I have previously admitted to being one of the few people apparently on planet Earth with little interest in the Royal family or the continuing travails of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. (No, I did not even tune into the wedding). However, the coverage is now pulling some of us into this vortex with legal and media developments. One such issue arose this week after Piers Morgan, the co-host of ITV’s “Good Morning Britain, committed the apparently unpardonable sin of declaring on air that he didn’t believe a word of what Markle told Oprah in her recent interview. Markle herself filed a complaint with ITV. For that transgression, Morgan is now reportedly under investigation by United Kingdom’s “Ofcom,” or Office of Communications, for violation of its “harm and offense rules.” It is another example of how both rights of the free press and free speech are under assault in the United Kingdom.
Morgan has long been a critic of Markle and received international attention this week by abruptly walking off the show’s set in a sharp exchange with a co-host Alex Beresford. Beresford was critical of Morgan’s remarks: “I understand that you don’t like Meghan Markle, you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this program, a number of times. And I understand that you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or you had one. And she cut you off. She’s entitled to cut you off, if she wants to.”
That set off Morgan who interrupted and declared “OK, I’m done with this.” He then stormed off.
Since Markle described psychiatric (and potentially suicidal) problems during her time at the palace, Morgan’s remarks were taken by some as dismissive of such crises. Morgan seemed to recognize that when he returned to the set and state:
“Let me just state for the record on my position on mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things and should be taken extremely seriously and if someone is feeling that way they should get the treatment and the help they need every time. And if they belong to an institution like the royal family and they go and seek that help they should absolutely be given it. It’s not for me to question if she felt suicidal, I am not in her mind and that is for her to say. My real concern was a disbelief frankly … that she went to a senior member of the royal household and told them she was suicidal and was told she could not have any help because it would be a bad look for the family. If that is true a) that person should be fired and b) the royal family have serious questions that need to be answered.”
After the show, Morgan was effectively fired. ITV issued a statement that “Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add.” This followed a complaint from Markle. Consider that complaint for a second. She filed a complaint because a media personality said that he did not believe her. ITV then later showed Morgan the door.
One can clearly disagree with that take but one would think that the matter would be left to broader debate. However, people immediately reached out to Ofcom to demand punitive action against Morgan for expressing his views. By that I mean, over 41,000 people. Ofcom then announced a formal investigation “into Monday’s episode of ‘Good Morning Britain’ under our harm and offence rules.”
The Ofcom Section 2 rule is undefined and subjective:
Principle
To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
Rules
Generally Accepted Standards
2.1: Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services and BBC ODPS so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
2.2: Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.
(Note to Rule 2.2: News is regulated under Section Five of the Code.)
2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation, and marriage and civil partnership), and treatment of people who appear to be put at risk of significant harm as a result of their taking part in a programme. Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.
Morgan also attached to a picture of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill with his famous quote, “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”
I have written for years on the crackdown on free speech in France, Germany, and England though hate speech laws and speech regulations. As many on this blog know, I am unabashedly against limits on free speech and have opposed most public and private forms of censorship for decades.
My problem is with the investigation which is based on the same type of sweeping, generalized language used to curtail free speech in the United Kingdom ( here and here and here and here and here and hereand here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws.In the United Kingdom, free speech continues to be eroded, including speech directed at political and social issues like the death of George Floyd or “misgendering” during interviews We have also seen this type for ill-defined language used to regulate advertising.
Rather than speak out against Morgan’s comments, tens of thousands of people demanded that the government punish him — and silence him. It is working. He was effectively fired and he is now going to be subject to an investigation. People have developed a taste for censorship and we have seen how that taste becomes an insatiable appetite. That is why this is not Markle or Morgan. It is about free speech and the free press.
In essence, Megyn Markle said a member of the Royal Family made a racist remark about the color of her as yet unborn son’s skin. She and her husband said this person wondered what the child would look like, and what that would mean. Frankly, if you think during her pregnancies that a child with beautiful glowing warm colored skin would be an asset to the Royal Family, then you, too, wonder what her unborn children would look like and what that would mean.
She would not disclose exactly what was said, or who said it. Then she claimed that the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, made her cry over bridesmaid dresses. Again, she would not disclose what actually was said.
The world has only her word and her vague accusations against the Royal Family, an institution to Britons. The world is expected to take her word for it, not question anything or anyone, and immediately pillory the Royal Family.
But that’s not journalism, nor is it just.
Women shouldn’t be believed based on their word alone. There is no virtue in the X chromosome, giving the advantage to those with XX. If a woman makes an accusation, they should be treated the same as a man, and those accusations should be investigated. That’s what equality really looks like, rather than special privilege.
Most shocking of all was her claim that she admitted to having suicidal thoughts during her pregnancy, but was denied mental health treatment. Yet she didn’t say how she was prevented. My first thought was that if she was suicidal, and her in-laws were somehow blocking treatment, why didn’t her husband swoop her up and carry her to inpatient mental health care? Was she under house arrest? Threatened with a scolding if she embarrassed the Firm? If your wife’s life is at stake, you fight tigers to save her. So that makes this an issue that reflects quite poorly upon Harry, as well. This is a very serious allegation that should be investigated. The Royals are indeed under very strict behavioral constraints, because they are not private citizens. They represent the entire country, not for 4 years, but for life. Just being a cousin to a direct line working MRF puts your personal life and comments under the microscope. Was there pressure put on her to hide her feelings and put on a stiff upper lip, or were direct measures taken to prevent her from receiving care? Did she give in to demands to put on a brave face and then regret it? Because anyone can tell you what they want you to do, but without kidnapping or bondage you’re in charge of your own two feet. Perhaps it was cold hearted or uneducated pressure, rather than prevention or interference of care?
In any case, all of these allegations shall be investigated. Meghan won’t be able to play coy for long. She is going to have to come out with it, and to the public. Since she aired these grievances publicly, it’s gone beyond the stage of a family or government official meeting to clear things up. This has reached the level of public inquiry.
Ah, Karen, you’ve been watching pro-Trump TV again, and when they’re not going after Dr. Suess’s estate for discontinuing certain books felt to be racially insensitive, they’re going after Meghan Markle, and you buy it…hook, line and sinker.
Natcha – all literature written in the past reflect the norms and values of the past.
If we keep erasing past works of art and literature because they no longer conform, then every 10 years the eraser will rub out works. We will lobotomize our body of work, and therefore be unable to build upon it. Frankly, I don’t think Democrat portrayal of conservatives or their well established trend of calling black conservatives racist slurs is going to hold up well to the test of time.
“Going after Meghan Markle”? Asking for details and more information prior to believing an accusation is responsible, and just. Is it the investigation you take issue with? What is it, exactly, that you think that I “bought?” I wondered what was said, listed several scenarios, and said there would be a public inquiry. I have absolutely no idea if Meghan Markle is lying, exaggerating, or telling the God’s honest truth. And. Neither. Do. You.
But, then, you always have been outraged by any calls for an investigation. Remember all those times you’ve been wrong, including when you claimed Trump was working for Russia?
“watching pro-Trump TV again”
You certainly don’t need to, Natacha. Trump TV is constantly on inside your head.
Just admit that you are completely infatuated with The Donald, and express your undying love for him. Let him now that you wouldn’t know what to do without him.
Great – The media takes it in the shorts – Britain
Harry and Meghan said it was unbearably difficult being part of the Royal Family. Harry felt “trapped” and didn’t know he was “trapped” until Meghan “saved him.” Harry says his brother and his dad are still “trapped” and cannot leave to freely live his now “fairytale life” the way Harry did. Meghan says she’s not all that into “titles” and such, but makes a point of lying about why Archie was not given the title she thought he should have been given? What she said is easily fact checked as false.
Here’s another point, when someone is about to have a baby, it is perfectly normal and natural for people to wonder “what will the baby look like?” Will the baby have his dad’s red hair? Will the baby look more like the mum? Wonder how dark the baby’s skin will be? Will the baby have freckles and red hair? Etc etc. All perfectly normal things to wonder about. That doesn’t make it racist for God’s sake.
Meghan knew plenty about the Royal Family she chose to become a part of. She’s an actress, you learn your lines, you learn your role, what to do, how to act. You had Harry right there guiding you. Stop your whining. As for mental health, can they not arrange to have a couselor come to the castle and have a weekly session? Or some such option? For God’s sake. Her assertion is absurd on its face. Meghan is a drama queen who has emasculated her husband and turned him into a beta male for all the world to see.
So here is what I hope the Queen does in response. Relieve them both of the continued “burden” of being tethered to “royal” titles. Remove those burdensome titles of Duke and Duchess. Afterall, they freed themselves of the pain and suffering of being “trapped” by the system that is the Royal Family didn’t they? So why let them suffer with those royal titles a minute longer?
The Queen should call them on it. Meghan’s title was a gift bestowed upon her by the Queen and that title can be taken away as well. The Queen should remove that last burden from their shoulders so that they may be entirely free to simply be Mrs Harry Markle. Ahhhh. Freedom you want? Freedom you get. Stripped of royal titles.
Do it Queen! Do it now. Take back their pesky titles — you know, the titles that Meghan and Harry sought to ‘brand’ and monetize for themselves, before the Queen put a stop to that. Now the Queen should strip them of the title itself. What a majestic moment that will be.
You are free to have whatever opinion you want, but you aren’t entitled to your own set of facts. Meghan said that Harry suddenly announced one day that they were going to join the Queen for lunch. They were only dating, weren’t engaged yet, and she didn’t know anything about how to curtsy. She hadn’t prepared for meeting the Queen. Why would she, since they were only dating at the time? She was not looking to become a member of the royal family at the time this happened.
They no longer have their titles, either–the Queen took those away, along with Harry’s military titles and awards, their patronages, their security detail and incomes. The comment about skin color was not an expression of curiosity–the comment pertained to how it would look to have a dark-skinned child as a member of the royal family. If the comment was innocuous, why did Harry refuse to name the person who said it? I think it probably was Charles.
The only support Meghan got for her depression was from a close confidante of Diana’s, who knew what Diana had gone through and how The Firm was finished with her after she produced “an heir and a spare”, which, from their vantage point, was the sole reason for her existence. Charles was openly carrying on an affair with a married woman–Camilla–from the beginning of the marriage and Diana got no support from The Firm despite this betrayal. They put Diana through hell–she was required to undergo a hymen verification check before the marriage. She was only 19 when she married Charles. The Firm tried to dissuade her from divorcing him, but she had had enough. She died because of the relentless pursuit of the papparazzi, and Harry has voiced worry about history repeating itself with Meghan.
Harry is far back in line to the throne, so why shouldn’t he live the life he wants, and be married to whomever he wants? Why should his and Megan’s life consist of hanging around the castle, going to dinners, parties and events, getting photographed, etc? They are making their own living now, and donating to charities of their choice. They created “Archewell”, their own charitable foundation. Harry IS royalty, regardless of what titles the Queen chooses to bestow on him.
Meghan is no victim, she is a social climber and opportunist of the worst sort – as has been documented elsewhere. As I said, Meghan is an actress, and a C-level, previously unknown one at that. She knows how to land a role, prepare for the role, and “act” the part. She knew far more about the Royal Family than she admits.
“In 2018, the Sunday Times published the following from author Andrew Morton:
In September 6, 1997, Meghan Markle, 16, and her friends watched the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, tears coursing down their cheeks at the poignant moment when the cameras zoomed in on the royal coffin. Perched among the white flowers was an envelope bearing the word “Mummy,” containing Prince Harry’s last note to his beloved mother.
After the discussion, Meghan and her friend Suzy Ardakani sat and watched old videos of the 1981 wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. According to family friends, Meghan was intrigued by Diana not just for her style but also for her independent humanitarian mission. She saw her as a role model. Inspired by the princess, she and Suzy collected clothes and toys for less privileged children. In fact, such was Meghan’s interest that Suzy’s mother, Sonia, even gave her a copy of my biography, Diana: Her True Story, which remained on her bookshelves for the next few years.
As her childhood friend Ninaki Priddy observed: “She was always fascinated by the royal family. She wants to be Princess Diana 2.0.”
Currently, Meghan is playing the role of “victim” on the world stage. Many are lauding Meghan for her “courage” to “speak her truth.” Gag me with a spoon. I for one, look forward to the Queen putting Miss Meghan her in her place as only the Queen can do.
I believe the Brits call it a “chuck bucket”….that’s the thing you reach for after gagging on Meggy’s ghastly ‘performance.’
It’s amazing to me that the ones you Trumpsters, and I include Turley, have problems with are women, but most-especially women of color. If Meghan was the only member of the royals to have problems, that could be different, but look at the history. Edward abdicated the throne in lieu of going through life without the woman he loved because of the stigma of Wallis Simpson’s prior divorces. She also was trashed by the Brits as a gold digger, but she and Edward stayed married for life, and it cannot be denied that she made him happy. But for that, Elizabeth would have simply been the King’s niece instead of Queen. Then, there’s Margaret, who had emotional problems throughout her life and was forced to give up the man she loved because of The Firm. Next, there’s Diana, who took awhile to figure out that her value to the monarchy was to produce “an heir and a spare”, and nothing more. She was naive enough to believe, at first, that Charles really loved her, but he never stopped his relationship with Camilla, expressing the desire, at one point, to be her “tampon”, so he could always be in her vagina. You may recall the SNL skit about this. What did The Firm do about it? Nothing. Camilla even mocked Diana’s poor choice of an overwhelmingly flouncy juvenile wedding dress with childish puffy sleeves, a massive skirt, and yards of wrinkly fabric that looked ridiculous on a shapely 19 year old, and The Firm did nothing to get her a designer to help her choose something more figure-flattering and appropriate for the woman who would be the mother of a future King. Now, there’s Meghan, and she can do nothing right, either. Bottom line: if something goes wrong with The Firm’s PR, it’s always the woman’s fault.
“women of color” … Natch works in another canard into her daily word salad.
Bottom line is that the Queen is the matriarch of the family. If something goes wrong with the firm, the buck stops with the Queen, who is indeed a woman, and a strong and admirable one at that. Imagine the gall of little social-climbing Meghan, the C-list actress, thinking she would be the one to tarnish the entire Royal Family with accusations of racism, then school the Queen of England and try to put Her Royal Highness in her place? What Meghan did in that Oprah “air the dirty laundry whine-a-thon” was beneath contempt. Watching a self-described fierce feminist emasculating her husband and encouraging him to trash his own family – before the world – is just painful, pathetic, and beyond sad. And as for Harry’s contempt for Charles, it’s almost as if he too believes that Charles is probably not his biological father, eh? Just pathetic, the whole lot of it.
Piers Morgan called it Meghan’s “diatribe of bilge.”
I completely agree. What she did is contemptible.
President Trump was right when he said during a press conference that Harry “needs lots of luck” being married to that one. It’s rather obvious now, isn’t it? Trump was spot on, again.
Worth repeating:
What Meghan did in that Oprah “air the dirty laundry whine-a-thon” was beneath contempt. Watching a self-described ‘fierce feminist’ emasculating her husband and encouraging him to trash his own family – before the world – is just painful, pathetic, and beyond sad.
Natacha, I don’t think you’ve done your homework on Wallis Simpson. She was reportedly in love with someone else. Edward abdicated without asking her. She felt pressured to marry him, and they were not, in fact, fairy tale happy. She is said to have commented that it was exhausting trying to live up to people’s expectations of a grand romance. Since she was, in fact, interested in Edward because he was King, she did not appreciate the romantic gesture of his abdication.
I’m also rather surprised that you would put them forward as a love story, as they were Nazi supporters.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/09/12/wallis-simpson/
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a26555878/wallis-simpson-abdication-anna-pasernak-excerpt/
“As far as he was concerned, he could not live without her and could not see that she might not be able to live with the consequences of his single-mindedness. Being blamed in perpetuity for stealing a beloved, popular king from his throne and almost destroying the British monarchy would prove to be a lifelong annihilating burden that Wallis was forced to bear.”
Rather than the martyred view that poor Meghan can’t do anything right, look at it from the British perspective. She, a commoner, was welcomed into the British royal family. Adored. She had a fan base. Her mixed race heritage was applauded as opening up the House of Windsor. For thousands of years, royalty was very limited in whom they could marry, as marriages were more alliances and consolidations of power, land, and preventing war than any romantic institution. They were prohibited, upon pain of losing their title, from marrying a commoner, in order that marriages would form alliances between nations and keep the nobility in support of the monarchy. This led to a notoriously limited gene pool. The first real ray of light in modern times was Prince Charles marrying Lady Diana. She was technically a commoner, though her father inherited the Earldom of Spencer. So this was really just dipping a toe in marriage to a commoner. That still did not work out, because yet again the purpose of the marriage to the monarchy was to produce an heir, not form a loving bond. It’s grand when that happens, as apparently did between QEII and Prince Philip, but it’s not the ultimate purpose.
Diana was expected to keep her chin up, and be miserable or at least discreet, as women have done for thousands of years. Marriage not only combined land and wealth, but it also ensured that a woman would not be discarded if and when her husband desired a younger woman. If divorce were as easy 1000 years ago as it is now, while women were limited in means to support themselves, then the norm would have been to kick women to the curb by age 30 and keep trading in for younger models. Men, too, have suffered in miserable arranged marriages, although they did have more freedom of affairs. You should recall that Charles was pressured to marry Diana to produce a legal heir. People stayed married, if not happy. It’s difficult to judge the past by today’s values.
At least the tragic collapse of Diana’s marriage finally forced the monarchy to accept divorce. If they had only done so years earlier, a lot of drama and heartache could have been avoided. If only Charles had known his own mind, he wouldn’t have let Camilla go, whereupon she went and married Andrew Parker Bowles, putting herself beyond Charles’ reach when he realized his mistake.
The monarchy was forced to accept the modern concept of a marriage ending in divorce, without a beheading, which allowed Harry to marry the divorced Meghan Markle. Of course, if they had not, then Harry could have relinquished his title, married her anyway, and arrived at the same result. Which is Meghan marrying a prince who relinquished his title and moved to America for her peace of mind and happiness. Now, I don’t blame all of this on Meghan. Harry deliberately chose someone unsuited to the constraints of royal life. Meghan Markle was no Grace Kelly to leave acting and public life. It is my supposition that Harry wanted out of the monarchy, and so he married someone that would never be able to handle it. That’s just my supposition, however.
This is why a girl shouldn’t marry into nobility unless she has thoroughly researched what that entails, tried the life on for size for a couple of years while attending events as a couple, until finally cementing the bond in a marriage. William took great care to ensure that Kate could really deal with the pressures of being a senior royal. She can’t even pick her own nail polish color. But one day, in the future, she will have a more active role to play in setting the tone and rules for the royal family. It will be interesting to see if she and William maintain such strict rules by the time he ascends. Her nails will be the canary in the coal mine to see if royal protocol relaxes. Perhaps they will have become so used to tradition by that point that they won’t see a need for change. Perhaps the monarchy would have just dissolved. Why even have a monarchy in a parliamentary government?
As for Diana’s wedding dress, she chose the design herself. Obviously, her style changed over the years and became sleeker and more sophisticated as she aged. Diana’s wedding dress was iconic for the 80’s, irregardless of how her style later evolved. Camila was a mistress, so her thoughts on the event of her lover’s wedding to another woman bear no reflection upon the innocent young woman they were both duping.
I think the disgust leveled at Prince Andrew makes it abundantly clear that the royal family does not, in fact, always believe it is the woman’s fault.
I didn’t believe her either. The self-contradiction is too obvious. Which are they? Too delicate to navigate Harry’s family and the publicity around them? Or proactively whinging and airing dirty laundry on television for two hours? I think that Meghan is an abuser and has made the classic abusive move of separating her husband from his family. But I don’t know that because they are television characters in a television drama.
Assuming Morgan accurately represented his opinion, then his statement on nonbelief was entirely factual, as distinct from claiming “Everything she said was a lie.” Anyone feeling harmed or damaged by an honest account of another’s opinion might want to consult a psychiatrist. We are surrounded by loons.
It is sad to see so many distracted from the heart of the matter by the shiny object of the Royal family. There are even more irrelevant to this topic than they are to life in general.
The things that should scare us is that there actually IS an official arbiter of truth in media, and that so many people have been brainwashed into supporting such an agency. I suspect that it was actually more like a light rinse. Apologies to Gene McCarthy.
Ask any of the dimwits supporting this regulation of “lies and misleading” statements, if they thought Trump should have had an agency that was able to fine or shutdown the MSM for their lies about Russia and the election, or for misrepresenting his words? I am sure to a person they would say he should not have been able to do that. Then ask them why should somebody else be able to and watch their heads explode.
Look out for the flying doo doo though.
Oh please Miss O cast the spot light on me. I have been wronged; oh please cast the spot light on me. I snivel for me can’t you see, so please cast the spot light on me.
The personalities in this story are merely a distraction from the greater problem. This assault on free speech only works because we have created a culture susceptible to being manipulated by fear. Fear tactics work because those stoking it have the force of law at their fingertips. And why not. As we saw in the story yesterday about the 2 college students getting a SCOTUS ruling 8-1 in their favor, what was the penalty for those involved in infringing their free speech rights? Imprisonment? Loss of job? Loss of pay? From what I read…nothing but a ding on their reputation. Until these infringement of rights come with serious consequences for those imposing them, then this will not end.
Don’t know, just speculating, but I’d bet there’s way more to this story than Morgan just getting sacked for calling Meghan a liar. The Firm doesn’t like it when news stories make them look bad, and Meghan had a lot to say that made The Firm look bad—not just the “conversation” about Archie’s skin tone, but refusing to provide Prince Harry with protection, despite British law requiring the monarchy to protect him. After all, when the Queen passes away, Harry will be the son of the King, and definitely vulnerable to all sorts of dangers, and, Meghan alluded to death threats. Then, there’s the matter that Archie would not receive any title. Meghan and Harry were in Canada when they were suddenly told that they no longer would be protected, and that they would get no further financial support. But for the inheritance Diana left Harry, they would have been in big trouble with no money immediately on hand and no security, so Tyler Perry stepped in to help, providing them with security and a place to live until they got on their feet.
Meghan was Harry’s choice for a wife, and if The Firm didn’t like this, it had 2 choices: ostracize them like they did with Edward, or fully accept her as a member of the family and treat her with the dignity and respect owing to the daughter-in-law of the next King of England and the brother of the next King after Charles. It was wrong to force Harry to choose, which is essentially what happened when they insulted her, his son Archie, wouldn’t help Meghan assimilate, refused to allow her to get help for her depression, and confiscated her passport and driver’s license. I think that the Oprah interview was a wake-up call, and that Morgan accusing Meghan and Harry of lying was a bridge too far. I wouldn’t be shocked if The Firm had indicated to ITN that Morgan leaving would be just fine them, and that going forward they were going to strike back against attacks directed to Meghan. One big issue with Meghan was The Firm’s failure to do anything about the British tabloids attacking her, lying about her, and demonizing her. In fact, the palace also lied about her. If she is really a fully-accepted member of the family, such conduct would be intolerable, so The Firm’s silence in the face of such attacks sent a clear message that she hadn’t been accepted. I think also the Queen knows that if she wants Harry to be part of her life, they can’t stand by and allow Meghan, Archie or their daughter (I hope they call her Diana) to be abused by the tabloids.
The Frim all of a sudden. Since when do we Americans call it that. We don’t. Who cares anyways. Please, England, take them back! Sal Sar
Patti Davis was once a client. Reagan’s daughter. At the time she was definitely not on great terms with the family, Nancy Reagan in particular. As time went on she not only moved back to California but re entered the family circle and actually, when her dad died, she became the one navigating the family through. Wouldn’t surprise me to see something along the same lines with Harry and Meghan. The Queen’s not going to let this one stand as is.
Elvis Bug
Interesting POV, but my instinct is that, if anybody, Charles would be the one for reconciliation. Elizabeth remembers all the betrayals by her uncle, and Harry has gone way further in the media than Edward VIII ever did. Also–my opinion–Meghan has her own agenda and will have to leave the picture before any reconciliation.
If I were a betting person, I’d bet it was Charles who commented to Harry about his son’s possible skin color and the visuals that would create. Harry already ruled out Prince Philip and the Queen as the source, and his brother would not likely say something like this because he also was raised by Diana. The skin color reference sounds like something Charles would say. He commented when Harry was born that he really wanted a girl, and he really was disappointed at Harry’s red hair.
Me too! I’m in the betting pool for Charles as well! And I was on the ginger side at one time so my spidey senses tune into this re Harry.
EB
Piers Morgan doesn’t rate as a journalist, otherwise he would have at least tested his “I don’t believe a thing Markle said” bias by checking out some of the easily-verifiable claims, such as holding a private wedding ceremony with the Archbishop of Canterbury 3 days before the public ceremony.
To speak in such an intemperate, dismissive, ad-hominem manner in public invites retaliation by way of fact-finding.
If it turns out Piers Morgan is spouting deceptive infowarfare, then isn’t JT’s position that it be countered with “more speech”?
Markle is a lying witch. Her husband is weak. What else is there to say? They are not newsworthy. Sal Sar
A lot.
EB
How dare you insult Mr. Markle!
Harry Harry bo berry…
Banana fanna foe berry ..
Fee fi Moe berry.
BrititShay Monarch must go.
I’m fed up with hearing about Prince this and Meghan that.
Y’all know what itShay means in piglatin don’t ya?
In the world we live in today, is reality opinion or is opinion reality?
For you? Certainly the latter.
EB
Elvis Bug, I guess you were unable to be more than superficial in understanding the question. No matter. No one expects more from you.
SM
If we give you our opinions how will you know if they’re reality or not?
You seem to have more understanding than the two posters above.