Dear Readers Recently I sent you chapter one and two of my ”book” article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint”It is a travel to 14th century history of England and narrates the turbulent lifeof Earl Thomas of Lancaster, cousin of king Edward IIBecause it is extended, I do you the favour of sending my major article to you in chapters So recently the chapters one and two https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/
Today, chapter threeENJOY and travel with me to 14 century England……
CHAPTER THREE
CHAPTER THREE THOMAS OF LANCASTER/CONFLICT WITH HIS COUSIN, KING EDWARD II From day one?
No. Because of the bitter battle between King Edward II and his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster, there are people, who think, that they were enemies from the very beginning. However, that’s not the case.
Originally, Thomas was loyal to Edward and in good terms with him, also before his accession of King. For example: In 1305, Thomas was forced to apologise to Edward for being unable to come and attend him, as he was ill. Edward wrote back to say that he hoped to visit Thomas soon, “to see and to comfort you.” [76]
At Edward’s Edward’s coronation, on 25 february 1308, Thomas carried Curtana, the sword of St Edward the Confessor [one of the last Anglo Saxon Kings before William the Conqueror] [77] And when you read the rest of the story, it will come as a surprise to you, that according to some sources,Thomas was not after Kings’ favourite Piers Gaveston [78] from day one, but was initially rather on good terms with him. [79] He remained loyal to Edward, when in the spring of 1308, the majority of the barons were pressing for Piers Gaveston’s exile. [80]
However it seems, that in november 1308, Thomas suddenly left the Court, from reasons unknown. [81]
Dear Readers Recently I sent you chapter one of my ”book” article ”Thomas of Lancaster, rebel cousin of king Edward II, from warlord to Saint”It is a travel to 14th century history of England and narrates the turbulent lifeof Earl Thomas of Lancaster, who was one of the mightiest man of his Time, ,nobleman, warlord and cousin of king Edward II.And the most fascinating question:How does a warlord become a Saint?Read further, then you’ll get the answer….. Because it is extended, I do you the favour of sending my major article to you in chapters Recently chapter one https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-ii-from-warlord-to-saint-chapter-one/
Today, chapter twoENJOY and travel with me to 14 century England……
CHAPTER TWO
CHAPTER TWO BEGINNING OF HIS CAREER/SERVICE UNDER HIS UNCLE KING EDWARD I
In the beginning there seemed to be no trouble in paradise. Grandson of King Henry III, nephew of King Edward I, who probably arranged for him the splendid marriage with Alice de Lacy [70], daughter of Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln [71] [by the death of his father in law, Henry de Lacy, Thomas was to inherit the Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury, added to the Earldoms he inherited from his father, Edmund Crouchback [72] namely Lancaster, Leicester and Derby, which made him one of the richest nobles in the land] [73], what stood in the way of a splendid career?
And it all seemed going just fine:
On reaching On reaching full age he became hereditary Sheriff of Lancashire, but spent most of the next ten years fighting for Edward I in Scotland, leaving the shrievalty in the care of deputies.[74] He served his uncle King Edward I, by participating in the battle of Falkirk in 1298. [75]
INTRODUCTION:Readers, This is a fascinating story about Thomas of Lancaster and the persons and events that played an important part in his life in a very turbulent time. But like all fascinating stories, it is not told in two minutes. It is a real longread.
To understand the political situation in the early fourteenth century, especially chapter one, four and five are important. Chapters six describes the outbreak of the war between Thomas and his cousin the King, the chapters seven and eight the dramatic end. Chapters nine and ten, what happened thereafter.
But to make it easily readable for my readers, who enjoy history like me, I’ll send itto you in different chapters, so for you it is more easy to read and newreaders can wonder, how the story goes on SO HERE COMES FIRSTCHAPTER ONEThe next chapters you’ll see in the next days ENJOY! BEFORE CHAPTER ONE ”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ You_Win_or_You_Die How many warlords were proclaimed ”holy” after their death and were venerated as Saints? Not many, I presume….. Read further and experience the excitement of a turbulent time, with violent, lawless men, thirsty for power.Come with me…..Today I, your travel companion through the Middle Ages, introduce to you an extroardinary man, who was a warlord, England’s de facto ruler for certainly four years, fighting his cousin King Edward II for nearly ten years.His name was Thomas, the second Earl of Lancaster [1]. No, NOT to be confused with his younger brother Henry, third Earl of Lancaster, [2] one of the ancestors of the House of Lancaster [3], that branch of the Plantagenet Royal House, which fought a battle to the death with another Plantagenet branch, the House of York [4] in the Wars of the Roses. [5] This was Thomas, second Earl of Lancaster, lesser known, but in his time, a man of power and absolutely not insignificant. That’s the reason I write about him, because I feel people should know more about him.Besides:He intrigues me Because as I said, not only he was the de facto ruler in England for certainly four years, fighting his cousin, King Edward II for many years and making his own laws.
But again:
How many warlords end up ”holy”, as a Saint?
Follow me, through the chapters of history, containing power,treason, ambition, passion deceit, cruelty, but also….chivalry…. CHAPTER ONE
A
IN GENERAL/ FAMILY TIES/HISTORICAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN KINGS AND BARONS/PERSONAL LIFE/POWER AND WEALTH
FAMILY TIES (1)
Thomas was the first cousin of King Edward II [King from 1307-1327] [6], since Thomas’ father, Edmund Crouchback, the first Earl of Lancaster [7], was the younger brother of King Edward I [8], ,father of Edward II. But he also was the uncle of Queen Isabella of France [9] [wife of Edward II and daughter of the French King, Philip IV, the Fair, the Hammer of the Templars] [10], since he was the half-brother of her mother, Joan I of Navarre [wife of King Philip IV] [11]
Yes my readers, so complicated were the family relations of the English nobility, not only because of internarriage with each other, but also with French nobility [also Spanish, Flemish and other, but often, French]
To give another example to ”tease” you a little and showing the complexity of noble family relations:
Edward II had two halfbrothers, Thomas, Earl of Norfolk [12] and Edmund, Earl of Kent [13], since his father Edward I remarried after the death of his first wife, Edward II’s mother, Eleanor of Castile. [14]
But the wife he remarried, was Margaret of France. [15] the sister of the French King, Philip IV [the Fair] [16], father of Isabella, future wife of Edward II [on the moment Edward I married the lady, Isabella was not yet married to Edward II]
SO: The Earls of Norfolk and Kent [halfbrothers of Edward II] were, of course, the brothers in law of Queen Isabella, but also her first cousins, since their mother, Queen Margaret of France [17], was also the sister of Isabella’s father, King Philip IV, the Fair. [18]
No wonder Papal Dispensation was often needed for noble marriages! [19]
B
CONFLICT SEEN IN A BROADER LIGHT/ABOUT CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION
Let’s go to Thomas’ interesting, but turbulent life, in a turbulent time, which led to the disaster of many, including the King. [20]
As shows the story, Thomas of Lancaster had a major conflict with the King, was four years long the uncrowned King and two times leader of oppositional barons against King’s power, leading two rebellions against the King. [21]
Now some sources called Thomas lawless, violent and powerseeking. [22] He may have been all that [I am not going to deny that, on the contrary], but it is shortsighted to see the conflict only from that personal point of view.
It’s more complicated:
Because this was not only a conflict between two powerful men, cousins, one the King and the other close to the throne. No: Moreover this conflict revealed the eternal struggle between centralization and decentralization. Between a King and his feudal lords about who should control the country.
When the King was a ”strong leader”, like Edward I [23], he held the nobles in order, when the authority was weaker, the nobles gained power. The causes of a weak authority may have differed, but fact was, that nobility, of course, took advantage of weak leadership.
C
EARLIER CONFLICTS BETWEEN KINGS AND THEIR BARONS [24]
KING JOHN [LACKLAND] AND HIS BARONS
As I wrote, apart from the specific circumstances [see below], the fight between Edward II and his cousin, Thomas of Lancaster has to be viewed in a broader light: The struggle between centralization [the Kings absolute power, ”divine majesty”] [25] and decentralization [increasing inluence of his feudal lords, the nobility].
Edward II was not the first King, who had serious conflicts with his barons
As well as his greatgrandfather John Lackland [John, King of England], [26] as his grandfather, King Henry III [27], clashed with their barons:
Because the times changed:
Were John Lackland’s father, King Henry II [28], as his brother, Richard I of England [The Lion Heart] [29], kings, who ruled on the basis, that the King was ”above the law” [divine majesty”] , in the time of John Lackland, there were contrary opinions expressed about the nature of kingship, and many contemporary writers believed that monarchs should rule in accordance with the custom and the law, and take counsel of the leading members of the realm. [30]
[31] Now John Lackland was, as a person, hard to deal with and increasing troubles were ahead:
He had a serious conflict with Pope Innocentius III [32], which resulted in an interdict of England [33] and John’s excommunication [34] King John was reported nearly to have converted to Islam in order to get support from Caliph Nasir, asking for help…..[35]
He clashed [almost from the beginning of his reign] with his barons, wanting to hold on
his ”rights” and claimed an “almost imperial status” for himself as ruler. [36]
This resulted in a number of wars with the barons, leading to the Magna Charta in 1315, enlarging the power of the barons. [37]
KING HENRY III AND HIS BARONS/SIMON DE MONTFORT
During the reign of King Henry III [38], son of John Lackland and grandfather of Edward II, at first peace seemed to be restored with the barons. [39]
But…..nothing lasts forever!
Henry faced a true crisis with the barons, who rose against him under the leadership of Henry’s brother in law, Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester [40], who had [seen in the light of that time], radical reform ideas. [41] He was the de facto ruler of England for less than a year. [42] and is known to have established a Parliament, with not only the barons and the knights of the shires [43], but also burgesses [44] of the major towns. [45] This parliament is sometimes referred to as the first English parliament and Montfort himself is often termed the founder of the Commons.[46]
At the end, he died in the battle of Evesham in 1265, beaten by the troops of prince Edward [eldest son of Henry III], the latter King Edward I [47]
In sofar there is a similarity with Thomas of Lancaster, who also ruled England [de facto] and seemed to have been influenced by Simon de Montfort’s ideas. [48]
That being said: Yet I think, that Thomas, far more than Simon de Montfort, had a personal power motive to wage war on his cousin Edward II.
Besides I don’t think, that Thomas of Lancaster was interested in more reforms than greater power for the barons.
D
THOMAS OF LANCASTER, DESCENT AND FAMILY TIES [EXTENDED] (2)
Thomas of Lancaster [c 1278-1322], who became the great adversary of his cousin King Edward II, was the eldest son of Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster [49], who was the second son of King Henry III [50], and brother of King Edward I. [51] Thomas’ younger brother was Henry, [later the 3rd Earl of Lancaster] [52], ancestor of the House of Lancaster. [53]
SO: He was the cousin of King Edward II, since his father [Edmund Crouchback] was the brother of Edward II’s father, King Edward I.
Thomas’ mother was Blanche of Artois [54], daughter of Count Robert I of Artois [55], who was the son of the French King Louis VIII [56] and the brother of King Louis IX [also called ”Saint Louis”] [57] Which made Blanche the niece of King Louis [IX] ”Saint Louis”
SO: Thomas of Lancaster descended from both English and French royal Houses, being the grandson of King Henry III and the greatgrandson of the French King Louis VIII.
A good Medieval curriculum vitae!
But there was more to the story:
When his mother, Blanche of Artois, married his father, Edmund Crouchback, she was a Dowager Queen, having been married with King Henry I of Navarre. [58] From that marriage, a daughter was born, Joan I of Navarre. [59]
And this Joan I of Navarre was the mother of Isabella of France, the wife of King Edward II.
Thomas was, therefore, the cousin of King Edward II, and the uncle of Queen Isabella of France!
E THOMAS OF LANCASTER/PERSONAL LIFE
Thomas of Lancaster was married with Alice de Lacy [60], daughter and heiress of Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln [61]. Jure uxoris [inheritance by the right of a wife] [62] Thomas had inherited in 1311 the lands of his father in law, for which he paid homage to King Edward II [quite a story! See below] [63], which made him rich and powerful, in combination with the lands he had inherited from his father. [64] The marriage is assumed to be unhappy [65] and they had no children together. Although, Thomas fathered, llegitimately, two sons with another woman. [66]
Alice was abducted in 1317 by Richard de St Martin, a knight in the service of John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey. [67] This incident caused a feud between Lancaster and Surrey; Lancaster divorced his wife and seized two of Surrey’s castles in retaliation. King Edward then intervened, and the two Earls came to an uneasy truce.[68]
F
POWER AND WEALTH
Because of his royal position and the inherited lands of his father and father in law, Thomas was one of the richest and most powerful men in England. His annual income was a huge eleven thousand pounds. [69]
Of course it was easy for a that powerful man to raise an army, when the time was ripe…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJSNMqub8g Today, the 6th of may, is the first Birthday of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.It is my great pleasure , from my website, to congratulate Lord Archie and wish him and his parents a Happy Birthday!As also his grandparents.And especially too his greatgrandparents Queen Elisabeth and her husband, Prince Philip [Duke of Edinburgh]
INTRODUCTION As my loyal readers know, I’ve recently written some pieces about the step by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle no longer to use their royal titles and divide their life between Great Britain and North America. [1]As I wrote before, I am convinced that this step, apart from royalty pressure, the couple has been bullied away by the systematic smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, with racist undertones, openly and more hidden.[2]I wrote about this and pointed out some dirty examples. [3]But the beauty of the whole thing is, that Prince Harry and Meghan were completely supported by the Queen, who gave two firm statements to empower them [4]In the last statement, where all arrangements were confirmed regarding the new life of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Queen utterly stated, how proud she wsas of Meghan:I quote from the statement of the Queen:I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. [5]The Queen also stated:”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. [6]That’s a statement!Well done, Your Majesty, as I wrote at the occasion of her first supportive statement [7]
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN As I told you, I wrote an article about the racist smearcampagn against Meghan Markle [8], which was launched since Meghan was still a special girlfriend of Prince Harry.In the article you can read how some racist remarks were made already in 2016 [9] and also the statement of Prince Harry in which he referred to the ”racist undertones in some comments” [10]But the harassing of Meghan Markle went on and last year, in 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt compelled to sue a newspaper for publicizing a private letter of Meghan and again they referred to the bullying campaign of the press, or at least parts of them [11] LETTER TO THE EDITOR But I was not finished writing about the Prince Harry/Meghan case, mainly because I can’t stand injustice and racism is one of the most injustice things you can imagine. So I decided to write a Letter to the Editor, which I’ve sent to a great scala of English, Scottish, US and also Irish newpapers. No Idea whether it is published or not, so here I share my Letter to the Editor with you and you can read it right below.Under my Letter to the Editor, the notes belonging to this Introduction piece. And especially for you, readers, in note 12 the consequences of the new step in the life of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. ENJOY READING! Astrid Essed
LETTER TO THE EDITOR TITLE:ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
The role that parts of the British press and the tabloids have played in the decision of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to give up their role as senior royals and divide their life between England and North America, is a shame and disgrace.Because I am convinced that, except for other possible causes of their departure [like the burden of royal publicity], the couple is bullied away by a smear campaign against Meghan Markle.This smearcampaign with openly and more hidden racist undertones, is proven true by some very destructive comments in the press:The most horrible one was done by the now fired BBC radio broadcaster jour Danny Baker, calling Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie a chimpanzee.However, this racism started from the moment it was known, that Meghan Markle was Prince Harry’s special girlfriend.In november 2016, in a statement Prince Harry accused the press of racist undertones in some comment against Meghan Markle and expressed his worries about her safety.A tabloid columnist wrote in 2016 about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA” , referring to her Afro Americam descent from her mother’s side.Also in 2016, a newspaper described Meghan Markle’s roots as almost ”straight outta Compton”, referring to ghetto and gang violence.Recently [january 2020] a radio producer called Meghan ”uppity”, a word, wich, in connection with Afro Americans, meant, that they ”didn’t know their place”Then there is the exaggerated way every act of Meghan Markle is watched, in the most childish way:She was criticized because she ate avocado’s [in 2019], another time because she kept holding her hands on her bump [in 2019], while pregnant [while Kate Middleton was praised for that same act by the same newspaper, in 2018], for wearing dark nail polish [in 2019], and so on.Why not blame her for the global warming and the forest fires in Australia?Again, in october 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt the need to complain about this harassment, sueing a newspaper for publicising a private letter of Meghan.One of the individuals who is nearly obsessed by Meghan Markle is TV personality Piers Morgan, who has made his life goal of harassing Meghan Markle nearly from the moment she set foot on British soil.But the haters didn’t win, because like the Queen stated, Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of her family.I wish the couple all the peace and happiness in the world and the journalists, under you, who harassed Meghan Markle:Shame on you! Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.
In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.
The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.
Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.
In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”
They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”
‘Major rift’
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.
“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.“This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.
During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.
“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.
Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.
Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.
And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.
She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.
They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.
But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.
There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?
And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?
It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.
But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.
Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.
He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.
And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.“That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.
Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.
“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.
He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.
“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?
“How is their security going to be funded?
“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.
But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.
He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.
The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.
Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.
Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.”“I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”
In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.
Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.
In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.
Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.
Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.
Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” [5] ”I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”
Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my
grandson and his family.
Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.
I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.
I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.
ENDS
Statement from Buckingham Palace
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.
As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties. With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private
patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.
This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.ENDS
[6] ”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family
Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never
been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.
Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly. [11]
Prince compares wife’s treatment to Diana’s as proceedings over private letter are announced
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.
The decision came as Prince Harry launched an extraordinary and highly personal attack on the British tabloid press and its treatment of his wife, saying he could no longer be a “silent witness to her private suffering”.Emphasising his respect for the importance of “objective, truthful reporting”, he accused parts of the media of “waging campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences” and compared the treatment of Meghan to coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.
The duke said his “deepest fear is history repeating itself”. He wrote: “There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
“Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one … I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person.“I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
The statement, issued on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official website on Tuesday, was published as Meghan moved to start proceedings in the high court over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).The Guardian reported this year that the Mail on Sunday was being threatened with legal action because the authors of letters retain ownership of the copyright even after the physical correspondence is in the possession of another individual. Pursuing legal action on this narrow basis also gives the royals a greater chance of success against DMG Media, formerly Associated Newspapers, which also owns the Daily Mail and MailOnline – both of which have run a substantial number of stories about Meghan.
The Mail on Sunday has run multiple embarrassing stories involving the duchess’s father, Thomas Markle, including staged paparazzi photographs of him visiting an internet cafe to read about his daughter’s engagement to the prince.
Other critical coverage of the couple has ranged from their use of private jets to their refusal to allow media coverage of the christening of their baby son Archie or name his godparents. They have also been criticised for the £2.4m cost to the public purse for renovations at their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage.However, the royals have limited ability to stop the publication of such stories, prompting the decision to focus on the publication of Meghan’s letter to her father.
The photographs of the letter remain available on MailOnline. A spokesman for the newspaper stood by its reporting, setting up a potential court showdown: “The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”
Meghan and Harry, who are on a 10-day tour of southern Africa, have employed the libel lawyers Schillings, using private funds to bring the case.
In his statement, Harry emphasised that he and Meghan believed in “media freedom and objective, truthful reporting” as a “cornerstone of democracy”.“There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been.
“Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.
“I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.”
The statement is unprecedented in the scale of its attack on the media, although it is far from the first time Harry has taken on the press.
When news of his relationship with Meghan Markle became public, he criticised “racial overtones” in reporting.Last week, it emerged he had complained to the BBC for broadcasting and publishing online an image from a neo-Nazi social media site that called him a “race traitor” and depicted the royal with a gun pointed at his head. Although the BBC internally and the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom rejected the complaint, ruling that the use of the image in a report about the activities of the group was in the public interest, the BBC did apologise for not warning the duke in advance.
His latest statement accused the British tabloid press of waging a “ruthless” campaign against Meghan that had “escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son”.
Harry, said the recent positive coverage of their African tour exposed “the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave”.
“She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.“For these select media, this is a game and one we have been unwilling to play from the start.”
A legal spokesperson for Schillings said: “We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband.
“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”
Prince says he has been ‘a silent witness’ to Meghan’s private suffering for too long’
Prince Harry’s full statement on his family’s relationship with the media, issued on Tuesday night after his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, launched legal action against the Mail on Sunday over its decision to publish a private letter she had sent to her father.
As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.
There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.
Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.
This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.
There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.
Yes, Prince Harry’s title sticks because he was born into it as the child of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The titles in question that Prince Harry and Meghan are giving up are the HRH, or His/Her Royal Highness titles. These titles were limited to only the children (of either gender) and grandchildren of a sovereign in the male line by Queen Victoria in the 1830s, according to the BBC’s History Extra. It has since been expanded to include female heirs who may ascend to the throne. Additionally, Dr. Jonathan Spangler, a senior lecturer in history at Manchester Metropolitan University specializing in the history of the monarchy, explains that “George V in 1917, when modifying the house rules…clarified this, and added the eldest son of the eldest grandson.” Prince Harry will still be Prince Harry by birthright, but he will no longer be His Royal Highness Prince Harry, a title now granted at the pleasure of the Queen to senior working members of the royal family who are direct heirs.
It is currently unknown whether the couple will take a last name after giving up their HRH titles. There is a case to be made for taking the name Wales, as Prince Harry was called Captain Harry Wales in the British Army. They may be known as the Sussexes, given that the Queen referred to them in her statement as “Harry and Meghan” and Buckingham Palace’s official statement referred to them as the Sussexes. The Sussex name is also prominent on baby Archie’s birth certificate, where Prince Harry’s full name is listed as His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex. The couple could also take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, as Windsor was officially adopted as the surname for the family in 1917 and Mountbatten-Windsor given as the specific distinction for direct descendants of the Queen and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. They could also come up with something completely different, like when Princess Eugenie took on the title Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after her wedding. Prince Harry, Mr. Meghan Markle, anyone? If in doubt, however, you can still call them Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
What does this mean for Prince Harry’s role British line of succession?
Nothing has changed in this regard. Prince Harry still remains sixth in line for the throne. It is still unlikely he will face any need to worry about the line of succession. Additionally, Prince Harry has not turned his back on his royal position completely — just the HRH title — in contrast with Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson in 1936, thus losing HRH and becoming the Duke of Windsor after his marriage. This led to King George VI, who left the throne upon his untimely death to his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. Harry needing to ascend to the throne is a possibility only an is an extremely unlikely sequence of events.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor
”Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you” Those are the words of Afua Hirsch, writer, broadcaster and former barrister [1], in connection with all the tabloid fuss against Meghan Markle, wife of Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex. [2]Words she wrote in the New York Times. [3] Now I think the truth is somewhat in the middle:Even though racism plays a destructive part in British society, as in so many other countries, European or not, I think that, although racism follows you, it is not the only factor and one’s behaviour can make a change. At the other side: I must admit, that in the case of Meghan Markle, racism played a big part in the way the tabloids commented on her. I was and am very annoyed by that and as you know or don’t know, I wrote two articles and a letter to the Council of Brighton to defend her. [4]Who knows me realizes that I can’t stand injustice and feel myself obliged to fight it. And racism is one of the ugliest forms of injustice!
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STEPPED BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS Now you all know, that recently, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back as senior royals [5] and that the Queen, Prince Harry’s grandmother, supported them in this [6], but declared:”Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ [7] Of course she preferred them to stay.As a grandmother and greatgrandmother, wishing to spend time with her eighthgreatgrandchild, as a royal matriarch and as a Queen, keeping the roles of the Family intact!
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN Recently I wrote a defense article, prasing the supportive statement of the Queen and analysing what, according to my views, among else [there may be other reasons I don’t know about] have led to Megxit, the fact that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out,their roles as fulltime royals in England. And I stated, and the more I read the more I am convinced, that an important reason was the smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, shich had dirty, racist undertones and sometimes more than just undertones. LORD ARCHIE A ”CHIMPANZEE” Like the hateful Tweet of Donald Baker, no fired BBC reporter, who compared Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle newborn son with a chimpanzee! [8] DO YOU IMAGINE! Not only highly racist [people, who deny that this person is a racist or at least racist led in his comments, are close to suffer the same racist ”decease”’ [9]also mean and ugly, when you realize that new parents, who just were blessed with their first son, were confronted with this despicable stuff!
RACIST UNDERTONES From the beginning of the relation between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a couple of tabloids and some other parts of the press launched a hateful smearcampaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones, as confirmed in a statement of Prince Harry, in november 2016, nearly two years before their marriage I quote from the statement: ”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments” [10] And although the racist thing is denied, for example by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle villifier, the broadcaster, journalist and TV personality, Piers Morgan [11], who stated, that their racism accusations are ”completely and grotesquely wrong” [12] I will show you in underlying, that there ARE racist undertones in the Meghan Markle smearcampaign broadcasting, as well openly, as more hidden. But not only the press and tabloids!Newspaper The Sun wrote in march 2019, that Meghan Markle was bombed with 5200 hateful racist and sexist tweets in two months, and 70 percent abuse came from twenty trolls! [13]And also her sister in law, Kate Middleton, the wife of the Duke of Cambridge [Prince William, Harry’s elder brother and heir to the throne after his father, Prince Charles], was subjected to hateful, sexist tweets! [14] READ ON ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESS/TABLOIDS AND BE INDIGNANT WITH ME! SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART IOPENLY RACIST
A ”EXOTIC DNA” A tabloid columnist wrote about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA”, which refers to her Afro American descent [from her mother’s side, her father is a white American, Thomas Markle, a former TV lighting director and director of photography] [15] and therefore racist undertoned. B STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON Another dubious remark was made in a Daily Mail headline article, describing Meghan’s Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. [16]As you probably know, ”Straight outta Compton” as a picture about the rise and fall of the gangster rap group, N.W.A. from rapper and businessman Dr Dre and others[17]Those connection between being of Afro American descent and gangster life or ”gang-scarred neighborhood” is despicable and suggests THAT there is an automatic relation between being black and born in a hood [ghetto]and also being criminal.Newspapers should know better!
C THE CHIMPANZEE AFFAIR What was the limit, was the comparing of Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie, with a chimpzanzee by a now fired [because of this affair] BBC reporter, Danny Baker. [18]If that’s not a racist remark, then I don’t know what is!Yet idiots like Piers Morgan declare, that Danny Baker ”is not remotely racist as anyone who knows him” [19]I think that tells more about Piers Morgan than about Danny Baker……. And now, a few minutes ago, I learnt, that Meghan has been bombarded with hundreds of racist and sexist tweets because of her and Harry’s stepping back as royals! [20]And not for the first time:As is written above, the newspaper the Sun wrote in march 2019 about thousands of racist and sexist tweets against Meghan, 70 percent coming from twenty trolls[see the notes 13 and 14] How many idiots are there in this world? D
UPPITY There is more.Recently, after Megxit was announced [Harry and Meghan’s step out as senior royals], a Hannity radio producer called Meghan ”uppity’ [21]I quote:”MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know? [22] Now according to Cambridge dictionnary ”uppity” is a sort of ”neutral” term [I mean, nothing to do with race or descent]I quote Cambridge dictionnary:”An uppity personbehaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are” [23]However, that’s only part of the story.For historically, the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations [24]Namely it was used in the US in the 19th century as an insult to black people, ”who didn’t know their place” [25]Places the word in a whole different other light….. Of course:Most people don’t know the racist meaning of ”uppity”, but from journalists and TV personalities one may expect, that they know their historical stuff and otherwise do a proper investigation. After all, I found the sources also by proper searching! [26] SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART II/RACIST, IN A HIDDEN FORM CHILDISH TABLOID STUFF Not all negative comments on Meghan Markle are openly racist or have a racist undertone:But striking is the abnormal attention Meghan Markle gets, in the most silly circumstances.That says a lot and although not provable, seen in the whole light of the anti Meghan smear campaign, those not openly racist related comments must have a racist undertone, since Meghan Markle is practically singled out in the tsunami of negativity and other royals are more or less off the hook. AND since the facts the socalled critique is that childish, that even children of primary school would find it below their dignity.
PIERS MORGAN/NOTORIOUS MEGHAN MARKLE STALKER There isfor example journalist and TV personality Piers Morgan, who seems obssessed by Meghan Markle, and also, in a lesser extent, by Prince Harry. [27]So it was no surprise that he ranted and raved at the news that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out as senior royals and the supportive reaction of the Queen. [28] LOL!AND THEN THE SUPER CHILDISH STUFF Now some examples of being on Meghan’s ”tail” [29], which make no sense.There are a lot more, I presume, yet underlying things give an idea of the nonsense written about Meghan: LOL 1 LOL!MEGHAN MARKLE EATS AVOCADO’S!/HOW DARES SHE!/ Surprise, surprise, the Daily Mail again…..In a nonsense article, Meghan Markle was critized for…..eating avocado’s [I quote] ”the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.” [30] YEAH….A GREAT ONEFirstly, the one, who wrote that nonsense article, admitted, that avocado’s are well loved by all millennials [31], so why single Meghan Markle out!Secondly, I can understand, that people protest when avocado’s are produced in occupation countries as Israel, openly violating elementary human rights [32], but then there is a choice not to eat them, when descending from those countries, like I do.But not to eat all avocado’s is just nonsense.The problems the writer of this article mentioned ”water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation” [33], refers to more Third World products and has everything to do with unfair relations in the world, caused for a great part [apart from natural and climatical causes] by Western economic dominance of the Third World, supported by their local elites. Does the writer of this article protests against those injustices? No, he only uses it to attack Meghan Markle, simply eating an avocado!What about all the other royals, eating avocado’s?What about all milennials, eating avodaco’s? No, this is only a childish attack on Meghan Markle!And I have news for him I, Astrid Essed, eat avocado’s too [although not from certain countries like Israel, that very openly and shamelessly violate human rights]So I am a Third World destroyer too? NONSENSE
LOL 2 VAIN AND PRIDEN MEGHAN, YOU KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR BUMP!/OF COURSE IT IS ”TENDER” WHEN YOUR SISTER IN LAW KATE MIDDLETON DOES THE SAME THING!THERE MUST BE A DIFFERENCE/QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI! [33] The following all too childish thing, Meghan Markle was critized for, of course [among else], again by stalking newspaper Daily Mail, was the fact, that Meghan, mother to be, had had the audacity to ”keep her hands on her bump”, a normal and affectionate thing any pregnant mother does.This nonsense article was titled ”Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride, vanity, acting – or a new age bonding technique?” [34] No you, readers, will probably say”What nonsenseWhat is it to the Daily Mail, whether Meghan Markle keeps her hands on her OWN bump or not?What’s the newsvalue in it, even for tabloids?It is a private gesture of a happy mother to be, done by milliards of mothers before and after us! It’s about stalking and harassing Meghan Markle again! But now the cat is out of the bag! [35] The Daily Mail anti Meghan article about ”keep her hands on her bump” was written on 26 january 2019 [36]But when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, acted on a similar way, that same Daily Mail wrote on 21 march 2018 ”NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW” [37]
Clearly, according to The Daily Mail, when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, keeps her hand on her bump” it is ”tenderly cradling her baby bump” [38], but when Meghan Markle acts the similar way, a year later it is suddenly ”vain” or acting” [39]
Striking, isn’t it. Is this mere ”coincidence” or has it perhaps something to do with the fact that Kate Middleton is white and Meghan Markle is black.I don’t like to draw the black and white card, but the reader must admit, that this difference in approach from, here the Daily Mail, is at least, odd. YEAH”QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI’ !” [40]
LOL 3O, NAUGHTY NAUGHTY MEGHAN, WEARING DARK NAIL POLISH I think this newsmessage has written to give me a good laughHereby:HAHAHAHAHA! It is really written:Meghan Markle wearing dark nail polish at some charity event and some Fashion award….. [41] and some royal watchers ”questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol” [42] Yes, some newsvalue.Of course I am not going to analyse such nonsense.I only mentioned it to show, what happens when they look at you through a magnifying glass. EPILOGUE I have enough of it!And if I do, how tiring and exhausting must it be for Meghan and also her husband Prince Harry.For it seems, that Meghan can’t do good, whatever she does. [43] Types like obsessed Meghan stalker Piers Morgan [44]should be delighted, that the couple stepped out as senior royals, but yet they have something to bully and stalking them again! [45] I can only cheer them on, taking the step to choose a new life [46] and the Queen for supporting them. [47]
EPILOGUE Is Meghan the only British royal, ever to be bullied by the tabloid press?Of course not!In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops. [48]Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed. [49] But however unpleasant that is, that is nothing to compare with the ”damned if you do, damed if you don’t” campaign against Meghan Markle, with the apparent racist undertones: Not convinced?Then againAbout Meghan is written among else [there was more, but Google for yourself] Her “exotic” DNAHer Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood” She is described as ”uppity”Meghan’s and Prince Harry’s newborn son had been compared with a ”chimpanzee” [SEE MY NOTES] That are all, without excemption, racist expressions! FURTHER THE SILLY STUFF That she keeps her hand on her OWN bump, that she is eating avocado’s, that she is wearing dark nail polish By the way”:Did you know, dear readers, that the Global Warmimg, the outburst of Ebola and the forest fires in Australia is also Meghan’s fault?
EVERYTHING SAID AND DONE Meghan and Prince Harry are driven out of England, mainly out of racism and parts of the British press and the tabloids are guilty of that. Be proud of yourself, Meghan haters It is in fact, what Guardian journalist Zoe Williams recently wrote ”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.
We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.” [50]
Happily, she has a supportive husband and I admire him for that, like I said before ‘[51]
The Queen also supports them [52]
And again, from this place, I defend them and especially -and that is the main reason I wrote this article – I fiercely condemn the racism that lead to it.
But haters, you will not win,
The fight for Freedom and Equality will continue, whether you like it or not!
Astrid Essed
NOTES[1]
WIKIPEDIAAFUA HIRSCH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch
[2] “Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.
LONDON (AP) — When accomplished, glamorous American actress Meghan Markle married Prince Harry in 2018, she was hailed as a breath of fresh air for Britain’s fusty royal family. That honeymoon didn’t last.
Now the couple wants independence, saying the pressure of life as full-time royals is unbearable. And a debate is raging: Did racism drive Meghan away?When Prince Harry, who is sixth in line to the throne, began dating the “Suits” actress — daughter of a white father and African American mother — the media called it a sign that Britain had entered a “post-racial” era in which skin color and background no longer mattered, even to the royal family.
U.K. Labour Party lawmaker Clive Lewis, who like Meghan has biracial heritage, says the royal rift shows that Britain still has a problem with “structural racism.”
“We can see it with Meghan Markle and the way that she’s been treated in the media, we know that this is a reality of the 21st century, still,” Lewis told Sky News. “After 400 years of racism you can’t just overturn it overnight.”
Frederick W. Gooding, an assistant professor of African American studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, said it would be “disingenuous” to claim race had not been a factor in Meghan’s treatment.
“She was always going to be an outsider,” he said. “There was always going to be this barrier because of her race.”
From the start, some in the media wrote about Meghan using racially loaded terms. One tabloid columnist referred to her “exotic” DNA. A Daily Mail headline described her Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. A TV host described Meghan as “uppity.”
Meghan was criticized for everything from eating avocados — which the Daily Mail claimed fuel “human rights abuses, drought and murder” — to wearing dark nail polish, apparently an etiquette faux pas.
Morgan Jerkins, a senior editor at Zora, a Medium.com site for women of color, said that because Meghan was “an outsider, culturally, racially, and socioeconomically, she has been the royal family’s scapegoat.”
Others point out that Meghan is hardly the first royal to get a rough ride in the media. The press and the royal family have an intense and often toxic relationship going back decades. Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was snapped by paparazzi wherever she went. When she and Prince Charles admitted that their marriage was in trouble, her private life became public property.
Diana was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997 while being pursued by photographers. Prince Harry, who was just 12 when his mother died, said in October he feared “history repeating itself. … I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
After Diana’s death, a chastened British press mended its ways — a bit. The media left young William and Harry alone in exchange for carefully staged interviews and photo opportunities as they grew up. That practice has continued with the three young children of William and his wife, Kate.
But in many ways little really changed. Royal stories still sell newspapers and generate clicks. That has meant intense — and even illegal — scrutiny. In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops.
Younger female royals are routinely judged on appearance, demeanor and habits. Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed.
Still, Meghan’s treatment has sometimes seemed harsher. Last year the Daily Mail ran photos of a pregnant Meghan cradling her bump under the headline: “Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump?” Months earlier the same paper had described a pregnant Kate as “tenderly” cradling her bump.
British Home Secretary Priti Patel denied Meghan has suffered from racist media coverage,
“I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all,” Patel, who is of Indian heritage and whose parents emigrated to Britain from Uganda, told the BBC. “I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”
But others say the media double standard Meghan faced is evidence that talk of “post-racial” Britain is wildly premature.
“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.
That feeling was echoed by Hayley Oliver, a recent Virginia Tech graduate who wrote a college essay about how Meghan and other mixed-race women are treated in popular culture. She said Meghan had years of charitable work, including advocacy for women’s healthcare and gender equality worldwide that preceded her marriage into the royal family.
“What about her in those roles?” said Oliver, who is also biracial and says she’s inspired by Meghan for the stances she takes. “When you see someone who looks like you. … it makes it easier to imagine yourself in that situation or the possibility of where you could go.”
While Britain is by most measures less racist than it used to be, non-white Britons are still over-represented among the poor and imprisoned, and under-represented at the top of well-paid professions, including politics, journalism and the law. Britain’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union — a move fueled in part by concerns about immigration — was followed by an increase in cases of racist abuse reported to police.
Meghan acknowledged in an October interview that she had been unprepared for the intense media scrutiny she would get as a member of the royal family. She told ITV journalist Tom Bradby that before she married Harry, “my British friends said to me, ‘I’m sure he’s great, but you shouldn’t do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life.’”
“And I very naively … I didn’t get it,” she said.
Unlike other members of the royal clan, Meghan and Harry have pushed back. As long ago as 2017, Harry criticized “the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”
Now the couple has had enough. They plan to move part-time to Canada, withdraw from royal media-coverage arrangements and seek financial independence. The queen has reluctantly agreed to let them become semi-detached royals in order to avoid a damaging family split.
The racism debate will rage on. Writing in The Guardian, British columnist Nesrine Malik said she doubted it would have much positive effect.
She argued that the racism debate had become a “pantomime, in which everyone — people of color, tabloid journalists, TV hosts — is playing well-rehearsed parts.”
“Britain’s conversation about race endlessly repeats itself, first as tragedy, and for ever thereafter as farce,” she wrote.
[3]
“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times. QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK
COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751
TEXT
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.
In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.
The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.
Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.
In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”
END OF NEWS MESSAGE
STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUT
After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.
“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.
“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.
“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.
“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.
END OF THE INSTAGRAM MESSAGE OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE
SEE ALSO FOR THE MESSAGE
BBC
IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE
8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947
[6]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.
“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
END OF THE ANNOUCEMENT OF THE QUEENBBCQUEEN AGREES ”TRANSITION” TO NEW ROLE FOR HARRY AND MEGHAN14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51099102
TEXT
The Queen has agreed a “period of transition” in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.
She said she was “entirely supportive” of their desire for a new role but “would have preferred” them to remain full-time working royals.
She expected final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.
Senior royals have been in talks about Prince Harry and Meghan’s role after they said they wanted to “step back”.
In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been “very constructive”.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” she said.
“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”
She said it had been agreed there would be “a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK” after Harry and Meghan “made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives”.
“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” she said.
The urgent talks were convened after the Sussexes surprised the rest of the Royal Family on Wednesday with a statement expressing their desire to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family”.
They also said they wanted a “progressive new role” within the institution, where they would be financially independent and divide their time between the UK and North America.
Although no other family member was consulted about the timing of the announcement, the duke and duchess said it came after “many months of reflection and internal discussions”.
They said that the “inflammatory language” in the claims was “offensive” and “potentially harmful”, given their support for mental health causes.
This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.
Her regret over Harry and Meghan’s move is obvious – she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.
But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.
There are buckets of questions outstanding – on their future royal role, their relationship with the rest of the Palace, on who will pay what (not, the Queen says, the taxpayer), and on how Harry and Meghan will support themselves.
There’s still a lot to thrash out and to agree on. Not all of it may become public.
And it looks like the Queen sees this as a process, not an event. She writes of a transition period when Harry and Meghan divide their time between Canada and the UK.
The Queen has asked for decisions to be made over the next few days. But those decisions may well be up for review in the coming months and years.
Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the Queen’s statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to “my family” and “my grandson”.
“It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels,” he said.
Instead of using the formal titles of the couple – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – the Queen simply called them “Harry and Meghan”.
Penny Junor, an author of books about the royals, said that the statement “read to me like a grandmother talking about the family”, adding that it would “take the pressure off” the duke and duchess.
“I think they’re in a very vulnerable state at the moment. I think they’re unhappy, they feel isolated and unloved, unappreciated and they needed careful handling,” she said.
“My reading from that statement is that the family has been sensitive to their vulnerability.”
How did we get here?
In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple’s official Instagram account, the duke and duchess said they intend to “step back” as senior royals, spending time in North America, while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.
The duke also issued an impassioned statement attacking what he described as “relentless propaganda” in parts of the media, as lawyers for his wife began legal action against the Mail on Sunday.
The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s foundation in June last year.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.
The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.
The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.
Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.
The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.
The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.
It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”
His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.
After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.
“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”
Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.
‘Enormous mistake’
“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”
In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.
“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”
Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’
“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”
Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.
“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?
“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”
Prompt action
Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.
Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.
His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”
Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.
His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.
Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.
He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.
A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.
Controversial comments
It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.
He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.
In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series.
[9]
”Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.
PIERS MORGAN CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE
Piers Morgan clashed with a Good Morning Britain guest in an explosive debate about whether the British press has been racist towards Meghan Markle. Writer, broadcaster, and former barrister Afua Hirsch joined the programme alongside columnist Sarah Vine, PR expert Nick Ede and former royal butler Paul Burrell and locked horns with the host as they discussed coverage of the Duchess of Sussex. ‘There have been allegations that she has been associated with very racialised forms of crime, there have been discussions about her “exotic” DNA, her newborn baby was compared to a baby chimp,’ Afua began. But Piers quickly snapped back: ‘Is her DNA not exotic by royal standards? She’s the first mixed-race person to enter the royal family. Why do you take exception to the word exotic?’ ‘Because it others her and associates her with a history that has posited people of African heritage as other,’ Afua responded.
Susanna Reid then chipped in to urge Piers to let Afua speak as he attempted to speak over her. ‘You can’t just say these things are racist when they’re not,’ Piers quipped. ‘I’m telling you that as someone who’s lived the experience of being a person of African heritage in this country that there are narratives that are regularly…’ Afua continued. But before she had time to continue her point, Piers asked if she was accusing him of being racist. ‘I’m saying that the narratives that you’re perpetuating are racist,’ Afua added.
And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.
Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.
He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.
But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.
PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?
What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.
The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”
It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.
While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.
What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?
Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.
He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”
Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”
He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.
What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.
2015
In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”
2016
In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town.
Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”
Meghan Markle’s key moments
First few months as a married couple…
Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?
Baby Sussex arrives!
A summer of controversy….
2017
Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”
2018
In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.
2019
In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”
Prince Harry Key Moments
It all started 35 years ago…
Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…
Military and volunteer work
When Meghan met Harry…
2020
In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”
[12] ”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’
PIERS MORGAN CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE
TEXT The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by a group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.
MEGHAN Markle was bombarded with 5,200 hateful and racist tweets in two months with the majority of abuse coming from 20 vile trolls, an investigation has found.The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by the group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.
New analysis has revealed that these 20 accounts sent more than 3,600 hateful tweets directed at, or about, the Duchess of Sussex in just two months, CNN reported.
The Twitter bios associated with the trolls typically contained Meghan-related hashtags like #Megxit and #Charlatanduchess.
Advocacy group Hope Not Hate analysed a sample of more than 5,000 tweets, posted between January and the middle of February, that contained the most commonly used anti-Meghan hashtags.
VILE TROLL GANG
Analysis of the tweets found that 20 accounts were responsible for about 70 per cent of the tweets, sharing anti-Meghan hashtags, pictures and memes.
The small group of accounts that troll the Duchess often re-tweet news articles that portray Meghan negatively and use racist language.
The findings come after the Royal Family declared war on social media trolls warning that the worst offenders will be reported to police.
Buckingham Palace published rules for those wanting to post on all social media channels run by them, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.
Courtiers have said they will block abusers and even encourage police to take legal action if tweets or posts are particularly bad.
ABUSE TARGETED AT MEGHAN AND KATE
It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.
The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.
The Palace statement said: “We ask that anyone engaging with our social media channels shows courtesy, kindness and respect for all other members of our social media communities.”
The rules, listed on the Royal Family’s website, call for comments not to “contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence” or “promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”
ROYALS DECLARE WAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA TROLLS
Palace aides are understood to have been particularly concerned about users abusing one another, often in the guise of supporting “Team Meghan” or “Team Kate”.
Meghan has been accused of faking her pregnancy, had horrendous racist abuse and even been subject to threats of violence.
When Meghan made a surprise appearance at the British Fashion Awards, the British Fashion Council removed an Instagram picture of her as there were more than 500 abusive comments.
In one appalling post about Meghan, a user wrote: “I publicly state I believe this woman is a textbook sociopath narcissist. 99.99999% she’s a vile wreckingball.”
On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”
Kensington Palace has already said that aides spend several hours a week trying to moderate and delete abusive comments – often on pictures of the Cambridges or the Sussexes.The statement said: “We reserve the right to determine, at our discretion, whether contributions to our social media channels breach our guidelines.
[14] ”It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.
The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.”
”If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”
When I look at Meghan Markle – the American small-screen actress currently starring as “Harry’s Hottie” – I can’t help it. I assess her as a future daughter-in-law.
Prince Harry, 32, lost his mother when he was a boy, and ever since that dark day I’ve had feelings for him. Maternal feelings. And every time he has a girlfriend, I subject her to the “Mum Test”. I try to decide whether Princess Diana (and the Queen) would give Chelsy, or Cressida, or Jenna, or whomever, the thumbs-up or down as a potential Royal consort and addition to The Firm.
So I have done my due diligence on Miss Markle, and this is where I stand. Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA. Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye. Miss Markle has an active social conscience, and anti-landmine campaigner Princess Diana would be delighted that she is the Ambassador for World Vision and has toured Afghanistan and Rwanda as part of her humanitarian effort.
She is also an accomplished actress and, indeed, her role as sultry paralegal Rachel Zane in TV series Suits is so popular that some clips from it have been viewed many, many thousands of times online (on a site I’m afraid readers will be unacquainted with called YouPorn).
Like Princess Diana, she wears her heart on her sleeve, and is emotionally open. “My cup runneth over,” she told the Toronto Sun, in her only comment on her new squeeze. “And I’m the luckiest girl in the world.”
As part of my research I had a look at her Instagram feed, along with the rest of the world, trying to read clues of her relationship status into pictures of bananas spooning and one of a jigsaw puzzle and a tea cup. (That one’s easy. “Jigsaw and cup of tea?” is, obvs, the couple’s secret, social media code for ‘Netflix and chill?’)
Apart from these teasing images (which add to the impression this showgirl has expertly ‘played’ the playboy Prince) you will find motivational quotes such as “Throw Kindness Around Like Confetti” and cute pictures of her two rescue dogs. This is all good so far, but there are, I admit, a couple of things that don’t pass the Mum Test.
She’s divorced and, as soon as she met Prince Harry, she is said to have dropped her gorgeous chef boyfriend like a hot brick, as she reeled in the biggest fish in the dating universe by not replying to Harry’s texts for several days (that old trick!).
And that’s a red line for a future mother-in-law. You see, if a girl does it to one man, to two men – there’s every chance she’ll do it to your son, too. As far as the Royal Family is concerned, a bolter is far worse than a black sheep.
Harry needs a sticker, a tremendous, limpet-like sticker, like Sophie Wessex. Or Kate Middleton. Nobody cares that Miss Markle is mixed race or a tease, but racy is a different story. Racy is not official Wife Material. Flirty Harry has met his match – and that means one thing.
I’ve turned up my hearing aid, but I’m still not hearing wedding bells, not this side of the Atlantic, anyway. Miss Markle may be truly scrumptious, but she still fails my Mum Test.
Plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs, the troubled Los Angeles neighborhood that Doria Ragland, 60, calls home couldn’t be more different to London’s leafy Kensington.
But social worker Ragland might now find herself welcoming a royal guest to downtrodden Crenshaw after Prince Harry was revealed to be dating her daughter – Suits actress Meghan Markle.Markle, 35, is now based in Toronto, Canada, but her mother remains in LA and moved to her modest green-painted home five years ago after the death of her own father, Alvin, in 2011.
Markle was brought up in a large yellow-colored detached home in central Los Angeles, while her rumored royal boyfriend spent much of his childhood between Kensington Palace and Prince Charles’ Gloucestershire mansion, Highgrove.
But Harry’s literally palatial homes couldn’t be more different from the tatty one-storey homes that dominate much of Crenshaw.
And while there have been a total of 21 crimes in the immediate area around Highgrove over the past 12 months, 47 have taken place in Crenshaw in the last week alone – including murder and robbery.Other crimes noted over the past seven days include multiple drug-related misdemeanors, vehicle thefts, vandalism and disturbing the peace.
Local gangs include Crenshaw Mafia Gangster, which has been plaguing the area since 1981, and Bloods affiliates Center Park Blood.
Operating close by are the Westside Rollin’ 60’s Neighborhood Crips, one of the largest street crime collectives in Los Angeles, and branches of the Compton-based Piru gang.
Nevertheless – and in spite of the gangs – parts of Crenshaw are considered to be improving, among them the aptly named Windsor Hills.
Neighbor Michael McWilliams, 49, said he had not seen Doria since news of her daughter’s alleged dalliance with Prince Harry broke but described her as ‘a nice woman’.
‘I’ve never seen the little girl [Meghan] though,’ added McWilliams. ‘She [Doria] has been living here since her daddy [Alvin] died.’
Markle remains close to her mother, who divorced her father Thomas, 72, when she was six, and is often seen with her on the red carpet.
Thomas, a lighting director, is currently thought to be in Mexico and recently filed for bankruptcy after racking up debts of $30,000 (£24,000).Doria, who also filed for bankruptcy herself in 2002 over a $52,750 credit-card bill, appears to be the one of the defining influences in her daughter’s life.
Writing in an article about her background, Markle addressed being mixed race, saying: ‘While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: “My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African-American.”‘
She also wrote about being a ‘light-skinned’ baby so when people saw her black mother pushing her in the pram ’they assumed she was the nanny.’And she has spoken of how her mother’s great-great grandfather was born into slavery and freed at the end of the Civil War.
Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs – along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood.
The latter, which borders Crenshaw to the south, is also home to another member of Meghan’s family – her maternal aunt, Ava Burrow, 63.Burrow, who was not at home when DailyMail.com visited, lives on an Inglewood street with the dubious distinction of having its own branch of the Bloods crime gang in situ.
Known as the Queen Street Bloods, famous former members include rapper Mack-10 and Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Marqise Lee.
Indeed, so famous is the area for gang crime, it was name-checked in Dr Dre’s 1999 rap hit The Next Episode along with Compton and Long Beach.
The crime-plagued neighborhoods of Markle’s mother and aunt are a far cry from the leafy part of Long Island where her former husband, Trevor Engleson, 40, grew up.
The Hollywood producer now lives in Los Angeles but was brought up in an affluent suburb of Long Island close to the New York City limits.
His parents declined to comment at their detached home.
One family friend, who declined to be named, said that the family had not spoken to Markle since the divorce.
Her ex-husband told relatives that he had learned of the actress’s new romance at the weekend but was reticent to discuss it further.
Their divorce was in Los Angeles, where Markle legally resides although she spends much of her time in Toronto.
It was a ‘quickie’ divorce which used a legal procedure which limits the information the couple have to disclose – including their marital assets.
The papers associated with it show that both parties agreed to the split and that any financial settlement was entirely confidential.
Markle also gave up using her ex-husband’s surname, the papers said.He continues to run his production company from an office in Los Angeles and was not available for comment.
The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.
The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.
The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.
Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.
The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.
The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.
It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”
His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.
After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.
“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”
Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.
‘Enormous mistake’
“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”
In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.
“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”
Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’
“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”
Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.
“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?
“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”
Prompt action
Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.
Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.
His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”
Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.
His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.
Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.
He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.
A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.
Controversial comments
It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.
He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.
In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series.
[19]
”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.
PIERS MORGAN CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE
A study for HuffPost UK carried out by digital journalism analysts at the University of Sunderland captured the offensive posts mentioning the Duchess of Sussex.
Some 400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.
Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. Markle was also described as a “bitch”, “c*nt”, “whore”, “slut” and “witch”, among other terms.
Responding to the analysis, Dr John Price, senior lecturer in journalism at Sunderland, said: “These results give a sense of the levels of abuse that have been published about Meghan Markle in the days after the announcement.
“There will be many more tweets not captured in the study, as racism and misogyny are often expressed in more subtle terms that do not use overtly abusive language.
“The vast amount of abuse captured in these findings is startling. It shows that aspects of social media, such as Twitter, have become a haven for people wishing to express hatred against women.”
Researchers set up a program using negative sentiment analysis to capture all tweets mentioning variations of the duchess’ name and an array of commonly used misogynistic and racist terms of abuse.
The sample of social media posts was collected between the time of the royal couple’s announcement on January 8 and midnight the following day.
The same researchers previously investigated trolling of female MPs during the 2017 general election.
It comes amid national discussion about the duchess’s treatment by parts of the UK media – and whether it factored into her and Harry’s big announcement.
The couple have faced significant media scrutiny and Markle has endured frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.
In July, presenter Eamonn Holmes came under fire for calling Markle “uppity” on This Morning during a discussion about the Duchess’s requests for privacy with reporter Lainey Lui who was in Canada.
She also claimed anchor Piers Morgan was “spouting […] nasty and vile comments” loaded with “bigotry, misogyny, sexism and racism” aimed at the duchess.
The Labour leader’s spokesperson said: “Jeremy has commented in the past in relation to Prince Harry and Meghan, about press intrusion and its impact on people and their families and, to use Prince Harry’s words as well, the ‘racial undertones’ in relation to how the media has approached Meghan.”
Corbyn’s message came as another Labour MP, Holly Lynch, told HuffPost UK that Meghan had been “hounded” by the press.Lynch, who was personally phoned by the duchess last year to thank her for an open letter signed by 72 female MPs attacking “colonial undertones” of her treatment, said it was time to “call out” the media “frenzy” around the Sussexes’ decision to step away from the royal family. [21]
SEAN HANNITY (HOST): There’s something off here. Don’t you think there’s something off? Apparently William, his brother, said, “You know, you may be moving a little too fast, maybe slow it down,” apparently that didn’t go over well.
LYNDA MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, I think his family thinks he’s an idiot, because he is. And I think that —
HANNITY: Why do you think he’s an idiot?
MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, Harry’s always been the red-headed child. He’s always been the one, he can’t get it together, he’s at the parties, the clubs, he’s a hot mess.
…
HANNITY: What I didn’t like in this whole thing — I’ll say one thing I didn’t like. I didn’t like that Meghan didn’t even get on the phone as she was in Canada, and she was invited to be a part of that meeting. That I didn’t like. That, to me is –MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?
[22] MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?
A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history.ELSPETH REEVENOVEMBER 22, 2011
A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history. President Obama has been a well-known public figure for several years and his conservative critics, in particular, keep making the “uppity” mistake. This week it’s Rush Limbaugh, who said Michelle Obama was booed at a weekend Nascar race because she showed “uppity-ism,” as well as the conservative site Newsbusters, which is just shocked that anyone might call that comment racially problematic. Glenn Beck, too, is defending Limbaugh’s analysis, saying it’s just a synonym for snobby. It’s hard to explain how they’ve managed to avoid finding out about “uppity” secret past. Limbaugh said Monday “Nascar people… are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they’re being insulted and condescended to,” Limbaugh said, then listed Obama’s transgressions such as taking expensive vacations and saying exercise is good. He continued, “They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism.” Glenn Beck defended the comment, saying on Imus’ radio show, “Uppity? You don’t think she’s a little snotty? Really? Really? Miss Arugula? Come on!” (Arugula is a type of lettuce that is offensive to some conservatives.) “I’m not going to apologize for saying the woman who says ‘I’d like a good steak and arugula once in a while’… Please. We’re living in a country where you can’t say that’s a little uppity?”
Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don’t know for sure whether “uppity” is racist. Various forms of the question “Is uppity racist?” is a verypopular on Yahoo Answers. But a little more digging could help these guys out. The most liked and most disliked definition at Urban Dictionary notes that “uppity” is often followed by the n-word. Maybe these media guys don’t know how to Google. Even so, they’ve had a lot of practice with uppity in recent years. In 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmorland claimed he didn’t know “uppity” had racial connotations when he used the term to describe then-Sen. Barack Obama. This is especially curious because Westmorland is from Georgia. In 2010, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said Sarah Palin’s habit of deriding Obama as a “professor” was code for “uppity.” Limbaugh responded by saying the term was racist when applied to Clarence Thomas, but true when applied to Obama: “Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.” (Thomas received his law degree, by contrast, from plebian institution Yale.)But maybe that practice is starting to sink in. While Newsbusters’ Brent Baker was appalled that ABC News had “elevated” the “left-wing hit,” he didn’t quite go so far as to explicitly say the comment wasn’t racist. That’s progress.
[25] ”Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place.”
PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?
What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.
The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”
It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.
While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.
What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?
Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.
He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”
Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”
He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.
What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.
2015
In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”
2016
In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town.
Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”
Meghan Markle’s key moments
First few months as a married couple…
Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?
Baby Sussex arrives!
A summer of controversy….
2017
Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”
2018
In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.
2019
In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”
Prince Harry Key Moments
It all started 35 years ago…
Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…
Military and volunteer work
When Meghan met Harry…
2020
In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”
Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom
Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’
Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.
Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’
He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’.
The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.
The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.
Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan.
Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch
The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’.
But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’.
Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.
‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’
He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’
Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.
‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.
”be (sitting) on (one’s) tailTo follow close behind someone or something.Why is this guy sitting on my tail when I’m already going over the speed limit?Thecopsaredefinitelyonourtailnow—wehavetoturnourselvesin!
[30]
”The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.
For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.” THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html
The Duchess of Sussex has rightly been praised for making the fusty old Royal Family more socially and ethically aware.
But that was until an old friend from her Hollywood days was invited round for a bite to eat and posted online a picture of what was widely assumed to be high tea.
Pride of place went to avocado on toast —on silver platters, no less. ‘Still being the avocado toast whisperer, YUM!’, trilled her guest, Daniel Martin. The celebrity make-up artist said it took him back to the days when he and Meghan Markle collaborated on her lifestyle blog, The Tig.
‘The consummate hostess,’ he enthused.Well, perhaps not so much.
The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.
For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.
It has proved so lucrative in Mexico that it has been dubbed ‘green gold’ and is even filling the coffers of brutal drug cartels.
In her defence, the duchess is hardly the only celebrity who’s extolled the wonders of avocados, which are full of vitamins, proteins and healthy fats.
The lifeblood of the millennial generation — who can’t stop posting pictures of avocado on toast on Instagram — this so-called ‘super food’ has been championed by everyone from nutritionists to Hollywood stars.
The duchess revealed in her Grenfell cookbook that a green chilli and avocado dip was a favourite. Pop star Miley Cyrus went further with an avocado tattoo on her arm.
Grown in Mexico for 9,000 years, the avocado has come a long way since the 16th century, when Spanish conquistadors disparagingly called it aguacate, after ahuacatl, Aztec for testicle. Between 2000 and 2015, avocado consumption in the U.S. tripled. In the UK, the avocado market is estimated to be worth around £200 million a year.
But it has become a victim of its own popularity, prompting restaurants and cafes to remove it from menus over concerns about its environmental and social impact.
The Wild Strawberry Cafe in Bucks substituted avocados, its most popular item, with garlic-sauteed mushrooms on toast. Its owner cited the ‘demand on avocado farmers, pushing up prices to the point where there are even reports of Mexican drug cartels controlling lucrative exports’.
Tincan Coffee in Bristol has replaced ‘avo’ with pea guacamole after they were judged not to ‘fit’ with it’s ‘core beliefs’. The Wildflower Restaurant in South London followed suit, citing the violence in Mexico.
Its chef, Joseph Ryan, suggested the world may be entering a ‘post-avocado era’.
Haute cuisine has also jumped on board. In Ireland, the Michelin-starred chef JP McMahon has called them the ‘blood diamonds of Mexico’ and compared avocados to battery chickens. Where trendy restaurants and chefs go, the image-conscious supermarkets may not be far behind.
The problems that come from the West’s trendy fascination with avocados have a lot to do with geography. Some 40 per cent come from Mexico and almost all of that is grown in the rural western state of Michoacan.
The region’s fertile volcanic soil and temperate climate allow avocados to be harvested all year round (in other countries they can only be harvested in summer). The rich soil means the notoriously thirsty avocado trees need only a third as much water as they do elsewhere.
Mexico now makes more money exporting avocados than oil. Unfortunately, Michoacan is also home to some of Mexico’s most violent cartels. They include La Familia Michoacana, whose leaders once tossed five rivals’ heads on to the dance floor of a nightclub; their equally vicious rivals in the Knights Templar, a quasi-religious death cult; and Los Viagras, named for their leader’s heavily moussed, erect hair.
In Michoacan, the cartels now make more money from avocados than cannabis. Some drug criminals are becoming growers themselves, others simply terrorise the industry. Avocado farmers, who in Michoacan can easily earn more than £115,000 a year, a vast sum in Mexico, live in continual fear of kidnapping and extortion.
The Knights Templar started charging a fee for every box of avocados gathered by farmers. They also extorted money from the fertiliser and pesticide retailers. Many farmers have been forced to hand over the title deeds to their farms.
If they don’t pay protection money, growers and packers risk being raped or killed, their bodies tied to avocado trees with warning notices attached. Some kidnapped farmers have been killed even after their families paid their ransom.
A businessman whose family refused to pay up was chained to one of his trees and shot dead. Officials estimated the Knights Templar alone earn as much as £115 million a year from avocados.
The cartel’s 2014 kidnap, rape and murder of an avocado farmer’s young daughter prompted the town of Tancitaro to drive out the Knights after a bloody battle. However, the cartels remain a menacing presence.
Mexico’s avocado industry is also accused of damaging the health of locals with the chemicals sprayed on the orchards. Experts are concerned that the fumigation of the trees is behind growing breathing and stomach problems, and may be polluting water supplies.
Unscrupulous farmers are clearing land for avocado orchards, often illegally by cutting down oak and pine forests. The latter provide a crucial winter nesting ground for the imperilled Monarch butterfly.
Indeed, a Mexican government study concluded that soaring avocado production has caused a loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution and soil erosion. It has also damaged the natural water cycle and threatened the survival of animal species only found in the area. Farmers exacerbate deforestation by using trees for avocado crates.
We can’t be certain where Meghan’s avocados came from, but fashionable eaters who think they can safely switch to sourcing them from the Dominican Republic, Chile or Peru should think again.
Wherever they come from, the thousands of miles any avocado has to travel to get to Britain means they leave a heavy carbon footprint.
This is because they are perishable but cannot be frozen because it alters their texture.
They must therefore be transported either by air or in air-conditioned container ships so they ripen at just the right moment.
Their relatively heavy weight and bulky packaging to prevent bruising further ratchets up their carbon footprint. Two avocados have a footprint of 846g of CO2, compared to 160g for two bananas.
The enormous amounts of water required to grow avocados is even more of an eco-issue in countries without Mexico’s volcanic soil. It can take as much as 1,000 litres (220 gallons) to grow a single kilo (about three avocados).
The Chilean province of Petorca is suffering an acute water shortage thanks to ‘green gold’. Water has been privatised in Chile (which specialises in the Hass variety so popular in the UK), meaning that those who pay — such as deep-pocketed big avocado growers — can use as much as they want.
When activists complained after a 2012 aerial survey revealed 64 pipelines were diverting river water underground to irrigate the orchards, they received death threats. Local rivers have now dried up and supplies have to be trucked in for local people while the avocado farms rely on artificial reservoirs.
Although the avocado is essentially a jungle plant, greedy growers are determined to cultivate it in dry, perennially sunny areas such as California, where orchards sap water from a state already prone to wildfires and drought.
In Israel, avocado trees are irrigated with treated waste-water, prompting fears that harmful nano-particles are not only permanently damaging the soil but penetrating the fruit.
The Chinese are being gripped by avocado mania, too, so demand is expected to keep soaring.
But given the damaging cost of ‘avocado fever’, might it not be better to eat them more sparingly — and not, for example, serve them up on silver platters?
Since Meghan’s guest was invited to high tea, surely it should have been a case of let him eat cake.
Meghan cradling her baby bump is a subject that has got the nation talking
From a double hand clasp to handbag shield we identify different types of holds
Experts were asked to explain why they think she does it so often in public
It’s the subject that has got the nation talking: why does Meghan constantly cradle her bump? Here we identify the different types of embrace… and ask experts to explain why they think she does it.
Make like Meghan in a burgundy dress by Club Monaco
The Duchess of Sussex turned to one of her favourite labels, Club Monaco for an engagement in London last week.
Meghan wore the brand’s ‘Sallyet’ dress in a chic burgundy colour that simply exuded winter-chic vibes. We love the contrasting velvet collar! The stylish royal then finished off with a co-ordinating coat also by Club Monaco and a pair of cut-out ankle boots by Givenchy.
We’ve spotted her wearing the label on a lot of different occasions, most recently throughout the Royal tour, plus back in August when she attended a wedding on her birthday.
Deep berry and plum shades are perfect for this time of year, so click (right) to snap up this exact dress before the Meghan effect takes hold. You can also get your hands on her exact coat and ankle boots below to recreate the look in full.
Alternatively, we’ve hand-picked even more must-have maroon dresses that have a cute collar neckline just like Meghan’s. La Redoute and Warehouse have the best lookalikes.[35] ”the cat is out of the bagSome secret or surprise has been revealed or exposed.Well, we were going to keep this project a secret until we were a little further along in development, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now.We’ve had hidden cameras and microphones installed in his apartment to gather incriminating evidence, but I think the cat’s out of the bag.
THE DAILY MAILNOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018
Pregnant Duchess is attending symposium at Royal Society of Medicine in London
Event will discuss early intervention to support child mental health
Kate, 36, is due to give birth to her third child next month
Is set to complete celebratory Commonwealth engagements with William tomorrow
She’s weeks away from having her third child, but there’s no rest for the Duchess of Cambridge as she continues her busy schedule of royal engagements ahead of the birth.
Pregnant Kate, 36, is this morning attending a symposium at the Royal Society of Medicine in London of leading academics and charities championing early intervention into the lives of children.
The mother-to-be looked radiant in a bespoke green coat dress with a bow detail at the collar by Jenny Packham, worn over a mint dress, teamed with her favourite blush suede heels.
And she looked as if she’d taken inspiration from the Queen who wore a remarkably similar ensemble to watch polo at Windsor in 1973.
Today’s meeting is thought to be Kate’s penultimate engagement before she commences her maternity leave and comes after Prince William’s confirmation that she’s due to give birth ‘any minute now’.
According to Hello! magazine, the Duke of Cambridge made the revelation that the new royal baby will be here sooner rather than later, while knighting Ringo Starr yesterday.
Despite the impending birth, Kate has had her busiest start to the year yet and if William’s admission is anything to go by, it seems that she’s determined to keep working as close to her due date as possible.
The royal used today’s engagement to call for teenagers to be taught parenting and relationship skills to avoid the danger of their future children developing mental health problems in later life.
In a speech on the benefits of early intervention in supporting children’s mental wellbeing she said it was important to get the next generation of parents ‘child-ready’ even before they have children.
Go green like the Duchess of Cambridge in Jenny Packham
The Duchess of Cambridge is getting closer and closer to her due date, but that’s not holding her back from her duties. It’s certainly not holding her back in the style stakes, either.
Arriving for a conference held by The Royal Foundation today, Kate worked a new maternity look. Despite re-wearing most of her outfits lately, she had splashed out here opting for a bespoke dress and coat by one of her go-to British designers, Jenny Packham.
The look was a bright one that ensured she stood out on arrival and we love the pretty bow detail at the collar.
You cannot buy this outerwear as it’s bespoke, but click right to head to NET-A-PORTER where you can shop ready-to-wear pieces by the brand. Or you can go green and look royally stylish in one of our alternative coats below by Theory, Harris Wharf London, Boden and more.
Kate was speaking at a symposium of academics, professionals and charities organised by the Royal Foundation, the charitable arm of William, Kate and Harry’s public work.
The royal also announced she was setting up a steering group to explore how to help experts provide children with the best start in life.
It will look at how to create a partnership between experts and organisations examining issues around as perinatal, maternal and infant mental health. The steering group will also look at how to improve the support for children, parents and teachers.
Kate’s busiest year yet
At the beginning of March, the Duchess had completed 38 official engagements – including.
That’s compared with just 11 for the same period in 2017 and seven in 2016.
In January and February in 2015, when Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, she completed 13 engagements.
In 2014 and 2013, she completed three official engagements in the first two months of the year.
In 2012, she completed 10 engagements during the same period.
Aides say it will report back to the duchess later this year and it is hoped the Royal Foundation will announce a strategy in late autumn or early next year.
In her speech at the Royal Society of Medicine, the duchess said she believes society ‘cannot intervene early enough’ to break ’the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage’.
She said: ‘We need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.
‘We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children.
‘We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially even before they give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.
‘And potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.’
She added: ‘Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.’
Professor Peter Fonagy, chief executive of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, described the duchess as the person ‘who has done more to turn the tide of stigma around mental health more than any other single individual that I could name.’
He had seen her visiting providers, ‘energising, enthusing, deepening the commitment of front-line workers in an invaluable way’, he said.
He added: ‘She has also changed all our way of thinking by her intelligent questioning and crystal-clear focus.
‘It is vitally important to work together, to form a community that cares about early childhood.’
The Duchess of Cambridge’s speech on early intervention
As I look around the room, I see friends from many different sectors: friends who have shared with me their knowledge, and who have answered my questions patiently whilst I’ve interrogated them in my endeavour to learn about this complex range of issues.
Academic colleagues who have shown me their ground-breaking research into the causes of perinatal and post-natal depression, and how they are addressing these in the clinic;
Those who I have visited over the years who provide crucial links within the community, and whose services help families with essential parenting support and guidance;
and other wonderful organisations which have done so much to improve support for the emotional wellbeing of children in schools. I could name so many of you, but I’m utterly grateful to you all for giving your time and wisdom so freely.
We all know how important childhood is; and how the early years shape us for life. We also know how negative the downstream impact can be, if problems emerging at the youngest age are overlooked, or ignored. It is therefore vital that we nurture children through this critical, early period.
But as we’ve heard, at what stage in a child’s development could we, or should we, intervene, to break the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage?
The more I have heard, the more I am convinced that the answer has to be: ‘early’ and ‘ ’the earlier, the better’.
In fact, it would seem that we cannot intervene early enough.
We do need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.
We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children.
We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially before they even give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.
But potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.
After listening to those working in this complex area, my own view is that children’s experiences in their early years are fundamental. They lay the foundations not only for healthy outcomes during the teenage years, but also for adulthood.
Addressing the issues only when they take root, later in life, results in huge detriment; detriment to the healthcare, education and social support systems in our country; but, perhaps more importantly, detriment to future generations over the long term.
In 2011, Graham Allen, who is with is here today, wrote a report for Government on the need for early intervention.
I hope, Graham, you don’t mind me quoting from your report, in which you referred to the cycle of deprivation and dysfunction, from generation to generation.
There, you said that, ‘If we intervene early enough, we can give children a vital social and emotional foundation, which will help to keep them happy, healthy and achieving throughout their lives and, above all, equip them to raise children of their own.’
I could not agree more.
Because these are ‘lifetime’ issues, they require a very long term perspective. But the issues are also complex and multi-sided, so they need integrated, collective approaches to create real impact. This is what I am so keen to explore.
We are here today because we all believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life.
I have therefore entrusted The Royal Foundation, under the leadership of Aida Cable, to gather a group of experts to develop the thinking in this critical area: experts and partners to build upon existing work, and to look at developing sustainable solutions which will help deliver our shared ambitions.
Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel so passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.
Thank you.
Prof Fonagy said the Royal Foundation could play a massive role in bringing voluntary organisations and statutory services to work together.
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, president of the Royal Society for Medicine and Regius Professor of Psychiatry at King’s College London, thanked the duchess for the work she and Prince William and Prince Harry had done on mental health.
It had, he said, been ‘fantastic in all sorts of ways, and in particular in engaging with ordinary people, with friends, families, relatives and indeed non-professionals for the work they can do, which is probably more important than the work any of us do… in improving the mental health and resilience of our nation.’
He said: ‘About 50 per cent of the work that adult psychiatry does arises from childhood adversity, mistreatment and so on.’
Tomorrow, Kate and Prince William will complete two engagements celebrating the Commonwealth before Kate signs off for her maternity leave.
The Duke and Duchess will begin the day at a SportsAid event to learn how the charity is helping the next generation of aspiring Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth and world champions, before taking part in preparations for a Commonwealth Big Lunch at a London community centre.
”Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem.”……..”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible”
BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK
Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem. However, the Duchess of Sussex didn’t wear the bold polish on her hands. Instead, she wore a deep shade on her toes while rocking a light pink color on her finger tips.Meghan’s pedicure was noticeable as she wore open-toe shoes (Stuart Weitzman heeled sandals, to be exact) for the event. It also helped that her glittery Roland Mouret gown had a leg slit, revealing her footwear as she walked. The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.” After all, Meghan had been wearing neutral manicures for past royal appearances, and other women in the family like Duchess Kate, Duchess Camilla, and even the Queen have frequented natural-looking nails.
However, “there’s no actual protocol about dark nail polish,” royal correspondent Omid Scobie told BAZAAR.comat the time. “It’s simply about being appropriate—we’d never see this at a royal engagement. But tonight’s event is a celebration of fashion and there’s a lot more flexibility on what one can wear.”And ultimately, it looked good with her outfit. The same goes for last night’s pedi.
The Cirque du Soleil performance at Royal Albert Hall, which raised money for Prince Harry’s charity, Sentebale, was previously announced by Kensington Palace. However, perhaps there was more leeway for daring nail shades considering it was an evening gala rather than, say, a formal daytime engagement with Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace. Kate Middleton has actually rocked a dark pedicures at similar events with glamorous looks of her own. One of them was also at Royal Albert Hall years ago, while attending a concert celebrating the 2012 Olympics in London.
[42] ”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.” BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK
TEXT The level of scrutiny the Duchess of Sussex receives is devoid of human feeling. This vilification must end
Last month I nominated Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as a hate figure for the nation in 2019: the person we all need to get us through a difficult time, like your cousin’s girlfriend who waxes her eyebrows and yammers on about yoga at the start of a fraught Christmas. As I then explained about a million times on Twitter, I was joking: I do not hate Meghan, or even consider her vaguely hateful. I could no more despise the woman than I could flick through the pages of a magazine and take against a salt-and-pepper male model with a watch on. She wasn’t the point; the point was that society quests ceaselessly for an enemy, and if you’re going to have one, at least let it be one who probably won’t care.
This was right in an ambient, premonitory way, but I was wrong to think it was funny. The poor woman is being vilified round the clock – this week for having the audacity to have a baby shower with her friends in New York. It has gone beyond the point of mattering what her personality is like, were anyone in any position to know: she would have to be so thoroughly bad to warrant this level of scrutiny, so devoid of human feeling, so malicious in every intention, that the media’s daily censure wouldn’t be enough. We’d have to paint her yellow and black like a bee.
She can’t leave the house, pregnant, without being accused of “flaunting” her bump. She can’t walk into a room without wild speculation about whether or not she breached a protocol, by people who have no idea what royal protocols are. If a friend comes to her defence and asks people to stop hounding her, then who does she think she is, having a friend like that? OK, so maybe it is George Clooney. Someone’s got to be his friend. He might be perfectly nice.
If she smiles for the cameras, then she’s luxuriating in the attention. “She’s being victimised, you say, George; you with your fancy hair and your coffee habits … then why is she smiling? Riddle me that.”
If she goes to New York, she’s pointedly “without Prince Harry”. But if she had taken Prince Harry, then you can guarantee that she would have been dragging her husband away from his duties, to partake of her frivolity, and what kind of princelet might she raise with priorities like that? If she has a baby shower, some journalist, who was most likely trained to dig into the affairs of the mighty and powerful, sets those investigative skills to pricing her gifts then translating dollars into pounds. We’re asking the big questions, here: who spends $379 (£290) on a crib? For their friend’s baby? And besides: ew, baby shower, that’s so American. But isn’t she, though? No, she’s English now, until she gives any sign that she considers herself English, whereupon she will be American again. Randomised disapproval has rendered her stateless.Advertisement
If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.
PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?
What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.
The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”
It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.
While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.
What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?
Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.
He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”
Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”
He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.
What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.
2015
In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”
2016
In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town.
Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”
Meghan Markle’s key moments
First few months as a married couple…
Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?
Baby Sussex arrives!
A summer of controversy….
2017
Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”
2018
In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.
2019
In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”
Prince Harry Key Moments
It all started 35 years ago…
Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…
Military and volunteer work
When Meghan met Harry…
2020
In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”
SEE ALSO NOTE 28 ABOUT PIER MORGAN’S OBSESSION WITH MEGHAN MARKLE
Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom
Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’
Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.
Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’
He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’.
The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.
The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.
Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan.
Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch
The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’.
But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’.
Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.
‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’
He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’
Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.
‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.
[46]
BBC
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751
[47]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.
“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.
The stories were banal enough (Prince William pulled a tendon in his knee, one revealed). But the royal aides were puzzled as to how News of the World had gotten the information, which was known among only a small, discreet circle. They began to suspect that someone was eavesdropping on their private conversations.
By early January 2006, Scotland Yard had confirmed their suspicions. An unambiguous trail led to Clive Goodman, the News of the World reporter who covered the royal family, and to a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who also worked for the paper. The two men had somehow obtained the PIN codes needed to access
Scotland Yard told the aides to continue operating as usual while it pursued the investigation, which included surveillance of the suspects’ phones. A few months later, the inquiry took a remarkable turn as the reporter and the private investigator chased a story about Prince William’s younger brother, Harry, visiting a strip club. Another tabloid, The Sun, had trumpeted its scoop on the episode with the immortal: “Harry Buried Face in Margo’s Mega-Boobs. Stripper Jiggled . . . Prince Giggled.”
As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.
The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne. The eavesdropping could not have gone higher inside the royal family, since Prince Charles and the queen were hardly regular mobile-phone users. But it seemingly went everywhere else in British society. Scotland Yard collected evidence indicating that reporters at News of the World might have hacked the phone messages of hundreds of celebrities, government officials, soccer stars — anyone whose personal secrets could be tabloid fodder. Only now, more than four years later, are most of them beginning to find out.
AS OF THIS SUMMER, five people have filed lawsuits accusing News Group Newspapers, a division of Rupert Murdoch’s publishing empire that includes News of the World, of breaking into their voice mail. Additional cases are being prepared, including one seeking a judicial review of Scotland Yard’s handling of the investigation. The litigation is beginning to expose just how far the hacking went, something that Scotland Yard did not do. In fact, an examination based on police records, court documents and interviews with investigators and reporters shows that Britain’s revered police agency failed to pursue leads suggesting that one of the country’s most powerful newspapers was routinely listening in on its citizens.
The police had seized files from Mulcaire’s home in 2006 that contained several thousand mobile phone numbers of potential hacking victims and 91 mobile phone PIN codes. Scotland Yard even had a recording of Mulcaire walking one journalist — who may have worked at yet another tabloid — step by step through the hacking of a soccer official’s voice mail, according to a copy of the tape. But Scotland Yard focused almost exclusively on the royals case, which culminated with the imprisonment of Mulcaire and Goodman. When police officials presented evidence to prosecutors, they didn’t discuss crucial clues that the two men may not have been alone in hacking the voice mail messages of story targets.
“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World. Police officials have defended their investigation, noting that their duties did not extend to monitoring the media. In a statement, the police said they followed the lines of inquiry “likely to produce the best evidence” and that the charges that were brought “appropriately represented the criminality uncovered.” The statement added, “This was a complex inquiry and led to one of the first prosecutions of its kind.” Officials also have noted that the department had more pressing priorities at the time, including several terrorism cases.[49] ”According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. ” ROYALFOIBLES.COMKATE’S DILEMMA https://www.royalfoibles.com/kates-dilemma/
TEXT
By now the world has long since heard the news that Britain’s most famously grumpy infant won’t be hogging the spotlight much longer as his parents will soon be welcoming a new edition to their family. The author is of course referring to the announcement made earlier this week that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child. The irony of this announcement is that it was made under the same circumstances as news of Her Royal Highness’ first pregnancy was divulged to the general public: i.e. because the Duchess was overcome by such a severe case of Hyperemesis Gravidarum, more commonly known as morning sickness, that she was forced to cancel several public engagements while being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace. Kate’s ill health also forced the Palace to announce her pregnancy sooner than the expectant mother, her husband, in-laws and their retainers would’ve liked. Far be it from the author to cast a shadow on this otherwise happy event, but he can’t help but wonder if the Duchess’ latest bout of severe, briefly debilitating morning sickness is but the latest sign of the long held rumor that HRH, like her late mother-in-law, suffers from at least one on going, and increasingly severe, eating disorder. After all, many a medical expert interviewed on American television at the time of Kate’s first pregnancy announcement stated categorically that one of the leading causes of Hyperemesis Gravidarum is dehydration resulting from the expectant mother being under weight. Reoccurring bouts of Bulimia, and certainly Anorexia Nervosa, can lead to an expectant mother being dangerously thin. Before the author continues, he would like to make it clear to his online community, as he always does concerning posts of this nature, that he’s engaging in nothing more than idle speculation. After all, libel is an all too real legal concept that has a funny way of seeking out and striking even the most deliberately anonymous of Internet bloggers. With that caveat stated, the author can’t help but notice certain cracks that are continually forming in the Duchess of Cambridge’s painstakingly well crafted public facade.
No one can under estimate the kind of pressure that Her Royal Highness has been subjected to from the moment she officially became a member of the Royal Family. Even during her engagement it was noticed by the more discerning of royal commentators that her weight perceptibly dropped in the weeks leading up to her wedding. By the time her father walked her down the aisle at Westminster Abbey she’d morphed into a literal stick figure and, despite the handful of pounds she gained during her first pregnancy, she’s remained one ever since. Photos of the Duchess of Cambridge in her current manifestation are particularly striking when compared to those taken of her at the time her relationship with Prince William began while they were undergraduates at Scotland’s University of St. Andrew’s. While certainly a young woman whose frame could be described as naturally thin, Kate Middleton’s appearance possessed a genuine healthiness back then that all but disappeared as her royal courtship progressed.
There’s no shortage of rumors concerning why Kate’s physical transformation came to pass. One aspect of these stories that many of them have in common is that Kate’s weight decreased in direct proportion to her increasing desperation to marry Britain’s heir presumptive. While no one doubts that Prince William fell madly in love with Kate while they were both in college, by the the time he was studying to become a pilot at Sandhurst his feelings are alleged to have noticeably cooled, while his roving eye led him to the first of several dalliances with other women that occurred during his prolonged courtship. In fact, there are many who believe that one of the reasons why his relationship with Ms. Middleton was so prolonged was because he relished his bachelor status, and the freedom to date other women that came with it, too much to settle into marriage. While never the serial philanderer that both his father and grandfather have undoubtedly been, it’s long been whispered that His Royal Highness was no stranger to other women throughout the greater part of his courtship with Ms. Middleton. These same whisperers have also made it clear, however, that William always returned to Kate’s patiently waiting arms after every brief affair, and the two of them would continue on as if nothing had happened. The author has been given two explanations for this.
The first is that His Royal Highness, as an enabled, pampered young man who prefers security and routine over risk and adventure, preferred to have a long term, official girlfriend whom he could parade before the tabloid press, would love and trust above all other women, and eventually marry; but none the less would sow his wild oats behind her back while she stoically awaited his inevitable marriage proposal. While there were other contenders for the role of William’s conjugal nanny/long suffering girlfriend/eventual wife and consort, none had the endurance or palace backing of Kate Middleton.
This leads one to the second alleged reason why William always reunited with the girlfriend the tabloid press eventually dubbed “Waity Katy.” It’s never been a secret among royal insiders that from the moment the late Diana, Princess of Wales perished in a car crash, her ex-husband’s courtiers were desperate for William’s future bride to be his mother’s more level headed, more Royal Court compliant and more humbly born replacement. After all, who better to succeed the so called “People’s Princess” than a glamorous, well educated, and naturally graceful young woman who was a genuine commoner born of the people, or at least more of the people than the former Lady Diana Spencer had ever been? It’s said the Prince of Wales’ advisors at Clarence House specifically became sold on the idea of Kate Middleton one day becoming Prince William’s bride, or at the very least Prince William’s future bride being a young lady as similar to Kate Middleton as possible, when they became aware that she almost single handedly talked him out of dropping out of college, and could more than likely be relied upon to convince the British throne’s heir presumptive to abandon his long term plan to eventually abdicate his succession rights.
Many a royal watcher, journalist, and courtier is aware that His Royal Highness, unlike his father, has never relished his destiny as Britain’s future king. While it’s rumored that he’s resigned himself to his fate more and more as the years have passed, he’s still said to find his royal duties more a burden than anything else, and the main reason why he’s been allowed to return to his career as a search and rescue/ambulance pilot is because of the abject misery he’s expressed behind palace walls at the prospect of whiling away his youth at public engagements that bore him to tears. Although the Queen’s court at Buckingham Palace initially rejected the idea of Kate Middleton becoming William’s spouse because of her lack of aristocratic birth, they were always in agreement with Prince Charles’ Clarence House staff that a loving and supportive spouse, who was on their side, was the key to Prince William accepting his destiny. They eventually realized that if Kate Middleton was the only woman who seemed able to fulfill that task, then so be it.
In the meantime, as the combined pressures of maintaining a relationship with her privately mercurial boyfriend increased with the prospect of her becoming Diana 2.0, Kate appears to have developed a case of body dysmorphia that haunts her to this day. One of the many ironies of the Duchess of Cambridge being the designated torch bearer of Diana’s legacy is that she appears to have taken on at least one of her late mother-in-law’s coping mechanisms to deal with the predicament of being married to Britain’s future king.
One may wonder, as many have, what lies beneath Kate’s seemingly plastered on smile and her outwardly friendly public demeanor. According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. Several among their social friends have also stated that the Duke and Duchess compliment each other precisely because their tastes are somewhat juvenile and neither of them are intellectuals. All in all, Kate gives the impression of being a modestly intelligent, genuinely selfless and utterly devoted young woman whose more than willing to sacrifice her needs for the happiness of those she loves most, chief among them obviously being her husband. While someone with a stronger disposition might be able to take this predicament in their stride, Her Royal Highness’ latest bout of ill health at the outset of her latest pregnancy indicates otherwise.
While many have presumed since the ordeal of Charles and Diana’s divorce and Diana’s tragic, early death that the Palace has modernized some of its more ossified practices vis a vis how the courtiers and Royal Family deal with their newly arrived in-laws, the seemingly blasé manner in which the Palace has handled the Duchess’ latest health crisis, coupled with the seemingly unconcerned manner in which her husband and his family have cheerfully gone about their public engagements since the announcement that Kate’s expecting leads one to deduce that little has changed regarding the Palace’s internal practices. The author more than concedes that royal engagements are what they are, and the traveling Windsor show must go on regardless of what’s going on within its members’ private lives, but one doubts anyone would’ve begrudged Prince William’s absence from the opening ceremonies of the Invictus Games, least of all Prince Harry, who organized them, so that he could spend as much time as possible next to his especially delicate wife. Through his smilingly unbothered demeanor in public, Prince William is giving the message that his wife vomiting herself into near delirium every time she gets knocked up is nothing to get concerned about. He’s not worried, so no one else should be. As far as the Buckingham Palace press office is concerned, that’s probably the point.
There are, however, several silver linings to this latest chapter in Kate’s life, chief among them being that, with William being allowed to resume his military career, he and his wife have been given the all clear to make their country estate, Anmer Hall, their primary residence. As the author predicted in his first post concerning the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate definitely didn’t take to the stultifying and Victorian atmosphere of Princess Margaret’s former apartment at Kensington Palace, where she was observed and scrutinized almost as much behind palace walls as she was in public. According to a recent article about her in the Daily Telegraph, which reported on her “baby making plans” shortly before it was publicly divulged that she’s pregnant and seems lately to be surpassing the Daily Mail as the Palace’s preferred organ for press leaks, it’s Kate’s genuine wish to have a third child before she’s 35. Her move to a new primary residence, according to the article, is central to her plans. Perhaps while ensconced in the country, Kate will be able too seek treatment away from prying eyes for what is becoming an increasingly obvious health problem. Otherwise, there may never be a third Cambridge child.
EXPRESS
KATE MIDDLETON BODY LANGUAGE: HOW ”WAITY KATY” TRANSFORMED INTO ”DRIVEN” DUCHESS
KATE, DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE is an established member of the British Royal Family but she hasn’t always been the confident figure she is today. Here’s how the popular royal went from “waity-Katie” to the driven Duchess she is now.
Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, 37 married Prince William, 37, in 2011 and has become a much-loved member of the British Royal Family. Kate and William met at university and were officially an item by the time they graduated in 2005. Once a shy student Kate has transformed into a driven and charismatic future Queen consort.
One royal source claimed it has taken Kate several years to become comfortable in her royal role but now there is no stopping the diligent Duchess.Before Prince William and Kate tied the knot she was branded work shy by critics who claimed after graduating she seemed to be waiting around for William to propose instead of pursuing her own career.
However, since then Kate has proven her critics wrong and is among the most industrious members of the younger royals.
A royal source has claimed Kate has grown into herself and matured into her role.
They told Fabulous Magazine: “Like the finest of wines, she has taken years to mature to perfection, but the woman you see today has no peers on the global stage.”“What people are seeing now is a confident, driven woman with a purpose.
For the first time in her life, Kate knows where she is going and has the self-belief to get there under her own steam.”
Nearly two decades since he and William first met, Kate’s body language has dramatically changed.
The source said: “Back then she was full of self-doubt, despite all her assets.“These days she’s a force to be reckoned with.”
Kate has always been admired for her incredible figure and famously caught William’s eye on the catwalk at a university fashion show.
But it has taken the mum-of-three years to feel at home in her body.
Following the Cambridges recent tour of Pakistan, the Duchess has been praised for the ease with which she handles royal engagements.Vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and political author, Sir Anthony Seldon told the Sun: “Kate has that rare ability, possessed by very few people, of being able to talk and relate to those of different ages, backgrounds and ethnicities.”
He added: “It’s a magical talent that is infinitely precious and you either have it in life or you don’t.
“Most people don’t, but Kate does.”
According to Palace insiders, Kate is as popular within The Firm as she is with the general public and her no-fuss approach to royal duty is a hit with her grandmother-in-law, the Queen.
Kate’s ability to juggle motherhood with a packed schedule of royal engagements puts her in good stead as future Queen Consort.
The insider added: “The Queen is not one for platitudes, so when she gives a compliment you know she means it.
“She has been extremely impressed by the Duchess of Cambridge’s ability to keep several balls in the air at once.
“Never before has a royal of the Duchess’ standing taken such a hands-on role in raising a future king – and don’t forget that is George’s destiny. It has traditionally been left to nannies and governesses.“Catherine seems to thrive on the workload.”
[50]
”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.
“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples
WHAT WENT BEFORE What I more or less predicted, has happened now.The smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, orchestrated by the British tabloids, or parts of it, has reached unbearable heights.For I am convinced that it is that, what drove the young royal couple I cheered on from the beginning [1], Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, partially out of England. [2]More about that soon.
SMEAR CAMPAIGN From the moment, it was made known, that Prince Harry was seriously interested in Meghan Markle, a repulsive smear campaign started, on which Prince Harry reacted as any honourable man would do, declaring:”Yes, I am with Meghan and I want to protect her!I admired him for this. He reacted so strongly, because that smear campaign was there from the beginning.Now I admit, that royal people and people, who are married/engaged with them, are mostly subject to smear and gossip, but this smear campaign had and still has a racist underton.And that’s NOT mere speculation from my sideI quote from the official statement of Prince Harry, in 2016, when they were newly engaged:Read with me:”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; [3]
The couple married [4] and it was a great social happening, people, including my person [5] cheered them on, they were popular with the people, a beautiful son was born to them [6], but the hatint tabloid press continued.The more painful for Prince Harry, since he lost his mother, Princess Diana, whom I valued for her struggle against landmines [7], by the work of the paparazzi [8], and later Prince Harry would refer to this fear, now in connection with his wife. [9]
SMEAR CAMPAIGN CONTINUEDNO RACIST ELEMENTS?/NONSENSE! There has been claimed at several occasions, also by the Home Secretary Priti Patel, that Meghan Markle did not face any racist press coverage. [10]I dare to doubt about that, friendly said. Because: If there are no racist elements, how does it explain, that a BBC reporter was fired, calling newborn baby Lord Archie a ”chimpanzee?” [11]Is that racist or not!And then of course Prince Harry’s statement [mentioned above] about the racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle! [12] The view, that Meghan Markle was subject to racist press coverage was also shared by some prominent black Britons. [13] ENOUGH IS ENOUGHDUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX SUED TABLOID!
They were warned already by Prince Harry [14], but went on merrily with their smearcampaign!Untill enough was enough! Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle finally saw no other options than to sue the Mail on Sunday for publishing a handwritten letter Meghan Markle had sent to her estranged father [estranged is the word chosen by newspaper the Guardian, not by me] [15]I suppose that was the limit! Prince Harry was clearly furious and and compared the treatment of Meghan tothe press coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.Furtherly he said his “deepest fear was history repeating itself”, referring to the tragedy of his mother, Princess Diana [16] I think it a very good point, defending his wife like that.The only honourable thing a true husband should do. Then also my modest person had enough of it and wrote some posts and an article to the defense of Prince Harry and especially Meghan Markle! [17]
PETITION TO STRIP THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX FROM THEIR ROYAL TITLES/BUT THE HATERS DIDNOT WIN! Two months later, in december 2019, I felt myself obliged to defend the Duke and Duchess of Sussex again, now about a petition, which had been started by a Brighton citizen, Charles Ross, to strip Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from their royal titles ”’Duke and Duchess of Sussex” This was the text of the petition ””We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” [18] Although it seemed that the nature of the petition was of republicans or/and social radicals, yet I had and have the suspicion that in reality the real motives were racist, given the whole smearcampaign against Meghan Markle.Then, according to me, this petition didn’t come out of the blue and was NO coincidence! And therefore, because I thought it was that racist smearcampaign against Meghan Markle again, I wrote a letter to the Council of Brighton, which debated the petition, to prevent them from possibly stripping the titles. See my letter under note 19 And guess what Readers? I got a nice mail back from the Council of Brighton, in which they explained, that they had no power to remove royal titles and voted to simply ”note” the petition See for the mail of the Council under note 20
AND NOW:PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS To the surprise of many -among them my modest person- Prince Harry and his wife Meghan made a statement, they would step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independentIn a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America. [21] In their Instagram statement is to be read: ””After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.
“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.
“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.
“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.
“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”” [22]
QUEEN’S REACTION ON THE PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STATEMENT:
It became obvious the Queen was not consulted about this and soon the first reaction of Buckingham Palace came:
“Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage.”We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.” [23] I feel it must have been an unpleasant shock to the Queen.Sensational as it may seem to the public, it concerns her grandson and his wife and yet apart from a changed role within the Royal Family, living abroad also means, that she will seeless of her greatgrandson she was so delighted to welcome [24] However:To me, modest person, it was a dismay.The first thing I thought was: NOThose haters have won anyway, although they don’t, as the story will tell. Otherwise said:I am nearly convinced, that the racist attitude of most of the tabloid press is the reason Prince Harry and Meghan Markle took these step and that is a horrific thought.Not fair! The Guardian/Observer thinks they stepped out because of the burden of monarchy [25] and that may be one of the reasons, but I agree with some prominent black Britons, who spoke out, I am of the opinion, that racism played. alas, the main part. [26] WHAT A SHAME!IN 2020! Hugh problem with many racist press attacks is, that it not always shows itself as classical racism [ape, nigger, etc], but it are the continuin, covered ”undertone”, as Prince Harry rightly pointed out. [27] Definitely there is a smear campaign against Meghan Markle [28], since every step she sets is followed in a negative sense, there is lot of gossip, often nonsense, to my view, because nothing can be proven, but the fact remains:Why watching every step of Meghan, when there are more royals to gossip about?Why denying racism, when her and Prince Harry’s son was compared with a chimpanzee by some now fired BBC reporter? [29]Why the nonsense referring to the former ”dreadlocks” of Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland, when there is no racism? THE QUEEN’S SUPPORT But:The haters did NOT win! After announcing their Megxit [HAHAHA], their stepping out of royal duties, the Queen launched a family crisis meetingto discuss the new situation:Present were:The Queen of courseHer husband Prince PhilipThe Prince and Princess of Wales [Heir to the throne Prince Charles, father of Prince William and Harry and their stephmother Camilla]The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge [Prince Harry’s brother Prince William and his wife Kate Middleton] AND last, but not least,:Prince Harry of course [Meghan Markle left earlier for Canada with their son and would join the meeting per telephone] [30]
AND GUESS WHAT!The Queen gave her support to the step Prince Harry and his wife Meghan are taking In an announcement she declared:
Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.
“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” [31]
WOW!That’s great news after all turmoil! For them, haters or not, who had hoped to watch a big Family Row, it must be a great disappointment. For me however and other wellwishers, it is a Great Story. A Victory of a Family, that faces crisis challenges and grow stronger from it. That’s good
EPILOGUE So the haters did NOT win.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain a valued part of the family, as the Queen declared. And perhaps it is better like this.Tabloid’s pressure is lesser, since the couple is staying partly abroad, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have more freedom to go their own way and raise their son without too much ceremonial pressure, while he keeps in line with his royal heritage and family. And the good relationship with the Family remains. I only can wish them, from this place, all the Happiness and Success. And perhaps, in the future, I defend them again, when necessary
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.
In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.
The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.
Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.
In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.”We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”
They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”
‘Major rift’
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.
“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.”This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”
A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.
During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.
“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.
Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.
Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.
And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.
She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.
They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.
But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.
There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?
And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?
It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.
But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.
Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.
He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.
And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.”That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.
Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.
“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.
He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.
“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?
“How is their security going to be funded?
“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.
BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.
But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.
He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.
The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.
Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.
Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.””I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”
In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.
Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.
In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.
Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.
Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.
Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.
He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.
But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.
Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.
YOUTUBE.COMPRINCE HARRY AFTER MEGHAN GIVES BIRTH TO BOY:”ABSOLUTELY OVER THE MOON”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQHCXzg7v3QTRANSCRIPTION”I am very excited to announce, that Meghan and myself had a baby boy, early this morning, a very healthy boy.Mother and baby are doing incredibly well.It’s been the most amazing experience I can ever possiblyimagine.How any woman does what they do is beyond comprehension,but we are both absolutely thrilled and I am so grateful toall the love and support from everybody out there…it’s absolutely amazing,so this we want to share with everybody…..[INTERVIEWER ASKS ABOUT NAMES FOR THE BABY][PRINCE HARRY]Still thinking about names, yes, the baby is a littleoverdue so we had a little time tothink about it, butyes, that’s the next step, but for us…seeing you guysin probably two days in time as planned….as a family to have toshow it to you guys …..so one can see the baby.[AT QUESTION OF THE INTERVIEWER]”I haven’t been at many births…this is definitely myfirst birth.It’s amazing, absolutely incredible and as I said,I am so incredibly proudof my wife.And as every father and parent will ever say, your baby is absolutelyamazing, but this little thing is absolutely to die for.So I am just over the moon.Thank you very much guys”END OF THE TOUCHING YOUTUBE FILM
The founder of an anti-landmine campaign group says Princess Diana’s support provided a “turning point” in the global effort to ban the devices.
Lou McGrath launched Mines Advisory Group (MAG) with his brother Rae in 1989, from Cockermouth, in Cumbria.
The princess made global headlines in January 1997 when she called for a ban on anti-personnel devices.
She then worked with MAG in the months before her death, on August 31 of that year in a Paris car crash.
Keen to support a global ban, the princess’s representatives had contacted MAG, which led to a meeting at Kensington Palace.
Subsequently, she was in regular contact with the group and acted as a keynote speaker at a London event in June 1997.
Just over three months after her death, 122 governments signed up to the Ottawa Treaty, which aimed to eliminate the production and use of mines.
‘Humanitarian issue’
Speaking on the 20th anniversary of her death, Mr McGrath said: “It was tremendously important [to have her on board]. It was a turning point.
“The voice we had in the campaign brought forward the British government’s resolve in signing up to the treaty and also international governments.
“We’d tried to push forward a ban on the use, production and export [of mines] and it was only when Diana decided to come on board that the British government declared a moratorium.
“We were then able to sign the mine ban treaty, although sadly that was after her death.”
MAG was part of the lobbying coalition International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
The princess’s call for an international ban had seen her attacked by politicians who claimed she was interfering with government policy.
Mr McGrath, though, defended her actions.
He said: “She’d been heavily criticised by MPs for being political, but actually governments of the world had agreed it was a humanitarian issue.
“Without her we couldn’t have brought forward what was the fastest arms control treaty in the world.”
[8]
”On 31 August 1997, Diana died in a car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris while the driver was fleeing the paparazzi.[236] The crash also resulted in the deaths of her companion Dodi Fayed and the driver, Henri Paul, who was the acting security manager of the Hôtel Ritz Paris. Diana’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, survived the crash. The televised funeral, on 6 September, was watched by a British television audience that peaked at 32.10 million, which was one of the United Kingdom’s highest viewing figures ever. Millions more watched the event around the world
”Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
THE GUARDIAN
PUT SIMPLY, IT IS BULLYING: ”PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA
As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.
Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.
There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.
Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.
It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.
This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.
There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.
HOME SECRETARY PRITI PATEL DISSMISSES CLAIMS THAT MEGHAN MARKLE HAS FACED RACIST PRESS COVERAGE AND SAYS PEOPLE OF ANY BACKGROUND CAN ”GET ON IN LIFE” IN BRITAIN
Priti Patel has rubbished claims that Meghan Markle has faced racist press coverage and insisted people of any background can ‘get on in life’ in Britain.
The Home Secretary today rejected suggestions that racism has driven negative media reports about the Duchess of Sussex saying she had not seen ’things of that nature.’
Ms Patel’s comments come as senior royals race to thrash out plans for Prince Harry and Meghan’s future following the couple’s bombshell announcement that they plan to ‘step back’ as senior royals.
The Cabinet minister has been drawn into the row as she will need to be involved in the decision on the future of their taxpayer funded security – said to be between £600,000 to £1million a year – if they take part in fewer royal events.
In November 2016, Harry lashed out at the ‘wave of abuse and harassment’ the US actress had faced from the media – citing the ‘racial undertones of comment pieces’ among his concerns.
Ms Patel, speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, said: ‘I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all.
‘I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.’
Asked if the media had been in any way racist, she replied: ‘I don’t think so, no… I certainly haven’t seen that through any debates or commentary or things of that nature.’
Slashing the Royal security arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be part of the negotiations at today’s crunch ‘Sandringham Summit’,
Sources told the Mail On Sunday that Security Minister Brandon Lewis and Ms Patel have stressed the importance of continued – if reduced – protection for the pair.
Yet the couple may have their security downgraded with protection squad officers armed only with tasers instead of guns.
The ‘range of possibilities’ have been drawn up by royal courtiers and government officials for the Queen, William, Charles and Harry to review, according to The Sunday Times.
One Whitehall insider said: ‘Look at the terror threat, look at the rise of Right-wing extremists and look at who has been jailed already for what threats.
‘There is no way the UK will turn their back on Harry and Meghan, but things will certainly have to be reviewed.’
Ms Patel refused to comment on security arrangements, adding: ‘I’m not going to provide any detailed information on the security arrangements for either them or any members of the royal family or for any protected individuals – that’s thoroughly inappropriate for me to do so.
‘At this moment in time, right now, the royal family themselves need some time and space for them to work through the current issues that they’re dealing with.’
Earlier today Piers Morgan became embroiled in a row on Good Morning Britain over whether the couple’s treatment in the media has been fair.
Former Labour advisor Ayesha Hazarika said she believed Meghan had been the victim of racism, adding: ‘As a very successful white man you will not have experienced what other people will have experienced in their life. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.’
Piers hit back demanding examples of actual racism, insisting that Meghan had in fact been protected from the worst of the press unlike Princess Diana or Camilla.
Ms Hazarika suggested Piers held a grudge against Meghan after the Duchess appeared to cut off any contact with him a day after meeting Prince Harry – something that ‘clouded his judgement’.
Ms Hazarika said: ‘I get rejection is hard but what has Meghan done to you.’
Piers replied: ‘I believe when people show you who they are believe them. She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead.
‘She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother. Where is the racism? You can’t just say it’s racism.’
At the beginning of the show, Piers launched into an excoriating rant accusing the pair of ‘holding the Queen to ransom” and ‘literally breaking up the Royal family’ ahead of a crisis summit at Sandringham today.
The Good Morning Britain host launched into the ten-minute tirade calling the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ‘spoiled brats’ and who ‘want to be global superstars’ instead of fulfilling their ’taxpayer funded royal duties’.
[11]
”The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.
The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.
BBC
DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET
The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.
The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.
The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.
Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.
The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.
The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.
It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”
His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.
After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.
“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”
Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.
‘Enormous mistake’
“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”
In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.
“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”
Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’
“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”
Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.
“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?
“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”
Prompt action
Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.
Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.
His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”
Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.
His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.
Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.
He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.
A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.
Controversial comments
It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.
He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.
In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series.
Since he was young, Prince Harry has been very aware of the warmth that has been extended to him by members of the public. He feels lucky to have so many people supporting him and knows what a fortunate and privileged life he leads.
He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it. He has rarely taken formal action on the very regular publication of fictional stories that are written about him and he has worked hard to develop a professional relationship with the media, focused on his work and the issues he cares about.
But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; her mother having to struggle past photographers in order to get to her front door; the attempts of reporters and photographers to gain illegal entry to her home and the calls to police that followed; the substantial bribes offered by papers to her ex-boyfriend; the bombardment of nearly every friend, co-worker, and loved one in her life.
Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm. He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game – it is her life and his. He has asked for this statement to be issued in the hopes that those in the press who have been driving this story can pause and reflect before any further damage is done. He knows that it is unusual to issue a statement like this, but hopes that fair-minded people will understand why he has felt it necessary to speak publicly.
[13]
”Black comedian Gina Yashere said ‘every black person knew this was coming’ because Meghan had faced ‘constant racist vitriolic abuse disguised as criticism’.
DAILY MAIL
RACISM DROVE MEGHAN MARKLE OUT OF BRTAIN,SAY PROMINENT BLACK BRITONS, INCLUDING LABOUR LEADERSHIP CONTENDER CLIVE LEWIS
”Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”
THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
SEE ABOUT PRINCE HARRY’S ”DEEPEST FEAR”, THE TRAGEDY OF HIS MOTHER, NOTE 8
”Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA
PUT SIMPLY, IT IS BULLYING: ”PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA
As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.
Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.
There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.
Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.
It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.
This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.
There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.
We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.
[17]
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO
BRIGHTON COUNCILLORS WILL DISCUSS HARRY AND MEGHAN USING SUSSEX TITLE TODAY AFTER THOUSANDS SIGNED PETITION BRANDING THE HONOURS ”MORALLY WRONG AND DISRESPECTFUL”
Brighton councillors will debate stripping Harry and Meghan of their Sussex titles after thousands signed a petition branding them ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’.
The petition claims Sussex residents should not have to refer to the royal couple as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the titles are ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’.
Campaigner Charles Ross has accumulated more than 3,800 signatures, which means Brighton and Hove City councillors will have to discuss the motion on Thursday.
But the council cannot strip the couple of their titles, which are given by the Queen, so the petition calls on officials to stop calling them the Sussexes in council documents.
The petition reads: ‘We the undersigned petition Brighton & Hove Council to reject the usage of the titles ‘Duke of Sussex’ and ‘Duchess of Sussex’ by the individuals Henry (‘Harry’) Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.
As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.
‘Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain these individuals nor afford them any hospitality or courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.’
The couple were well received on a visit to Sussex last October as they were greeted by huge crowds of well-wishers, with Hove MP Peter Kyle praising them at the time for reflecting Brighton’s diversity and calling them ‘a great example’.
The petition has been rubbished by royal commentator Robert Jobson, who told the Express: ‘It’s a bit unfair on them – they were there recently and massive crowds turned out.
How the Queen gifted the Sussex titles to Harry and Meghan on their wedding day
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle became the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they married last year.
The royal groom’s dukedom is the highest rank in the British peerage and marked his marriage to the actress.
Meghan became the first ever Duchess of Sussex as her new husband was made the first Duke of the county in 175 years and the second in history.
Harry also received Scottish and Northern Irish titles, becoming the Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel, making Meghan the Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel.
All royal titles are given by the Queen and it was up to the monarch to choose which one to bestow on her grandson and his wife in May 2018.
Harry’s thoughts on the title would have been taken into account by the Queen in a private discussion between the Prince and his grandmother.
Tradition dictates that royal men receive a title on their wedding.
Prince Augustus Frederick was the first Duke of Sussex. He married twice, but both took place without the consent of the monarch, so neither of his wives could become a ‘Duchess of Sussex’.
‘The Cambridges don’t live in Cambridge, Prince Charles doesn’t live in Wales…
‘The titles are just ancient titles that are dished out by the Queen at marriage.’
Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, slammed the campaigners’ views, telling the Mirror: ‘We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.
‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.
‘Such a petition shows utter disdain and contempt for The Crown, not to mention copious amounts of disrespect to, and for, the Royal family.’
When Mr Ross’s petition campaign launched in September, some residents were not entirely convinced.
Hove resident Liv Seabrook called the petition ‘a waste of council time’ and said it was ‘patently absurd’ to suggest the council could remove royal titles.
Ms Seabrook said: ‘Our city has serious social problems and the council is going to waste time on the sentiment of a disgruntled citizen with nothing better to do than come up with a useless petition.
‘There are financial aspects of the monarchy that can usefully be discussed. I for one can confidently say I have never felt the slightest bit oppressed by the fact that we now have as part of our Royal Family, a Duke and Duchess of Sussex.’
Brighton and Hove City Council said it would not comment until the matter has been discussed by councillors.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018
[19]
COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCILASTRID ESSED
Astrid Essed To:customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.ukDec 20 at 4:43 AMTO THE COUNCILLORS OF BRIGHTON CITYSubject: Debate about stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their royal titles Dear Councillors, 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; I quote the petition, then give my opinion, why I am fiercely against it:
”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. “The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” [2]
MY OPINION AND REQUEST TO YOU: When I read this petition thouroughly I see passages that it is ”morally wrong” and ”disrespectful to the County of Sussex”, that Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle use the titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Then I see the following sentence ”As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.” Then my last sentence quote: ”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” Those sentences suggest that those who undersigned the petition and the petition campaigner Charles Ross, are either Republicans or perhaps radical socialists, who want to end unequality in this world and in this case, in England, to begin with the Royal Elite. That the petitioners are republicans, is confirmed by Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, who remarks [I quote the Daily Mail]”’We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.
‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.” [3]
AS I SEE IT/MY OPINION
Now it may well be, that those petitioners are republicans, who, of course, have a right to their opinion.
After all, the monarchy is a remnant from old times, especially the Middle Ages, when, in the feudal society, the king, with his liegemen, the nobility, had this function of ruling the country and protecting the country against foreign invaders, which functioned well, in this case in England, untill members of the royal branch started to kill each other [4] and other groups like merchants [also called the third class] demanded their position, which, in France, led to the French Revolution, centuries later. [5]
So for a part the monarchy is no more than Folklore, but in my view, most British people still value it and it has a binding function too.
And as far as the petitioners are radical socialists, I agree with them about social injustice, but why taking this on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?
When you want to fight social injustice, take the big multinationals first, which are the heart and bones of capitalism.
ENOUGH ABOUT HISTORY AND SOCIAL STRUGGLE [hahaha]
MEGHAN MARKLE
Because I have a grisly suspicion, that the petition against Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle is NOT about the legitimacy of the monarchy or social injustice, but based on racial issues.
And I don’t say this out of the blue!
Firstly:
Why now?
Why this petition is coming now, since the Queen already granted her grandson and his wife their titles on the occasion of their wedding, nearly two years ago? [6]
That is strange.
And secondly:
You are of course aware of the fact, dear Councillors, that from the beginning, from certain sides [especially parts of the press] there has been a smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which, according to me and many others, is closely connected with the fact, that she is black.
There were some remarks in that direction [7] and at a certain point the smear campaign went that high, that Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, sued the paper Mail on Sunday and Prince Harry launched an attack on the tabloid press. [8]
As I commented then, I admired Prince Harry’s stance, calling it ”the only honourable thing to do. [9]
And now this nonsense again.
It seems like a nasty pattern to me.
EPILOGUE
Councillors, you have just read the reason, why I am very upset by this petition, trying to strip the royal rights from Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle and although it seems that it is only republican or social warrior like motivated, yet I have serious doubts and concerns about it.
I can’t prove it, of course, but seen in the light of the inferior smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which has even resulted in repulsive remarks about her and Prince Harry’s son [10], I fear that this petition is, again a token of racism, direct or indirect, against ms Meghan Markle and that is what I can’t and will not accept!
Therefore I implore you to seriously consider NOT to grant the petitioners and remain loyal to the decision of the Queen to grant her grandson and his wife the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
And if you don’t believe me, or disagree with my point of view:
Please ask yourself this question:
Do you think there would have been a similar petition, when it concerned Prince William and his wife ms Kate Middleton?
Do the right thing and don’t grant the petitioners
Kind greetings
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
[20]
ANSWER OF THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL ON MY LETTEROn Friday, December 20, 2019, 04:05:50 PM GMT+1, CustomerFeedback <customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.uk> wrote:
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
We want to improve your customer experience when you contact a council service. Please share your views by completing this survey. It should not take longer than ten minutes to complete.
Our customer promise to you
We will make it clear how you can contact or access our services | We will understand and get things done | We will be clear and treat you with respect
SEE ALSO
NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751
TEXT
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.
In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.
The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.
Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.
In their unexpected statement on Wednesday, also posted on their Instagram page, the couple said they made the decision “after many months of reflection and internal discussions”.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”
[22]
STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUTINSTAGRAMSUSSEXROYAL
After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.
“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.
“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.
“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.
“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.””
SEE ALSO
BBC
IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE
8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947
TEXT
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have released a statement saying they intend to step back as senior members of the Royal Family. Here’s that statement in full:
A personal message from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex:
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.
“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.
“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.
“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.
“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”
Buckingham Palace responded with a statement saying:
“Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage.
“We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
Statement on discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex
Published 8 January 2020Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.
[24] ” Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family. ”
“As a child, I never imagined that one day a man would walk on the moon. Yet this year we marked the 50th anniversary of the famous Apollo 11 mission.
“As those historic pictures were beamed back to Earth, millions of us sat transfixed to our television screens, as we watched Neil Armstrong taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind – and, indeed, for womankind. It’s a reminder for us all that giant leaps often start with small steps.
“This year we marked another important anniversary: D-Day. On 6th June 1944, some 156,000 British, Canadian and American forces landed in northern France. It was the largest ever seabourne invasion and was delayed due to bad weather.
“I well remember the look of concern on my father’s face. He knew the secret D-Day plans but could of course share that burden with no one.
For the 75th anniversary of that decisive battle, in a true spirit of reconciliation, those who had formally been sworn enemies came together in friendly commemorations either side of the Channel, putting past differences behind them.
“Such reconciliation seldom happens overnight. It takes patience and time to rebuild trust, and progress often comes through small steps.
“Since the end of the Second World War, many charities, groups and organisations have worked to promote peace and unity around the world, bringing together those who have been on opposing sides.
By being willing to put past differences behind us and move forward together, we honour the freedom and democracy once won for us at so great a cost.
“The challenges many people face today may be different to those once faced by my generation, but I have been struck by how new generations have brought a similar sense of purpose to issues such as protecting our environment and our climate.
My family and I are also inspired by the men and women of our emergency services and armed forces; and at Christmas we remember all those on duty at home and abroad, who are helping those in need and keeping us and our families safe and secure.
“Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family.
“Of course, at the heart of the Christmas story lies the birth of a child: a seemingly small and insignificant step overlooked by many in Bethlehem.
“But in time, through his teaching and by his example, Jesus Christ would show the world how small steps taken in faith and in hope can overcome long-held differences and deep-seated divisions to bring harmony and understanding.
“Many of us already try to follow in his footsteps. The path, of course, is not always smooth, and may at times this year have felt quite bumpy, but small steps can make a world of difference.
As Christmas dawned, church congregations around the world joined in singing It Came Upon The Midnight Clear. Like many timeless carols, it speaks not just of the coming of Jesus Christ into a divided world, many years ago, but also of the relevance, even today, of the angel’s message of peace and goodwill.
“It’s a timely reminder of what positive things can be achieved when people set aside past differences and come together in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation. And, as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it’s worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change.
“And so, I wish you all a very happy Christmas.”
SEE ALSO THE LINK
BIRMINGHAM LIVE
THE QUEEN’S 2019 CHRISTMAS SPEECH-FULL TRANSCRIPT AFTER ”BUMPY” YEAR
The couple’s decision highlights how outdated is the institution they are desperate to escape
‘Is there anyone in the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so…” Prince Harry’s musings in an interview two years ago highlight the bizarre and anachronistic birthright principle that determines the British head of state. As the heir’s spare, Harry does not even have that responsibility to look forward to and now he and his wife, Meghan, have controversially announced that they are taking a step back from their roles as “senior royals”.
The surprise came in the manner and timing of the announcement, not its content. Harry has made little secret about his mixed feelings about being a royal and in recent months the signals have intensified as the excruciating treatment of Meghan by the tabloid press has grown. In the first official announcement that they were a couple in 2016, Harry took the unprecedented step of calling out the racism and sexism prevalent in the press speculation about their relationship. Since their marriage, the media vilification of Meghan has worsened and she is now suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing a private letter to her father. This was always going to fuel more vicious attacks, but with Harry’s memories of his mother’s vile treatment by the press at the front of his mind, who could blame them?
The announcement has clearly caused a rift with Buckingham Palace, but the irony is that their decision is consistent with Prince Charles’s vision of the monarchy. That the heir to the throne sees a slimmed-down royal family as key to its survival is testament to the fact there is no case for carrying on with the monarchy as is. This episode illustrates the tensions inherent in this ludicrously outdated institution that propels people into an important constitutional role purely by accident of birth. The Queen has been an excellent monarch for almost 70 years, but that is down to luck. Like most families, the royals are made up of the good, the bad and the ugly – look no further than the Queen’s middle son, accused of having sex with a teenager. Prince Charles may be no Prince Andrew, but neither is he the Queen: over the years, he has lobbied government ministers over quack causes such as homeopathy, hardly befitting of a future constitutional monarch. It is preposterous that as part of this charade, the British taxpayer ends up subsidising the lifestyles of “working” minor royals.
The Queen’s stature and popularity mean abolition remains a distant prospect. But Harry and Meghan’s announcement should act as the catalyst for the scaling back of this unwieldy institution. Some of its supporters undoubtedly hoped that a mixed-race woman marrying in was the sign of an institution modernising to survive. That it so clearly has not worked instead serves to show that its long-term survival remains in doubt.
The justified criticism of the couple is that they have not gone far enough. They say they want to take a step back and “work towards” financial independence, but they appear to want to keep their substantial income from the Duchy of Cornwall, their rent-free residence, their HRH titles and the perks that come with being royal patrons. This, despite having significant independent wealth, huge earning potential and wanting – understandably – to spend a significant amount of time in North America. It’s a strange halfway house that cannot work: they cannot and should not trade on their status as official royals to generate an income. They must quickly move to break free of the institution altogether, both for their own welfare and to smooth the transition to a monarchy where minor royals are not subsidised by the taxpayer in exchange for cutting ribbons.
The royal family’s survival is contingent on maintaining distance from its subjects. The more they become like us, the weaker the myth that protects them. The more the barriers between public and private break down, the more royals are treated like any other celebrity, the less the institution can sustain itself. King Charles may feel like an inevitability, King William and King George less so.
[26]
DAILY MAIL
RACISM DROVE MEGHAN MARKLE OUT OF BRTAIN,SAY PROMINENT BLACK BRITONS, INCLUDING LABOUR LEADERSHIP CONTENDER CLIVE LEWIS
Prominent black Britons and other critics claim the Duchess of Sussex has been driven out of Britain by racism.
Prince Harry has raged about ‘racist’ social media attacks on Meghan, who has a black mother and white father, and said the media published articles with ‘racial undertones’.
Black comedian Gina Yashere said ‘every black person knew this was coming’ because Meghan had faced ‘constant racist vitriolic abuse disguised as criticism’. The New York Times ran a comment piece headlined: ‘Black Britons know why Meghan Markle wants out: It’s the racism.’
Yesterday, Labour leadership contender Clive Lewis – who is mixed race – said: ‘If you look at the racism Meghan Markle has experienced in the British media, then I understand why… it can’t be easy being a royal.’
Speaking on Newsnight, the singer Jamelia said: ‘Every single word used against Meghan Markle is steeped in racism.’
Novelist Sir Philip Pullman described Britain as a ‘foul country’, and tweeted: ‘Of course Meghan Markle is attacked by the British press because she’s black.’
The Huffington Post published an article headlined ‘Why Black People Think Racism Drove Meghan And Harry To Quit The Royal Family’, while in The New York Times, Afua Hirsch, an author on race, said Meghan’s treatment showed that however successful you are in Britain ‘racism will follow you’.
But Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was ‘nonsense’ to suggest the couple were leaving ‘because of racism’. England rugby star Courtney Lawes, who is mixed race, said: ‘Just because she’s black doesn’t mean she was targeted for that reason.’
THE HUFFINGTON POST
WHY BLACK PEOPLE THINK RACISM DROVE MEGHAN AND HARRY TO QUIT THE ROYAL FAMILY
“I left the UK because I was so tired of the racism. I can relate to Meghan – North America holds promise for the Duchess like it did for me.”
Mutale Nkonde, a fellow of Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, told HuffPost UK she could relate to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s decision step back from “senior royal” duties in favour of splitting their time between Britain and the US.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex revealed these plans in a bombshell statement on Wednesday night.
The news came after the couple had endured years of relentless scrutiny from parts of the mainstream media – and frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.
Nkonde, a race and tech expert, continued: “The UK expect members of the establishment to be complicit with British racism and sexism and as a Black woman she faced both.
“Why stay there when Oprah and Gayle are in your circle?”
Anti-racism campaigner Patrick Vernon OBE said he is not surprised that the royal couple decided to step back and also believes the media played a part in that decision.
“I think the media is a key factor,” he said. “You just have to look at the recent treatment of Stomzy – which again raised concerns about racism, despite the fact that he was misquoted.
“The media and other mainstream institutions still have an issue of our visibility and success. When you call racism out you are punished with little support.”
Vernon, who has co-authored a book called 100 Great Black Britons to be published later this year, added: “The impact of racism on our mental wellbeing is still not acknowledged and I guess Meghan and Harry are developing their own solutions: self-care and charitable venture.
“The experience of Meghan clearly reminds us we are millions of lights years from a post-racial Britain.”
Calling for privacy, the statement condemned the “wave of abuse and harassment” aimed at Markle, calling out “the racial undertones of comment pieces and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments”.
Reacting to news of the couple’s decision on Wednesday, Marcus Ryder, a media executive producer and diversity champion, tweeted: “My Twitter time-line (full of black journalists) talks about the importance of race in this story. The BBC’s main online story currently does not mention race once.”
He added: “I cannot think of any major UK broadcaster or newspaper who has a royal correspondent who is a person of colour or any who report to a person of colour. (I may be wrong & happy to be corrected). This fact alone influences how this story is reported”
Richard Palmer, royal correspondent at the Daily Express, swiftly replied: “Because it’s not about race and never was. You’re wrong about the ethnic background of journalists certainly in the wider royal press pack. The UK’s black population is 3.3 per cent of the total and, although we could always do better, there is a fairly diverse group.”
But the wider consensus is that this is about race.
Author Bernardine Evaristo echoed the notion that the couple’s decision was fuelled by racist treatment by parts of the British press, writing: “Dear Meghan, my sister, you go and do your thing with your family and get away from the race hate you’ve been subjected to in my country.”
Evaristo, who last year became the first Black woman to win the prestigious Booker Prize for Fiction, added: “Your cover for September’s #VOGUE shows us who you are and what we stand for.”
Many hailed the couple’s wedding as seminal moment for diversity in Britain – a white prince had married a mixed-raced woman.
But that status presented challenges for the duke and duchess.
In July 2019, at the European premiere of The Lion King, US recording artist Pharrell Williams told Harry and Meghan that their union as a high-profile mixed race couple was “significant for many of us” in “today’s climate”.
The duke and duchess reportedly nodded at Williams’ warm comments.
“Thank you so much. That’s so nice of you to say. […] They don’t make it easy,” Markle replied. Harry echoed her words in the September issue of Vogue magazine.
Andrea Bruce was never optimistic about Meghan and Harry’s marriage changing the establishment’s stance on race.
“If you value assimilation then their marriage was an important moment for diversity,” she said. “But I don’t feel that an institution that was built literally on the backs of colonised people should be expected to be truly diverse or to care about being diverse.
“What went wrong was that some people maybe expected her entry in to signal a shift in the UK’s historic racism and that just didn’t happen. Instead, she exposed what was already there – racism and bias.”
The 35-year-old account director feels the couple’s decision had a lot to do with racism and hostility from the press and public.
“I think that the monarchy should pay back everything they stole from commonwealth countries and they should provide reparations,” she said. “We can’t look to them to lead diversity or anti-racism.
“Harry has defended his wife and that’s nice to see but the overall premise of the royal family is built on violence and oppression against non-white people.”
Meghan’s experience of racism is only being discussed because of her status as a duchess, added Bruce. “If she was a random woman living in the country, her experience wouldn’t be discussed – but all experiences are worth discussing.”
Yvonne Witter was full of praise for the couple, describing Harry particularly as progressive.
“He has set his priorities above materialism, pomp and ceremony and is creating a future for his family which will circumvent his mum’s fate,” she told HuffPost UK.
The international business consultant and writer said the UK’s political climate has helped legitimise bigotry to the point where racism is “no longer in the closet”.
“I find that people struggle to articulate to me their reasons for hating Meghan. They regurgitate press reports – and when interrogated further about a personal experience, of course, there is no knowledge of who Meghan actually is.
“Political leadership has made it OK to be openly racist – in addition to rhetoric from Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, the Brexit campaign and press reporting on immigration.
“The public get their information from the press. None of us know [Meghan and Harry] personally but the press has shaped opinions. They have been relentless in their reporting which has had racist undertones throughout. Danny Baker felt emboldened to liken the baby to a monkey.”
[27] ”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces;”
A recent surplus of negative stories about Meghan Markle have some wondering whether she is the victim of a smear campaign.
The Duchess of Sussex reportedly feels like members of the British press are targeting her unfairly, according to Vanity Fair.
Among the string of unflattering stories are reports of a feud between Meghan and her sister-in-law, Kate Middleton. The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, recently reported that Kate was left in tears at a dress fitting for Princess Charlotte before Meghan’s May wedding to Prince Harry. And now, there are claims that Kate reprimanded Meghan after the American actress allegedly snapped at members of Kate’s staff.
It’s also being reported that Meghan attracted the royals’ ire when she asked for air fresheners to be sprayed in the ancient chapel where she tied the knot with Harry.
The rumors are so bad that Buckingham Palace took the rare step of issuing a statement about regarding the reported reprimand from Kate, saying succinctly: “This never happened.”
Royal expert Victoria Arbiter told Inside Edition that the sheer number of negative reports is concerning, particularly given Meghan is pregnant with her first child.
“Given how popular Meghan was, I am surprised that the press have become so negative so quickly,” Arbiter said, casting doubts on the veracity of the reports. “Meghan is not throwing temper tantrums, she’s just an easy target because she’s new and she’s popular.”
She added: “I think it is tricky that this negative press has come at a time when Meghan is probably feeling quite sensitive and vulnerable.”
Former first lady Michelle Obama is offering her own advice to Meghan for dealing with the increased scrutiny.
“Like me, Meghan probably never dreamt that she’d have a life like this, and the pressure you feel — from yourself and from others — can sometimes feel like a lot,” she told the January 2019 issue of Good Housekeeping.”So my biggest piece of advice would be to take some time and don’t be in a hurry to do anything.” [29]
”The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.
The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.
BBC
DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET
Meghan Markle plans to join the family affair via phone from Vancouver, Canada, where she and baby Archie are temporarily living after the bombshell announcement that she and Harry will become part-time royals.
“Royal sources say it is hoped the ‘next steps,’ will be agreed tomorrow and a firmer plan is expected to be announced within days, in keeping with the Queen’s wish to find a resolution ‘at pace,’” Nikkhah wrote on Twitter Saturday afternoon.
The Queen gave the fleeing couple a 72-hour deadline on Friday to iron out the details of their reduced role in the monarchy. The British and Canadian governments have since been in talks to carve out a new role for the royals in both countries before the Tuesday deadline, following a marathon of meetings and calls.
Prince Charles is allegedly fighting for a good deal for his youngest son, despite initial reports he was threatening to cut Harry off from the family money. The Queen also has open arms for her grandson and wants to cut a “generous” agreement with him.
“They, like everyone, are hopeful this can all be worked out, sooner rather than later. It is in everyone’s interest for this to be figured out, and figured out quickly, but not at the expense of the outcome,” a source told The Guardian.
The clock to get a plan sorted out is ticking as Thursday quickly approaches, when Harry is set to make his first public appearance since he and Meghan dropped their
[31]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.
“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.
“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Queen supportive of Harry and Meghan’s new life/Well done, Your Majesty!
Dear Readers, Recently I wrote an indignant letter to the Brighton Council about a petition, which was launched by a man named Charles Ross, with the aim to strip Prince Harry and hsi wife ms Meghan Markle from their titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by the Queen on the occasion of their marriage
SEE THE LETTER https://www.astridessed.nl/council-will-debate-stripping-meghan-markle-prince-harry-of-sussex-titles-smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-continued-letter-to-brighton-city-council/ The reasons for the petitions were [I quote] ”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” Further there was written ”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.” [1] So it seems just an uttering of republicanism or cry for social equality, which is the full right of the petitioners, of course. But I have the grisly suspicion that those were not the reasons for the petition, but the real reasons were on racial issues, with other words:Because the wife of Prince Harry, ms Meghan Markle, is black. Of course my assumtion is not out of the blue, but based on a nasty smear campaign against Meghan Markle by parts of the press! See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father
Not only that: A repuslive racist remark has been made against ms Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s son, Lord Archibald Harrison!
LETTER TO THE COUNCIL OF BRIGHTON AND ANSWER So I wrote the Council of Brighton about this matter of the petition, since I had learntthat the Councillors would debate the question of stripping the royal titles from Meghan Markle and Prince Harry and I did them the request NOT to grant those petitioners!
To my delight I received an answer of the Council within a short time with the announcement that it was not in their power to decide about the matter and that they voted to simply ”note” the petition See their answer here ”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
I was, of course, delighted about their reaction and wrote them back to mention that.
Since I want to share that with you, readers, below [under note 1], fiirstly the reaction of the Council [in email], then my answer and below my initianal mail to the Council
We the undersigned petition Brighton & Hove Council to reject the usage of the titles “Duke of Sussex” and “Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry (“Harry”) Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex. As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite. Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain these individuals nor afford them any hospitality or courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.
Started by: Charles Ross
This ePetition ran from 01/07/2019 to 18/12/2019 and has now finished.
3881 people signed this ePetition.
Council response
The petition is due to be presented to the full Council meeting on the 19th December 2019.
A
MY LETTER TO THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL
COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL
ANSWER OF THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL ON MY LETTEROn Friday, December 20, 2019, 04:05:50 PM GMT+1, CustomerFeedback <customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.uk> wrote:
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
We want to improve your customer experience when you contact a council service. Please share your views by completing this survey. It should not take longer than ten minutes to complete.
Our customer promise to you
We will make it clear how you can contact or access our services | We will understand and get things done | We will be clear and treat you with respect
C
MY REACTION ON THE ANSWER OF THE COUNCIL OF BRIGHTON
Thank you for your quick reaction on my letter, which I appreciate very much.Thanks to you I better understand the procedure about debating petitions with more than 1250 signatures by the local authorities. And I am glad to hear, that stripping The Duke and Duchess of Sussex [Prince Harry and his wife ms Markle] of their royal titles is only a question to be decided by the Crown and I think in advance to know, what the outcome will be, since it was [of course] the Queen herself, who granted her grandson Prince Harry the title of Duke of Sussex [and after his wedding, his wife Meghan Markle also] [1] I am very glad to learn, that the anti Duke and Duchess of Sussex petitioners will not have their way! And let’s hope this is a serious blow to the anti Meghan Markle smear campaigners!
Thank you again Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands [1]
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
D
MY ORIGINAL MAIL TO THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL
Astrid Essed To:customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.ukDec 20 at 4:43 AMTO THE COUNCILLORS OF BRIGHTON CITYSubject: Debate about stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their royal titles Dear Councillors, 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; I quote the petition, then give my opinion, why I am fiercely against it:
”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. “The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” [2]
MY OPINION AND REQUEST TO YOU: When I read this petition thouroughly I see passages that it is ”morally wrong” and ”disrespectful to the County of Sussex”, that Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle use the titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Then I see the following sentence ”As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.” Then my last sentence quote: ”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” Those sentences suggest that those who undersigned the petition and the petition campaigner Charles Ross, are either Republicans or perhaps radical socialists, who want to end unequality in this world and in this case, in England, to begin with the Royal Elite. That the petitioners are republicans, is confirmed by Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, who remarks [I quote the Daily Mail]”’We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.
‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.” [3]
AS I SEE IT/MY OPINION
Now it may well be, that those petitioners are republicans, who, of course, have a right to their opinion.
After all, the monarchy is a remnant from old times, especially the Middle Ages, when, in the feudal society, the king, with his liegemen, the nobility, had this function of ruling the country and protecting the country against foreign invaders, which functioned well, in this case in England, untill members of the royal branch started to kill each other [4] and other groups like merchants [also called the third class] demanded their position, which, in France, led to the French Revolution, centuries later. [5]
So for a part the monarchy is no more than Folklore, but in my view, most British people still value it and it has a binding function too.
And as far as the petitioners are radical socialists, I agree with them about social injustice, but why taking this on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?
When you want to fight social injustice, take the big multinationals first, which are the heart and bones of capitalism.
ENOUGH ABOUT HISTORY AND SOCIAL STRUGGLE [hahaha]
MEGHAN MARKLE
Because I have a grisly suspicion, that the petition against Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle is NOT about the legitimacy of the monarchy or social injustice, but based on racial issues.
And I don’t say this out of the blue!
Firstly:
Why now?
Why this petition is coming now, since the Queen already granted her grandson and his wife their titles on the occasion of their wedding, nearly two years ago? [6]
That is strange.
And secondly:
You are of course aware of the fact, dear Councillors, that from the beginning, from certain sides [especially parts of the press] there has been a smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which, according to me and many others, is closely connected with the fact, that she is black.
There were some remarks in that direction [7] and at a certain point the smear campaign went that high, that Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, sued the paper Mail on Sunday and Prince Harry launched an attack on the tabloid press. [8]
As I commented then, I admired Prince Harry’s stance, calling it ”the only honourable thing to do. [9]
And now this nonsense again.
It seems like a nasty pattern to me.
EPILOGUE
Councillors, you have just read the reason, why I am very upset by this petition, trying to strip the royal rights from Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle and although it seems that it is only republican or social warrior like motivated, yet I have serious doubts and concerns about it.
I can’t prove it, of course, but seen in the light of the inferior smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which has even resulted in repulsive remarks about her and Prince Harry’s son [10], I fear that this petition is, again a token of racism, direct or indirect, against ms Meghan Markle and that is what I can’t and will not accept!
Therefore I implore you to seriously consider NOT to grant the petitioners and remain loyal to the decision of the Queen to grant her grandson and his wife the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
And if you don’t believe me, or disagree with my point of view:
Please ask yourself this question:
Do you think there would have been a similar petition, when it concerned Prince William and his wife ms Kate Middleton?
Do the right thing and don’t grant the petitioners
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
[2]
””We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. “The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”
THE DAILY MAIL
BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES
”Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, slammed the campaigners’ views, telling the Mirror: ‘We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.
‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.”
THE DAILY MAIL
BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
[7]
BBC
DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET9 MAY 2019
”Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”
THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL SEE ALSO
TO THE COUNCILLORS OF BRIGHTON CITYSubject: Debate about stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their royal titles Dear Councillors, 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; I quote the petition, then give my opinion, why I am fiercely against it:
”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. “The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” [2]
MY OPINION AND REQUEST TO YOU: When I read this petition thouroughly I see passages that it is ”morally wrong” and ”disrespectful to the County of Sussex”, that Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle use the titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Then I see the following sentence ”As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.” Then my last sentence quote: ”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” Those sentences suggest that those who undersigned the petition and the petition campaigner Charles Ross, are either Republicans or perhaps radical socialists, who want to end unequality in this world and in this case, in England, to begin with the Royal Elite. That the petitioners are republicans, is confirmed by Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, who remarks [I quote the Daily Mail]”’We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.
‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.” [3]
AS I SEE IT/MY OPINION
Now it may well be, that those petitioners are republicans, who, of course, have a right to their opinion.
After all, the monarchy is a remnant from old times, especially the Middle Ages, when, in the feudal society, the king, with his liegemen, the nobility, had this function of ruling the country and protecting the country against foreign invaders, which functioned well, in this case in England, untill members of the royal branch started to kill each other [4] and other groups like merchants [also called the third class] demanded their position, which, in France, led to the French Revolution, centuries later. [5]
So for a part the monarchy is no more than Folklore, but in my view, most British people still value it and it has a binding function too.
And as far as the petitioners are radical socialists, I agree with them about social injustice, but why taking this on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?
When you want to fight social injustice, take the big multinationals first, which are the heart and bones of capitalism.
ENOUGH ABOUT HISTORY AND SOCIAL STRUGGLE [hahaha]
MEGHAN MARKLE
Because I have a grisly suspicion, that the petition against Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle is NOT about the legitimacy of the monarchy or social injustice, but based on racial issues.
And I don’t say this out of the blue!
Firstly:
Why now?
Why this petition is coming now, since the Queen already granted her grandson and his wife their titles on the occasion of their wedding, nearly two years ago? [6]
That is strange.
And secondly:
You are of course aware of the fact, dear Councillors, that from the beginning, from certain sides [especially parts of the press] there has been a smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which, according to me and many others, is closely connected with the fact, that she is black.
There were some remarks in that direction [7] and at a certain point the smear campaign went that high, that Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, sued the paper Mail on Sunday and Prince Harry launched an attack on the tabloid press. [8]
As I commented then, I admired Prince Harry’s stance, calling it ”the only honourable thing to do. [9]
And now this nonsense again.
It seems like a nasty pattern to me.
EPILOGUE
Councillors, you have just read the reason, why I am very upset by this petition, trying to strip the royal rights from Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle and although it seems that it is only republican or social warrior like motivated, yet I have serious doubts and concerns about it.
I can’t prove it, of course, but seen in the light of the inferior smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which has even resulted in repulsive remarks about her and Prince Harry’s son [10], I fear that this petition is, again a token of racism, direct or indirect, against ms Meghan Markle and that is what I can’t and will not accept!
Therefore I implore you to seriously consider NOT to grant the petitioners and remain loyal to the decision of the Queen to grant her grandson and his wife the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
And if you don’t believe me, or disagree with my point of view:
Please ask yourself this question:
Do you think there would have been a similar petition, when it concerned Prince William and his wife ms Kate Middleton?
Do the right thing and don’t grant the petitioners
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
[2]
””We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. “The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”
THE DAILY MAIL
BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES
”Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, slammed the campaigners’ views, telling the Mirror: ‘We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.
‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.”
THE DAILY MAIL
BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES
The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.
Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
[7]
BBC
DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET9 MAY 2019
”Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”
THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Council will debate stripping Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, of Sussex titles/Smear campaign against Meghan Markle continued/Letter to Brighton City Council
LORD ARCHIE, THE SON OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX,PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLEABOVE AN IMAGE OF THE LATE PRINCESS DIANA WITH THEN BABY PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE WITH HER AND PRINCE HARRY’S SON LORD ARCHIE [LOOK THE RESEMBLANCE!
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO!
Dear Readers, Here I am again, travelling with you to the present British royalty, here my favourite royal couple, Prince Harry [grandson of the reigning Queen Elizabeth and son of the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, born Diana Frances Spencer, daughter of John Spencer, 8th Earl of Spencer] I followed their wedding and the birth of their newborn son, Lord Archie![making the joke, that Cheddar Man at last had won, HAHAHAHAHAHA] https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/
I cheered them on and watched with angriness the despicable smearing campaign against the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, while I draw comparisons between the hate campaign against her late mother in law, Princess Diana, leading to her death, also having watched the terrible impact that must have had on her young sons, Princes William and Harry, Meghan Markle’s husband. For a part this smearing campaign against Meghan Markle resembles that of her mother in law, instigated by creatures, who are as well jealous of the position of royal persons and as well giving them a status, which is not from this time anymore.For it is centuries ago, Kings and Queens were the Lord’s anointed and their family members near half gods. Those times are over. So on one hand it is simply malicious jalousy and making royal persons far more important than they really are in this time, which costed Princess Diana her life.Besides Princess of Wales, she was a brave woman, a participator in the battle against landmines and therefore she has earned my great respect! [1]But on the other hand, and it has to be said, much smearing stems from the fact, that Meghan Markle is black.Let’s face that! I give but one, ugly, exampleTHIS NEWMESSAGE: BBCDANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693 SEE FOR THE TEXT, NOTE 2
PRINCE HARRY TAKING ACTION! But now the Game is over and rightly, Prince Harry has had enough of it!He and his wife, Meghan Markle are sueing the Mail on Sonday for publising a handwritten letter Meghan Markle had sent to her estranged father [estranged is the word chosen by the Guardian, not by me] [3]Prince Harry is clearly furious and and compared the treatment of Meghan to coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.Furtherly he said his “deepest fear is history repeating itself” [4]I think it is a very good point of him, defending his wife like that.The only honourable thing to do and the act of a true husband.I posted some comments on the Facebook page of the Dutch paper Nu.nl, which I will translate for you.You can read that directly below this Introduction. Then my few Notes come and down below the Statement of Prince Harry, as a Youtube.com piece about this. And I sincerely hope that those nasty tabloids now have learned their lesson! YOUR FIGHTER AGAINST INJUSTICE! Astrid Essed
A
STATEMENT ASTRID ESSED ABOUT PRINCE HARRY’S ACTIONS TO DEFEND HIS WIFE:
Astrid Essed PRINCE HARRY HEEFT GELIJK! Hij heeft met eigen ogen kunnen zien, waarnemen en uiterst pijnlijk ervaren, wat het betekent, als papparazzi en consorten ieder normaal fatsoen uit het oog verliezen en maar losgaan op een persoon, tegen wie ze enerzijds kinnesinne hebben en anderszijds kennelijk toch ”ophemelen” en een status toedichten, die uit de tijd is. Met als consequentie, dat ieder middel, tot het opjagen van mensen toe, geoorloofd lijkt. Het heeft geleid tot de dood van Prins Harry’s moeder, Prinses Diana. Misschien wel de verwoestendste ervaring, die een kind in de tienerleeftijd kan overkomen en dan zo onnodig! Een vrouw, die niet alleen ex Prinses van Wales was, maar haar sporen heeft verdiend in de strijd tegen landmijnen, wat weinigen nu nog noemen. En nu moet hij aanzien, dat dezelfde misselijke campagne zich herhaalt tegen zijn vrouw en moeder van zijn pasgeboren zoon, Meghan Markle, de hertogin van Sussex! Ik kan het niet bewijzen [hoewel bepaalde misselijke opmerkingen wel in die richting gingen en gaan], maar een belangrijke reden is volgens mij het feit, dat zij zwart is. In ieder geval speelt dat mee. Hoe dan ook, het is een schandaal op zich en de Prins heeft gelijk, dat hij er zoooooo klaar mee is en nu stappen onderneemt! https://www.theguardian.com/…/put-simply-its-bullying…
TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH
PRINCE HARRY IS RIGHT!He has seen with his own eyes, observe, and experienced as utterly painful, what it means, when papparazzi and their gang lose every trace of normal decency and attack a person, of whom they are jalous on one hand and on theother hand give a half divine status, which is no longer from this time.With as a consequence, that every means, even hunting people, seems to be permitted.It led to the death of Prince Harry’s mother, Princess Diana.Maybe the most destructive and devastating experience that can happen to a child during teenage period and so unnecessary!A woman, who was not only Princess of Wales, bujt has made her contribution in the fight gainst landmines, remembered by few.And now he [Prince Harry] must live to see the day, that this disgusting smear campaign repeats itself against his wife and mother of his newborn son, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex!I can’t prove it fully [although certain nasty remarks and newsmessages show in that direction], but another important reason for this smearing campaign is the fact, that she is black.In each case, it is part of this smearing campaign!True or not, in each case it is a scandal and the Prince is right, that he has enough of it and taking steps now!https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media
The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.
The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.
The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.
Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.
The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.
The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.
It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”
His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.
After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.
“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”
Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.
‘Enormous mistake’
“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”
In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.
“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”
Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’
“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”
Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.
“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?
“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”
Prompt action
Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.
Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.
His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”
Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.
His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.
Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.
He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.
A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.
Controversial comments
It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.
He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.
In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series.
[3]
”Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”
As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.
Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.
There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.
Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.
It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.
This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.
There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.
We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.
