The simmering stinks emerging from the recent Oprah Winfrey interview of the Duke and Duchess og Sussex have exposed the inner workings of the British royal family and amplify the stealth and sly strategies that has sustained the fragile gloss of the colonial empire which, at the burst of the couple’s frustrations, proves to enjoy full employment of all media and social tactics in veiling institutional racism.
Avid surfers of the international media have followed the penetration and successful entry of Megan Markle into the royal household against the headwinds of intimidation and rejection pushed through delegated instruments.
Meghan Markle’s entry into the royal household had mustered increasing trepidation as each stride earned her husband some units of degradation, demotion, subjugation and detachment from the mainstream royal status until the eventual banishment by the imperial queen and her successor in waiting.
Whereas it has been widely reported in the media that Prince Harry and Princess Meghan voluntarily stepped down from royal duties to explore freedom and liberty outside choking royal protocols, the revelations emerging from the interview showed that the breeding wife of the young prince was being pushed to the brinks of committing suicide by racist elements in the ancient palace.
Among other very disturbing revelations, Harry and Meghan had opened up on their decision to step back as senior royals last year in a bid to relieve themselves of rising indignation. They also accused an unnamed member of the Royal Family of raising “concerns” about how “dark” their son Archie’s skin would be before he was born.
Prince Harry disclosed for the first time that the newborn Archie was promptly denied the title of Prince; that security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was gradually withdrawn; that funding and sundry royal patronages for the queen’s grandchild were also reined back; all after he married a spirited American woman with African roots.
Prince Harry also lamented in the interview that after the marriage to Meghan he was abandoned by people he called family, including his own father, Prince Charles who waits in the wings to succeed the queen on the throne; and his elder brother, Price William who every normal person expected to be his brother’s pillar of support at such trying times.
Duchess Meghan revealed in the interview that her frustration in the royal family rose to a point where she contemplated suicide, adding that she was even denied the liberty to seek help for her depressive thoughts.
The interview with Oprah Winfrey was well publicized ahead of broadcast, and the well primed hounds of the British monarchy, including Prince Williams who have in all ways failed to support his own brother, rose in defence of the establishment despite well documented accounts of internal abuse of the new couple.
The massive mobilization of the British media for subjective analysis of the interview inadvertently exposed the choreograph, mass misinformation and poor objectivity which have left several media houses struggling to maintain their balance on the scales of integrity and professional ethics.
Annoyingly, Prince William brazenly rose to deny the suffering and frustration arising from mistreatment of Prince Harry’s family by the crown, activating the hoard of British media to launch desperate campaign at discrediting the disgruntled couple, and leading to mass international outrage against visible media conspiracy.
Notable brazen, mindless, subjective and unethical onslaughts came from certain Piers Morgan who dismissed the claims of suffering and racism by Meghan Markle as lies. Piers Morgan made no attempts at advancing any credible reasons for concluded that the claims were lies.
Unprecedented 41, 000 complaints requested action against the former co-host of Good Morning Britain for saying on air that he didn’t believe a word of Meghan’s claimed struggles with the royal family’s attitudes and racial remarks.
The bigoted reports in the country against the suffering couple also cost the industry smooth hosting of the annual awards of the Society of Editors after the Executive Director, Ian Murray, played down the brazen subjectivity against Meghan in the British media.
Following a statement by Mr Murray that the British media was not bigoted against Meghan, nominees for the SoE awards withdrew en masse, imperiling the credibility of the body and sustainability of the awards.
Besides, over 367 journalists and members of the group signed a petition against the statement by Mr Murray, and the host of the event declined to participate. The board of the SoE also countered the Executive Director’s statement, declaring that British media required more objectivity along racial lines.
Also, notable media houses in the kingdom, including The Guardian, dissociated from the SoE’s statement that supported biased reportage of the Meghan interview.
In tendering his resignation, Mr Murray said the comment was “not intended to gloss over the fact the media industry in the UK does have work to do on inclusivity and diversity.”
He said: “While I do not agree that the Society’s statement was in any way intended to defend racism, I accept it could have been much clearer in its condemnation of bigotry and has clearly caused upset.
“As executive director I lead the Society and as such must take the blame and so I have decided it is best for the board and membership that I step aside so that the organisation can start to rebuild its reputation.”
The social outrage against the role of media in defending treatment of Meghan in the Buckingham Palace symbolizes the muffled condemnation of the monarchy’s clandestine rejection of a person of color in the royal family.
To base this analogy on the revelations by Prince Harry and ‘Princess’ Megan during their explosive Oprah Winfrey interview would be subjective by default. It becomes necessary therefore to put the high profile drama in the foreground of existing tradition of the monarchy’s guile of sustained subterfuge in preventing, frustrating and destruction of Harry’s marriage to Meghan.
Obviously, Prince Harry was rejected by the royal family after he married Megan Markle whose own family members trailed with embarrassing acrimony to the Buckingham Palace. The young prince was plunged into social and political crises that rendered his young family vulnerable to unkind remarks and criticisms even by palace staff.
Right from the outset, the indignation of the royal household to the entry of the ‘Princess’ of Sussex into the palace led to a rift that boxed the young family into lonely corner and brought the princess low in the regards and respect of the palace workers. The public and the British media also took a cue from unreprimanded palace staff to pelt unprotected Mega Markle and her son with racist insults.
The CNN on March 8, 2019 reported a rise in racist online abuse targeting the Duchess of Sussex in the months after the announcement of her pregnancy.
Advocacy group Hope Not Hate, according to CNN, analyzed a sample of more than 5,000 tweets containing the most commonly used anti-Meghan hashtags. The small group of accounts that troll the duchess often retweet news articles that portray Meghan negatively.
The analysis of the tweets, posted between January and the middle of February, shows that 20 accounts were responsible for about 70% of the tweets, sharing anti-Meghan hashtags, pictures and memes. Many posts used racial epithets to describe Meghan.
“The fact that such a small number of users generated such a large number of the tweets suggests that the accounts were created for the purpose of producing negative content about the duchess,” Hope Not Hate said.
“The problem isn’t Meghan Markle. It’s the British monarchy,” the CNN pointed out.
Certain Danny Baker, 61, had after delivery of Archie shared the picture of a chimp dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal baby leaves hospital.”
The tweet which was posted hours after Meghan Markle and Prince Harry showed off little Archie had immediately received a backlash from Twitter users who promptly branded the post racist.
On March 13, 2019; another white writer with a British magazine wrote subjectively that Megan must have been a ‘horrible boss’ to white employees at the Buckingham Palace. The lady, Bronte Coy, stated: “With four staff resignations in less than one year, it’s pretty easy to speculate Meghan Markle must be some kind of horrible boss.”
She went to chronicle a spate of resignation of white royal aides attached to Megan and her husband, blaming it on rumours that the Duchess of Sussex’s “difficult” nature. Ms Coy made no attempt to point out that all the personal aides that left their jobs are white. She did not also provide any proof or evidence showing that the leaving staff members complained about Meghan’s difficult nature. The only objective of the article was to present Kate Middleton as better of the two daughters-in-law to the queen.
Opinion Columnist with Mad World news, Rebecca Diserio, also wrote November 28, 2018 that Her Majesty denied Markle residency in Kensington Palace one of the palace intrigues that greeted the arrival of the new bride.
Rebecca Diserio also noted in the article that whereas the press tried to paint Meghan as a sweet feminist who was just dying to do good deeds, the “the astute Brits never warmed to her because of the American actress’ personal history and the way she wormed her way into Harry’s life.”
Palace veteran, Lady Colin Campbell reportedly told The Daily Beast that Markle “is ultra-liberal and that trendy-lefty stuff does not go down well with some of Harry’s friends. He has introduced her to them all at parties and weddings and private dinners, but she is very anti- a lot of the things that their world functions upon, such as shooting.”
The paper also reported that the queen had during Meghan’s wedding denied her crucial kindness at the auspicious time, an indignation that cascaded down to her senior aide, Angela Kelly, who also reportedly rebuked Maghan for demanding a jeweled tiara for her dressing.
“Meghan demanded access to the tiara,” one insider alleged, as reported by the outlet. “She didn’t make an appointment with Angela, but said, ‘We’re at Buckingham Palace, we want the tiara. Can we have it now please?’
“Angela essentially said, ‘I’m very sorry, that’s not how it works,” the source continued. “There’s protocol in place over these jewels. They’re kept under very tight lock and key. You can’t turn up and demand to have the tiara just because your hairdresser happens to be in town.”
Fox News reported that Prince Harry at this point couldn’t hide his frustration from his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, about how his future bride Meghan Markle was being treated by palace aides. Harry felt Angela Kelly became truly unavailable and was purposely ignoring Meghan.
But the queen reportedly ignored Harry’s concerns and descended even harder on the new bride with disparaging remarks.
“Her Majesty told Harry, “Why did Meghan need a veil for the wedding, given it was to be her second marriage,” and then she denied her use of the gorgeous emerald tiara, saying, “She gets what tiara she’s given by me,”’ according to the report.
Also in worsening her relationship with her new daughter-in-law, the queen banished the new couple from the palace to a lonely cottage in a move interpreted by palace sources as demotion.
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will move to Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Estate early next year as they prepare for the arrival of their first child,” announced a statement from the Kensington Palace. The notice came against earlier publicized plans by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to join the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as neighbours at the Kensington Palace.
Elle Magazine reported: “Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will not become Kate Middleton and Prince William’s neighbors in Kensington Palace’s apartment 1.” “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex won’t even be living in Kensington Palace or London, period,” added the Magazine.
All you have to do is take one look at the place and you’ll understand that this is a form of banishment, reported Mad World News. “This comes on the heels of Prince William requesting an official separation between the two households,” the paper reported.
“Meghan’s trying to stem the rash of bad headlines by putting her PR team into damage control. But these moves by the Queen are making it crystal clear that the D-list actress has not only been banished physically but Her Majesty has written her off altogether. Meghan Markle, the social climbing mediocre actress, is no match for the 1,000-year-old British monarchy, and the crown must always win,” concluded Rebecca Diserio ijn her opinion piece which has played out in final expulsion of Prince harry from the royal family for marrying a spirited black woman.
Celebrity medium, Her, analyzed the struggle of Meghan Markle in keeping with pressure at the British royal family, saying the new bride’s frustration at having her independence taken away led to friction with her staff.
A royal insider told Us Weekly: ‘She’s always relied on her own voice to stand up for others, and for herself. So not being able to say anything is a debilitating feeling. ‘She’s always been so independent, her entire life, and that’s all been taken away from her. She’s always been able to clap back on social media and now she can’t.’
Longtime royal correspondent Duncan Larcombe explained: “But you can’t blame Meghan, she’s gone into her biggest role yet and she’s put her heart and soul into it.Yes, she is firing off e-mails to staff at 5 am, but she’s super-keen and Harry is taking his lead from her.”
The Mail on Sunday claimed that household staff called her ‘Hurricane Meghan’, alleging that she gets up at 5 am every morning, sends multiple texts to staff about her role as Duchess and has a ‘formidable work ethic’.
British magazine, Marie Claire pointed out in an article that “the Duchess of Sussex reportedly finds it hard to ignore the negativity.”
Knewz Beta reported royal expert Camilla Tominey as claiming that palace staff didn’t exactly warm to the Duchess of Sussex and her showbiz past, adding that Meghan Markle, a former actress on US basic cable, had a lack of respect for the centuries’ old hierarchy that rules the Windsor Family and its court.
In pointing at a clash of culture, she explained that Markle rapidly had palace critics who were less enamored of the very qualities that made her irresistible to the press: her showbiz lustre, self-confidence, and feminist habits of assertion. Reports emerged that, in the run-up to the wedding, she was being imperious.”
Oracle Intelligence reports that the key subterfuge of the queen in downgrading the Sussexes is her choice of title for the new couple. The queen had titled Willian and Kate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, a highly regarded and popular title by history and nobility.
After failed attempts to stop Harry’s Marriage to Meghan, the queen was obligated to hand out a title to the couple: Duke of Sussex. The queen’s choice of title for Prince Harry, banishment of the couple from the palace to a cottage house outside London, and total indignation to the new bride sum up as rejection.
According to result of our search on the title, Prince Harry is only the second Duke of Sussex. The title had been extinct for a hundred and seventy-five years before the palace polished it up for Harry and Meghan.
According to an article sourced online, the first Duke of Sussex was Prince Augustus Frederick, a son of King George III. He married Lady Augusta Murray in Rome in 1793 without the consent of his father, King George.
Prince Fredrick was not swayed by royal privileges and, like his great-great-great-great-great-great-nephew Harry, he had a wandering youth, a fiery desire to live as he wished, and an inclination to balk at the strictures of monarchy. So in choosing the title for harry after marrying Meghan, Queen Elizabeth II, dug into history to examine the incarnation of grandson. And then she proceeded to allocate the inheritances of Fredrick to Harry, including the title and the cottage.
As the first Duke of Sussex lost patronage of the crown and drifted from palace, history may hold that the second Duke of Sussex might also branch off for good with his wife “whose ancestors were slaves.”