at least one [or more?] members,
uttering racist remarks. [45]
And not the least!
I quote from the interview:
”Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.” [46]
AND THAT’S SOMETHING!
OR ISN’T IT?
Before going deeper into this, there were twelve higlights in the notorious
[or famous] interview, which BBC clarified for us [47]:
I mention them for you, one by one:
1 Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be
2 Kate ”made Meghan cry”, not the other way around
3 Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help
4 Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends
5 Harry feels ”let down” by Charles
6 But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good
7 Harry ”cut out financially”
8 The truth behind a photograph
9 Meghan ”didn’t do any research” on the Royal Family
10 They exchanged vowed three days before their wedding
11 Archie’s favourite phrase is ”drive safe”
12 And….it’s a girl!
[48]
Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing [49] I consider as less important, I can’t judge who is right, I was not there], I only mention those things
which I think are really important.
To begin with:
THE FIRM, THAT MYSTERIOUS FIRM
During the interview with Oprah Winfrey, several times Meghan Markle
refers to an institution within the British Royal Family, ”The Firm” and she is very vague about the person or persons who back[s] this:
I quote from the interview:
”Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?
Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right? [50]
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things” [51]
ANOTHER QUOTE ABOUT ”THE FIRM”/THE PRESSURE
” And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.” [52]
THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING
[Quote]
”Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people” [53]
THE FIRM/RACIST REMARKS
I must confess readers, that I don’t get grip on this, no persons
mentioned, no facts to check, no names
”It” or ” those people” can be anyone in the Royal Family, but, assuming that
Meghan Markle speaks the truth about some damaging sides of ”The Firm” [like having trouble with the skin colour of her and Prince Harry’s first child, Archie, a horror story, which was confirmed by Prince Harry, as denying Meghan a form of help, when she was depressed] [54], that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.
I puzzled and puzzled, but without more information I can’t make sense
of this.
Only of course, that assuming Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the truth, there must be a racist cuckoo in the British Royal Family, which is
no suprise to me, after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism. [55]
Would have been strange if it had not affected the Royal Family.
So ”The Firm” is a vague Institution of a series of people [who, is the big question] in the Royal Family with some power and some of them
have uttered very painful, racist things against Prince Harry about
the possible skin colour of the baby [who turned to be ”Lord Archie] [56]
I’ve puzzled and puzzled, like as I’m sure most people, who
saw or read the interview [I did noth], who that mysterious person or
persons might be, who made those nasty remarks about the skin colour
of Lord Archie, the great grandson of reigning Queen Elizabeth II!
If the whole thing is true-if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the
truth and for now I have no reason to doubt that-it is a nasty business, but, again, not the whole amazing, that racism also exists between the British
Royal Family after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism! [57]
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
More important is the Statement of the Queen, who spoke out concerns
about those racist remarks after the Oprah Winfrey interview. [58]
Quoting the message of Buckingham Palace:
”The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” [59]
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEENThat’s clear talk and as Meghan Markle remarked in the famous Oprah Winfreyinterview about the Queen:”So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . .
Oprah: Was this on the train?
Meghan: Yeah, on the train.”
AND
”Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.
Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?
Meghan: Yes.” [60]
Prince Harry also commented:
” I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
ALSO
”My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be. ” [61]
[HAHAHA, THE MILITARY WAY……]
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
As I said before, I don’t comment on all the topics of that famous
Oprah Winfrey Interview
I leave the Meghan/Katie thing [62] for what it is, that Meghan didn’t do research on the Royal Family [63] etcetera.
Also I don’t comment on Prince Harry’s relationship between his father
and brother [64], because fathers and sons often have their issues, like brothers.
After all, fathers and sons are fathers and sons and brothers will
be brothers and in most cases, everything will be allright and they”
ll end as one big, happy fami!y!
And I do believe, that a Royal Life can be a golden harnass [as Prince Harry commented, that his father and brother are ”trapped” [64], but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?
As Prince Harry said himself ”It’s part of the job” [65]
Also Prince Harry’s remarks, that he was ”cut out financially” [66],
didn’t impress me.
When you are the grandson of the Queen, one of the richest women in
the world [67] and you have been raised with all kinds of privileges
and financial advantages, than ”cut out financially” means a totally
different story than when it happens to the common man.
Besides, the first task of any man and father, royalty or not, is
to provide for his family on his own force.
So that’s for the royal privileges
But of course that all changes , when you are twelve [two weeks after his mother’s death, Prince Harry became thirteen years old] and fifteen years old
when you loses your mother far too early by a car crashincident, pushed
by the tabloids and you have to walk behind her coffin for the eyes
of the whole world to see [68]
I felt really sorry for Prince Harry and his brother Prince William at that moment.
Too young, far too young to lose one;s mother [although it is never the right time]
That also changes when you feel that depressed, like Meghan Markle stated in the Oprah interview, that you want to take your own life…..[69]
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
Even about that statement boulevard hater Piers Morgan made a nasty remark, so he had to leave Good Morning Britain after more than 40.000 complaints! [70]
GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!
So therefore I wanted to comment that depression of Meghan Markle,
nearly ruining her life and that of her family.
And if it’s really true, that Meghan knocked on the door of
”the Firm” and they didn’t open it, when she was in need [refused to give
the necessary help] [71], that that’s more than scandalous.
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
Since I began to comment the famous Oprah Interview [in March] until now [August], much has happened in the British Royal Family, so including in the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Prince Harry’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died [72]
Prince Harry and his brother Prince William unveil a statue in the honour of their mother, Princess Diana [73] and of course the happy arrival of
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Lady Lilibeth, the eleventh grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and named after her greatgrandmother Queen Elizabeth [Lilibet was the name the Queen’s family called her] and her grandmother Princess Diana [74]
[They listened to me:
I always said, that when Harry and Meghan became parents of a daughter,
they had to name her after her greatgrandmother the Queen/HAHAHA]
Also Prince Harry revealed some issues he had with his father concerning
the way he was raised [75], but I consider that as personal and I am sure
they will work that out.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have their own life now, far from any
racist smearcampaign [76] and I wish them, with their children, a happy life!
FINAL
So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini [77], I would comment on
the famous Oprah Winfrey interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Now I did.
And you readers probably will ask yourself:
Why she is bothering with an interview from march, we living in august?
Normally indeed I would not bother, but now it is important, because racism is there, that greeneyed monster [78] that can ruin lives.
But happily not the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who choose the
right way to leave this mess behind them.
But this is racism in the highest circles, the British Royal Family and you
would think, that somebody who is that priviliged as the Duchess of Sussex, should not be subject of it.
Yet it happened, but luckily she has a true husband, Prince Harry, who supports her no matter what, as he has proved. [79]
That made it worth to write about this, although it was months ago, that
the interview was taken.
As I wrote in this article, I could not track down, who is the racist cuckoo
in the British Royal Family, but that matters not.
Fact is, that racism is appartently also the issue in those circles.
And alas, racism is with us for a long time yet, perhaps until
we are attacked by aliens and together we are defending our Mother Earth
[HAHAHA]
But fighting against racism and prejudice, wherever you find it, was worth
to write this article.
And the fact that I completed this article five months after the famous Oprah Winfrey interview [80], adds the worth of fighting for equality.
[71] ”Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . . ”
Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: This wasn’t a choice. This was emails and begging for help, saying very specifically, ‘I am concerned for my mental welfare’. And people going, ‘Oh, yes, yes, it’s disproportionately terrible what we see out there to anyone else’. But nothing was ever done, so we had to find a solution.
…
….
THE SUN
MEGHAN MARKLE OPRAH INTERVIEW: READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF DUCHESS AND PRINCE HARRY’S BOMBSHELL CONFESSIONS
Buckingham Palace has announced the death of the Queen’s husband of 73 years
The Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen’s “strength and stay” for 73 years, has died aged 99.
A statement from Buckingham Palace on Friday said: “It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. His Royal Highness passed away peacefully this morning at Windsor Castle. Further announcements will made in due course. The Royal Family join with people around the world in mourning his loss.”
He was the longest serving consort in British history, and was only months away from his 100th birthday in June.
Philip had returned to Windsor Castle on 16 March to be reunited with the Queen after spending a month in hospital – his longest stay. He initially received care for an infection but then under went heart surgery for a pre-existing condition.
An official notice of his death was posted on the railings of Buckingham Palace, as is traditional, but was being removed shortly afterwards to avoid crowds gathering.
The coronavirus pandemic will have a major impact on the carefully laid plans for the duke’s funeral. With restrictions still in place amid the Covid-19 outbreak, the public elements of the final farewell will not be able to take place in their original form.
Philip’s health had been slowly deteriorating for some time. He announced he was stepping down from royal engagements in May 2017, joking that he could no longer stand up. He made a final official public appearance later that year during a Royal Marines parade on the forecourt of Buckingham Palace.
Since then, he has rarely been seen in public, spending most of his time on the Queen’s Sandringham estate in Norfolk, though moving to be with her at Windsor Castle during the lockdown periods throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and where the couple quietly celebrated their 73rd wedding anniversary in November 2020.
He celebrated his 99th birthday in lockdown at Windsor Castle. He spent much of the Covid-19 crisis staying with the Queen at Windsor in HMS Bubble – the nickname given to the royal couple’s reduced household of devoted staff during lockdown.
The duke spent four nights at King Edward VII hospital in London before Christmas 2019 for observation and treatment in relation to a “pre-existing condition”.
Despite having hip surgery in April 2018, he attended the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle a month later and was seen sitting beside the Queen at a polo match at Windsor Great Park in June. He and the Queen missed Prince Louis of Cambridge’s christening in July 2018, but he was seen attending Crathie Kirk near Balmoral in August, and driving his Land Rover in the surrounding Scottish countryside in September.
Despite living quietly out of the public eye, he made headlines when involved in a car crash in January 2019. Two women needed hospital treatment after he was apparently dazzled by the low sun as he pulled out of a driveway on the Sandringham estate. A nine-month-old baby boy in the other vehicle was unhurt. The Crown Prosecution Service decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute the duke after he later voluntarily surrendered his driving licence.
Born on the island of Corfu, Prince Philip, who once described himself as “a discredited Balkan prince of no particular merit or distinction”, played a key role in the development of the modern monarchy in Britain.
Though never officially given the title of prince consort, he lived a life of relentless royal duty, relinquishing his promising naval career, which some believed could have seen him rise to become First Sea Lord, for a role requiring him to walk several feet behind his wife.
Having made this choice, he immersed himself wholeheartedly in national life, carving out a unique public role. He was the most energetic member of the royal family with, for many decades, the busiest engagements diary.
Even when well-advanced in years, he could be seen on walkabouts hoisting small children over security barriers to enable them to present their posies to his wife.
Often he received little public recognition for his endeavours. In part this was due to his uncomfortable relationship with the press, whom he labelled “bloody reptiles” and whose coverage often focused on his gaffes. He once told the former Conservative MP and biographer Gyles Brandreth: “I have become a caricature. There we are. I’ve just got to accept it.”
The duke could be blunt and outspoken to the point of offensiveness. He claimed to have coined the word “dontopedalogy”: a talent for putting one’s foot in one’s mouth. Prone to bad-tempered outbursts, he never suffered fools gladly. Equally, he could be charming, engaging and witty – and displayed such genuine curiosity on his official visits that his hosts were flattered.
While constitutionally excluded from major areas of the Queen’s professional life – he held no constitutional role other than as a privy counsellor and saw no state papers – he set about modernising a monarchy he feared could end up as a museum piece.
It was at his instigation that the practice of presenting debutantes at court was abolished in 1958. He initiated informal palace lunches to which guests from a variety of backgrounds were invited. Garden parties were broadened.
He chaired the Way Ahead Group – composed of leading royal family members and their advisers – to analyse and avert criticism of the institution.
The Queen, who deferred to him in private, would say: “What does Philip think?” on any major matter concerning the royal household. Big decisions, including her finally agreeing to pay tax on her private income, the abolition of the royal yacht Britannia, and her letter to Charles and Diana suggesting an early divorce, were taken after consultation with the duke, according to insiders.
He set out his views on the monarchy on several occasions, recognising it could not be all things to all people and therefore would always find itself in a position of compromise – or risk being kicked from both sides. But, he argued: “People still respond more easily to symbolism than to reason.” People instinctively understood the idea of a representative rather than a governing leader, and it was important for national identity, he maintained.Advertisement
He had a keen interest in religion and conservation, despite dispatching a 2.5-metre (8ft) tiger with a single shot on an official visit to India in 1961, the same year he became president of the World Wildlife Fund UK.
Industry, science and nature were other passions. One of his most famous speeches was in 1961 when he told leading industrialists: “Gentlemen, I think it is time we pulled our fingers out.” And he loved gadgets.
From the outset he took a keen interest in young people through the Duke of Edinburgh award, which he launched in 1956, inspired by his school days, and organisations such as the National Playing Fields Association and the Outward Bound Trust.
With his youthful good looks and sporting prowess, Philip was a pin-up. He played polo until, in 1971, injury forced him to retire, after which he took up four-in-hand carriage driving – a coach with four horses – which he continued to compete in at international level well into his 80s.
He was a crack shot, a qualified pilot and an accomplished sailor. As the searchlight control officer on the battleship HMS Valiant, he was mentioned in dispatches in 1941 for his role in the Battle of Matapan against the Italian fleet. His wartime service also saw him present at the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay in 1945.
His love of the outdoors and physical pursuit was nurtured in childhood at Gordonstoun, the Morayshire school founded by Kurt Hahn, which encouraged self-reliance in pupils. Hahn had a profound influence on the young prince, who rarely saw his parents as a child.
Born at the family home of Mon Repos, apparently on the kitchen table, on Corfu on 10 June 1921, Philip was the youngest child and only son of Prince Andrew of Greece, an officer in the Greek army, and Princess Alice of Battenberg. The family fled when his father was charged with high treason in the aftermath of the heavy defeat of the Greeks by the Turks. They were evacuated in a British warship, with one-year-old Philip being carried in a makeshift cot fashioned from an orange box.
He had an unsettled and peripatetic childhood. His parents separated; his father settling in Monte Carlo where he amassed significant gambling debts, and his mother, who was deaf, going on to found an order of nuns before becoming depressed and being admitted to an asylum. He later said of his family’s break-up: “I just had to get on with it. You do. One does.”
Distantly related to the Queen – they were third cousins – their paths crossed several times before he became a serious suitor in 1946, though she was said to have fallen in love with him when she was 13.
A highly ambitious and complex man, he faced many obstacles in the early days of marriage at the palace. With no money and no title, the establishment thought him a little “below the salt”. George VI was dismayed his daughter wanted to marry the first man she had met and thought her too young. Queen Elizabeth, later the Queen Mother, and never knowingly subtle, mischievously referred to him as “the Hun”, a reference to his mixed Danish, Russian and German heritage. Her brother, David Bowes-Lyon, dismissed him as “a German”.
Courtiers saw him as an outsider – with barely a suit to his name – and a little too Teutonic.
But he succeeded in overcoming prejudice and set about creating a role in which he would become the linchpin of palace life. Describing her reliance on him, the Queen said in a speech to celebrate their golden wedding in 1997: “He is someone who doesn’t take easily to compliments. But he has, quite simply, been my strength and stay all these years, and I, and his whole family, and this and many other countries, owe him a debt greater than he would ever claim, or we shall ever know.”
The bishop of London, Richard Chartres, once told the unauthorised biographer Graham Turner: “If one of the standard English aristocrats had married the Queen it would have bored everyone out of their minds.”
The Duke of Edinburgh was many things, but one thing he was not was boring.
“We remember her love, strength and character,” they said.
“Qualities that made her a force for good around the world, changing countless lives for the better.”
They said they hoped the statue would “be seen forever as a symbol of her life and her legacy” and thanked “all those around the world who keep our mother’s memory alive”.
The pair were seen laughing and talking animatedly with guests, who applauded as they pulled off a green cloth covering the statue.
They remarked on changes to the Sunken Garden, which Kensington Palace said had been “one of the princess’s favourite locations” when she lived there.
Prince Harry has hinted at difficulties between him and Prince William since stepping back from royal duties last year.
He said he had been willing to drink and take drugs to cope with the pain of losing her.
Harry, who lives in the US with his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, and their two children, arrived in the UK last week in order to complete his quarantine ahead of Thursday’s event.
ANALYSIS BY DANIELA RELPH
ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
It was a low-key event – quiet and intimate.
There were just a handful of guests at the unveiling of the statue – Prince William, Prince Harry, Diana’s two sisters, her brother and members of the statue committee.
William and Harry walked out together into the Sunken Garden. Harry, in particular, spent time with his two aunts and uncle in animated conversation.
Neither of them spoke publicly at the event. There were no speeches or fanfare.
It was professional and friendly and gave no obvious sense of the tensions behind the scenes. There was even laughter between the brothers as they prepared to unveil the bronze statue.
They don’t want the day to be about their own broken relationship. They want it to be about their mother and her legacy.
Diana’s siblings were among those at the ceremony at Kensington Palace, Diana’s former home in London.
The dukes were seen warmly greeting their aunts, Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Lady Jane Fellowes, and their uncle, Earl Spencer.
What the critics say
Ruth Millington, art historian and critic: Rank-Broadley was given a very difficult task – to honour a woman who still means so much to so many.
She was a public figure, a campaigner and an activist, as well as what she considered her most important role: a mother.
Within art history, there are far too many overly romanticised representations of mothers. But there is nothing overly sentimental about this statue. While opening her arms symbolically to the three children, Diana clasps the girl’s hand with strength.
While using the traditional medium of bronze, Rank-Broadley has broken the mould of royal monuments. He has focused on rendering the folds of fabric to indicate movement: Diana looks like she might step down from the plinth and keep walking. It’s a monument which invites engagement and embodies her openness.
With this poignant memorial, the artist has created a characterful depiction of Diana, which does her justice.
Rank-Broadley has managed to capture the many sides of Diana with this complex statue: she’s determined and graceful, brooding and warm, commanding and compassionate.
Far from elevating her to a high pedestal, he has represented her – as she will always be remembered – as a princess of the people.
Elizabeth Fullerton, art critic: It’s an uncontroversial, accessible representation of a female icon.
Is it good art? Well that depends on your taste.
It’s pretty conservative, made in a naturalistic style and doesn’t move the conversation forward in terms of innovation in contemporary art – but then again, that clearly wasn’t the aim. This isn’t the Fourth Plinth after all.
Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in August 1997, when William and Harry were aged just 15 and 12.
When they commissioned the statue of their mother in 2017, they said they hoped it would help visitors to the palace “reflect on her life and her legacy”.
More than 4,000 flowers have been planted for the Sunken Garden’s redesign, which has taken 1,000 hours to complete.
The garden – which sits within London’s Kensington Gardens, next to Hyde Park – will be open to the public to visit for free from Friday, in line with Kensington Palace’s opening hours.
(CNN)Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has given birth to a daughter, the second child for her and Prince Harry, the couple announced in a statement on Sunday.”It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.Baby Lili is a sister for the couple’s 2-year-old son, Archie Harrison.In a message on their Archewell foundation website, Meghan and Harry said they had been “blessed” by their daughter’s arrival.”She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”Buckingham Palace released a statement Sunday on the baby girl’s birth.”The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” it read.The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge tweeted their congratulations.The US Embassy in London also congratulated the Sussexes, noting the news comes just in time for Father’s Day.
‘Feeling of joy’
Harry and Meghan revealed they were expecting a girl during their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast in March.The newborn is the Queen’s 11th great-grandchild. She is eighth in line to the throne behind her grandfather Charles, uncle William, his three children (George, Charlotte and Louis), her father Harry, and big brother Archie.Her birth in the United States makes her the most senior royal in the line of succession to have been born overseas.It also makes her a dual US-UK citizen, meaning that the youngest Sussex could potentially go on to become US President when she grows up — while also being in line to the British throne.Meghan and Harry kept the pregnancy as private as possible, speaking just a handful of times about their daughter’s impending arrival.One of those occasions was for a pre-recorded message from Meghan for the recent Vax Live concert in May, which she and Harry co-chaired.”My husband and I are thrilled to soon be welcoming a daughter — it’s a feeling of joy we share with millions of other families around the world,” the Duchess told the audience at the event, intended to promote Covid-19 vaccine equity and gender equality.”When we think of her, we think of all the young women and girls around the globe who must be given the ability and support to lead us forward,” she said. “Their future leadership depends on the decisions we make, and the actions we take now to set them up, and set all of us up, for a successful, equitable, and compassionate tomorrow.”
Pregnancy announcement
The royal couple announced back in February they were expecting an addition to their family, sharing a black-and-white snap of them gazing at each other, while Meghan cradled her baby bump.The photo was shot by Misan Harriman, a Nigerian-born British photographer and friend of the couple, who took the picture remotely from his London residence.The timing of their Valentine’s Day announcement likely held special significance for the couple, coming almost exactly 37 years to the day after Prince Charles and Princess Diana revealed that they were expecting their second child: Prince Harry.Meghan disclosed in an opinion piece for The New York Times that she suffered a miscarriage last summer.Their newborn daughter is entitled to be a Lady from birth, but will likely not use the title.When Archie Harrison was born in 2019, the Duke and Duchess opted to forgo titles and indicated they would not use his father’s second peerage title, the Earl of Dumbarton.Neither of the Sussex children is currently eligible to use HRH titles, following the rules set out by George V in the 1917 Letters Patent. However, this will change when their grandfather Charles ascends to the throne.As for the question of whether Archie and his baby sister will be joined by more siblings in the future, that doesn’t seem to be on the cards right now.Harry revealed that he and his wife are likely to keep their brood limited to “two, maximum” while discussing the Earth’s dwindling resources with activist and chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall for a special edition of British Vogue last July.Harry and Meghan were married in a lavish wedding at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor, England, three years ago.They stepped back from their roles as senior working royals last year, relinquishing their HRH titles, and now live in Santa Barbara, California.
The private neighborhood
Harry and Meghan settled into their Santa Barbara home last July, according to August reports from People magazine.”They have settled into the quiet privacy of their community since their arrival and hope that this will be respected for their neighbors, as well as for them as a family,” a representative for the family told the magazine in August 2020.Richard Mineards, a columnist for Montecito Journal who covered the royals for 45 years, told CNN on Sunday that the area where they live is very “grand … with very large estates” and it does not have issues with paparazzi.”I mean, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, Oscar winner Kevin Costner (and) George Lucas live just down the road,” Mineards said. “We are a celebrity community.”The community also has “very wealthy people” such as tech billionaires, he said. “You name it, we have it,” he said. END OF THE ARTICLE”
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.
She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.
Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.
This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.”
A MESSAGE OF THANKS FROM THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
“On June 4th, we were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, Lili. She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”
Duke of Sussex also speaks of ‘genetic pain and suffering’ in royal family in new interview in US
The Duke of Sussex has appeared to criticise the way he was raised by Prince Charles, discussing the “genetic pain and suffering” in the royal family and stressing that he wanted to “break the cycle” for his children.
In a wide-ranging 90-minute interview, Prince Harry, who is expecting a daughter with Meghan and is already father to Archie, two, likened life in the royal family to a mix between being in The Truman Show and being in a zoo.
Speaking to the American actor Dax Shepard for his Armchair Expert podcast, Harry was promoting his new Apple TV+ series about mental health, The Me You Can’t See, with Oprah Winfrey, which launches next week.
Discussing his childhood, Harry said: “There is no blame. I don’t think we should be pointing the finger or blaming anybody, but certainly when it comes to parenting, if I’ve experienced some form of pain or suffering because of the pain or suffering that perhaps my father or my parents had suffered, I’m going to make sure I break that cycle so that I don’t pass it on, basically.
“It’s a lot of genetic pain and suffering that gets passed on anyway so we as parents should be doing the most we can to try and say: ‘You know what, that happened to me, I’m going to make sure that doesn’t happen to you.’”
He said that in his 20s, he realised he did not want the royal “job”, having seen what it did to his mother, Princess Diana.
He said he had been forced to “grin and bear it”, but added: “I’ve seen behind the curtain, I’ve seen the business model, I know how this operation runs and how it works. I don’t want to be part of this.
“It’s a mix of being in The Truman Show and being in the zoo.”
The Truman Show is a 1998 satirical film starring Jim Carrey, where the main character becomes aware he is secretly the star of international hit reality TV show.
Harry also told how he started therapy after a conversation with his wife, Meghan, who “saw it straight away”.Advertisement
“She could tell that I was hurting and that some of the stuff that was out of my control would make me really angry, it would make my blood boil.”
He said therapy had helped him “pluck his head out of the sand” and made him realise he needed to use his privileged position to help others.
Of Prince Charles, he said: “Suddenly I started to piece it together and go ‘OK, so this is where he went to school, this is what happened, I know this about his life, I also know that is connected to his parents so that means he’s treated me the way he was treated, so how can I change that for my own kids?’
“And well here I am, I moved my whole family to the US, that wasn’t the plan but sometimes you’ve got make decisions and put your family first and put your mental health first.”
He added that Meghan, now knowing the life of a royal, would say: “You don’t need to be a princess, you can create the life that will be better than any princess.”
Harry also revealed that he met up with his future wife in a London supermarket in the early days of their relationship and the couple pretended not to know each other.
The duke said: “It was nice with a baseball cap on looking down at the floor, walking along the street and trying to stay incognito.”
He described the freedom he felt living in Los Angeles: “I can actually lift my head and I feel different, my shoulders have dropped, so have hers, you can walk around feeling a little bit more free, I can take Archie on the back of my bicycle, I would never have had the chance to do that.”
As the podcast was released, it emerged that Madame Tussauds had moved waxwork models of Harry and Meghan away from other members of the House of Windsor and placed them in the attraction’s Hollywood zone with waxworks of other celebrities.
This article was amended on 15 May 2021 to remove an audio clip which had been included in an earlier version.
[62] BBCMEGHAN AND HARRY INTERVIEW:RACISM CLAIMS, DUKE ”LED DOWN” BY DAD, AND DUCHESS ON KATE9 MARCH
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56316659
SEE FOR THE FULL TEXT, NOTE 47
[63] BBCMEGHAN AND HARRY INTERVIEW:RACISM CLAIMS, DUKE ”LED DOWN” BY DAD, AND DUCHESS ON KATE9 MARCH
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56316659
SEE FOR THE FULL TEXT, NOTE 47
[64] ”Oprah: Please explain how you, Prince Harry, raised in a palace and a life of privilege — literally, a Prince . . . how you were trapped.
Harry: Trapped within the system, like the rest of my family are. My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.”
”Oprah: Well, OK, so the impression of the world — maybe it’s a false impression — is that, for all these years before Meghan, you were living your life as a royal, Prince Harry . . . the beloved Prince Harry and that you were enjoying that life. We didn’t get the impression that you were feeling trapped in that life.
Harry: Enjoying the life because there were photographs of me smiling while I was shaking hands and meeting people? Like, I’m sure you guys have covered some of that. That’s . . . that’s a part of the job. That’s a part of the role. That’s what’s expected. No matter who you are in the family, no matter what’s going on in your personal life, no matter what’s just happened, if the bikes roll up and the car rolls up, you’ve got to get dressed, you got to get in there. You wipe your tears away, shake off whatever you’re thinking about and you got to be on your A-game.” THE SUNMEGHAN MARKLE OPRAH INTERVIEW: READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTOF DUCHESS AND PRINCE HARRY’S BOMBSHELL CONFESSIONS8 MARCH 2021 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/
[66] ”Harry: Yeah, it exists. But, also, the Netflix and the Spotify, they’re all . . . that was never part of the plan.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Because you didn’t have a plan?
Meghan: We didn’t have a plan.
Harry: We didn’t have a plan. That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford . . . afford security for us.
Oprah: Wait. Hold . . . hold up. Wait a minute. Your family cut you off?
Harry: Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.
[67] ”Being a member of The Firm also comes with high expectations for keeping the moneymaking machine running for generations to come. The crown holds, but cannot sell, nearly $28 billion in assets through the Crown Estate ($19.5 billion), Buckingham Palace (est. $4.9 billion), the Duchy of Cornwall ($1.3 billion), the Duchy of Lancaster ($748 million), Kensington Palace (est. $630 million) and the Crown Estate Scotland ($592 million). Forbes also estimates that Queen Elizabeth has another $500 million in personal assets.”
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s explosive interview with the Queen of Media has the Windsors tied in knots. Here’s how it affects their 1,000-year-old business.
After Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s devastating interview with Oprah Winfrey on March 7, “The Firm” is on shaky ground. The senior members of the House of Windsor should have seen the tectonic consequences coming. “I don’t know how they could expect that after all of this time,” Markle told Winfrey, “we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.”
The menacing moniker dates back more than 80 years to the period following the most divisive episode in modern royal history—the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII. Alternatively attributed to Queen Elizabeth II’s father, King George VI, who succeeded his older brother, and her husband, Prince Philip, the darkly accurate nickname for the senior members of the family stuck. The Firm—also known as “Monarchy PLC”—are the public faces of a $28 billion empire that pumps hundreds of millions of pounds into the United Kingdom’s economy every year. The lavish televised weddings (the boost to the U.K. economy from Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding was an estimated $1.5 billion), buzzy tours of Commonwealth countries and public displays of pomp and circumstance generate massive interest—and profits—for a global business enterprise that spans from prime real estate in central London to remote farmlands in Scotland.
The saga of the royal family has also been a mother lode for the British media. In the Oprah interview, Markle spoke of the “invisible contract” with the tabloids, describing a relationship that is at once symbiotic, sycophantic and sinister. It’s also been great for newsstand sales and TV ratings. Three years ago, Brand Finance, a U.K.-based brand valuation firm, estimated The Firm’s contributions to the media industry at nearly $70 million. That number seems small after Harry and Meghan’s interview was broadcast in more than 60 countries. And even the prince acknowledged that they have watched the acclaimed Netflix series The Crown.
Who gets to be part of The Firm and reap the benefits has become a point of great contention over the years. Following Harry and Meghan’s departure from official duties, the number of full-time senior royals has been winnowed down to eight. Aiding Her Majesty as members of The Firm are an elite group of seven royals: Prince Charles, who is next in line for the crown, and his wife, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall; Prince William, second in line to the throne, and Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge; Princess Anne, the Queen’s daughter; and Prince Edward, the Queen’s youngest son, and his wife, Sophie, Countess of Wessex. According to historian and royal commentator Carolyn Harris, the move to narrow the inner circle is as much about consolidating resources as it is about maintaining reputational control.
“These efforts to streamline are clearly trying to counter public opinion concerned about the Sovereign Grant going to too many people and there being too much funding for minor royals,” Harris says.
The organizational chart of The Firm is a testament to the 1,000-year-old family business, and the public perception that sustains it is vital to its success. “It is a very formalized influencer business,” explains David Haigh, chief executive of Brand Finance. Unlike a celebrity family such as the Kardashians, however, the Windsors don’t personally profit from the business itself—although they contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. Haigh estimates that a royal warrant can boost the holder’s revenue by as much as 10%. The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.
Not everybody wants to be a part of the monarchy machine, however. The enormous pressures that come with the job have driven members out of the family, including, of course, Princess Diana and now Harry and Meghan. It has not always ended well for those who leave—or are pushed out—but armed with powerful celebrity friends in America and several Hollywood deals, Harry and Meghan may find themselves far better off financially (and emotionally) than those, in the words of Prince Harry, who remain “trapped.”
Elizabeth Corp.
Since she inherited the throne from her father in 1952, Queen Elizabeth has chaired The Firm—even if she doesn’t have the final say over how the business is managed. Prince Philip, the 99-year-old patriarch of the Windsor family, was once a powerful member of The Firm, but he has formally stepped back from his official duties. In addition to losing Prince Harry, the Firm ousted another senior member in the past year, after Prince Andrew’s close relationship to late pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein was exposed—and he had a disastrous television interview of his own in 2019.
Beyond the extended family, the House of Windsor has thousands of employees around the world. Buckingham Palace alone employs some 1,200 people—even if they aren’t always paid a Queen’s ransom to work there. An entry-level IT specialist can make upwards of $40,000 a year, as well as benefits, at Buckingham Palace, according to a recent job listing on an official palace portal. The Crown Estate, the institution that oversees the assets of the monarchy, also employs an additional 450 people, including a board of directors that make the financial decisions for the monarchy.
Being a member of The Firm also comes with high expectations for keeping the moneymaking machine running for generations to come. The crown holds, but cannot sell, nearly $28 billion in assets through the Crown Estate ($19.5 billion), Buckingham Palace (est. $4.9 billion), the Duchy of Cornwall ($1.3 billion), the Duchy of Lancaster ($748 million), Kensington Palace (est. $630 million) and the Crown Estate Scotland ($592 million). Forbes also estimates that Queen Elizabeth has another $500 million in personal assets.
In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, the Crown Estate pulled in more than $700 million, with more than $475 million in profits. The royal family receives 25% of the Crown Estate income, which is also known as the Sovereign Grant, and the remaining 75% goes to the British Treasury. The latest Sovereign Grant received by the royals was roughly $120 million, which the family uses solely for official expenses, which include payroll, security, travel, housekeeping, maintenance costs and IT expenses. The private expenses of the Queen, and her extended family, are also supported by another allowance through the Duchy of Lancaster called the Privy Purse. In the latest fiscal year, the Duchy of Lancaster reported a net profit of $30 million.
As with any business, the pandemic has taken a toll on royal revenue. In September, the Keeper of the Privy Purse acknowledged that the royal balance sheet faced a potential $45 million shortfall, mostly due to a major drop in tourism and visits to royal landmarks in the U.K. because of lockdowns. He also added that the royals wouldn’t be asking for extra funding from the Treasury. Not that the Queen needs to fill her coffers. Her Majesty’s $500 million in personal assets is thanks to her investments, art, jewels and real estate, including two castles: Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle. The bulk of that will pass down to Prince Charles when he finally ascends the throne. And like his mother, he won’t directly own most of that $28 billion, which includes the Queen’s personal wealth, the assets under the Crown Estate, its holdings in Scotland, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and two palaces: Buckingham and Kensington.
Charles, Inc.
Now 72, Prince Charles has the second-biggest operation within the royal family. As the Duke of Cornwall, Charles gets an income from the Duchy of Cornwall in addition to what he already receives from the Sovereign Grant. The Duchy was founded in the 14th century by Edward III to keep his first-born son occupied (and flush) while waiting to become king. Nowadays, the Duchy has a staff of 150 managing a portfolio of more than 130,000 acres of property across southwest England worth nearly $1.3 billion.
As with the Crown Estate, Prince Charles cannot sell the assets belonging to the Duchy, but he can earn money from them. By renting out property to retailers, farmers and residents, the Duchy brought in more than $50 million in revenue last year, $30 million of which went to the Prince of Wales and his descendants to support their respective staffs and operations. Even without the crown, the Duchy of Cornwall is far more lucrative for Charles than the Sovereign Grant, which paid him less than $2.5 million last year. Of that, $7.3 million funded the Prince’s 132 personal staffers, $6.75 million went to taxes and $4.4 million was dedicated to charitable activities, including the Prince’s Trust, Charles’ charity to help unemployed youth.
A good portion of this income has also been used to support his sons. Prince William and Prince Harry received a combined $7.8 million last year to support their own operations, but as Harry suggested in the Oprah interview, that is no longer the case for him. In the same interview, Meghan also suggested that part of what fueled the couple’s departure was the family’s intention to deny their son, Archie, from assuming the title of prince, along with the financial support from being a working royal. This, royal historian Harris says, is the manifestation of Charles’ particular focus on limiting the number of senior members—and consolidating the resources—of the family. Even if the decision to shut out Archie was strictly business, Harris notes that “the optics of that are not good, as that could be interpreted as excluding a mixed-race member of the royal family.”
“The worst possible accusation in their speech to Oprah was that the royal family is racist,” Brand Finance’s Haigh says. “That would damage the economic effect [of royals].” In her first statement after the Sunday interview, the Queen addressed the matter in an effort to mitigate the gallons of negative press ink spilled covering the scandal. “The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning,” Her Majesty said in her official announcement. “Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”
William, LLC
The first son of Prince Charles and third in line to the throne, Prince William, does not have a direct source of income through his father’s Duchy—but he and his wife, Kate, certainly have the power to boost the sales of brands without the royal warrant, which, according to Brand Finance, added more than $165 million to the U.K. economy annually in 2017. Kate’s halo effect has often increased the sales of brands she is seen wearing or even those that emulated her style. In 2015, G.H. Hurt & Sons, which made Princess Charlotte’s baby shawl, recorded 100,000 visits after photos of the newborn appeared in the British press.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge don’t receive any money from their influence, however. Now 38, William receives an annual income from the Duchy of Cornwall to cover his family’s private expenses. In the fiscal year ending March 2020, the prince received a portion of nearly $8 million, which he had to share with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle before they announced they were stepping away from their royal duties. Yet the Duke of Cambridge is not fully dependent on the income from the Duchy—neither is Harry. Part of the estate of their late mother, Princess Diana, went to the princes on their 25th birthdays. Thanks to what he inherited from Diana—which Forbes estimated to be $10 million—Harry and his family were able to settle down in California, he told Oprah on Sunday, after his family “literally cut [him] off financially.”
Going Out Of Business
Being cut off from the British royal family is hardly a financial death sentence. Now settled down in a $14.7 million Santa Barbara mansion in California, Harry and Meghan have several sweet deals to sustain them over the next few decades. The income will be necessary to fund round-the-clock security, which could cost as much as $4 million per year.
They also have multiple revenue streams. In December, the couple released their first podcast with Spotify, called Archewell Audio. That same month, the couple signed a three-year podcasting deal with the music giant that could be worth from as much as $15 million to $18 million,Forbes reported in February. This is in addition to the Apple TV+ series on mental health that Harry will executive produce with Winfrey for an undisclosed sum and a $100 million, five-year Netflix deal the royal couple signed in September. They are expected to produce documentaries, docuseries, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming for the streaming service, and also rake in nearly four times the allowance they received from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Choosing Winfrey to conduct their first post-royal interview was as good for their future endeavors as it was for television. When Meghan opened up about her struggles with suicidal thoughts during her time at Frogmore Cottage and not having access to mental health support, Oprah mentioned her partnership with Harry. “No one should have to go through that,” she said instantly. “You know Harry and I are working on this mental health series for Apple, so we hear a lot of these stories.”
Free from the constraints of The Firm, Harry and Meghan will not likely struggle financially as his great uncle, King Edward VIII, did when he gave up the crown to marry an American divorcée, Wallis Simpson, in the 1930s. As Brand Finance’s Haigh notes, if they expand beyond their Netflix and Spotify deals and delve into jewelry and apparel, “Harry and Meghan could become a $1 billion brand.”
[69][69] ”Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . ”
‘In Winfrey’s interview, Meghan detailed how her mental health had deteriorated while she was pregnant amid a barrage of negative press and lack of support from “the firm” – the apparatus surrounding the royal household – which had repeatedly turned down her appeals for help and discouraged her from leaving the house for months.
“It was all happening just because I was breathing,” Meghan said, breaking down in tears during the interview, which was broadcast on ITV on Monday night. “I just didn’t want to be alive any more. That was a clear, real, frightening and constant thought.”
…..
……
”Morgan questioned on Monday’s edition of GMB whether she was telling the truth. “Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report.”
Decision to quit follows Ofcom launching investigation after receiving more than 40,000 complaints
Piers Morgan has quit as co-host of ITV’s breakfast show Good Morning Britain after critical remarks he made about the Duchess of Sussex’s mental health prompted an on-air row with a colleague and an Ofcom investigation.
Pressure had mounted on Morgan since he made the comments on Monday’s edition of the show, which followed the airing of Meghan and Prince Harry’s tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey in the US on Sunday night.
The Guardian understands that a formal complaint was lodged with ITV on behalf of the duchess after the broadcast.
By early evening on Tuesday, Ofcom had received more than 41,000 complaints about Morgan’s behaviour, prompting the broadcasting regulator to launch an investigation into whether his comments broke the UK broadcasting code relating to harm and offence.
Just a couple of hours later, ITV released a statement saying: “Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add.”
In Winfrey’s interview, Meghan detailed how her mental health had deteriorated while she was pregnant amid a barrage of negative press and lack of support from “the firm” – the apparatus surrounding the royal household – which had repeatedly turned down her appeals for help and discouraged her from leaving the house for months.
“It was all happening just because I was breathing,” Meghan said, breaking down in tears during the interview, which was broadcast on ITV on Monday night. “I just didn’t want to be alive any more. That was a clear, real, frightening and constant thought.”’
She told Winfrey she had asked to go somewhere to get help with these suicidal thoughts, but was told it would not look good by one of the most senior people in the institution of the monarchy.
Morgan questioned on Monday’s edition of GMB whether she was telling the truth. “Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report.”
The remarks provoked a backlash, and it is understood that ITV executives wanted Morgan to apologise for them on-air. During Tuesday’s programme Morgan said: “When we talked about this yesterday, I said as an all-encompassing thing I don’t believe what Meghan Markle is saying generally in this interview, and I still have serious concerns about the veracity of a lot of what she said.
“But let me just state on the record my position about mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things that should be taken extremely seriously, and if someone is feeling that way they should get the treatment and help they need every time.”
On the same show, Morgan stormed off set after a discussion about Meghan with his colleague Alex Beresford. The weather presenter defended the couple, telling Morgan: “I understand you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or had one, and she cut you off. She’s entitled to cut you off if she wants to. Has she said anything about you since she cut you off? I don’t think she has but yet you continue to trash her.
As Beresford continued, Morgan got up and stormed out of the studio, saying: “OK, I’m done with this, sorry, no, can’t do this.” Beresford called his behaviour “pathetic” and “diabolical”, while co-host, Susanna Reid, was forced to send the show to an early break.
Beresford later tweeted of the discussion, in which he had also shared some of his own experiences of racism: “I wish I had the privilege to sit on the fence. In order for me to do that I would have to strip myself of my identity and that’s not something I can do. It’s not any of our places to pick apart claims of racism in order to make us to feel more comfortable.”
ITV’s chief executive, Dame Carolyn McCall, subsequently said the row was not “manufactured”.
McCall added that ITV’s managing director of media and entertainment, Kevin Lygo, had been in discussion with Morgan in recent days regarding his coverage of the Harry and Meghan interview. She said Good Morning Britain was a balanced show, adding: “ITV has many voices and we try and represent many voices every day. It’s not about one opinion.”
Among those reacting to Morgan’s exit from GMB, where he has been co-host since 2015, was Lorraine Kelly, who presents the 9am show on ITV that follows it. She told the BBC’s The One Show that Morgan had only just emailed her to break the news and said she had “no real details”.
“It’s certainly going to be quieter,” she said. “We all wish him well … Like I say, it will be calmer.”
Piers Morgan tweeted late on Tuesday: “Thinking of my late, great manager John Ferriter tonight. He’d have told me to do exactly the same thing. @GMB #TrustYourGut”
END OF THE ARTICLE
”Just a couple of hours later, ITV released a statement saying: “Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add.”
END OF THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE This is what ultimately led to his downfall after the Duchess of Sussex said she felt she “didn’t want to be alive any more”. ” Morgan said he “didn’t believe a word” the duchess had said in the interview. He later attempted to clarify his comments, saying his disbelief referred specifically to her claim that her request for support was rejected by Buckingham Palace. But by then, the damage was done.”
Piers Morgan first met Meghan Markle at a bar in Kensington in 2016.
At the time, the US actress was starring in legal drama Suits. She met Morgan while on a spring visit to the UK, as part of a trip that also included watching Wimbledon matches with her friend Serena Williams.
“We spent two hours in a pub, she had a couple of dirty martinis, I had a couple of pints, we got on brilliantly,” Morgan told Ryan Tubridy on RTÉ’s The Late Late Show.
“And then I put her in a cab, and it turned out to be a cab which took her to a party where she met Prince Harry. And the next night they had a solo dinner together, and that was the last I heard from Meghan Markle.
“She ghosted me, Ryan,” Morgan concluded. “Meghan Markle ghosted me.”
She might have gone quiet on Morgan, but it certainly wasn’t the last he and the rest of the world heard of Meghan.
Five years after those dirty martinis, she is the Duchess of Sussex, and her recent interview with Oprah Winfrey prompted so much anger from Morgan that it ultimately led to his exit from Good Morning Britain.
His departure has prompted a huge reaction from viewers and commentators, both positive and negative. But beyond those declaring their love or hatred for him, many have pointed out the far-reaching consequences of his exit.
It may be a symbolic and important gesture by a broadcaster concerned not to contradict its own message about mental health. But it will also mean the show loses its Rottweiler, who was widely praised for holding government ministers to account during the pandemic.
His absence will also almost certainly harm viewing figures. ITV shares fell nearly 5% on Wednesday, wiping almost £200m off its market value, following the announcement of Morgan’s departure.
At the point Morgan entered the world of breakfast television, ITV had been suffering poor viewing figures for several years. GMTV had been rebranded as Daybreak in 2010, but that was failing to match the ratings of its predecessor.
In 2014, ITV decided it was time for another change. Daybreak was scrapped, Good Morning Britain was launched, and Susanna Reid was poached from BBC Breakfast.
Morgan’s arrival the following year was disruptive, to put it mildly. He was combative and opinionated, a far cry from the usual warm, cuddly tone of breakfast television, and closer to the style of some morning programmes in the US.
Scepticism of woke culture was at the core of Morgan’s appeal, to the point where he wrote a book on the subject in 2020. While the rest of society grappled with issues of social progress, Morgan’s refusal to toe the politically correct line led to both backlash and praise.
His impact could be measured in a number of ways. First, there were the viewing figures, which increased dramatically. While BBC Breakfast held on to its crown, GMB improved its viewing share as people tuned in to hear Morgan’s take on the day’s events. As a result, ITV made more money from advertising.
You could also look at the column inches. The more outrageous Piers was, the more people would talk about him. The more news outlets wrote stories about him, the more clicks and ad revenue they got. By complaining so vocally, his critics were keeping him relevant, completing the cycle.
Those complaints from viewers and campaign groups were made both to Ofcom and ITV.
In 2019, an item about gender identity in which Morgan claimed he now “identifies as a penguin” prompted 1,000 complaints to the media regulator and outcry from charities and viewers. It sparked a petition, signed by more than 90,000 people, calling for his sacking. Proving his divisiveness, a counter petition was set up to keep him, and was signed by 72,000.
When a TV producer said on Twitter earlier this year that he would not work with Morgan again, the presenter responded by saying he would “rather employ a lobotomised Aardvark”. That led to an open letter to ITV accusing Morgan of bullying, signed by more than 1,000 industry workers.
And yet, Morgan has always considered himself to have liberal views. His CNN programme in the US was famous for his campaigning on gun control. And he claims “not to have a prejudiced bone in his body”, much to the incredulity of his opponents.
“The woke crowd loathe me, because the informed ones know I’m actually a liberal,” he wrote in his book, Wake Up, last year. “So on paper, I’m one of them. I’m therefore the enemy within.”
Morgan added that he considers himself a feminist and a supporter of gay rights, civil rights and transgender rights – “apart from the absurd new trend of limitless self-identification”.
But the damage his words have inflicted also cannot be ignored, such as his apparent dismissal of mental health issues. This is what ultimately led to his downfall after the Duchess of Sussex said she felt she “didn’t want to be alive any more”.
Morgan said he “didn’t believe a word” the duchess had said in the interview. He later attempted to clarify his comments, saying his disbelief referred specifically to her claim that her request for support was rejected by Buckingham Palace. But by then, the damage was done.
Welsh Health Minister Vaughan Gething spoke for many when he described Morgan’s comments as “wholly unacceptable, incredibly unkind and exactly where we should not be in public debate and discourse”.
“We’ve won lots of ground by talking and being more open about mental health challenges,” he said. “I think the comments and the tone of them would have set a number of people back.”
Morgan was also accused of missing the mark on the issues of racism raised by Meghan. He has always maintained the press’s coverage of her is motivated by her behaviour, not underlying racism.
“I’m sorry Piers, you don’t get to call out what is and isn’t racism against black people,” Trisha Goddard told him on Monday’s programme. “I’ll leave you to call out all the other stuff you want, but leave the racism stuff to us, eh?”
However, Morgan had also won over some of his previous critics in the past year, for his challenging interviews with government ministers. The absence of these exchanges will be a big loss to the show, as Kevin Maguire and Krishnan Guru-Murthy have pointed out.
Hiring a shock jock was always going to result in controversy. But could ITV have done more to rein him in?
Channel 4 historian and media commentator Maggie Brown said: “Piers Morgan needed a stronger editor or producer to just keep him in check while allowing him to be bombastic, mainstream and successful. Himself. This is a common pattern for much appreciated TV stars who go on to overstep the mark.”
And what might Morgan do next? Losing jobs has never stopped his career progression in the past.
After his exit from GMB, former politician George Galloway tweeted: “Dear Piers Morgan. You told me once ‘a sacking is an opportunity’. It turned out that way for me and I hope it will for you. In fact I’m sure it will.”
Morgan will not come cheap, but many would be keen to hire him all the same, particularly the soon-to-be-launched GB News. The channel’s chairman Andrew Neil said on Wednesday that he would be open to giving Morgan a job.
It is perhaps fitting that Morgan’s last ever appearance as a GMB presenter saw him finally get his six-year long wish.
“Good Morning Britain beat BBC Breakfast in the ratings yesterday for the first time,” Morgan pointed out when he received the viewing figures for Tuesday’s episode.
“My work is done.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
”Five years after those dirty martinis, she is the Duchess of Sussex, and her recent interview with Oprah Winfrey prompted so much anger from Morgan that it ultimately led to his exit from Good Morning Britain.” BBCPIERS MORGAN: FROM MEGHAN’S ”GHOSTING” TO GOODMORNING BRITAIN EXIT10 MARCH 2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56326337
END OF NOTE 70
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Notes 61 t/m 70/”The Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Story/Astrid’s Comments
LONDON (AP) — Buckingham Palace on Tuesday responded to Prince Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey. Here is the statement in full.
___
“The following statement is issued by Buckingham Palace on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.
“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”
“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
“Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much loved family members.”
The Queen’s statement comes after palace insiders told the Daily Mail’s royal reporter Rebecca English that the Queen was in “crisis talks” with Prince William and Prince Charles about how to respond. “Staff are reeling,” a source said. “But there is [also] a strong sense of needing to retain a dignified silence and show kindness and compassion. There’s a lot people want to say but no one wins with a tit-for-tat battle. Bridges need to be built after all this is over, after all.”
LONDON — Queen Elizabeth said Tuesday that the royal family will address allegations of racism within Buckingham Palace made by Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex in their explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey.
The queen’s comments were her first since that interview, when Harry and Meghan Markle also detailed a lack of support by the royal family for the duchess’s mental health issues and media intrusion.
“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan,” Elizabeth said in a statement issued at 5:30 p.m. London time, after hours of speculation about how she would respond to the claims.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately,” she added.
“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”
Before the statement, there had been a wall of silence from the royal family about the interview, which was aired Sunday on CBS and by British broadcaster ITV on Monday night.
The palace was said to have held “crisis talks,” according to British media reports, including the BBC, with senior royals reported to have had urgent discussions over how to limit the fallout from the interview, which saw Harry and Meghan allege that a member of the royal family had questioned what skin tone their then-unborn child might have.
Meghan, the first mixed-race member of the modern British royal family, would not reveal who had made the comment, saying, “I think that would be very damaging for them.”
The palace would not comment on the interview when contacted by CNBC on Tuesday.
During a public visit to a Covid vaccination center in London on Tuesday, Prince Charles was asked what he thought of the interview by a Sky News reporter, but did not comment.
Winfrey later clarified that the royal who had made the comment was not Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Philip.
In addition to allegations of racism, the interview contained damaging claims that the palace had failed to provide support for Meghan when she experienced mental health issues that left her feeling suicidal.
The Sussexes spoke of the pressures of royal life and also said they had been prompted to leave the U.K., and to step back from their roles as working royals early last year, because of hostility from the British tabloid press that they said the palace had failed to defend them from.
Nonetheless, the couple also said the royal family had been welcoming of Meghan when their relationship began in 2016. Meghan also said that the queen had always been “wonderful” to her.
Britain’s press responded on Tuesday with a mixture of recognition of how damaging the interview had been, and also some defensiveness.
While many papers reflected on the “bombshell” allegations that had left the palace “reeling,” others said the interview was self-serving for the couple and disrespectful to the queen.
The Daily Mirror’s headline said the interview had provoked “the worst royal crisis in 85 years,” while the Daily Express headlined with, “So sad it has come to this,” alongside a picture of the queen. The Daily Mail, meanwhile, headlined its paper Tuesday morning with the words: “What have they done?”
How damaging is it?
The interview has left commentators and royal correspondents questioning how damaging the allegations are for the royal family, an institution that has worked to maintain a public image of duty and decorum and has always sought to keep internal family affairs, let alone rifts and controversies, out of the spotlight.
After the U.S. broadcast of the interview, there was widespread public support for Meghan among commentators and friends of the couple. In the U.K., a country in which most people tend to hold the queen in high regard, if not always the wider monarchy, the reaction has been more mixed.
A live YouGov poll on Tuesday asked the public “with whom do your sympathies mostly lie” after the interview and the current results showed 40% of respondents feeling more sympathetic toward the queen and royal family, with 24% more sympathetic toward Harry and Meghan. Tellingly perhaps, another 24% said “neither.”
Whether the revelations will rock an enduring fascination with the British royal family at home and abroad remains to be seen. The dispute is bound to reignite debate over the value of the monarchy, however, and republican sentiment.
It has already stoked discussion in Australia, part of the Commonwealth and where the queen is still head of state, over whether it is time for change, with former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reportedly telling ABC TV in Australia on Tuesday that “our head of state should be an Australian citizen, should be one of us, not the Queen or King of the United Kingdom.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, meanwhile, said Monday that the country was unlikely to stop having the queen as a head of state anytime soon.
Royal worth?
There has long been a debate over the worth and cost of the monarchy, which brings in tourism revenue to the country, but also comes at a cost to the British taxpayer.
The royal household receives income from what’s known as its Crown Estate — land and properties belonging to the queen, such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, open to the public during normal times and which bring in revenue — as well as what’s called the Sovereign Grant.
The single grant is money paid by the government to enable the queen to “discharge her duties as head of state,” the government says, but it also supports other senior royals’ official duties such as overseas visits, hospitality and public engagements.
In exchange for these public funds, however, the queen has to surrender revenue from the Crown Estate to the government, which in turn calculates how much money makes up the grant.
Explaining how the Sovereign Grant works, the government noted last year that: “In exchange for this public support, the Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government which for 2018-19 was £343.5 million. The Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 is £85.9 million which is 25% of £343.5 million.”
That’s not much given that the royal family does attract visitors to the U.K., with tourism agency Visit Britain reporting back in 2017 that tourism linked to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. It’s hard to pinpoint how many visitors come specifically to the U.K. because of the monarchy, however.
The anti-monarchy campaign group Republic contests the idea that the monarchy is a boon for U.K. tourism, saying there is no evidence to back up such claims.
Vijf Tweede Kamerleden, poserend met Israëlische vlaggen tijdens de CIDI-demonstratie van 20 mei 2021. [c] Facebook
