[46] ”Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.’
BBCMEGHAN AND HARRY INTERVIEW:RACISM CLAIMS, DUKE ”LED DOWN” BY DAD, AND DUCHESS ON KATE9 MARCH
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56316659
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s much-anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey has aired in the US and the UK – with the couple sharing their side of the story about life in the Royal Family.
The couple spoke about their relationships with other royals, racism and how their mental health suffered.
Meghan spoke with Oprah for most of the interview, before being joined by Prince Harry.
1. ‘Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be’
One of the biggest allegations from the interview was that there were “several conversations” within the Royal Family about how dark Meghan and Harry’s baby might be.
“In those months when I was pregnant [there were] concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born,” said Meghan.
She said the conversations were with Harry, who relayed them to her. Both she and Harry refused to say which royal said it.
“That conversation, I am never going to share,” said Harry. “At the time it was awkward, I was a bit shocked.”
Harry also said that it hurt him that his family never spoke out about the “colonial undertones” of news headlines and articles.
2. Kate ‘made Meghan cry’ – not the other way around
“A few days before the wedding [Kate] was upset about the flower girl dresses and it made me cry,” Meghan said. She said Kate later apologised and brought flowers and a note to make amends.
“I’m not sharing that piece about Kate to be disparaging about her,” Meghan said. She said Kate was “a good person” and hoped that she would have wanted the false stories corrected.
3. Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help
Meghan spoke about how lonely she felt after joining the Royal Family and the loss of her freedom. “When I joined that family, that was the last time until we came here that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys, all that gets turned over,” she said.
She said her mental health got so bad that she “didn’t want to be alive any more”.
“I went to the institution and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help, said I had never felt that way before and need to go somewhere, and I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution.”
She said she went to “one of the most senior people” within the institution and then to the palace human resources department. “Nothing was ever done,” she added.
4. Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends
Princess Diana’s name came up many times throughout the interview – with similarities drawn between their experiences of being in the Royal Family.
“I didn’t even know who to turn to,” said Meghan, of the time when she was struggling. “One of the people I reached out to who’s continued to be a friend and confidante was one of my husband’s mom’s best friends.
“Because it’s like who else could understand what it’s actually like on the inside?”
5. Harry feels ‘let down’ by Charles
Oprah asked Harry about his relationships with his family and especially with his father, the Prince of Wales, and brother, the Duke of Cambridge.
At one point after stepping back as senior royals, Harry said Charles “stopped taking my calls”.
“I feel really let down because he’s been through something similar, he knows what pain feels like and Archie’s his grandson.
“But at the same time, of course I will always love him but there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened and I will continue to make it one of my priorities to try and heal that relationship.”
On William, Harry said he loved him to bits and they have been through hell together. “But we were on different paths.”
6. But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good
Harry said he has a “really good” relationship with his grandmother and he has spoken to her more in the past year – including video calls with Archie – than he has for many years.
“She’s my colonel-in-chief, right? She always will be.”
Meghan also praised the Queen and said she gave her some beautiful jewellery for the couple’s first joint engagement together as well as sharing a blanket with her to keep warm while travelling together.
7. Harry ‘cut off financially’
In the first quarter of 2020, Harry said his family “literally cut me off financially”.
He said the Netflix and Spotify deals that he and Meghan have struck to make shows and podcasts were never part of the plan but “I had to afford security for us”.
“But I’ve got what my mum left me and without that we wouldn’t have been able to do this.”
The couple reveal that, after they were cut off, American billionaire and media mogul Tyler Perry provided Harry and Meghan with a home and security last year when they moved from Canada to southern California.
8. The truth behind a photograph
Meghan said that the evening after she told Harry that she was feeling suicidal, they had to attend an official event at the Royal Albert Hall.
Meghan spoke about a photo that has haunted her because of what it reminded her of.
She said a friend had commented how great the couple looked but she added: “That picture, if you zoom in, what I see is how tightly his knuckles are gripped around mine,” she told Oprah, as she became emotional.
“We are smiling and doing our job but we’re both just trying to hold on. “Every time those lights went down in that royal box, I was just weeping.”
9. Meghan ‘didn’t do any research’ on the Royal Family
Talking about the first time she met the Queen, Meghan said she was surprised to learn she had to curtsy.
She said she thought it was just “part of the fanfare” and didn’t happen inside the Royal Family
She described having to quickly practise curtsying before an impromptu lunch with the Queen. “I said: ‘It’s your grandmother,” said Meghan. “He said: ‘It’s the Queen.'”
Meghan added that she hadn’t done any research on the family before joining – and insisted she had never looked up her husband online while they were dating.
10. They exchanged vows three days before their wedding
Millions of people watched Harry and Meghan tie the knot at Windsor Castle in 2018. That ceremony was when they were legally married – but the couple revealed they also exchanged vows in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury three days before.
Meghan said: “We called the archbishop and we just said, ‘look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us… just the two of us in our backyard’.”
11. Archie’s favourite phrase is ‘drive safe’
Harry spoke about Archie, and the joy he gets from taking him out on bike rides. The interview included a clip of the toddler playing on the beach with his parents.
The couple joked that his favourite word for the past few weeks has been “hydrate”, and Harry said whenever anyone leaves the house, Archie tells them “drive safe”.
12. And… it’s a girl
The couple confirm they’re expecting a baby girl in the summer.
Harry said it was “amazing”, adding: “What more can you ask for?” – but said they would be done after baby number two arrives.
Towards the end of the interview, Oprah asked if Meghan had got her happy ending with Prince Harry after all. “Greater than any fairytale that you’ve ever read,” she said.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[48]
BBCMEGHAN AND HARRY INTERVIEW:RACISM CLAIMS, DUKE ”LED DOWN” BY DAD, AND DUCHESS ON KATE9 MARCH
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56316659
SEE FOR THE FULL TEXT, NOTE 47
[49]
2. Kate ‘made Meghan cry’ – not the other way around
BBCMEGHAN AND HARRY INTERVIEW:RACISM CLAIMS, DUKE ”LED DOWN” BY DAD, AND DUCHESS ON KATE9 MARCH
[52] ‘ And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.”
[54] ”Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.”
”Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . .
Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: And . . .
Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?
Meghan: So . . .
Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.
Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.
Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ?
Meghan: With Harry.
Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?
Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?
Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.
Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?
There were conversations …about no security, no title… and how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
”Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: What was that conversation?
Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.
Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?
Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.
Oprah: OK.
Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Her Majesty The Queen that they will not be returning as working members of The Royal Family.
Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.
While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family.
Notes to editors:
Following The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step away last year as working members of The Royal Family, a 12-month review was agreed.
A decision has now been made after conversations between The Duke of Sussex and Members of The Royal Family.
The military, Commonwealth and Charitable associations which will revert to The Queen are:
The Royal Marines, RAF Honington, Royal Navy Small Ships and Diving.
The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, The Rugby Football Union, The Rugby Football League, The Royal National Theatre and The Association of Commonwealth Universities.
IT was the most sensational royal interview since Diana’s Panorama bombshell 26 years ago.
Speaking to Oprah Winfrey in California, Harry and Meghan blasted “racist” Britain, the Royal Family and the Press, while highlighting Meghan’s mental health struggles. Here, we reveal the full astonishing transcript…
OPRAH: We can’t hug, everybody is double- masked and has face shields. You look lovely. Do you know if you’re having a boy or a girl?
Meghan: We do this time. I’ll wait for my husband to join us and we can share that with you.
Oprah: That would be really great. Before we get into to it, I just want to make clear to everybody that, even though we’re neighbours, I’m down the road, you’re up the road, we’re using a friend’s place. There has not been an agreement, you don’t know what I’m going to ask, there is no subject that’s off limits and you are not getting paid for this interview.
Meghan: All of that’s correct.
Oprah: I remember sitting in the chapel — thanks for inviting me, by the way. I so recall this sense of magic. I never experienced anything like it. When you came through that door, you seemed like you were floating down the aisle. Were you even inside your body at that time?
Meghan: I’ve thought about this a lot. It was like having an out-of- body experience I was very present for. The night before, I slept through the night entirely, which is a bit of a miracle, and then woke up and started listening to Going To The Chapel, to make it fun and light and remind ourselves this was our day. We were both aware in advance of that this wasn’t our day, this was the day planned for the world.
Oprah: Everybody who gets married knows you’re really marrying the family. But you weren’t just marrying a family, you were marrying a 1,200-year-old institution, you’re marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?
Meghan: I would say I went into it naively because I didn’t grow up knowing much about the Royal Family. It wasn’t part of something that was part of conversation at home. It wasn’t something that we followed. My mum even said to me a couple of months ago, ‘Did Diana ever do an interview?’ Now I can say. ‘Yes, a very famous one’, but my mum doesn’t know that.
Oprah: But you were aware of the royals and, if you were going to marry into the royals, you’d do research about what that would mean?
Meghan: I didn’t do any research about what that would mean.
Oprah: You didn’t do any research?
Meghan: No. I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me.
Oprah: So, you didn’t have a conversation with yourself, or talk to your friends about what it would be like to marry a prince, who is Harry, who you had fallen in love with . . . you didn’t give it a lot of thought?
Meghan: No. We thought a lot about what we thought it might be. I didn’t fully understand what the job was: What does it mean to be a working royal? What do you do? What does that mean? He and I were very aligned on our cause- driven work, that was part of our initial connection. But there was no way to understand what the day-to- day was going to be like, and it’s so different because I didn’t romanticise any element of it. But I think, as Americans especially, what you do know about the royals is what you read in fairytales, and you think is what you know about the royals. It’s easy to have an image that is so far from reality, and that’s what was so tricky over those past few years, when the perception and the reality are two different things and you’re being judged on the perception but you’re living the reality of it. There’s a complete misalignment and there’s no way to explain that to people.
Oprah: With every family things get serious when you’re brought in to meet the grandmother or the mother. The grandmother is the matriarch and, in your situation it’s the Queen.’
Meghan: She was one of the first people I met. The real Queen.
Oprah: What was that like? Were you worried about making the right impression?
Meghan: There wasn’t a huge formality the first time I met Her Majesty The Queen. We were going for lunch at Royal Lodge, which is where some other members of the family live, specifically Andrew and Fergie, and Eugenie and Beatrice would spend a lot of time there. Eugenie and I had known each other before I knew Harry, so that was comfortable and it turned out the Queen was finishing a church service in Windsor and so she was going to be at the house. Harry and I were in the car and he says, ‘OK, well my grandmother is there, you’re going to meet her’. (I said) ‘OK, great’. I loved my grandmother, I used to take care of my grandmother. (He said) ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ ‘What?’ ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ I thought genuinely that’s what happens outside, that was part of the fanfare. I didn’t think that’s what happens inside. I go, ‘But it’s your grandmother’. He goes, ‘It’s the Queen!’
Oprah: Wow!
Meghan: And that was really the first moment the penny dropped?
Oprah: Did you Google how to curtsey?
Meghan: No, we were in the car. Deeply, to show respect, I learned it very quickly right in front of the house. We practised and walked in.
Oprah: Harry practised?
Meghan: Yeah, and Fergie ran out and said, ‘Are you ready? Do you know how to curtsey? Oh, my goodness, you guys’. I practised very quickly and went in, and apparently I did a very deep curtsey, and we just sat there and we chatted and it was lovely and easy and I think, thank God, I hadn’t known a lot about the family. Thank God, I hadn’t researched. I would have been so in my head about all of it.
Oprah: (What) you’re sharing with us is that you were no more nervous as a regular person who goes to meet somebody’s grandmother.
Meghan: I had confused the idea. I grew up in LA, you see celebrities all the time. This is not the same but it’s very easy, especially as an American, to go, ‘These are famous people’. This is a completely different ball game.
(Cut to them and Oprah at their house)
Oprah: What are you feeling here (their home)? What’s the word?
Meghan: Peace.
Oprah: Peace?
Meghan: Yeah.
(Oprah narrates) The day after our interview, I stopped over to Harry and Meghan’s new home.
Meghan: Hi, Guy (dog).
Oprah: Hi, Guy.
Meghan: Yeah, Guy’s been — Guy’s been through everything with me.
Oprah: Yeah, from the beginning, from the very first date, yeah?
Meghan: If Guy, I mean, I had him in Canada. I got him from a kill shelter in Kentucky.
Oprah: Yeah?
(In Harry and Meghan’s hen coop)
Meghan: Hi, girls!
(Oprah narrates) We put on wellies to feed the hens Meghan and Harry recently rescued from a factory farm. ‘I love your little designer house here. Archie’s chick inn. Oh, how cute is that.’
Harry: She’s always wanted chickens.
Meghan: Well, you know, I just love rescuing.
Oprah: So, this is a part of your new life? What are you most excited about?
Meghan: Whoop! You’re OK . . .
Oprah: What are you most excited about in the new life? What are you most excited about? Here, chick, chick, chick, chick.
Meghan: I think just being able to live authentically.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . .
Oprah: Ah!
Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . .
Harry: Just the three of us.
Oprah: Really?
Harry: Just the three of us.
Meghan: Just the three of us.
(Back to Oprah)
Oprah: You know, the wedding was the most perfect picture, you know, anybody’s ever seen. But through that picture that we were all seeing, behind the scenes, obviously, there was a lot of drama going on. And soon after your marriage, the tabloids started offering stories that painted a not-so-flattering picture of you in your new world. There were rumours about you being ‘Hurricane Meghan’.
Meghan: I hadn’t heard that.
Oprah: OK.
Oprah: So, there were rumours about you being Hurricane Meghan, for the departure of several high-profile palace staff members. And there was also a story — did you hear this one? — about you making Kate Middleton cry?
Meghan: This I heard about.
Oprah: You heard about that. OK.
Meghan: This was . . . that was . . . that was a turning point.
Oprah: That was a turning point?
Meghan: Yeah.
Kate made me cry days before wedding, but I got blamed… that was hard.
(Oprah narrates) Six months after Harry and Meghan’s wedding, headlines began to swirl about a rift between Meghan and her sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton. It was reported that Meghan had left Kate “in tears” over the bride-to-be’s “strict demands” over flower-girl dresses.
Meghan: The narrative with Kate — which didn’t happen — was really, really difficult and something that . . . I think that’s when everything changed, really.
Oprah: You say the narrative with Kate, it didn’t happen. So, specifically, did you make Kate cry?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: So, where did that come from?
Meghan: (Sighs)
Oprah: Was there a situation where she might have cried? Or she could have cried?
Meghan: No, no. The reverse happened. And I don’t say that to be disparaging to anyone, because it was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised. And she brought me flowers and a note, apologising. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it. What was shocking was . . . what was that, six, seven months after our wedding?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: That the reverse of that would be out in the world.
Oprah: The story came out six, seven months after it actually happened?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: So, when you say . . .
Meghan: I would have never wanted that to come out about her ever, even though it had happened. I protected that from ever being out in the world.
Oprah: So, when you say the reverse happened, explain to us what you mean by that.
Meghan: A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining — yes, the issue was correct — about flower-girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings. And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot.
Oprah: This was a really big story at the time, that you made Kate cry. Now you’re saying you didn’t make Kate cry, Kate made you cry. So, we all want to know, what would make you cry? What . . . what were you going through? You were going through all of the anxiety that brides go through putting their wedding together and going through all of the issues with your father: Was he coming? Was he not coming?
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: And there was a confrontation over the . . . the dresses?
Meghan: It wasn’t a confrontation, and I actually don’t think it’s fair to her to get into the details of that, because she apologised.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: And I’ve forgiven her.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: What was hard to get over was being blamed for something that not only I didn’t do but that happened to me. And the people who were part of our wedding going to our comms team and saying, ‘I know this didn’t happen.’ I don’t have to tell them what actually happened.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: But I can at least go on the record and say she didn’t make her cry. And they were all told the same . . .
Oprah: So, all the time the stories were out that you had made Kate cry . . . you knew all along, and people around you knew that that wasn’t true?
Meghan: Everyone in the institution knew it wasn’t true.
Oprah: So, why didn’t somebody just say that?
Meghan: That’s a good question.
Oprah: Hmm.
Meghan: I’m not sharing that piece about Kate in any way to be disparaging to her. I think it’s really important for people to understand the truth.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: But also I think, a lot of it, that was fed into by the media. And I would hope that she would have wanted that corrected, and maybe in the same way that the Palace wouldn’t let anybody else.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Negate it, they wouldn’t let her, because she’s a good person. And I think so much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity, where if you love me, you don’t have to hate her. And if you love her, you don’t need to hate me.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. You know, there were several stories that compared headlines written about you to those written about Kate.
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: Since you don’t read things, let me tell you what was said.
Meghan: OK.
Oprah: There were stories where Kate was being praised for holding her baby bump.
Meghan: Oh, gosh, have I done it since we’ve been sitting down?
Oprah: Yes, you’ve been doing it the whole time.
Meghan: Probably. OK.
Oprah: Kate was praised for cradling her baby bump, and the headline about you doing the same thing said, ‘Meghan can’t keep hands off her baby bump for pride or vanity’.
Meghan: What does it have to do with pride or vanity?
Oprah: Well, I’m just — I’m just telling you about the stories, OK?
Meghan: OK, I hear you.
Oprah: Then there was a whole online piece about this: ‘Kate eating avocados to help with morning sickness’.
Meghan: (Laughs) I heard — OK, I heard about the avocado one.
Oprah: But you were eating avocados . . .
Meghan: And fuelling murder, apparently.
Oprah: Wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation and environmental devastation. There was, seems . . . there seems to be . . . there was a . . .
Meghan: That’s a really loaded piece of toast. (Laughter) I mean . . . you have to laugh at a certain point, because it’s just ridiculous.
Oprah: That’s good: ‘That’s a loaded piece of toast.’ It’s about deforestation and . . .
Meghan: Oh, man!
Oprah: Oh, wow! So, do you think there was a standard for Kate in general and a separate one for you? And if so, why?
Meghan: I don’t know why. I can see now what layers were at play. Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And, again, they really seemed to want a narrative of a hero and a villain.
Oprah: Yeah. You came in as the first mixed-race person to marry into the family, and did that concern you in being able to fit in?
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: And did that concern you in being able to fit in? Did you think about that at all?
Meghan: I thought about it because they made me think about it.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Right? But at the same time now, upon reflection, thank God all of those things were true. Thank God I had that life experience. Thank god I had known the value of working. My first job was when I was 13, at a frozen yoghurt shop called Humphrey Yogart.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I’ve always worked. I’ve always valued independence. I’ve always been outspoken, especially about women’s rights. I mean, that’s the sad irony of the last four years . . . is I’ve advocated for so long for women to use their voice, and then I was silent.
Oprah: Were you silent? Or were you silenced?
Meghan: The latter.
Oprah: So, how does that work? Were you told by the comms people, or the, I don’t know, the institution? Were you told to keep silent? How were you told to handle tabloids or gossip? Were you . . . were you told to say nothing?
Meghan: Everyone from . . . everyone in my world was given very clear directive, from the moment the world knew Harry and I were dating, to always say, ‘No comment’. That’s my friends, my mom and dad.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And we did.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I did anything they told me to do — of course I did, because it was also through the lens of, ‘And we’ll protect you’. So, even as things started to roll out in the media that I didn’t see — but my friends would call me and say, ‘Meg, this is really bad’ — because I didn’t see it, I’d go, ‘Don’t worry. I’m being protected’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: I believed that. And I think that was . . . that was really hard to reconcile because it was only . . . it was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to under-stand that not only was I not being protected, but they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.
Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?
Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . .
Oprah: Was this on the train?
Meghan: Yeah, on the train.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: We had breakfast together that morning, and she’d given me a beautiful gift, and I just really loved being in her company. And I remember we were in the car . . .
Oprah: Can you share what the gift was? Or . . .
Meghan: Yes. She gave me beautiful pearl earrings and a matching necklace. And we were in the car going between engagements, and she has a blanket that sits across her knees for warmth. And it was chilly, and she was like, ‘Meghan, come on’ and put it over my knees as well.
Oprah: Oh, nice.
Meghan: Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.
Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?
Meghan: Yes.
Oprah: Did you feel welcomed by everyone? It seemed like you and Kate . . . at the Wimbledon game where you were going to watch a friend play tennis . . .
Meghan: (Laughs)
Oprah: Was it what it looked like? You are two sisters-in-law out there in the world, getting to know each other. Was she helping you, embracing you into the family, helping you adjust?
Meghan: I think everyone welcomed me.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And, yeah, when you say, ‘Was it what it looked like?’, my under-standing and my experience of the past four years is it’s nothing like what it looks like. It’s nothing like what it looks like. And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.
I mean, there was a day that one of the members of the family, she came over, and she said, ‘Why don’t you just lay low for a little while, because you are everywhere right now’. And I said, ‘I’ve left the house twice in four months. I’m everywhere, but I am nowhere’. And from that standpoint, I continued to say to people, ‘I know there’s an obsession with how things look, but has anyone talked about how it feels? Because right now, I could not feel lonelier’.
Oprah: Hmm. You were feeling lonely, even though your prince . . . you’re in love, you’re with him.
Meghan: I’m not lonely . . . I wasn’t lonely with him.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: There were moments that he had to work or he had to go away, there’s moments in the middle of the night. And so, there was very little that I was allowed to do.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And so, yeah, of course that breeds loneliness when you’ve come from such a full life or when you’ve come from freedom. I think the easiest way that now people can understand it is what we’ve all gone through in lockdown.
Oprah: Yeah, well, everybody can certainly relate now.
(Cuts to footage of interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby in South Africa in October, 2019)
Meghan: . . . asked if I’m OK, but it’s a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes.
Bradby: And the answer is, would it be fair to say, ‘Not really OK’, as in it’s really been a struggle?
Meghan: Yes.
(Back to Oprah)
Oprah: Well, I would have to say, in South Africa, when the reporter stopped and asked, ‘Are you OK . . ?’
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: And, whooo, we all felt that. Why did that question strike such a nerve? What was going on with you, internally at that time?
Meghan: That was the last day of the tour. You know, those tours are . . . I’m sure they have beautiful pictures and it looks vibrant, and all of that is true. It’s also really exhausting. So, I was fried, and I think it just hit me so hard because we were making it look like every-thing was fine. I can understand why people were really surprised to see that there was pain there.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Because we were doing our job. Our job was to be on and to smile. And so, when he asked me that, I guess I had felt that it had never occurred to anyone that I, that I wasn’t OK, and that I had really been suffering. And I had known for a long time and had been asking the institution for help for quite a long time.
Oprah: Help for what?
Meghan: After we had gotten back from our Australia tour — which was about a year before that — and we talked about when things really started to turn, when I knew we weren’t being protected. And it was during that part of my pregnancy, especially, that I started to understand what our continued reality was going to look like.
Oprah: What kind of protection did you want that you feel you didn’t receive?
Meghan: I mean, they would go on the record and negate the most ridiculous story for anyone, right? I’m talking about things that are super-artificial and inconsequential. But the narrative about, you know, making Kate cry, I think was the beginning of a real character assassination. And they knew it wasn’t true. And I thought, well, if they’re not going to kill things like that, then what are we going to do?
It had never occurred to anyone that I wasn’t OK…I was really suffering, and asked for help.
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: It was really hard.
Oprah: What do you mean?
Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.
Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?
Meghan: That’s right, I know.
Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?
Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . . ‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.
Oprah: So, how do they explain to you that your son, the grandson, the great-grandson of the Queen . . .
Meghan: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: . . . is not going to have . . . he wasn’t going to be a prince? How did they tell you that? And what reasons did they give? And then say, ‘And so, therefore, you’re not . . . you don’t need protection’.
Meghan: There’s no explanation.
Oprah: Hmm.
Meghan: There’s no version. I mean, that’s the other piece of that . . .
Oprah: Who tells you that?
Meghan: I heard a lot of it through Harry and then other parts of it through conversations with . . .
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . family members. And it was a decision that they felt was appropriate. And I thought, well . . .
Oprah: Was the title . . . was him being called a prince, Archie being called a prince, was that important to you?
Meghan: If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course. All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.
Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . . You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . .
Oprah: . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: Well, why?
Oprah: Did you get an answer?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: You still don’t have an answer?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: You know, we had heard — the world, those of us out here reading the things or hearing the things — that it was you and Harry who didn’t want Archie to have a prince title. So, you’re telling me that is not true?
Meghan: No, and it’s not our decision to make, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.
Oprah: OK, so it feels to me like things started to change when you and Harry decided that you were not going to take the picture that had been a part of the tradition for years and . . .
Meghan: We weren’t asked to take a picture. That’s also part of the spin, that was really damaging. I thought, ‘Can you just tell them the truth? Can you say to the world you’re not giving him a title, and we want to keep him safe, and that if he’s not a prince, then it’s not part of the tradition? Just tell people, and then they’ll understand?’
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: But they wouldn’t do that.
Oprah: But you were . . . you both, obviously, were aware that had been a part of the tradition? And there was a . . . was there a specific reason why you didn’t want to be a part of that tradition? I think many people interpreted that as you were both saying, ‘We’re going to do things our way. We’re going to do things a different way’.
Meghan: That’s not it at all. I mean, I think what was really hard . . . so, picture, now that you know what was going on behind the scenes, right? There was a lot of fear surrounding it. I was very scared of having to offer up our baby, knowing that they weren’t going to be kept safe.
Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . . what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?
Meghan: (Sighs)
Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . .
Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: And . . .
Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?
Meghan: So . . .
Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.
Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.
Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ?
Meghan: With Harry.
Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?
Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?
Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.
Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?
There were conversations …about no security, no title… and how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . .
Oprah: Whoa.
Meghan: It was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalised conversations.
Oprah: Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?
Meghan: I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but that — if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right? Especially when — look, I — the Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy, and I lived in Canada, which is a Commonwealth country, for seven years. But it wasn’t until Harry and I were together that we started to travel through the Commonwealth, I would say 60 per cent, 70 per cent of which is people of colour, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And growing up as a woman of colour, as a little girl of colour, I know how important representation is. I know how you want to see someone who looks like you in certain positions.
Oprah: Obviously.
Meghan: Even Archie. Like, we read these books, and now he’s been — there’s one line in one that goes, ‘If you can see it, you can be it’. And he goes, ‘You can be it!’ And I think about that so often, especially in the context of these young girls, but even grown women and men who, when I would meet them in our time in the Commonwealth, how much it meant to them to be able to see someone who looks like them . . .
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: . . . in this position. And I could never understand how it wouldn’t be seen as an added benefit . . .
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . and a reflection of the world today. At all times, but especially right now, to go — ‘how inclusive is that, that you can see someone who looks like you in this family, much less one who’s born into it?’
(Oprah narrates) When Meghan joined the Royal Family in 2018, she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks. Racist abuse online aimed at Meghan Markle. There were undeniable racist overtones. This stands apart from the kind of coverage we’ve seen of any other royal.
There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids and internet trolls. We have seen the racism towards her play out in real time. Referring to her as ‘straight outta Compton’. The daily onslaught of vitriol and condemnation from the UK Press became overwhelming and, in Meghan’s words, ‘almost unsurvivable’. (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: You’d said in a podcast that it became ‘almost unsurvivable’, and that struck me, because it sounds like you were in some kind of mental trouble. What was actually going on? ‘Almost unsurvivable’ sounds like there was a breaking point.
Meghan: Yeah, there was. I just didn’t see a solution. I would sit up at night, and I was just, like, I don’t understand how all of this is being churned out. And, again, I wasn’t seeing it, but it’s almost worse when you feel it through the expression of my mom or my friends, or them calling me crying, just, like, ‘Meg, they’re not protecting you’. And I realised that it was all happening just because I was breathing.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . .
Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: This wasn’t a choice. This was emails and begging for help, saying very specifically, ‘I am concerned for my mental welfare’. And people going, ‘Oh, yes, yes, it’s disproportionately terrible what we see out there to anyone else’. But nothing was ever done, so we had to find a solution.
Oprah: Wow! ‘I don’t want to be alive any more,’ that’s . . .
Meghan: I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?
Oprah: So, were you thinking of harming yourself? Were you having suicidal thoughts?
Meghan: Yes. This was very, very clear.
Oprah: Wow.
Meghan: Very clear and very scary. And, you know, I didn’t know who to even turn to in that. And one of the people that I reached out to, who’s continued to be a friend and confidant, was one of my husband’s mom’s best friends, one of Diana’s best friends. Because it’s, like, who else could understand what’s . . .what it’s actually like on the inside?
Oprah: Did you ever think about going to a hospital? Or is that possible, that you can check yourself in some place?
Meghan: No, that’s what I was asking to do.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: You can’t just do that. I couldn’t, you know, call an Uber to the palace.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.
Oprah: Well, the way you’re describing this, it . . . it’s like you were trapped and couldn’t get help, even though you’re on the verge of suicide. That’s what you are describing. That’s what I’m hearing.
Meghan: Yes.
Oprah: And that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?
Meghan: That’s the truth.
Oprah: That’s the truth.
Meghan: You know, and if you think about . . . it was one of the things that . . . it stills haunts me is this photograph that someone had sent me. We had to go to an official event. We had to go to this event at the Royal Albert Hall, and a friend said, ‘I know you don’t look at pictures, but, oh, my God, you guys look so great . . .’
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: . . . and sent it to me. And I zoomed in, and what I saw was the truth of what that moment was, because right before we had to leave for that, I had just had that conversation with Harry that morning, and it was the next day that I talked to the institution.
Oprah: You had the conversation ‘I don’t want to be alive any more’?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: No, and it was . . . it wasn’t even, ‘I don’t want to’.
Oprah: And then, you . . ?
Meghan: It was like, ‘These are the thoughts that I’m having in the middle of the night that are very clear . . .’
Oprah: Yes, clarification.
Meghan: ‘. . . and I’m scared, because this is very real. This isn’t some abstract idea. This is methodical, and this is not who I am’. But we had to go to this event, and I remember him saying, ‘I don’t think you can go’. And I said, ‘I can’t be left alone’.
Oprah: Because you were afraid of what you might do to yourself?
Meghan: And we went, and that . . .
Oprah: I’m so sorry to hear that.
Meghan: . . . and that picture, if you zoom in, what I see is how tightly his knuckles are gripped around mine. You can see the whites of our knuckles, because we are smiling and doing our job, but we’re both just trying to hold on. And every time that those lights went down in that Royal Box, I was just weeping, and he was gripping my hand.
Oprah: Wow.
Meghan: And then, it was, ‘OK, intermission’s coming, the lights are about to come on, everyone’s looking at us again’, and you have to just be on again.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: And that’s, I think, so important for people to remember is you have no idea what’s going on for someone behind closed doors. You have no idea. Even the people that smile the biggest smiles and shine the brightest lights, it seems, to have compassion for what’s actually potentially going on.
Oprah: I know. The public is looking at you. And to think that you, earlier in the day, had said to Harry that you didn’t want to be alive any more.
Meghan: Yeah. And just hours before, just sitting on the . . . the steps in our cottage . . .
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: . . . just sitting there and then going, ‘ok, well, go upstairs and put your make-up bag in your sink and try to pull yourself together’.
Oprah: Nobody should have to go through that.
Meghan: And, you know, Harry and I are working on this mental health series for Apple, and we — yes, so — we, we, we hear a lot of these stories. Nobody should have to go through that. It takes so much courage to admit that you need help.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: It takes so much courage to voice that. And as I said, I was ashamed. I’m supposed to be stronger than that.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I don’t want to put more on my husband’s shoulders. He’s carrying the weight of the world. I don’t want to bring that to him. I bring solutions. To admit that you need help, to admit how dark of a place you’re in.
Oprah: You’ve said some pretty shocking things here, revealing . . .
Meghan: I wasn’t planning to say anything shocking.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: I’m just telling you what’s happened.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: I’m sorry if it’s shocked you! It’s been a lot.
Oprah: I’m a little shocked.
Meghan: It’s been a lot.
Oprah: How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today? Are you afraid of a backlash or their reaction?
Meghan: I mean, I think I’m not going to live my life in fear. You know, I think so much of it is said with an understanding of just truth.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: But I think, to answer your question, I don’t know how they could expect that after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: That at a certain point, you’re going to go, ‘But, you guys, someone just tell the truth’. And if that comes with risk of losing things, I mean, I’ve lost . . . there’s a lot that’s been lost already.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: And I grieve a lot. I mean, I’ve lost my father. I lost a baby. I nearly lost my name. I mean, there’s the loss of identity. But I’m still standing, and my hope for people in the takeaway from this is to know that there’s another side.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: To know that life is worth living.
Oprah: OK. I’m so glad you see that now. We are going to take a break, y’all, and Harry’s going to join us.
Meghan: (Laughter)
(Ads and back to Oprah)
Oprah: So, hi.
Harry: Hello.
Oprah: Thanks for joining us.
Harry: Thanks for having me.
Oprah: You’ve been watching on the side, yeah?
Harry: Some of it.
Oprah: Yes. I want to say, first of all, let’s say congratulations . . .
Harry: Thank you.
Oprah: . . . for the new addition to your family. Meghan said she wanted to wait until you were here to tell us, is it a boy or is it a girl?
Meghan: You can tell her.
Harry: No, go for it.
Meghan: No, no.
Harry: It’s a girl.
Oprah: (Squeals)
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Harry: Yes!
Oprah: You’re going to have a daughter. Wow.
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Oprah: When you realised that and saw it on the ultrasound, what . . . what . . . what was your first thought?
Harry: Amazing. Just grateful, like any — to have any child, any one or any two would have been amazing. But to have a boy and then a girl, you know, what more can you ask for? But now, you know, now we — we’ve got our family. We’ve got, you know, the four of us and our two dogs, and it’s great.
Oprah: Done. Done? Two is it?
Harry: Done.
Meghan: Two is it.
Oprah: Two is it.
Meghan: Two is it.
Oprah: And when’s the baby due?
Meghan: In summertime.
Oprah: This summertime?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: So, you all have been living in sunny California now for . . .
Meghan: Since March.
Oprah: Since March, OK.
(Oprah narrates) In late 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan left the UK And moved to Canada. The couple says they chose Canada, a commonwealth of Britain, with the intention of continuing to serve the Queen. After their move, Harry and Meghan say security normally provided by the Royal Family was cut off. By March 2020, just days before the Covid lockdown began, Meghan, Harry and Archie relocated to Los Angeles, where media mogul Tyler Perry offered them his home as a temporary refuge. He also provided security.
Three months later they bought their own home and settled in the Santa Barbara area. Last spring, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex created their own foundation and media content company called Archewell.
Oprah: And so you stayed at Tyler Perry’s house for several months.
Harry: Three months, I believe.
Meghan: Yeah, because we didn’t have a plan. We needed . . . we needed a house and he offered security as well, so it gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we are going to do.
Harry: The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed. By this point, courtesy of the Daily Mail, the world knew exact . . . our exact location. So suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on a second. The borders could be closed. We’re going to have our security removed. Who knows how long lockdown’s going to be? The world knows where we are. It’s not safe. It’s not secure’.
Meghan: Well, and also . . .
Harry: We probably need to get out of here.
Oprah: So, what security did you have at the time that was going to be removed?
Harry: We had our UK security.
Oprah: So you got word from overseas?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?
Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family, they’re obviously . . . what we proposed was sort of part-time, or at least as much as we could do without being fully consumed because of, I think, what most of you guys have covered already.
Meghan: We actually didn’t talk about that. It’s been so spun in the wrong direction, as though we quit, we walked away, we . . . all the conversations of the two years before we finally announced it.
(Oprah narrates) In January 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan announced they would step back as senior members of the Royal Family. The swiftness with which they’ve taken this decision, only 18 months after they got married, has taken everyone by surprise, from the Queen all the way down.
The bombshell news sparked a worldwide media frenzy dubbed ‘Megxit’ by the British Press. Many reporters and viral posts blamed Meghan for the decision. In an official statement, Queen Elizabeth 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.’ (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: OK, let me ask the question.
Meghan: Yeah?
Oprah: So, over a year ago, you shocked the world. You announced you were stepping back as senior members of the Royal Family. And then the media reported that you had ‘blindsided’ the Queen, your grandmother. So here’s a time to set the record straight. What was the tipping point that made you decide you had to leave?
Harry: Yeah, it was desperate. I went to all the places which I thought I should go to, to ask for help. We both did.
Meghan: Mm-hmm.
Harry: Separately and together.
Oprah: So you left because you were asking for help and couldn’t get it?
Harry: Yeah, basically. But we never left.
Meghan: We never left the family and we only wanted to have the same type of role that exists, right? There’s senior members of the family and then there are non-senior members. And we said, specifically, ‘We’re stepping back from senior roles to be just like several . . .’ I mean, I can think of so many right now who are all . . . they’re royal highnesses, prince or princess, duke or duchess . . . who earn a living, live on palace grounds, can support the Queen if and when called upon. So we weren’t reinventing the wheel here. We were saying, ‘OK, if this isn’t working for everyone, we’re in a lot of pain, you can’t provide us with the help we need, we can just take a step back. We can do it in a Commonwealth country’. We suggested New Zealand, South Africa . . .
Harry: Take a breath.
Meghan: Canada.
Oprah: Yeah. And you wanted to take a breath from what specifically? Let’s be clear.
Harry: From this . . . this constant barrage. My biggest concern was history repeating itself and I’ve said that before on numerous occasions, very publicly. And what I was seeing was history repeating itself. But more, perhaps. Or definitely far more dangerous because then you add race in and you add social media in. And when I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my . . . my mother.
Harry: When you can see something happening in the same kind of way, anybody would ask for help, ask the system of which you are a part of — especially when you know there’s a relationship there — that they could help and share some truth or call . . . call the dogs off, whatever you want to call it. So to receive no help at all and to be told continuously, ‘This is how it is. This is just how it is. We’ve all been through it’ . . . and I think the biggest turning point for me was the . . . and it didn’t take very long. It was actually right at the beginning . . . was, OK, this union . . . us, me, being . . . having a girlfriend was going to be a thing. Of course it was. But I . . . I never expected, or I never thought . . .
Oprah: Because she was mixed race?
Harry: No, just . . . just the two of us to start with. I hadn’t really thought about the mixed-race piece because I thought, well . . . well, firstly, you know, I’ve spent many years doing the work and doing my own learning. But my upbringing in the system, of which I was brought up in and what I’ve been exposed to, it wasn’t . . . I wasn’t aware of it to start with. But, my god, it doesn’t take very long to suddenly become aware of it.
Oprah: Yeah, because you said you really weren’t aware of unconscious bias and all that that represents . . .
Harry: No.
Oprah: Until you met Meghan.
Harry: Yeah. You know, as sad as it is to say, it takes living in her shoes — in this instance, for a day, or those first eight days — to see where it was going to go and how far they were going to take it.
Oprah: And get away with it?
Harry: And get away with it and be so blatant about it. That’s the bit that shocked me. This is . . . we’re talking about the UK Press here, right? And this . . . the UK is my home. That is . . . that is where I was brought up. So yes, I’ve got my own relationship that goes back a long way with the media. I asked for calm from the British tabloids — once as a boyfriend, once as a husband and once as a father.
Oprah: So when I ask the question, ‘Why did you leave?’ the simplest answer is . . ?
Harry: Lack of support and lack of understanding.
Oprah: So, I want clarity. Was the move about getting away from the UK Press? Because the Press, as you know, is everywhere. Or was the move because you weren’t getting enough support from The Firm?
Harry: It was both.
Oprah: Both.
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Did you blindside the Queen?
Harry: No. I’ve never blindsided my grandmother. I have too much respect for her.
Oprah: So where did that story come from?
Harry: I hazard a guess that it probably could have come from within the institution.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: So, I remember when you talked to her several times about this over . . .
Harry: Two years.
Meghan: Two years. But even the night before, days before, with the statement coming out, I remember that conversation.
Oprah: So, how do you know she wasn’t blindsided? Because the way it was presented through the Press is that suddenly you made this announcement. She didn’t know it was coming.
Harry: No, I . . . when we were in Canada, I had three conversations with my grandmother and two conversations with my father and — before he stopped taking my calls — and he said, ‘Can you put this all in writing what your plan is?’
Oprah: Your father asked you to put it in writing.
Prince Harry: Yeah. He asked me to put it in writing and I put all the specifics in there, even the fact that we were planning on putting the announcement out on January 7.
Oprah: So you just said that your dad stopped taking your calls. Why did he stop taking your calls?
Harry: Because I took matters in . . . by that point, I took matters into my own hands. It was like, ‘I need to do this for my family. This is not a surprise to anybody. It’s really sad that it’s gotten to this point but I’ve got to do something for my own mental health, my wife’s and for Archie’s as well’. Because I could see where this was headed.
Meghan: To have sat back and not said that for so long, it just feels really . . .
Oprah: To have been silenced all this time.
Meghan: Yeah.
Harry: Been three and a half, four years. Or longer, actually.
Meghan: We were saying . . . gosh, it must have been years ago we were sitting in Nottingham (Nottingham Cottage, where Harry lived as a bachelor and when first married) . . . I was sitting in Nottingham Cottage and The Little Mermaid came on. Now, who watches . . . who as an adult really watches The Little Mermaid? But it came on and I was like, ‘Well, I’m just here all the time, so I may as well watch this’. And I went, ‘Oh, my god! She falls in love with the prince and because of that, she has to lose her voice’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: But by the end, she gets her voice back.
Oprah: Gets her voice back.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: And this is what happened here? You feel like you got your voice back?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: So, you . . . you’re stepping back out of frustration and you just need to get out. And, you know, you heard Meghan share with us all . . .
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: The moment that she came to you, had the courage enough to say out loud . . .
Harry: Mm-hmm.
My father said: Can you put your plan in writing? Then he stopped taking my calls. I’d taken matters into my own hands.
Oprah: ‘I don’t want to live any more.’
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: And you didn’t know what to do?
Harry: I had no idea what to do. I wasn’t . . . I wasn’t prepared for that. I went . . . I went to a very dark place as well. But I . . . I wanted to be there for her and . . .
Meghan: Also, we didn’t leave right that minute, right?
Harry: I was terrified.
Meghan: We still . . . that’s almost a year after.
Oprah: So then did you tell other people in the family, ‘I have to get help for her. We need help for her’?
Harry: No. That’s just not a conversation that would be had.
Oprah: Why?
Harry: I guess I was ashamed of admitting it to them.
Oprah: Oh.
Harry: And I don’t know whether . . . I don’t know whether they’ve had the same . . . whether they’ve had the same feelings or thoughts. I have no idea. And it’s a very trapping environment that a lot of them are stuck in.
Oprah: You were ashamed of admitting that Meghan needed help?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Mmm.
Harry: I didn’t have anyone to turn to.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Harry: You know, we’ve got some very close friends that . . . that have been with us through this whole process but for the family, they very much have this mentality of, ‘This is just how it is. This is how it’s meant to be. You can’t change it. We’ve all been through it’.
Oprah: ‘We’ve all been through the pressure. We’ve all been through being exploited’?
Harry: Yes. But what was different for me was the race element, because now it wasn’t just about her, but it is about what she represents. And therefore it wasn’t just affecting my wife. It was affecting so many other people as well. And that’s . . . that was the trigger for me to really engage in those conversations with Palace . . . senior Palace staff and with my family to say, ‘Guys, this is not going to end well’.
Oprah: And when you say ‘end well’, what did you mean?
Harry: For anyone it’s not going to end well. Because the way that I saw it was there was a way of doing things but for us — for this union and the specifics around her race — there was an opportunity, many opportunities, for my family to show some public support.
Oprah: Mmm.
Harry: And I guess one of the most telling parts — and the saddest parts, I guess — was over 70 Members of Parliament, female Members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour — came out and called out the . . . the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about
Meghan. Yet no one from my family ever said anything over those three years. And that . . . that hurts. But I also am acutely aware of where my family stand and how scared they are of the tabloids turning on them.
Oprah: Turning on them for what? They’re the Royal Family.
Harry: Yes, but it’s . . . there is this invisible . . . what’s termed or referred to as the ‘invisible contract’ behind closed doors between the institution and the tabloids, the UK tabloids.
Oprah: How so?
Harry: Well, it is . . . to simplify it, it’s a case of if you . . . if you as a family member are willing to wine, dine and give full access to these reporters, then you will get better press.
Oprah: What do you care about better press if you’re royal?
Harry: I think everyone needs to have some compassion for . . . for them in that situation, right? There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean, generations.
Oprah: But who’s controlling whom? It’s the institution. From our point of view, just the public. It’s . . .
Harry: Yeah but the institution survives based on that, on that perception. So actually, if you don’t . . .
Oprah: So you’re saying there’s this relationship that Meghan was speaking of . . . it’s like, symbiotic. One lives or thrives because the other exists.
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: That’s what you’re saying.
Harry: That’s the . . . that’s the idea.
Meghan: Well, see, I think there’s a reason that these tabloids have holiday parties at the Palace. They’re hosted by the Palace, the tabloids are. You know, there is a construct that’s at play there. And because from the beginning of our relationship, they were so attacking and inciting so much racism, really, it changed our . . . the risk level, because it went . . . it wasn’t just catty gossip. It was bringing out a part of people that was racist in how it was charged. And that changed the threat. That changed the level of death threats. That changed everything.
Oprah: So, tell me this: You said a moment ago, it hurts that your family has never acknowledged the role that racism played in here. Did you think she was well received in the beginning?
Harry: Yes. Far better than I expected. (Laughter) But, you know, my grandmother has been amazing throughout. You know, my father, my brother, Kate and . . . and all the rest of the family, they were, they were really welcoming. But it really changed after the Australia tour, after our South Pacific tour.
Meghan: That’s when we announced we were pregnant with Archie. That was our first tour.
Harry: But it was also . . . it was also the first time that the family got to see how incredible she is at the job. And that brought back memories.
Oprah: I’m thinking, because I watch The Crown OK? I watch The Crown. Do you all watch The Crown?
Meghan: (Laughs)
Harry:: I’ve watched some of it. You’ve watched some of it?
Meghan: I’ve watched some of it.
Oprah: But there’s this . . . I think it was the fourth season, actually, where there is an Australian tour. So, is that what you’re talking about? It brought back memories of that? The Australian tour.
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Where your father and your mother went there, and your mother was bedazzling. So, are you saying that there were hints of jealousy?
Harry: Look, I just wish that we would all learn from the past. But to see the . . . to see how effortless it was for Meghan to come into the family so quickly in Australia and across New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, and just be able to connect with people in such a . . .
Oprah: But . . .
Harry: I know, I know, I know, I know. But it’s . . .
Oprah: Why, I mean, why wouldn’t everybody love that? Isn’t that what you want? You want her to come into the family and to, as the Queen said at one point, the way that Meghan had basically, not her words, been assimilated into the family.
Harry: Yeah, I think, you know, as we talked about, she was very much welcomed into the family, not just by the family, but by the world.
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: Certainly by the Commonwealth. I mean, here you have one of the greatest assets to the Commonwealth that the family could have ever wished for.
Oprah: I just can’t . . . I’m kind of going back to this. So, then, you’re in Canada because you had stepped back. Your Firm says you’re no longer going to have protection. So, did you ask for that? Because did you want . . . were you trying to have it both ways? You wanted to step back but also keep your foot in royal business, it seems.
Harry: It’s interesting that you talk about it being, you know, ‘Have it both ways’ on the . . . on the security element. I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.
Oprah: So, that you as Prince Harry are going to have your security removed.
Meghan: Yeah. And I even . . . and I even wrote letters to his family saying, ‘Please, it’s very clear the protection of me or Archie is not a priority. I accept that. That is fine. Please keep my husband safe. I see the death threats. I see the racist propaganda. Please keep him safe. Please don’t pull his security and announce to the world when he and we are most vulnerable’. And they said it’s just not possible.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. I think what we really have got to clear up here is because one of the stories that continues to live, either through rumours or social media, out in the world, is that you, Meghan, are the one who manipulated, calculated, and are responsible for this Megxit.
Meghan: Oh, my gosh. It’s amazing how they can use Meg for everything.
Oprah: Yes. There are even stories that you knew all along that this was going to happen. You went through the whole process, and it was all intentional to build your brand.
Meghan: Can you imagine how little sense that makes? I left my career, my life. I left everything because I love him, right? And our plan was to do this for ever.
Harry: Yes.
Meghan: Our plan . . . for me, I mean, I wrote letters to his family when I got there, saying, ‘I am dedicated to this. I’m here for you. Use me as you’d like’. There was no guidance, as well, right? There were certain things that you couldn’t do. But, you know, unlike what you see in the movies, there’s no class on how to . . . how to speak, how to cross your legs, how to be royal. There’s none of that training. That might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me.
Oprah: So, nobody tells you anything?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: Nobody prepares you?
Meghan: Nobody even . . .
Harry: There’s . . .
Meghan: Sorry, but even down to, like, the National Anthem. No one thought to say, ‘Oh, you’re American. You’re not going to know that’. That’s me late at night, Googling how . . . what’s the National . . . I’ve got to learn this. I don’t want to embarrass them. I need to learn these 30 hymns for church. All of this is televised. We were doing the training behind the scenes, because I just wanted to make them proud.
Oprah: OK, but here’s the question: Do you think you would have left or ever stepped back were it not for Meghan?
Meghan: Hm.
Harry: No. The answer to your question is no.
Oprah: You would not have?
Harry: I wouldn’t have . . . I wouldn’t have been able to, because I myself was trapped as well. I didn’t see a way out.
Oprah: She felt trapped, you were trapped?
Harry: Yeah, I didn’t see a way out.
Oprah: But you’d this life, your whole life. This has been your life your whole life.
Harry: Yeah, but, you know, I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped.
Oprah: Mmm.
Harry: But the moment that I met Meg, and then our worlds sort of collided in the most amazing of ways, and then to see how . . .
Oprah: Please explain how you, Prince Harry, raised in a palace and a life of privilege — literally, a Prince . . . how you were trapped.
Harry: Trapped within the system, like the rest of my family are. My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.
Oprah: Well, OK, so the impression of the world — maybe it’s a false impression — is that, for all these years before Meghan, you were living your life as a royal, Prince Harry . . . the beloved Prince Harry and that you were enjoying that life. We didn’t get the impression that you were feeling trapped in that life.
Harry: Enjoying the life because there were photographs of me smiling while I was shaking hands and meeting people? Like, I’m sure you guys have covered some of that. That’s . . . that’s a part of the job. That’s a part of the role. That’s what’s expected. No matter who you are in the family, no matter what’s going on in your personal life, no matter what’s just happened, if the bikes roll up and the car rolls up, you’ve got to get dressed, you got to get in there. You wipe your tears away, shake off whatever you’re thinking about and you got to be on your A-game.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. What would you think your mum would say about this stepping back, this decision to step back from the Royal Family? How would she feel about this moment?
Harry: I think she would feel very angry with how this has panned out, and very sad. But, ultimately, she’d . . . all she’d . . . all she’d ever want is for us to be happy.
Oprah: You wanted freedom from . . . from that life? You wanted freedom to make your own money. You wanted freedom to make deals with Netflix and Spotify. But you also wanted to serve the Queen?
Harry: Yeah, we didn’t want to . . . we didn’t want to give up, or we didn’t want to turn our backs on the associations and the people that we . . . that we’ve been supporting.
Meghan: But also, Oprah, it exists.
Harry: Yeah, it exists. But, also, the Netflix and the Spotify, they’re all . . . that was never part of the plan.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Because you didn’t have a plan?
Meghan: We didn’t have a plan.
Harry: We didn’t have a plan. That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford . . . afford security for us.
Oprah: Wait. Hold . . . hold up. Wait a minute. Your family cut you off?
Harry: Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.
Oprah: OK.
Harry: So, you know, touching back on what you asked me, what my mum would think of this, I think she saw it coming. And I certainly felt her presence throughout this whole process. And, you know, for me, I’m . . . I’m just really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side. Because I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like for her going through this process by herself all those years ago, because it’s been unbelievably tough for the two of us, but at least we had each other.
Oprah: What’s your relationship like now with your family?
Harry: I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
Oprah: Do you all have Zoom calls?
Harry: We did a couple of Zoom calls with Archie.
Meghan: Sometimes, yes, so they can see Archie.
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Harry: . . . And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be.
Oprah: Your relationship with your father? Is he taking your calls now?
Harry: Yeah. Yeah, he is. There’s a lot to work through there, you know? I feel really let down, because he’s been through something similar. He knows what pain feels like, and this is . . . and Archie’s his grandson. And . . . but, at the same time, you know, I, of course I will always . . . I will always love him, but there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened. And . . . and I will continue to . . . to make it one of my priorities to try and heal that relationship. And, but they only know what they know, and that’s the thing. I’ve tried to . . .
Meghan: Or what they’re told.
Harry: Or what they’re told. And I’ve tried to educate them through the process that I have been educated.
Oprah: Because is it like being in a big royal bubble?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Yeah. And your brother? Relationship? Much has been said about that.
Harry: Yeah, and much will continue to be said about that. You know, as I’ve said before, I love William to bits. He’s my brother. We’ve been through hell together. I mean, we have a shared experience. But we . . . you know, we’re on . . . we’re on different paths.
Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: What was that conversation?
Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.
Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?
Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.
Oprah: OK.
Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?
Oprah: Like, what will the baby look like?
Harry: Yeah, what will the kids look like?
Oprah: What will the kids look like?
Harry: But that was right at the beginning, when she wasn’t going to get security, when members of my family were suggesting that she carries on acting, because there was not enough money to pay for her, and all this sort of stuff. Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.
Oprah: So, in conclusion, if you’d had the support, you’d still be there?
Harry: Without question.
Meghan: Yeah.
Harry: I’m sad that . . . that what’s happened has happened, but I know, and I’m comfortable in knowing, that we did everything that we could to make it work. And we did everything on the exit process the way that . . . the way that it should have been done.
Meghan: With as much respect.
Harry: With as much respect.
Meghan: And, oh, my God, we just did everything we could to . . . to protect them.
Oprah: So, what do you say to the people who say you came here, you made these multimillion-dollar deals and that you’re just money-grabbing royals?
Harry: First off, this was never the intention.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Yeah.
Harry: And we’re certainly not complaining. We . . . our life is great now. We’ve got a beautiful house. We’ve got a beautiful . . . I’ve got a beautiful family. And the dogs . . . the dogs are really happy. But at the time, during Covid, the suggestion by a friend was, ‘What about streamers?’
Meghan: Yeah, we genuinely hadn’t thought about that before.
Harry: We hadn’t thought about it. So there were all sorts of different options. And, look, from my perspective, all I needed was enough money to be able to pay for security to keep my family safe.
Oprah: Mm. How will you use Archewell as a means of speaking to things that are important to you in the world?
Meghan: I think in creating . . . I mean, life is about storytelling, right? About the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we’re told, what we buy into. And . . . and for us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens, that hopefully is uplifting, is going to be great knowing how many people that can land with. And being able to give a voice to a lot of people that are under-represented and aren’t really heard.
Oprah: Any regrets?
Meghan: This morning, I woke up earlier than H and saw a note from someone on our team in the UK saying the Duke of Edinburgh had gone to the hospital.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: But I just picked up the phone and I called the Queen just to check in.
Oprah: You check in?
Meghan: Just like, I would . . . you know . . . that’s what we do. It’s like, being able to default to not having to every moment go, ‘Is that appropriate?’
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: For so many in my family, what they do is . . . there’s a level of control in it, right? Because they’re fearful of what the papers are going to say about them.
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: Whereas with us, it was just, like, just be . . . just be yourself. Just be genuine. Just be authentic. Just go and do what it is. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong. If you get it right, you get it right.
(Oprah narrates) On February 19, 2021, Buckingham palace released a statement announcing it was agreed that Prince Harry and Meghan would not return as working members of the Royal Family. Harry and Meghan’s royal patronages and Prince Harry’s honorary military titles would be returned to the Queen. The Queen’s statement was released after our interview took place. (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: Your exit agreement with the Royal Family, it’s . . . that is coming up at the end of this month.
Harry: The decision is, I think. Yeah, I mean, the decision — what, as of last week, or whatever it was — is that they will be removing everything.
Oprah: Are you hurt by that decision?
Harry: I am hurt. But at the same time I completely respect my grandmother’s decision. I would still love for us to be able to continue to support those associations, albeit without the title or the role.
Oprah: Could you be as satisfied now, doing this through your own organisation, Archewell?
Meghan: Well, we . . . this is what we’re doing, right? We’re still doing it. We’re still going to always do the work. But I also think it’s important for you or everyone to know this decision that was made about patronages and all of that was before anyone knew that we were sitting down with you.
Harry: Yeah.
Meghan: I think that it’s . . . I can only imagine . . .
Oprah: I heard a story that you’re getting punished now. Those were being taken away because you did sit down with me.
Meghan: Yeah, but that was . . . those letters, those conversations, that was . . . that was finalised before anyone even knew that we were going to sit down. So that’s just not true.
Oprah: All right, tell me this. Harry, what delights you now in your everyday experience and the things that you actually cherish in your life here with Archie and Meghan?
Harry: This year has been crazy for everybody. But to have outdoor space where I can go for walks with Archie, and we can go for walks as a family and with the dogs, and we can go on hikes — we’ll go down to the beach, which is so close — all of these things are just . . . I guess, the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of the bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on these bike rides, which is something I was never able to do when I was young. I can see him on the back and he’s got his arms out and he’s like, ‘Whoo!’ chatting, chatting, chatting, going, ‘Palm tree! House!’ and all this sort of stuff. And I do . . . I think to myself . . .
In some ways it’s just the beginning. Greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read…
Oprah: What’s his new favourite word? What’s his favourite word now?
Meghan: Oh my gosh, he’s on a roll. In the past couple weeks it has been hydrate, which is just hysterical.
Harry: But also, whenever everyone leaves the house, he’s like, ‘Drive safe’.
Meghan: ‘Drive safe’.
(Oprah laughs)
Harry: Which is really . . .
Meghan: He’s not even two yet!
Oprah: You said that your brother was trapped. You said that you love your brother and always will love your brother. You didn’t tell me what the relationship is now, though.
Harry: The relationship is space at the moment. And, you know, time heals all things, hopefully.
Oprah: Any regrets?
Harry: No. I mean . . . no, I think we’ve done . . . I’m really proud of us, you know? I’m so proud of . . . I’m so proud of my wife. Like, she safely delivered Archie during a period of time which was so cruel and so mean. And every single day, I was coming back from work, from London, I was coming back to my wife crying while breastfeeding Archie. That’s coming from someone who wasn’t reading anything. And as she touched on earlier, if she had read anything, she wouldn’t be here now. So we did what we had to do — and now we’ve got another little one on the way.
Meghan: I have one. My regret is believing them when they said I would be protected. I believed that. And I regret believing that because I think, ‘had I really seen that that wasn’t happening, I would have been able to do more’. But I think I wasn’t supposed to see it. I wasn’t supposed to know. And . . . and now, because we’re actually on the other side, we’ve actually not just survived but are thriving. You know, this . . . I mean, this is miracles. I . . . yeah, I think that all of those things that I was hoping for have happened . . . and this is in some ways just the beginning for us. You know, we’ve been through a lot. It’s felt like a lifetime. (Laughs.) A lifetime.
Oprah: So, your story with the prince does have a happy ending?
Meghan: It does.
Harry: Yeah.
Meghan: Yeah. (Laughs.) It really did.
Oprah: It has a happy ending because you made it so.
Meghan: Yeah, greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read.
Oprah: Greater than any fairytale.
Meghan: Yeah, yeah.
Oprah: What you’ve described here today — being trapped and not even being aware of it and all the things that had transpired, and then she comes into your life and then you’re doing therapy — do you think in some way she saved you?
Harry: Yeah. Without question. There was . . . there was a bigger purpose. There was other forces at play, I think, throughout this whole process. I’m the last person to think, ‘Ooh!’ You know? But it’s undeniable when these things have happened, where the overlap is. So yeah, she did. Without question she saved me.
Meghan: And I would . . . I would . . . I mean, I think that’s lovely. I would disagree. I think he saved all of us, right? He ultimately called it and was like, ‘We’ve got to find a way for us, for Archie’. And you made a decision that saved . . . certainly saved my life and saved all of us. But, you know, you need to want to be saved.
Oprah: Well, thank you for sharing your love story. We can’t wait for the big day some time this summer.
Meghan: Yes, indeed.
Oprah: Sometime this summer.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Thank you both for trusting me to share your story.
[45] [45] ”Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . .
Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: And . . .
Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?
Meghan: So . . .
Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.
Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.
Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ?
Meghan: With Harry.
Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?
Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?
Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.
Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?
There were conversations …about no security, no title… and how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . .
Oprah: Whoa.”
THE SUN
MEGHAN MARKLE OPRAH INTERVIEW: READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTOF DUCHESS AND PRINCE HARRY’S BOMBSHELL CONFESSIONS
On 8 January, they confirmed plans to raise their son, Archie, overseas, free from the constraints of palace life and a media the prince felt was hounding his wife much as it once did his late mother.
What was originally planned as a soft Megxit – keeping the HRH titles, but working towards becoming self-supporting – became a hard one when Buckingham Palace ruled out the option of being half in and half out of royal life. The Sussexes moved to Los Angeles, near Meghan’s mother; shortly afterwards, Harry’s father, Prince Charles, fell ill with coronavirus back home. By summer the prince was rumoured to be struggling to adjust to his new life, although Meghan’s recent revelation that she had a miscarriage in July sheds new light on what was evidently a sad time for the couple.
“You can see from Meghan’s reactions in discussions that have been posted online that she’s really happy to be back in the US,” says Victoria Murphy, royal correspondent for Town & Country magazine and the author of Sixty Glorious Years: Queen Elizabeth II. “If you imagine what they might have hoped to achieve when they decided to go their own way, I’d say they have ticked a lot of those boxes.”
Yet their ongoing relationship with the Firm remains a work in progress. “Harry’s relationship to the crown is not going to lessen over time; if anything it will be closer when he is the son, rather than grandson of the monarch,” says Murphy. “So everything they do publicly will always be discussed in the context of the royal family.” And there have been awkward moments; the palace’s refusal to let Harry send a wreath for laying at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day looked petty, given he has served in combat. Drafting the Queen’s annual Christmas message may also be a challenge, although Murphy points out the monarch usually glosses over personal difficulties. Meanwhile, the latest series of The Crown, which portrays the young Harry and William as little boys swimming in a dysfunctional goldfish bowl, seems likely only to increase millennial sympathy for the Sussexes. Who would want that life for their own child?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex moved from the home they were staying in on Vancouver Island and are now settled in the U.S., the source says. They are in Los Angeles — Meghan’s hometown. They have been living in a secluded compound and haven’t ventured out amid the coronavirus pandemic.
A representative for the couple had no comment.
Although the couple and their 10-month-old son Archie had been living in Canada since announcing they were stepping back from their royal roles in January, sources told PEOPLE that they had been making plans to spend time in L.A.
Meghan, 38, has a big support system in L.A., including her mother Doria Ragland, who works as a social worker and yoga instructor, and several friends who visited the couple on Vancouver Island.
A person in their circle previously told PEOPLE that they were “looking at houses in L.A.”
“Harry is looking straight ahead at his future with his family,” another source said. “They will be spending time in California…He’s not looking back.”
Charles was last with his sons William and Harry in public on March 9 at the annual Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey. The event marked Harry and wife Meghan Markle’s last official royal event in the U.K. before they officially step down as senior working royals on March 31.
“These are uncertain times. And now, more than ever, we need each other. We need each other for truth, for support, and to feel less alone during a time that can honestly feel quite scary,” they wrote on Instagram last week. “There are so many around the world who need support right now, who are working tirelessly to respond to this crisis behind the scenes, on the frontline, or at home. Our willingness, as a people, to step up in the face of what we are all experiencing with COVID-19 is awe-inspiring. This moment is as true a testament there is to the human spirit.”
On Monday, they paid tribute to healthcare workers in a post, saying: “Around the world, the response from people in every walk of life, to protect and look out for their communities has been inspiring. None more so than the brave and dedicated healthcare workers on the frontline, risking their own well-being to care for the sick and fight COVID-19. Wherever you are in the world, we are all incredibly grateful.”
Meghan’s first post-royal gig was announced on Thursday. The Duchess of Sussex has provided the narration for the upcoming Disneynature documentary, Elephant, streaming on April 3 on Disney+.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[33]
”The Sussexes are reportedly happier than ever now that they’ve settled into their new Montecito home with their son, Archie, and feel like they’ve become an even stronger couple during the past several months, Prince Harry is “thriving,” per Us Weekly, and has “grown in confidence…Harry isn’t looking back.”
It’s been exactly one year since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced their intention to step down as senior royals, and over the past 12 months, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex moved to California, purchased their first home together, signed a huge Netflix deal and launched their nonprofit, Archewell.
The Sussexes are reportedly happier than ever now that they’ve settled into their new Montecito home with their son, Archie, and feel like they’ve become an even stronger couple during the past several months, Prince Harry is “thriving,” per Us Weekly, and has “grown in confidence…Harry isn’t looking back.”
While Prince Harry and Meghan’s move was dubbed “Megxit” by a number of media outlets, that term seems to be a major misnomer, as it was actually Prince Harry who was the main force behind the final move, according to a new report in Vanity Fair. Meghan was “simply the catalyst,” as it “came to the point where [Prince Harry] wanted a different way of life.”
Prince Harry and Meghan’s announcement last year came as a shock to many, though, and the royal family was reportedly taken aback by the Sussexes’ decision to release a statement before the details of the exit deal had been finalized. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex had actually been carefully working on the plan for months, per Vanity Fair, and only had to make their announcement in such a way because the news had been leaked to the press.
The royals weren’t thrilled with the way the whole situation unfolded, and the already tense relationship between Prince William and Prince Harry only worsened, as the Duke of Cambridge was reportedly so angry with his brother that he refused to join Prince Harry and Queen Elizabeth for lunch prior to the now-infamous Sandringham Summit.
Over the past several months, however, the brothers have been working to repair their relationship, and though they haven’t been able to see each other in-person in nearly a year due to the COVID-19 crisis, they’ve been talking more regularly, and are hoping to reunite in the U.K. in the next few months, in time for Prince Philip’s milestone 100th birthday celebration in June, as well as for the unveiling of a statue in Princess Diana’s honor in the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace over the summer. Prince William and Kate Middleton are also reportedly planning on making a big trip to the Sussexes’ side of the pond, as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are hoping to travel to Santa Barbara to see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new home before the end of the year.
Prince Harry and Meghan were devastated by the loss, but according to People, remained “hopeful that they would get pregnant again.” The Duke and Duchess are “overjoyed” that it happened so quickly, as they always wanted to give their son, Archie, a sibling that’s close in age.
The Sussexes are “super excited” that Archie will have sibling, as they’ve long planned on having two children. Archie turns two in May, and while Prince Harry and Meghan haven’t disclosed any details, a royal source told Us Weekly that Meghan is due in late spring.
If true, that means that Archie will be approximately two years older than his little sibling, which is just about the same age gap as Prince Harry and Prince William.
Prince Harry and Meghan are delighted by the pregnancy, though they were understandably both nervous after the miscarriage they experienced last year. “It took them a while before they could fully relax and enjoy this pregnancy,” per People, but now they’ve been able to take it all in.
While the Sussexes have remained quiet about the pregnancy since their big reveal, eager royal watchers might get a bit more info on the royal baby soon, as Prince Harry and Meghan are sitting down for a special interview with Oprah Winfrey that’s set to air March 7, and per Oprah’s pal Gayle King, “nothing is off-limits.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
[35]
”Oprah: So, hi.
Harry: Hello.
Oprah: Thanks for joining us.
Harry: Thanks for having me.
Oprah: You’ve been watching on the side, yeah?
Harry: Some of it.
Oprah: Yes. I want to say, first of all, let’s say congratulations . . .
Harry: Thank you.
Oprah: . . . for the new addition to your family. Meghan said she wanted to wait until you were here to tell us, is it a boy or is it a girl?
Meghan: You can tell her.
Harry: No, go for it.
Meghan: No, no.
Harry: It’s a girl.
Oprah: (Squeals)
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Harry: Yes!
Oprah: You’re going to have a daughter. Wow.
Meghan: It’s a girl.”
OPRAH WINFREY MEETS PRINCE HARRY AND HIS WIFE MEGHAN
A source close to the duchess confirmed to the BBC that the duchess is currently in good health and the couple wanted to talk about what happened in July, having come to appreciate how common miscarriage is.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “It’s a deeply personal matter we would not comment on.”
The duchess and Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, moved to California to live away from the media spotlight, after stepping back as senior royals in January.
Their first child, Archie, was born on 6 May 2019.
The duchess began her article by describing a “sharp cramp” she felt while looking after Archie.
“I dropped to the floor with him in my arms, humming a lullaby to keep us both calm, the cheerful tune a stark contrast to my sense that something was not right,” she wrote.
“Hours later, I lay in a hospital bed, holding my husband’s hand. I felt the clamminess of his palm and kissed his knuckles, wet from both our tears.
“Staring at the cold white walls, my eyes glazed over. I tried to imagine how we’d heal.”
AN ANALYSIS BY JONNY DEMOND
ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
Meghan made it clear from the first event that she spoke at as Harry’s bride-to-be that she wanted women’s voices and women’s experiences to be heard more clearly.
Now she has written of her loss, and her heartbreak. She has set it in the context of a year of breathtaking turbulence. And she has made a plea for tolerance and compassion.
She weaves in the struggles of so many with Covid-19, the battles over truth and lies in our divided age, the killing of black Americans by the police.
And on an experience that so many women have lived through, she has made her grief a way of bringing miscarriage closer to the everyday conversation.
The duchess continued: “Losing a child means carrying an almost unbearable grief, experienced by many but talked about by few.
“In the pain of our loss, my husband and I discovered that in a room of 100 women, 10 to 20 of them will have suffered from miscarriage.
“Yet despite the staggering commonality of this pain, the conversation remains taboo, riddled with (unwarranted) shame, and perpetuating a cycle of solitary mourning.
“Some have bravely shared their stories; they have opened the door, knowing that when one person speaks truth, it gives license for all of us to do the same.”
The duchess also referenced a TV interview in which she was asked by a journalist if she was ok, during her tour of South Africa last year.
She said she was asked the question during a time in which she was “trying to keep a brave face in the very public eye”.
“I answered him honestly, not knowing that what I said would resonate with so many – new moms and older ones, and anyone who had, in their own way, been silently suffering,” she said.
The duchess is the second member of the Royal Family to open up about having a miscarriage.
The duchess’s miscarriage happened at a time when she was involved in legal action against the Mail on Sunday over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father. Last month she was granted a postponement of her privacy trial until autumn next year.
‘Breaking down stigma’
An estimated one in four pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, according to the charity Tommy’s.
Tommy’s midwife Sophie King said talking about baby loss in pregnancy is “a real taboo in society” so “mothers like Meghan sharing their stories is a vital step in breaking down that stigma and shame”.
She said the duchess’s “honesty and openness” sends a “powerful message to anyone who loses a baby: this may feel incredibly lonely, but you are not alone”.
Clea Harmer, chief executive of stillbirth and neonatal death charity Sands, said it was a “sad reality” there was a stigma surrounding pregnancy loss and baby death, which “leaves many parents feeling isolated”.
“The isolation we have all felt this year has made it even more difficult for parents whose baby has died during the Covid-19 pandemic and has brought back painful emotions for all those who have lost precious loved ones,” she said.
Dr Christine Ekechi, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said it was “important” that any stigma or shame surrounding this issue was removed.
“Sadly, early miscarriages are very common and they can be a devastating loss for parents and their families,” she said.
And Alice Weeden, from charity the Miscarriage Association, told the BBC: “When somebody, particularly in the public eye, talks about it openly, it’s helpful for other people to know that they are not alone.”
END
FOLLOWING [THE SAME LINK]
MISCARRIAGE: A DEEP AND LASTING IMPACT ON PARENTS
BY SMITHA MUNDASAD, BBC HEALTH REPORTER
By Smitha Mundasad, BBC health reporter
There are around 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone, the majority occurring within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
It is a shockingly common experience, often dealt with privately at home or swiftly in hospitals.
Many parents carry their grief silently and can feel society expects them to “get back to normal life” too soon.
But charities and scientists say much more needs to be done to acknowledge the longer-term effects of pregnancy loss.
Research suggests that one in six women go on to have symptoms of post-traumatic stress.
For some, nightmares and flashbacks continue for many months while anxiety and depression are also common afterwards.
Partners report suffering too, with one in 12 facing similar issues.
Pregnancy experts in the UK say it is vital that women and partners are offered psychological support, alongside physical help, yet this kind of care is often under-resourced.
Often, it is not known why miscarriages occur – whether in the first or second trimester of pregnancy, and many pregnancy losses cannot be prevented.
Usually, something goes wrong with the development of the foetus in the womb.
Warning signs can include bleeding and/or cramping pain in the lower tummy.
Duchess writes about her grief and pain in losing a baby, and addresses the stigma of miscarriage
The Duchess of Sussex has revealed her grief after suffering a miscarriage, in an article that speaks to loss and the importance of asking about others’ welfare in times of pandemic and polarisation.
Meghan shared the devastation that she and Prince Harry felt after she lost a baby in July and was admitted to hospital.
Writing in the New York Times, she described the moment, as she was changing the couple’s son Archie’s nappy at their home in Los Angeles, that she “dropped to the floor” in pain.
“I knew, as I clutched my firstborn child that I was losing my second,” she wrote. “Hours later, I lay in a hospital bed, holding my husband’s hand. I felt the clamminess of his palm and kissed his knuckles, wet from both our tears. Staring at the cold white walls, my eyes glazed over. I tried to imagine how we’d heal.”Advertisement
She added that “watching her husband’s heart break as he tried to hold the shattered pieces of mine”, she realised that the only way to begin to heal “is to first ask: ‘Are you OK.’”
Addressing the stigma surrounding miscarriage, Meghan continued: “Losing a child means carrying an almost unbearable grief, experienced by many but talked about by few.”
In the pain of their loss, the couple had discovered that “in a room of 100 women, 10 to 20 of them will have suffered from miscarriage,” she wrote. “Yet despite the staggering commonality of this pain, the conversation remains taboo, riddled with (unwarranted) shame, and perpetuating a cycle of solitary mourning.”
Those who had bravely shared their stories had given licence for others to do the same. It was important to ask other women how they were doing. “In being invited to share our pain, together we take the first steps toward healing,” she wrote.
She referred to her TV interview in South Africa, given when she was “exhausted” and breastfeeding and “trying to keep a brave face” in the public eye. The ITN journalist Tom Bradby asked if she was OK, and she answered him honestly, she recalled. “‘Thank you for asking,’ I said, ‘Not many people have asked if I’m OK.’”
Her off-the cuff remark, she said, “seemed to give people permission to speak their truth”. But it was not her answering honestly “that helped me most, it was the question itself”.
In the New York Times article, headlined “The Losses We Share – Perhaps the path to healing begins with three simple words: Are You OK?” she wrote that loss and pain had plagued many in 2020.
She referenced those whose loved ones had died from Covid-19. She also addressed the deaths of Breonna Taylor, a Louisville hospital worker, and George Floyd, both killed by police officers.
The world had become polarised – over facts, over science, “over whether an election has been lost or won”, she wrote. “That polarization, coupled with the social isolation required to fight this pandemic, has left us feeling more alone than ever.”
At Thanksgiving, with the pandemic separating many from their loved ones, “alone, sick, scared, divided and perhaps struggling to find something, anything, to be grateful for,” she wrote, “let us commit to asking others: ‘Are you OK?’”
The new normal, with masks concealing faces, was forcing people to look into each other’s eyes “sometimes filled with warmth, other times with tears”, she added. “For the first time, in a long time, as human beings, we are really seeing one another. Are we OK? We will be.”
Buckingham Palace made no comment, saying it was a deeply personal matter for the couple. Sources said there was understandable sadness in the royal family.
Responding to Meghan’s article, Dr Christine Ekechi, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said miscarriage remained a taboo subject.
She said: “Sadly, early miscarriages are very common and they can be a devastating loss for parents and their families. Up to one in five women may experience a miscarriage in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
“In many circumstances, the reason for the miscarriage is unknown. We are improving our understanding of why miscarriages occur and who may be at risk, but the topic is still largely under-researched and the care for women and their partners under-resourced.
“Currently, many miscarriages cannot be prevented, however. A warning sign of miscarriage occurring may be bleeding and/or pain in early pregnancy. Pregnant women are advised to seek medical advice if they have any of these symptoms.
“Miscarriage remains a taboo subject, despite how common it is. It is important that we remove any stigma or shame surrounding this issue and adequately support families during this time.”
Zara Tindall, the daughter of the princess royal, and married to the former England rugby captain Mike Tindall, lost two babies to miscarriage before giving birth to the couple’s second daughter, Lena.
The first miscarriage occurred after the couple had publicly announced the pregnancy. She said she received so many letters saying “‘we’ve been through the same thing,’, which was incredible, it just showed how often it does happen,” she said in 2018. She also spoke about the effect on fathers, who felt helpless, saying “it’s hard for those guys, too”. It was a “horrible road”.
The Countess of Wessex spoke of her sadness at losing an unborn baby after having an ectopic pregnancy and collapsing at home in 2001. She and Prince Edward went on to have a daughter and a son.
At the time, Sophie, who required hospital treatment, said: “I’m obviously very sad – but it was just not meant to be. But there will be other chances.” Edward said at the time losing the baby in such a way “was about the most painful thing anyone can undergo”. END OF THE ARTICLE
The trailer on the Spotify’s website features the duke and duchess promoting the deal, with Harry saying: “That’s what this project is all about, to bring forward different perspectives and voices that perhaps you haven’t heard before and find our common ground.”
About the first podcast episode, Meghan said: “We’re talking to some amazing people, they’re going to share their memories that have really helped shape this past year which has been, as we know, a difficult one for everyone.”
Prince Harry said: “So many people have been through so much pain this year, experiencing loss, a huge amount of uncertainty, but it feels worth acknowledging that 2020 has connected us in ways we could have never imagined, through endless acts of compassion and kindness.”
END OF ARTICLE ” They added that Netflix’s “unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action.” Netflix currently houses more than 200 million global subscribers.” THE OBSERVERHARRY AND MEGHAN’S BIG HOLLYOOD DEALSHELPED THEN WEATHER THE FAMILY CHAOS https://observer.com/2021/03/prince-harry-meghan-markle-netflix-spotify-deals-value-salary/
Speaking with Oprah Winfrey in a tell-all interview Sunday night on CBS, Prince Harry revealed that the royal family “literally cut me off financially” after he and Meghan Markle stepped away from royal duties. The Prince said the pair were cut off in the first quarter of 2020 shortly after publicly announcing that they would no longer be active working royals. Harry cited the money left to him by his late mother, Princess Diana, as a huge help at this time in their lives.
“Without that, we wouldn’t have been able to do this,” he said of the family’s move to California.
But the pair have been shrewd about planning their future amid a tumultuous split from the royal family and the financial stability that comes with it. In September, six months after their split from the House of Windsor, the duo signed a multiyear deal with Netflix to produce documentaries, series, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming.
“Our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope,” the couple said in a statement at the time of the announcement, per the New York Times. “As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us.” They added that Netflix’s “unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action.” Netflix currently houses more than 200 million global subscribers.
Though it remains unconfirmed, estimates and reports peg the value of the deal at north of $100 million.
We’re incredibly proud they have chosen Netflix as their creative home and are excited about telling stories with them that can help build resilience and increase understanding for audiences everywhere,” Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-chief executive and chief content officer, said in a September statement.
In December, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex also entered a partnership with Spotify through their production company, Archewell Audio. The pair will host and produce podcasts in a deal estimated to be worth around $25 million. Harry and Meghan hope to promote “different perspectives” and feature interviews with “amazing people.” Their first episode, a 2020 holiday special, arrived on the service Dec. 29 and featured famous guest appearances from Sir Elton John, James Corden, tennis champion Naomi Osaka, author Deepak Chopra, spoken word performer George the Poet, filmmaker Tyler Perry, and British activist Christina Adane.
In a recent appearance for Spotify’s Stream On event, the couple stated that they are “using podcasts to drive powerful conversations that inspire, challenge and educate.”
One of the first projects under the pair’s Netflix deal will be an animated series focused on inspiring women, which is reportedly already in development. But, a future in streaming was not a considered possibility at the time of the couple’s split from Windsor
“This was never the intention,” Harry told Winfrey during the couple’s Sunday night interview. “We’re certainly not complaining, our life is great now, we’ve got a beautiful house, I’ve got a beautiful family. The dogs are really happy. At the time during Covid, the suggestion by a friend was ‘what about streamers?’ and we hadn’t thought about it. There were all sorts of different options and from my perspective, I just needed enough money to pay for security to keep my family safe.”
“Life is about storytelling,” added Markle. “For us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens that is hopefully uplifting is going to be great, knowing how many people that can land with and be able to give a voice to a lot of people that are underrepresented and aren’t really heard.”
[12] ”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’. ”
Petition started by Brighton resident Charles Ross brands titles ‘morally wrong’
It has been signed by 3,800 people and will be discussed by council this week
Sussexes have only visited the county once in 2018 but drew huge crowds
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.
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.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[13]
””This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.”
Brighton and Hove City Council will discuss removing the titles from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after a republican’s petition on its website garnered thousands of signatures
A council is set to debate stripping Harry and Meghan of their royal titles on Thursday after a petition launched by a republican attracted thousands of signatures.
Campaigner Charles Ross started the petition against the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the Brighton and Hove City Council website in July and it has been signed by more than 3,700 people.
The Queen gave Harry and Meghan the title when they married, and would be the one to strip them of it if she chose to.
So the request is unlikely to be backed by the council, who don’t have the power to remove their titles, and will be seen as a waste of time.
Mr Ross wrote: “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.”
Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, said he was appalled by the petition.
“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 which undertakes thousands of engagements per year on behalf of the nation, in right of Her Majesty as The Crown.
“This petition wreaks of republican drivel and lacks any real substance and intelligent reasoning. It truly seems to be an erratic and emotional outburst of self-loathing directed at two popular members of the Royal family.
“Next will be the ‘off with their heads’ scenarios and further republican sentiments which will not just culminate in petitions, but another campaign funded by socialist republicans.
“The petition also states that it is the wish of the petitioner that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex not be afforded an invitation to visit, be entertained or extended any courtesies beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
“Like it or not, the Duke and Duchess are an extension of The Queen, the Head of State of this nation, of which Brighton and Hove are a part.
“To deny the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is to deny representatives of the Monarch and by extension The Crown – this is dangerous territory to navigate for the county of East Sussex collectively. Is Mr. Ross openly condoning and outlining the incitement of a second English civil war?
“These republican petitions may seem small, and the greater population may not take notice now, but such movements are dangerous and treasonous in the eyes of The Crown and a greater portion of the British population. Such movements seek to overthrow our system of governance and operations, warning signs that the greater British population can not ignore.
“This nation is and will remain a monarchy until the people collective say otherwise, regardless of small pockets of republican extremists such as in Brighton and Hove.
“Brighton itself has a very good and especially historic relationship with The Crown, from George IV to William IV, even to Queen Victoria whom sold the Royal Pavilion to the city. There is much to celebrate about the Royal ties and history of Brighton to The Crown. Despite all the good associated with the monarchy and the current members of the Royal family, such as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
“Brighton and Hove should not pander to minority treachery and should not further entertain such a petition as proposed.
“It would truly be a shame for Brighton to be known as the first openly hostile city towards the Royal family, which would certainly see a possible boycott of business activity and tourism related visits occurring in this royally historic seaside destination.
“Such consideration of this disgusting petition is nothing short of a slap in the face of the many decades of which Her Majesty has served the good and loyal people of Brighton and Hove. I am sure that any respectful person within Brighton and Hove would refuse this petition and anything of the sort.”
Many Sussex residents were outraged at the petition, and one person tweeted: “Seriously!!! Mr Ross get a f****n life.
I live in Brighton and you don’t speak for me.”
Another said: “What a joke people need to get a grip.”
Others called the petition an “embarrassment” and slammed it as “a waste of time”, with one person suggesting “the guy starting the petition needs to grow up”.
END OF ARTICLE
[14]
William, Duke of Cambridge
The eldest son of Prince Charles and his first wife Princess Diana, Prince William is second in line to the throne.
His wife Catherine is currently the Duchess of Cambridge but will become queen consort and go by the title of Queen Catherine if William becomes king.
”’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;”” COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCEHARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHANMARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL ASTRID ESSED20 DECEMBER 2019 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/
[16]
”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”
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.
An ITV spokesperson said: “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.”
The channel confirmed to the BBC that his departure from the breakfast news show will take effect immediately but declined to say who would be replacing him on Wednesday.
In a tweet on Wednesday morning Morgan said that he had reflected on his opinion on the Oprah interview and still did not believe Meghan, adding that “freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on”.
“Thanks for all the love, and hate. I’m off to spend more time with my opinions,” he said.
Morgan’s departure followed an on-air clash with weather presenter Alex Beresford, who criticised his colleague on Tuesday for “continuing to trash” the duchess, prompting Morgan to walk off set. He returned within 10 minutes.
Mental health charity Mind, which is a partner with ITV on its Britain Get Talking campaign, also criticised Morgan, saying it was “disappointed” by the presenter’s comments.
What did Piers Morgan say?
On Monday’s programme, Morgan picked up on the duchess’s claim that her request to senior Buckingham Palace officials for help was rejected, after she told Oprah she had had suicidal thoughts.
“Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report.
“The fact that she’s fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible.”
He also referred to the duchess as the “Pinocchio Princess” in a tweet later that morning.
Following an outcry, he said on Tuesday’s episode that “I still have serious concerns about the veracity of a lot of what” Meghan said, but that it was “not for me to question if she felt suicidal”.
He added: “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.”
What was the backlash?
A total of 41,015 complaints were made to media watchdog Ofcom by 14:00 GMT on Tuesday.
That is the second highest number of complaints in Ofcom’s 17-year history, behind the 44,500 submitted over several days about the racism row involving Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetty on Celebrity Big Brother in 2007.
“We have launched an investigation into Monday’s episode of Good Morning Britain under our harm and offence rules,” a spokesperson for the regulator said.
Meanwhile, on Monday evening Mind tweeted: “We were disappointed and concerned to see Piers Morgan’s comments on not believing Meghan’s experiences about suicidal thoughts today.
“It’s vital that when people reach out for support or share their experiences of ill mental health that they are treated with dignity, respect and empathy. We are in conversations with ITV about this at the moment.”
There is a culture war going on, and Piers Morgan’s job on Good Morning Britain has fallen victim to it.
That’s different from saying Morgan himself is a victim of it; in some ways he has been a beneficiary.
But when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject, at a time of such heightened tensions, something has to give.
Tonight, it did.
This morning Carolyn McCall made it very clear that she believed Meghan Markle’s central claim about her mental health. She went further: ITV takes mental health very seriously.
It follows that the company must have expected Morgan to recant publicly, or apologise. He is unlikely to have been willing to do that. Therefore this was the moment to leave GMB.
END OF ARTICLE
[23]
[23]
”Oprah: You’d said in a podcast that it became ‘almost unsurvivable’, and that struck me, because it sounds like you were in some kind of mental trouble. What was actually going on? ‘Almost unsurvivable’ sounds like there was a breaking point.
Meghan: Yeah, there was. I just didn’t see a solution. I would sit up at night, and I was just, like, I don’t understand how all of this is being churned out. And, again, I wasn’t seeing it, but it’s almost worse when you feel it through the expression of my mom or my friends, or them calling me crying, just, like, ‘Meg, they’re not protecting you’. And I realised that it was all happening just because I was breathing.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . . ”
Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.
THE SUNMEGHAN MARKLE OPRAH INTERVIEW: READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF DUCHESS AND PRINCE HARRY’S BOMBSHELL CONFESSIONS8 MARCH 2021
On Monday’s programme, Morgan picked up on the duchess’s claim that her request to senior Buckingham Palace officials for help was rejected, after she told Oprah she had had suicidal thoughts.
“Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report.
“The fact that she’s fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible.”
He also referred to the duchess as the “Pinocchio Princess” in a tweet later that morning.
Following an outcry, he said on Tuesday’s episode that “I still have serious concerns about the veracity of a lot of what” Meghan said, but that it was “not for me to question if she felt suicidal”.
He added: “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.”BBCPIERS MORGAN LEAVES ITV’S GOOD MORNINGBRITAIN AFTER ROW OVER MEGHAN REMARKS10 MARCH 2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082
Piers Morgan first met Meghan Markle at a bar in Kensington in 2016.
At the time, the US actress was starring in legal drama Suits. She met Morgan while on a spring visit to the UK, as part of a trip that also included watching Wimbledon matches with her friend Serena Williams.
“We spent two hours in a pub, she had a couple of dirty martinis, I had a couple of pints, we got on brilliantly,” Morgan told Ryan Tubridy on RTÉ’s The Late Late Show.
“And then I put her in a cab, and it turned out to be a cab which took her to a party where she met Prince Harry. And the next night they had a solo dinner together, and that was the last I heard from Meghan Markle.
“She ghosted me, Ryan,” Morgan concluded. “Meghan Markle ghosted me.”
She might have gone quiet on Morgan, but it certainly wasn’t the last he and the rest of the world heard of Meghan.
Five years after those dirty martinis, she is the Duchess of Sussex, and her recent interview with Oprah Winfrey prompted so much anger from Morgan that it ultimately led to his exit from Good Morning Britain.
His departure has prompted a huge reaction from viewers and commentators, both positive and negative. But beyond those declaring their love or hatred for him, many have pointed out the far-reaching consequences of his exit.
It may be a symbolic and important gesture by a broadcaster concerned not to contradict its own message about mental health. But it will also mean the show loses its Rottweiler, who was widely praised for holding government ministers to account during the pandemic.
His absence will also almost certainly harm viewing figures. ITV shares fell nearly 5% on Wednesday, wiping almost £200m off its market value, following the announcement of Morgan’s departure.
At the point Morgan entered the world of breakfast television, ITV had been suffering poor viewing figures for several years. GMTV had been rebranded as Daybreak in 2010, but that was failing to match the ratings of its predecessor.
In 2014, ITV decided it was time for another change. Daybreak was scrapped, Good Morning Britain was launched, and Susanna Reid was poached from BBC Breakfast.
Morgan’s arrival the following year was disruptive, to put it mildly. He was combative and opinionated, a far cry from the usual warm, cuddly tone of breakfast television, and closer to the style of some morning programmes in the US.
Scepticism of woke culture was at the core of Morgan’s appeal, to the point where he wrote a book on the subject in 2020. While the rest of society grappled with issues of social progress, Morgan’s refusal to toe the politically correct line led to both backlash and praise.
His impact could be measured in a number of ways. First, there were the viewing figures, which increased dramatically. While BBC Breakfast held on to its crown, GMB improved its viewing share as people tuned in to hear Morgan’s take on the day’s events. As a result, ITV made more money from advertising.
You could also look at the column inches. The more outrageous Piers was, the more people would talk about him. The more news outlets wrote stories about him, the more clicks and ad revenue they got. By complaining so vocally, his critics were keeping him relevant, completing the cycle.
Those complaints from viewers and campaign groups were made both to Ofcom and ITV.
In 2019, an item about gender identity in which Morgan claimed he now “identifies as a penguin” prompted 1,000 complaints to the media regulator and outcry from charities and viewers. It sparked a petition, signed by more than 90,000 people, calling for his sacking. Proving his divisiveness, a counter petition was set up to keep him, and was signed by 72,000.
When a TV producer said on Twitter earlier this year that he would not work with Morgan again, the presenter responded by saying he would “rather employ a lobotomised Aardvark”. That led to an open letter to ITV accusing Morgan of bullying, signed by more than 1,000 industry workers.
And yet, Morgan has always considered himself to have liberal views. His CNN programme in the US was famous for his campaigning on gun control. And he claims “not to have a prejudiced bone in his body”, much to the incredulity of his opponents.
“The woke crowd loathe me, because the informed ones know I’m actually a liberal,” he wrote in his book, Wake Up, last year. “So on paper, I’m one of them. I’m therefore the enemy within.”
Morgan added that he considers himself a feminist and a supporter of gay rights, civil rights and transgender rights – “apart from the absurd new trend of limitless self-identification”.
But the damage his words have inflicted also cannot be ignored, such as his apparent dismissal of mental health issues. This is what ultimately led to his downfall after the Duchess of Sussex said she felt she “didn’t want to be alive any more”.
Morgan said he “didn’t believe a word” the duchess had said in the interview. He later attempted to clarify his comments, saying his disbelief referred specifically to her claim that her request for support was rejected by Buckingham Palace. But by then, the damage was done.
Welsh Health Minister Vaughan Gething spoke for many when he described Morgan’s comments as “wholly unacceptable, incredibly unkind and exactly where we should not be in public debate and discourse”.
“We’ve won lots of ground by talking and being more open about mental health challenges,” he said. “I think the comments and the tone of them would have set a number of people back.”
Morgan was also accused of missing the mark on the issues of racism raised by Meghan. He has always maintained the press’s coverage of her is motivated by her behaviour, not underlying racism.
“I’m sorry Piers, you don’t get to call out what is and isn’t racism against black people,” Trisha Goddard told him on Monday’s programme. “I’ll leave you to call out all the other stuff you want, but leave the racism stuff to us, eh?”
However, Morgan had also won over some of his previous critics in the past year, for his challenging interviews with government ministers. The absence of these exchanges will be a big loss to the show, as Kevin Maguire and Krishnan Guru-Murthy have pointed out.
Hiring a shock jock was always going to result in controversy. But could ITV have done more to rein him in?
Channel 4 historian and media commentator Maggie Brown said: “Piers Morgan needed a stronger editor or producer to just keep him in check while allowing him to be bombastic, mainstream and successful. Himself. This is a common pattern for much appreciated TV stars who go on to overstep the mark.”
And what might Morgan do next? Losing jobs has never stopped his career progression in the past.
After his exit from GMB, former politician George Galloway tweeted: “Dear Piers Morgan. You told me once ‘a sacking is an opportunity’. It turned out that way for me and I hope it will for you. In fact I’m sure it will.”
Morgan will not come cheap, but many would be keen to hire him all the same, particularly the soon-to-be-launched GB News. The channel’s chairman Andrew Neil said on Wednesday that he would be open to giving Morgan a job.
It is perhaps fitting that Morgan’s last ever appearance as a GMB presenter saw him finally get his six-year long wish.
“Good Morning Britain beat BBC Breakfast in the ratings yesterday for the first time,” Morgan pointed out when he received the viewing figures for Tuesday’s episode.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
While there was no official announcement about where the duchess was giving birth, it is believed it took place in Frogmore House – the couple’s cottage in Windsor, which was renovated for an estimated £3m ahead of their arrival.
After the birth, Harry appeared outside the cottage to speak to TV cameras and reveal the news.
Before then, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (still with us?) was entitled to the honour – that’s because King George V decided in 1917 to limit titles within the Royal Family.
As it stands, Prince Harry and Meghan’s children will not get those titles unless the Queen steps in.
What about other titles?
If the Queen doesn’t change the rules (see above), this is where it gets a little complicated.
You may remember on the morning of Prince Harry’s wedding he was given some titles from the Queen – Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on Twitter
When the Queen’s daughter, Princess Anne, was offered royal titles for her children – Peter and Zara – she turned them down.
She wanted her children to have as normal lives as possible.
Zara Tindall has since told the Times: “My parents didn’t give us titles, so we’ve been able to have a slightly more normal upbringing. As soon as you’ve got a title, it’s very difficult to shed it.”
So Prince Harry and Meghan, who haven’t been afraid to break royal protocol, could choose to go the same route.
Could the baby become King or Queen one day?
Yes, in theory, although there are already six royals ahead in the queue.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s child is seventh in line for the throne – just behind the baby’s father in the order of succession.
The new arrival’s cousins, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are all in front in the pecking order.
Is the baby a US citizen?
Yes. As Meghan is still a US citizen, the royal baby is one as well.
Any American who has lived in the US for five years automatically passes on their citizenship to their offspring.
As her child has been born outside the US, Meghan will have to register the birth with the American embassy in London.
Prince Harry is obviously British, so the new royal would have dual citizenship.
Meghan is expected to apply for UK citizenship, but that process takes time – she needs to live in the UK for at least five years.
Once she is a UK citizen, the duchess could renounce her US citizenship, but her child would have to wait until he or she was at least 16.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[29][29]
BBCPRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751
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.
ANALYSIS BY JONNY DEMOND ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
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. END OF THE ARTICLE
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.”
The Duchess of Sussex has said friends advised her not to marry Prince Harry to avoid pressure from the media.
Meghan, 38, said she was told “you shouldn’t do it because the British tabloids will destroy your life”.
In an ITV documentary, she 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, Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.
The duke, 35, said he and Prince William have “good days” and “bad days”.
He added: “We are brothers. We will always be brothers.
“We are certainly on different paths at the moment but I will always be there for him as I know he will always be there for me.”
‘You’ve got to thrive’
In the documentary, Meghan said adjusting to royal life had been “hard”, adding that she was not prepared for the intensity of the tabloid media scrutiny.
“When I first met my now-husband my friends were really happy because I was so happy,” she said.
“But 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’.”
On whether she can cope, Meghan added: “In all honesty I have said for a long time to H – that is what I call him – it’s not enough to just survive something, that’s not the point of life. You have got to thrive.”
‘I’ll protect my family’
Prince Harry was asked if he worried whether his wife may face the same pressures as his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who died in 1997 in a car crash in Paris.
He said: “I will always protect my family, and now I have a family to protect.
“So everything that she [Diana] went through, and what happened to her, is incredibly important every single day, and that is not me being paranoid, that is just me not wanting a repeat of the past.”
The prince later described his mental health and the way he deals with the pressures of his life as a matter of “constant management”.
He said: “I thought I was out of the woods and then suddenly it all came back, and this is something that I have to manage.
“Part of this job is putting on a brave face but, for me and my wife, there is a lot of stuff that hurts, especially when the majority of it is untrue.”
The Africa tour was Prince Harry, Meghan and their baby son Archie’s first official royal tour as a family.
The duchess, who married Prince Harry at Windsor Castle in May 2018 and gave birth to their son Archie this year, spoke about her experiences as a new royal since her wedding day.
An average of 2.8 million people watched the ITV documentary, Meghan and Harry: An African journey, on Sunday night.
Media portrayal ‘a very unhappy story’
ANALYSIS BY JONNY DEMOND ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
Harry has learned to be diplomatic. But his words about his brother confirm that, perhaps unsurprisingly given the way his life has changed, they are not that close anymore. Of course, there will always be love. But things have changed.
Meghan is a superb communicator and her message was controlled, carefully thought out and brilliantly delivered. “I never thought it would be easy,” she said of tabloid newspaper coverage, “but I thought it would be fair”. She’s clearly horrified at her portrayal over the past few months. The British pride themselves on being fair and her use of that word stung.
“Has it been a struggle?” pressed Tom Bradby. “Yes,” said Meghan. Harry acknowledged that he still struggles with his mental health. The couple are feeling and talking about the pressure and Harry now sees the shadow of his mother in every camera, every headline. This was a very unhappy story.
Which is odd. Because they are much-loved and – with Harry’s energy and Meghan’s back story – continue to touch the parts that other royals don’t. But now there is a long, low rumble of discontent.
In a statement released at the beginning of this month, Prince Harry said his wife was the latest “victim” of a British tabloid press which “wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences”.
He said “knowingly false and malicious” reports and “continual misrepresentations” were made by “select media outlets”.
The duke and duchess are both bringing legal actions against the press, with Meghan suing the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.
”In a statement, the Duke of Sussex said he and Meghan were forced to take action against “relentless propaganda”.
Prince Harry said: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
BBC
MEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY OVER PRIVATE LETTER
2 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49901047
The Duchess of Sussex has begun legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.
In a statement, the Duke of Sussex said he and Meghan were forced to take action against “relentless propaganda”.
Prince Harry said: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
A Mail on Sunday spokesman said the paper stood by the story it published and would defend the case “vigorously”.
Law firm Schillings, acting for the duchess, accused the paper of a campaign of false derogatory stories.
The firm has filed a High Court claim against the paper and its parent company over the alleged misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The claim comes after the Mail on Sunday published a handwritten letter from Meghan to her father, Thomas Markle, sent shortly after she and Prince Harry got married in 2018.
In a lengthy personal statement on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official website, Prince Harry said the “painful” impact of intrusive media coverage had driven the couple to take action.
Referring to his late mother Diana, Princess of Wales, the prince said his “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,” he said.
BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the statement was “remarkably outspoken” and “nothing less than a stinging attack on the British tabloid media”.
Former Daily Mirror editor and Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade said the duchess could win the legal action, but added Prince Harry had taken a risk by attacking the press for the actions of one newspaper.
“The press – particularly the tabloid press – is far less powerful now than it was during his mother’s era,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“Is he taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut here? I think he may well find that this is counter-productive.”
ANALYSIS BY JONNY DEMOND ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
The language is clearly Harry’s: an unrestrained expression of anger and pain aimed at the British tabloid media.
Did any of his advisers urge restraint? We simply don’t know. Judging by the length and intensity of the statement, Harry would have been in no mood to listen to any such cautionary advice.
Is it fair to castigate the entire British tabloid media off the back of one dispute with one newspaper over one story, however painful? That is a matter of individual opinion and clearly Harry – supported one assumes by Meghan – believes that it is.
The timing certainly is curious. They are concluding a visit to Southern Africa which by wide consent (much of it expressed in the tabloid media) has been a considerable success. It has lifted their reputation after a series of mis-steps involving private jets and expensive property renovations.
Now they have chosen to take one of the most powerful newspaper groups in Britain to court and launched this stinging assault on an entire section of the British media.
British tabloids are not afraid of a fight. They may well feel provoked by the language in this statement. Was it wise? We shall see.
It is not the first time the royals have taken legal action against the press. In 2017, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were awarded £92,000 (100,000 euros) in damages after French magazine Closer printed topless pictures of the duchess in 2012.
A French court ruled the images had been an invasion of the couple’s privacy.
‘Lie after lie’
The new legal proceedings are being funded privately by the couple and any proceeds will be donated to an anti-bullying charity.
In his statement, Prince Harry said he and Meghan believed in “media freedom and objective, truthful reporting” as a “cornerstone of democracy”.
But he said his wife had 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”.
Prince Harry said: “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.”
He said “positive” coverage of the couple’s current tour of Africa had 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,” he said.
“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.”
‘It is bullying’
The duke said he had 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,” he said.
He accused the paper of misleading readers when it published the private letter, by strategically omitting paragraphs, sentences and specific words “to mask the lies they had perpetrated for over a year”.
“Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level,” he said.
“We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.”
The Mail on Sunday spokesperson said: “We categorically deny that the duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
[30] SEE NOTE 29
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Notes 11 t/m 30/”Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Story/Astrid’s Comments
Yet new developments took place, resulting in the bombshell Oprah Winfreyinterview, which I share with you here, in full transcript!I will comment on it soon enough [look for my website]”
OPRAH WINFREY MEETS PRINCE HARRY AND HIS WIFE MEGHAN
There’s still a month left before Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are due for their one-year review period after stepping back from their royal roles, but the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decided to share their decision with the royal family early. Prince Harry and Meghan, who are now living in Montecito, California, told Queen Elizabeth that they will not be returning to their former position as senior working royals.
Buckingham Palace released a statement earlier today, confirming that the Queen and Prince Harry had spoken and that the Duke of Sussex had informed his grandmother of the decision. The Palace said, “While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family.”
Prince Harry and Meghan’s spokesperson released their own statement, shared with Observer. “As evidenced by their work over the past year, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain committed to their duty and service to the U.K. and around the world, and have offered their continued support to the organizations they have represented regardless of official role. We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have already been removed from their positions as President and Vice President of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust. Prince Harry was reportedly hoping he would be able to retain his honorary military titles, but per Buckingham Palace, the associations, charities and titles that revert to the Queen include The Royal Marines, RAF Honington and Royal Navy Small Ships and Diving. They also include The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, The Rugby Football Union, The Rugby Football League, The Royal National Theatre and The Association of Commonwealth Universities.
While it was known that this was a possibility, as the Queen doesn’t believe in a “half-in, half-out” role within the royal family, the Sussexes were still understandably upset that they wouldn’t be able to continue in their roles with the patronages that they have worked so closely with for the past few years.
According to royal expert Katie Nicholl in Vanity Fair, Prince Harry and Meghan had “hoped to have a long serving role within the Commonwealth.” Prince Harry and Meghan were disappointed with the Queen’s decision, reports People, especially because Prince Harry was also stripped of his honorary military titles, but the Sussexes “respect the decision that was reached.” The Sussexes were, however, apparently a bit annoyed by the part of the Queen’s statement that said, “it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service.”
Prince Harry and Meghan subsequently released their own statement, in which they said, “We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.” In this royal back-and-forth, the Palace was then less than thrilled, though per People, there remains a “very strong family bond” between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family.
There does seem to be some tension, however, pertaining to the Sussexes’ upcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey. The Palace was “blindsided” by Prince Harry and Meghan’s announcement that they had agreed to an interview with Oprah, which is set to air on March 7, and per Vanity Fair, it seems this may have set in motion the official news of the Sussexes’ final exit. Now, the interview is reportedly being reedited after the announcement regarding their patronages, as when it was filmed, “it was never envisaged they would have their patronages taken away.”
Buckingham Palace said in a statement that the Queen had written confirming Harry and Meghan would not be able to continue with royal duties, and their honorary military appointments and royal patronages would be returned.
A spokesperson for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex said the couple “remain committed to their duty and service to the UK and around the world” regardless of their role within the royal family.
The move prompted the Queen to organise a crisis summit regarding their future roles and it also raised a number of questions about what the exit will mean for the monarchy, from how the couple will fund their lifestyle to the impact on the line of succession.
While the couple accepted that their decision to walk away from their royal roles means they will no longer receive public funding or be able to use their HRH titles, it has been confirmed that Prince Harry will maintain his current position in line to throne, which is sixth.
This is because the positioning is based on legislation meaning the government would have to step in to remove someone from the list.
Historian and author Marlene Koenig told Royal Central: “Succession to the throne is based on legislation including the Succession to the crown Act, which includes the Act of Settlement.
“It would take an act of Parliament to remove a person from the line of succession.”
While this is incredibly rare, it has happened once before. In 1936, Edward VIII abdicated from the throne, sparking a constitutional crisis which resulted in the King denouncing his position so he could marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.
However he could not do this without an act of parliament.
Currently, Prince Charles is first in line and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, will become Queen when he takes the throne.
The Duke of Cambridge is now second in line and will follow in his father’s footsteps with his wife Kate Middleton at his side.
At present, the royal couple have three children: Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, who each respectively sit third, fourth and fifth in the line of succession.
Previous to this, the crown was passed lineally in birth order, but subject to male preference over females.
Prince Harry remains sixth in line to the throne after his niece and nephews. However, it is worth noting that, if the Cambridge family expands, the royal will keep moving down the line of succession.
Despite this, Archie remains seventh in line to the throne — ahead of Prince Andrew, the Queen’s second-eldest son.
Here’s who is in the line of succession when Elizabeth II’s time as the longest-reigning monarch in history comes to an end.
Charles, Prince of Wales
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip’s eldest son Charles, the Prince of Wales, is next in line to rule the Commonwealth, which includes Australia.
When he does, Prince Charles, who is currently 72-years-old, will be the oldest person to ever ascend to the British throne — the previous oldest ruler was William IV at age 64.
His wife, Camilla, currently goes by the title the Duchess of Cornwall.
When the pair married in 2005, Clarence House released a statement that she would have the title princess consort if Prince Charles becomes king.
William, Duke of Cambridge
The eldest son of Prince Charles and his first wife Princess Diana, Prince William is second in line to the throne.
His wife Catherine is currently the Duchess of Cambridge but will become queen consort and go by the title of Queen Catherine if William becomes king.
The couple’s three children are ahead of Princess Diana’s second son and Prince William’s brother Harry in the line of succession despite their young age.
George, Prince of Cambridge
Prince William and Catherine’s eldest child Prince George is third in line to the throne.
Historically, the first-born son of the monarch would be claimed as heir to the throne regardless of any older daughters.
Only when there was no son could a female child reign — as was the case for Queen Elizabeth II, whose father King George VI had two daughters.
In 2011, two years before Prince George was born, the succession laws were changed to give sons and daughters equal right to be heir.
Charlotte, Princess of Cambridge
The first daughter of Prince William and Catherine, Princess Charlotte is fourth in line to the throne.
If her older brother Prince George has children, they will precede Princess Charlotte in the line of the succession.
Louis, Prince of Cambridge
The second son and third child of Prince William and Catherine, Prince Louis is fifth in line to the throne.
Thanks to the change to the laws in 2011, Prince Louis does not skip ahead of Princess Charlotte in the line.
Harry, Duke of Sussex
Prince Charles and Diana’s second son, Prince Harry is sixth in line to the throne.
Before the birth of his nephews and niece, Harry was as high third in line to the throne.
However, as king, Charles would have the power to issue decrees to extend or reduce the number of titles on offer.
Meghan and Harry also revealed in the Oprah interview that they are expecting a second child, a girl — who, when born, will be eighth in line to the throne.
Andrew, Duke of York
Prince Andrew, the second son and third child of Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II, is eighth in line to the throne.
He overtakes his older sister Princess Anne as an heir because the laws of succession gave preference to male children before they were changed in 2011.
The Duke of York had come under increasing scrutiny after footage was published in August 2019 by UK tabloid the Mail On Sunday showing him at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion in 2010, two years after Epstein had been convicted and jailed after pleading guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution.
One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, said Epstein forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew at a London apartment in 2001 when she was 17.
Prince Andrew has previously denied any inappropriate relations with Ms Giuffre and said during the BBC interview he had “no recollection” of ever meeting her.
Queen Elizabeth II wrote in a statement that Harry and Meghan’s honorary military appointment and royal patronages would be returned
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have confirmed they will not return as working royals.
Queen Elizabeth II wrote in a statement that Harry and Meghan’s honorary military appointment and royal patronages would be returned, Buckingham Palace informed, mentioned Independent.
Prince Harry and Meghan, who are expecting their second child, will remain “committed to their duty and service to the UK and around the world”, regardless of their role in the royal family, a spokesperson was quoted as saying by the publication.
The decision to walk away from the royal roles means the couple will no longer be receiving any public funding nor will they be able to use their HRH titles. But does that mean Prince Harry will not be in the line of succession?
Turns out, Prince Harry will maintain his current position in line to the throne, which is sixth, the publication confirms. This is because the position is based on legislation. To remove one from the list, the government would have to intervene, historian and author Marlene Koenig was quoted as saying by Royal Central.
It was in 1936 that Edward VIII abdicated from the throne so that he could marry Wallis Simpson, who was an American divorcee. However, he could do this only with an act of the parliament.
Currently, Prince Charles is first in line with his wife Camilla.
The British line of succession delineates who will inherit the throne and become the king or queen of Great Britain. Queen Elizabeth II is the current monarch, having reigned for nearly seven decades. After the queen, her firstborn, Charles, Prince of Wales, will rule, followed by his firstborn, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and then his firstborn, Prince George. Still, where do other known royals like Princess Charlotte and Princess Beatrice fall in the line for the crown? Whether you’re watching the new season of The Crown or brushing up on your royal knowledge, scroll through to see how close your favorite royals are to becoming the heir to the throne. 1 PRINCE CHARLES The Prince of Wales is first in line to succeed his mother, Queen Elizabeth.
2 PRINCE WILLIAM
3 PRINCE GEORGE The six-year-old royal–as the firstborn to Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge–is third in line to the British throne.
4
PRINCESS CHARLOTTE As the second-born of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the four-year-old princess is fourth in line to the throne.
5 PRINCE LOUIS Prince Louis, the one-year-old son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, is the fifth in line to the throne.
6 PRINCE HARRY
Should none of the Cambridges become the next monarch of Great Britain, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, will become the heir.
7 MASTER ARCHIE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR As the firstborn to Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Master Archie is seventh in line to the throne.
8 DUCHESS MEGHAN AND PRINCE HARRY’S SECONDCHILD In February, the Sussexes announced that they are expecting their second child together. This new addition to the family changes the line of succession, with the future royal coming in at eighth in line to the throne.
9 PRINCE ANDREW The third child of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, the Duke of York is ninth in the line of succession.
10
PRINCESS BEATRICE As the eldest daughter of Prince Andrew and Sarah, Duchess of York, Princess Beatrice is next in line after her father.
11
PRINCESS EUGENIE Princess Eugenie is the next in line to the British throne after her eldest sister, Princess Beatrice.
12
PRINCESS EUGENIE’S SON The son and first child of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, whose name has not yet been revealed, follows his royal mother as the 12th person in line for the throne.
13
PRINCE EDWARD As the youngest son to Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, the Earl of Wessex comes in at 13th in line to the throne.
14 JAMES, VISCOUNT SEVERN As the only son of Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, James, Viscount Severn, is next in line after his father.
15 LADY LOUISE WINDSOR Lady Louise, the eldest child of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, is next in line after her brother, James.
16
ANNE, PRINCESS ROYAL As the second-eldest child of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, the Princess Royal is the 16th in line to the throne.
[17]
PETER PHILIPS Peter Phillips is the oldest grandchild of the queen and the only son of Princess Anne. He is 17th in line to the throne.
[18]
SAVANNAH PHILIPS Savannah is the eldest child of Peter and Autumn Phillips, making her the first great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and the 18th in line to the throne.
[19]
ISLA PHILIPS Isla is the second child of Peter and Autumn Phillips, and is the 19th in line to the throne.
20 ZARA TINDELL As the daughter of Princess Anne, Tindall is 20th in line to the throne. END OF THE ARTICLE
[4]
WEBSITE ASTRID ESSEDPRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE
Ancient DNA from Cheddar Man, a Mesolithic skeleton discovered in 1903 at Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, has helped Museum scientists paint a portrait of one of the oldest modern humans in Britain.
Cheddar Man lived around 10,000 years ago and is the oldest almost complete skeleton of our species, Homo sapiens, ever found in Britain.
New research into ancient DNA extracted from the skeleton has helped scientists to build a portrait of Cheddar Man and his life in Mesolithic Britain.
The biggest surprise, perhaps, is that some of the earliest modern human inhabitants of Britain may not have looked the way you might expect.
Dr Tom Booth is a postdoctoral researcher working closely with the Museum’s human remains collection to investigate human adaptation to changing environments.
‘Until recently it was always assumed that humans quickly adapted to have paler skin after entering Europe about 45,000 years ago,’ says Tom. ‘Pale skin is better at absorbing UV light and helps humans avoid vitamin D deficiency in climates with less sunlight.’
However, Cheddar Man has the genetic markers of skin pigmentation usually associated with sub-Saharan Africa.
This discovery is consistent with a number of other Mesolithic human remains discovered throughout Europe.
‘He is just one person, but also indicative of the population of Europe at the time,’ says Tom. ‘They had dark skin and most of them had pale colored eyes, either blue or green, and dark brown hair.’
‘Cheddar Man subverts people’s expectations of what kinds of genetic traits go together,’ he adds.
‘It seems that pale eyes entered Europe long before pale skin or blond hair, which didn’t come along until after the arrival of farming.’
‘He reminds us that you can’t make assumptions about what people looked like in the past based on what people look like in the present, and that the pairings of features we are used to seeing today aren’t something that’s fixed.’
Who was Cheddar Man?
Cheddar Man was a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer (fully modern human) with dark skin and blue eyes. He was about 166 centimetres tall and died in his twenties.
His skeleton was uncovered in 1903 during improvements to drainage for Gough’s Cave, a popular tourist attraction.
When he was first found, there were claims that Cheddar Man was the long-sought earliest Englishman, with exaggerated dates of 40,000-80,000 years. But subsequent radiocarbon dating from the 1970s onwards suggests he lived around 10,000 years ago.
His skeleton shows a narrow pelvis shape. It’s uncertain whether a hole in his forehead was from an infection or from damage at the time of excavation.
Like all humans across Europe at the time, Cheddar Man was lactose intolerant and was unable to digest milk as an adult.
At the time Cheddar Man was alive, Britain was attached to continental Europe and the landscape was becoming densely forested.
‘Cheddar Man belonged to a group of people who were mainly hunter gatherers,’ says Tom. ‘They were hunting game as well as gathering seeds and nuts and living quite complex lives.’
In addition to seeds and nuts, his diet would have consisted of red deer, aurochs (large wild cattle) along with some freshwater fish.
Cultural life in Mesolithic Britain
While Cheddar Man was not found with any recorded animal or cultural remains, other Mesolithic sites offer clues about his diet and the kind of cultural life he may have been part of.
Star Carr was a Mesolithic settlement in North Yorkshire that predates Cheddar Man by around 1,000 years.
There, archaeologists uncovered red deer skull-caps (which may have been worn as headdresses), semiprecious stones including amber, hematite and pyrite and an engraved shale pendant known as the oldest Mesolithic art in Britain.
While impossible to say for certain, similar kinds of objects may have been familiar to Cheddar Man.
An unusual cave burial
Most of the Mesolithic human remains that date to this period were discovered in caves and there is a strong tradition of cave burial in the region.
‘About a mile up the road from where Cheddar Man was found, there is another cave known as Aveline’s Hole which is one of the biggest Mesolithic cemeteries in Britain. Archaeologists found the remains of about 50 individuals, all deposited over a short period of 100-200 years,’ says Tom.
Cheddar Man’s case is quite unusual because at a time when communal burials were common, he was found buried alone.
‘He was recovered from sediment but it wasn’t clear whether he had been buried or just covered in sediment over time by natural mineral deposits in the cave,’ says Tom.
‘So he could have been special, or he may just have curled up and died there.’
According to several Victorian accounts, a large quantity of bones, teeth of extinct animals, flint knives and bone instruments were, unfortunately, wheelbarrowed out from the site and discarded. Some must have been from earlier occupations of the cave but it is possible some would have held additional clues about the life of Cheddar Man and other humans who once lived in the region.
A fresh take on ancient DNA
Coaxing data from ancient DNA can be painstaking work. Dr Selina Brace specialises in ancient DNA at the Museum and worked closely on Cheddar Man.
‘Ancient DNA doesn’t necessarily mean that the specimen you’re working with is thousands of years old,’ Selina explains. ‘It just means that the DNA is degraded.’
As soon as an organism dies, DNA begins to break down. Temperature and humidity also make a big difference to the quality of data that it’s possible to extract.
The consistently cool conditions of Gough’s Cave and layers of natural mineral deposits both helped preserve Cheddar Man’s DNA.
Selina explains the process used to obtain Cheddar Man’s DNA:
‘To extract ancient DNA from a human or animal what you’re looking for is a dense bone which might have protected the DNA inside it as much as possible.’
‘We used to use leg bones or teeth as the thick bones and enamel keep DNA quite intact, but in the last two years we’ve shifted to using the petrous, or inner ear bone, which is the densest bone in the human body,’ she says.
‘However it isn’t a golden egg,’ cautions Selina. ‘You can still fail to retrieve useful DNA. But if the body was deposited in a good environment, where there was a cool and constant temperature then the petrous bone is a good place to find useful ancient DNA.’
The skull of Cheddar Man, the oldest complete skeleton of a human found in Britain
After extracting the DNA Selina and the team used next-generation shotgun sequencing, which involves defining millions of fragments of DNA distributed randomly across the genome, to create a library of Cheddar Man’s DNA and map what they found against a modern human genome.
‘We had a lot of genetic data but you have to kind of know what you’re looking for,’ says Tom. ‘I had taken a recreational DNA test that looked specifically at physical traits, and they had helpfully listed the markers they use to come up with their assessments.’
‘We were able to send that list of markers to our own bioinformatics lab to help us develop a portrait of Cheddar Man.’
The artists took measurements of the skeleton, scanned the skull and 3D printed a base for their model.
‘Of course facial reconstruction is part art and part science,’ Tom says ‘but there are some standards of how thick the tissue is in different regions of people’s faces so they can use those conventions to develop the morphology of the face.’
END OF ARTICLE
”’He is just one person, but also indicative of the population of Europe at the time,’ says Tom. ‘They had dark skin and most of them had pale colored eyes, either blue or green, and dark brown hair.’
‘Cheddar Man subverts people’s expectations of what kinds of genetic traits go together,’ he adds.
‘It seems that pale eyes entered Europe long before pale skin or blond hair, which didn’t come along until after the arrival of farming.’
‘He reminds us that you can’t make assumptions about what people looked like in the past based on what people look like in the present, and that the pairings of features we are used to seeing today aren’t something that’s fixed.’NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMCHEDDAR MAN: MESOLITHIC BRITAIN’S BLUE EYED BOY https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/cheddar-man-mesolithic-britain-blue-eyed-boy.html SEE FOR THE WHOLE TEXT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE
A cutting-edge scientific analysis shows that a Briton from 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes.
Researchers from London’s Natural History Museum extracted DNA from Cheddar Man, Britain’s oldest complete skeleton, which was discovered in 1903.
A University College London team analysed the genome, and the results were used for a facial reconstruction.
It underlines the fact that the lighter skin characteristic of modern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon.
No prehistoric Briton of this age had previously had their genome analysed.
As such, the analysis provides valuable new insights into the first people to resettle Britain after the last Ice Age.
The analysis of Cheddar Man’s genome – the “blueprint” for a human, contained in the nuclei of our cells – will be published in a journal, and will also feature in the upcoming Channel 4 documentary The First Brit, Secrets Of The 10,000-year-old Man.
Cheddar Man’s remains had been unearthed 115 years ago in Gough’s Cave, located in Somerset’s Cheddar Gorge. Subsequent examination has shown that the man was short by today’s standards – about 5ft 5in – and probably died in his early 20s.
Prof Chris Stringer, the museum’s research leader in human origins, said: “I’ve been studying the skeleton of Cheddar Man for about 40 years
“So to come face-to-face with what this guy could have looked like – and that striking combination of the hair, the face, the eye colour and that dark skin: something a few years ago we couldn’t have imagined and yet that’s what the scientific data show.”
Fractures on the surface of the skull suggest he may even have met his demise in a violent manner. It’s not known how he came to lie in the cave, but it’s possible he was placed there by others in his tribe.
The Natural History Museum researchers extracted the DNA from part of the skull near the ear known as the petrous. At first, project scientists Prof Ian Barnes and Dr Selina Brace weren’t sure if they’d get any DNA at all from the remains.
But they were in luck: not only was DNA preserved, but Cheddar Man has since yielded the highest coverage (a measure of the sequencing accuracy) for a genome from this period of European prehistory – known as the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age.
They teamed up with researchers at University College London (UCL) to analyse the results, including gene variants associated with hair, eye and skin colour.
Extra mature Cheddar
They found the Stone Age Briton had dark hair – with a small probability that it was curlier than average – blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone.
This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in western Europe during this period.
Steven Clarke, director of the Channel Four documentary, said: “I think we all know we live in times where we are unusually preoccupied with skin pigmentation.”
Prof Mark Thomas, a geneticist from UCL, said: “It becomes a part of our understanding, I think that would be a much, much better thing. I think it would be good if people lodge it in their heads, and it becomes a little part of their knowledge.”
Unsurprisingly, the findings have generated lots of interest on social media.
Cheddar Man’s genome reveals he was closely related to other Mesolithic individuals – so-called Western Hunter-Gatherers – who have been analysed from Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary.
Dutch artists Alfons and Adrie Kennis, specialists in palaeontological model-making, took the genetic findings and combined them with physical measurements from scans of the skull. The result was a strikingly lifelike reconstruction of a face from our distant past.
Pale skin probably arrived in Britain with a migration of people from the Middle East around 6,000 years ago. This population had pale skin and brown eyes and absorbed populations like the ones Cheddar Man belonged to.
No-one’s entirely sure why pale skin evolved in these farmers, but their cereal-based diet was probably deficient in Vitamin D. This would have required agriculturalists to synthesise this essential nutrient in their skin using sunlight.
“There may be other factors that are causing lower skin pigmentation over time in the last 10,000 years. But that’s the big explanation that most scientists turn to,” said Prof Thomas.
Boom and bust
The genomic results also suggest Cheddar Man could not drink milk as an adult. This ability only spread much later, after the onset of the Bronze Age.
Present-day Europeans owe on average 10% of their ancestry to Mesolithic hunters like Cheddar Man.
Britain has been something of a boom-and-bust story for humans over the last million-or-so years. Modern humans were here as early as 40,000 years ago, but a period of extreme cold known as the Last Glacial Maximum drove them out some 10,000 years later.
END OF ARTICLE ”No-one’s entirely sure why pale skin evolved in these farmers, but their cereal-based diet was probably deficient in Vitamin D. This would have required agriculturalists to synthesise this essential nutrient in their skin using sunlight.
“There may be other factors that are causing lower skin pigmentation over time in the last 10,000 years. But that’s the big explanation that most scientists turn to,” said Prof Thomas.”BBCCHEDDERMAN:DNA SHOWS EARLY BRITON HAD DARK SKIN23 FEBRUARY 2018 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42939192
This week, Diploma Programme Language B students were in luck to receive a special visitor: arguably the most famous of Cheddar Man’s descendants, Adrian Targett from Cheddar, UK. He is a former history teacher and happens to be in the Netherlands to visit his cousin—my partner’s mother who is half British and Dutch.
DP1 English Language B students were eager to meet him and ask questions. During the 40-minute session they heard stories about how Adrian found out about being a descendant and how the discovery has affected his life. “It’s been an incredible opportunity to get to visit different places and speak to people about this,” he stated.
“Does it change the way you think about yourself?” one student asked. “Not at all. If you think about it, I’m not any different from any of you. We all have relatives from 10,000 years ago. It just so happens that I know one of mine.”
Linguistic fluency and intercultural understanding
This year at ISUtrecht, we started our first cohort of IBDP English B Higher Level students, just in time for the new Language B syllabus. Changes to the syllabus include five new themes (Identities, Experiences, Human Ingenuity, Social Organisation, and Sharing the Planet) instead of the “core” and “options” structure previously used. Assessments are also slightly different—the externally-marked written response (Paper 1) and internally-marked individual speaking component are now worth 25% each, whilst externally-marked comprehension tasks (reading and listening in Paper 2) comprise 50% of the total score.
The aim of the course is to build linguistic fluency and intercultural understanding so that students can expand their cultural competence in a globalised world. Students who successfully complete English B, along with a Group 1 course in another language (Dutch Language and Literature or self-study literature) are able to receive a bilingual diploma.
The role of DNA in our identity
While our class has been exploring the first theme of “Identities” and what it means to be human, we encountered a variety of riveting topics for discussion: personality traits (Myers-Briggs), cultural iceberg theory, individualist vs collectivist societies, LGBT, race, and belief.
While we all looked at the latest reconstruction of Cheddar Man—with dark skin, blue eyes, and curly hair—our visitor says, “It’s marvelous what scientists can reconstruct once they sequence the DNA. They can even determine the amount of fat in your cheeks. I do see a resemblance. My hair was blond when I was your age, but certainly curly like that. And of course my eyes are blue.”
“Has there been an impact on your privacy?”, one of the students want to know. While at the beginning of the media frenzy, Adrian was bombarded by various news outlets such as BBC, New York Times asking for interviews—to the point that he had to disconnect his telephone—he feels that his privacy is still intact. Ardrian: “You can decide what you want to tell people. Cheddar is a small community, so everyone knows each other anyway.”
Dealing with the media
Another student wondered, “How did it affect your classes when you were teaching?” Adrian commented: “It was a bit of a novelty for 2 to 3 days, but then we returned to normal. The discovery did entice students to become more motivated to learn about ancient history. In the first couple of weeks, there would be an occasional television crew outside of the school building.”
He shared a story about how he dealt with the media. During one television interview in 1997 with Karel van de Graaf in the Netherlands, he was taken aback by one question about the royal family in the UK. At the time, the Prince of Wales (Charles) was separating from Princess Diana. The interviewer asked, “You’ve got the longest proven English family tree. As we’ve all heard, the royal family isn’t getting on very well at the moment. Don’t you think, therefore, you should be king?”
“Now, this is essentially a live show, and you’ve got to react to it. So I said, ‘I’d rather carry on as a history teacher in Cheddar, and let the Queen be the queen. It’s what we’ve been trained for’.”
“Smart answer,” one student responded among the uproar of laughs.
‘We’ve all come from somewhere’
The latest DNA findings in February 2018 about Cheddar Man’s dark skin color has generated resistance, especially among nationalists and the far-right on the political spectrum. One congressional candidate in the US, for instance, was banned from Twitter after a racist meme about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, whose face was superimposed with Cheddar Man.
One student asked, “Did the findings in 2018 affect the way people think about race?”
“Yes, I do think it’s significant. Not many people in Cheddar mind it. But the lesson is that we’re all immigrants, whether you’ve been in a place for 10 minutes or 9,000 years. We’ve all come from somewhere.” END OF ARTICLE ”
Here are our researchers’ responses to some of the most popular queries they’ve received.
How can DNA survive 10,000 years?
DNA can survive in bones and teeth for extraordinary lengths of time given the right environmental conditions. The oldest ancient DNA extracted to date is probably that from a horse bone which was preserved in the Canadian permafrost for over 550,000 years1. DNA survives less well in bones from temperate environments, but cave environments seem to provide some protection. Ancient DNA has been successfully extracted and analysed from 35,000 year-old human remains from Europe2. The good preservation of the DNA we retrieved from Cheddar Man is unusual, but not unexpected.
How do you know his skin colour?
We were able to extract enough information from Cheddar Man’s DNA to run it through a forensic tool that predicts differences in the level of skin pigmentation in modern world populations3. The results indicated that Cheddar Man’s skin pigmentation was most likely in one of the two most highly-pigmented of five categories (‘dark’ or ‘dark to black’), and definitely not in the lightest categories.
Is this a surprising finding?
No, not really. Previous studies of DNA from Mesolithic individuals recovered from Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary identified that they also lacked the versions of genes associated with reduced skin pigmentation in modern, light-skinned Europeans4-6. We found that Cheddar man belonged to the same population as these individuals – usually referred to as western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers – so in that context his pigmentation is not unusual. However, we did predict how dark Cheddar Man’s skin was by examining variation in a wider range of genes related to skin pigmentation.
Will these findings be published in a peer-reviewed paper?
We are preparing a related paper for submission, but this paper is not exclusively about Cheddar Man. As previous studies had already suggested that darker skin pigmentation was common in western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, the results from Cheddar Man are not novel enough by themselves to form the basis of a scientific paper. But finding that he was typical of that population was novel, and when put in the context of subsequent migrations into Britain, his genome becomes a valuable piece of the British population history jigsaw.
Is Cheddar Man actually an escaped slave or a tourist from Africa?
No! The bones of Cheddar Man have been radiocarbon dated twice, and on both occasions the results indicate that he died around 10,000 years ago7.
Are there any people with lighter skin pigmentation at this time?
Yes. Populations with the versions of genes primarily responsible for lighter skin pigmentation were living in parts of Scandinavia and western Asia at around the time Cheddar man was alive5,8-9.
How did Europeans develop paler skin?
The versions of the genes primarily responsible for lighter skin pigmentation in modern North-West Europeans arrive in Europe on the back of two waves of migration thousands of years after Cheddar Man died; one associated with Near Eastern farmers and another with pastoralists from the Pontic steppe10-12. In addition, there seems to have been ongoing natural selection favouring lighter skin pigmentation in Europe over the last 9,000 years, probably in relation to an increased need for UV induced vitamin D synthesis in the skin.
What is his mitochondrial DNA type?
Cheddar Man’s mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited exclusively down the maternal line, belongs to haplogroup U5b1. As this is only a tiny portion of an individual’s genome, and there have been several large-scale population movements in Europe and across the world since Cheddar Man was alive, this result has no relevance to his skin pigmentation, and says little about the distribution of this mitochondrial haplogroup amongst modern populations.
How do we calculate that 10% of British ancestry can be linked to Cheddar Man?
When we look at genetic variation in modern British people today, we find that – for those who do not have a recent history of migration – around 10% of their ancestry can be attributed to the ancient European population to which Cheddar Man belonged. This group is referred to as the western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. However, this ancestry does not relate specifically to Cheddar Man or the Mesolithic population of Britain. Well after Cheddar Man’s death, two large-scale prehistoric migrations into Britain produced significant population turnovers13. Both of these migrations into Britain represented westward extensions of population movements across Europe10-12. In both cases, these migrating populations intermixed with local people who carried western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry, as they moved across Europe. When these populations arrived in Britain they already had some hunter-gatherer ancestry derived from this mixing with local populations. Therefore the majority of western European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers ancestry that we see in modern British people probably originates from populations who lived all over Europe during the Mesolithic, which was carried into Britain by these later migrations.
References
1Orlando, L., Ginolhac, A., Zhang, G., Froese, D., Albrechtsen, A., Stiller, M., Schubert, M., Cappellini, E., Petersen, B., Moltke, I. and Johnson, P.L. et al. 2013. Recalibrating Equus evolution using the genome sequence of an early Middle Pleistocene horse. Nature, 499(7456), p.74.
2Fu, Q., Posth, C., Hajdinjak, M., Petr, M., Mallick, S., Fernandes, D., Furtwängler, A., Haak, W., Meyer, M., Mittnik, A. and Nickel, B. et al. 2016. The genetic history of ice age Europe. Nature, 534(7606), p.200.
3Walsh, S., Chaitanya, L., Breslin, K., Muralidharan, C., Bronikowska, A., Pospiech, E., Koller, J., Kovatsi, L., Wollstein, A., Branicki, W. and Liu, F. et al. 2017. Global skin colour prediction from DNA. Human genetics, 136(7), pp.847-863.
4Olalde, I., Allentoft, M.E., Sánchez-Quinto, F., Santpere, G., Chiang, C.W., DeGiorgio, M., Prado-Martinez, J., Rodríguez, J.A., Rasmussen, S., Quilez, J. and Ramírez, O. et al. 2014. Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European. Nature, 507(7491), p.225.
5Jones, E.R., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Connell, S., Siska, V., Eriksson, A., Martiniano, R., McLaughlin, R.L., Llorente, M.G., Cassidy, L.M., Gamba, C., Meshveliani, T. et al. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians. Nature communications, 6, p.8912.
6Gamba, C., Jones, E.R., Teasdale, M.D., McLaughlin, R.L., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Mattiangeli, V., Domboróczki, L., Kővári, I., Pap, I., Anders, A., Whittle, A. et al. 2014. Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory. Nature communications, 5, p.5257.
7Meiklejohn, C., Chamberlain, A.T. & Schulting, R.J., 2011. Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Great Britain. Mesolithic Miscellany, 21(2), pp.20-58.
8Gallego-Llorente, M., Connell, S., Jones, E.R., Merrett, D.C., Jeon, Y., Eriksson, A., Siska, V., Gamba, C., Meiklejohn, C., Beyer, R. and Jeon, S., 2016. The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran. Scientific reports, 6, p.31326.
9Günther, T., Malmström, H., Svensson, E.M., Omrak, A., Sánchez-Quinto, F., Kılınç, G.M., Krzewińska, M., Eriksson, G., Fraser, M., Edlund, H. and Munters, A.R., 2018. Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. PLoS biology, 16(1), p.e2003703.
10Haak, W., Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Llamas, B., Brandt, G., Nordenfelt, S., Harney, E., Stewardson, K. and Fu, Q. et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature, 522(7555), p.207.
11Allentoft, M.E., Sikora, M., Sjögren, K.G., Rasmussen, S., Rasmussen, M., Stenderup, J., Damgaard, P.B., Schroeder, H., Ahlström, T., Vinner, L. and Malaspinas, A.S., 2015. Population genomics of bronze age Eurasia. Nature, 522(7555), p.167.
12Mathieson, I., Lazaridis, I., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Patterson, N., Roodenberg, S.A., Harney, E., Stewardson, K., Fernandes, D., Novak, M. and Sirak, K., 2015. Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature, 528(7583), p.499.
The study of a 10,000-year-old man surprised people when it revealed his blue eyes and dark skin – and few predicted he would reshape our view of our genetic heritage
In 1903 workmen digging a drainage trench in Gough’s Cave in the Cheddar Gorge, in Somerset, uncovered the remains of a young man, sealed under a stalagmite. The figure, feet curled up underneath him, was small, at about 5ft 5in, and would have weighed around 10 stone when he died in his early 20s. The cause of death has still not been determined by palaeontologists.
The skeleton’s antiquity was revealed when fossil experts dated his bones and realised that Cheddar Man, as he quickly became known, was almost 10,000 years old. This is still the oldest virtually complete skeleton that has been unearthed in the British Isles, although it is unclear whether the young man died in the cave or was brought there by fellow tribesmen and was then buried there.
His antiquity has since ensured his importance to historians and scientists who study how the British Isles were populated – a topic that went viral last week when geneticists published new research that showed the young man would have had black hair, blue eyes – and dark skin.
A great many widely held – but incorrect – assumptions about the expected pale-skinned, fair-featured nature of Britain’s founders were promptly overturned, to the rage of some commentators and the joy of many. “I just wish I knew about you when I was growing up and people asked me where I was ‘really’ from. North London, bruv,” the Labour MP David Lammy tweeted.
The news was certainly intriguing, for apart from revealing some home truths about the implications of how skin colour can change over time, the new research underlines some essential and unexpected features about the ancestry of the British people. According to one geneticist involved in the latest study of Cheddar Man, Mark Thomas of University College London (UCL), it is now clear that about 10% of our genes come from the mesolithic hunter-gatherer folk, of which Cheddar Man was a member.
“That does not mean that 10% of the British population today is descended directly from him,” cautioned Thomas. “It means that the average person in Britain today carries around 10% of the genes of these ancient hunter-gatherers.”
Thus the DNA of Cheddar Man shows there is a 10,000-year-old unbroken genetic lineage from people who inhabited Britain long before agriculture reached our shores to British men and women of today. We are not a nation of farmers (or shopkeepers, for that matter) but can trace our ancestry to nomadic hunters, who – 300 generations ago – carved antlers to make harpoons for fishing, used bows and arrows, and trained dogs that would have assisted them in the hunt for animals such as red deer, aurochs and boar, as well as protecting their masters from competing predators such as wolves.
Cheddar Man was a member of a population of nomadic hunters who thrived during the middle stone age, also known as the mesolithic age, about 10,000 years ago. These were the western European hunter-gatherers, whose remains have been found in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary. Crucially, the DNA of these people also shows they had dark skin and blue eyes and were similar, genetically, to Cheddar Man.
At this time, Britain was a peninsula of northern Europe, linked by an area of land that now forms the seabed of the southern North Sea and the Channel. As a result, nomadic people, often following migrating animals, undertook frequent visits and made the most of the British landscape, which was then flourishing in the wake of the retreat of the glaciers that had covered the country a few thousand years earlier.
But change was at hand. Like the rest of the world, Europe was continuing to warm, and ice caps were melting, raising sea levels. Around 8,000 years ago, the last land connection between Britain and Europe – a stretch of terrain called Doggerland, which linked north Norfolk with Holland – was inundated. Britain became an island, and the few thousand individuals who were then roaming its forest and heaths in search of food were isolated. By accident, these hunter-gatherers became the founding mothers and fathers of Britain.’
It is an intriguing scenario which raises a host of questions. If these dark-haired, dark-skinned people were the nation’s founders, what happened to our complexions in the intervening millennia? What triggered the emergence of the pale aspect of the typical Brit?
Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London traces the cause to the first farmers who reached our shores around 6,000 years ago, as agriculture spread eastwards after its birth in the Middle East several thousand years earlier. “These farming people would have had relatively poor diets, based only on one or two cereal crops, and would have lacked vitamin D. By contrast, hunter-gatherers, although few in number, probably had very healthy diets with lots of fish and liver that were rich in vitamin D. Cheddar Man had very healthy teeth, which suggests a good diet, for example.”
Diets low in vitamin D would have had an impact on these early farmers, who would have developed soft bones, skeletal deformities and other problems. However, vitamin D is also created underneath our skin in response to sunlight. As a result, nutritionally deprived farming folk evolved lighter skin in order to boost their vitamin D, while gene variants for dark skin disappeared. Genes for lighter skin were brought to our shores by these farming people.
“Farming may have provided poorer diets in those days but it also allowed far greater numbers of people to live per acre of land compared to those who lived as hunter-gatherers,” added Stringer. “In other words, they had the numbers and so, once farming became established in Britain, the genes for lighter skin would have taken over the population.”
The existence of blue eyes, also revealed by the Cheddar Man geneticists, is more difficult to explain. “Using classic genetic surveys, it was thought that blue eyes first appeared in humans between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago,” said Thomas. “Now studies of ancient DNA are showing it was already well established in some populations.”
How it became established is not known, however, nor is it clear that it conferred any evolutionary advantage on those blessed with blue eyes.
“The continent was awash with migrations, and it may be that the trait was just picked up and passed on to us,” added Thomas.
This last point is also crucial. Ten or 20 years ago, many historians and archaeologists argued against the concept that new fashions and technologies, from metalworking to agriculture, were passed on as ideas and were not imported directly. “Genetics has shown this is simply not the case,” added Thomas. “It is now very clear that migration has been the standard agent for bringing about cultural change.”
This point was endorsed by Dr Richard Bates of St Andrews University. “When we do more of this kind of deep genetics, on other ancient remains, we are going to find an incredible diversity among the people of this time,” he said.
Our predecessors moved around a lot more, he added, and were able to move far greater distances than we have given them credit for until now.
“It is only when farming arrived that we became sedentary, and when that happened we also got the concept of land ownership and with it the idea of defence – and in its wake came conflicts,” said Bates. “It took generations to occur, and it happened in many other parts of the world. Nevertheless, it was the biggest social change that ever affected our species. The story of Cheddar Man gives us a feeling for the profundity of that change.” END OF ARTICLE
Twitter has banned Paul Nehlen, a Republican challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan for a congressional seat, for a racist tweet targeting American actress Meghan Markle, the fiancée of Prince Harry.
This week, the Natural History Museum in London released images of Cheddar Man, a dark-skinned Mesolithic man believed to be one of the oldest modern humans in Britain. Nehlen posted the couple’s official engagement photo with Cheddar Man’s face superimposed on Markle’s, who is biracial. He captioned the tweet, “Honey does this tie make my face look pale?”
Harry and Markle, set to wed in May, have dealt extensively with online harassment. In 2016, months into their relationship, Harry released an official statement decrying the “racial undertones” of abuse targeted toward Markle.
The tweet is hardly Nehlen’s first instance of controversy. The politician has made waves for racist and anti-Semitic tweets in the past and proclaimed that “Jews control the media” on former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke’s podcast last month.
Nehlen “has spent months curating an image of a sometimes ironic, but most certainly sincere, white nationalist willing to say things intended to push populist nationalism into the discourse,” writes the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Twitter, which does not normally comment on individual accounts, confirmed to NPR that Nehlen was permanently suspended for repeated violations of its terms of service.
“And as we explained in our blog about world leaders on Twitter:We review Tweets by leaders within the political context that defines them, and enforce our rules accordingly,” a Twitter spokesperson told NPR. “No one person’s account drives Twitter’s growth, or influences these decisions. We work hard to remain unbiased with the public interest in mind.”
The company updated its policies late last year in an effort to reduce abusive and violent content.
“For Twitter, reining in abusive content has posed a challenge as the company has touted itself as the ultimate place for free speech and open debate,” reported NPR’s Alina Selyukh in 2016, noting that the 2016 presidential election cycle was “marked by a flood of sexist, racist, anti-Semitic and threatening commentary.”
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.
END OF THE STATEMENT OF
PRINCE HARRY
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO
Het lijkt wel-en het is meer dan ”lijken op”, dat het fascisme inNederland steeds meer salonfahig wordt.Uitspraken als ”homeopathische verdunning van de Nederlandse samenleving” en ”ik wil niet, dat Europa Afrikaniseert” [1], noch zeer dubieuze contactenvan Forum voor Democratieleider Thierry Baudet [2] hebben kunnen voorkomen, dat deze fascistische partij [3] bij de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen in 2021 maar liefst acht zetels heeft behaald [4]Maatschappelijk is deze partij reeds zozeer genormaliseerd, dat Partijleider Thierry Baudet door hetNationaal Comite 4 en 5 mei [5], een organisatie, die toch als eerste zoumoeten waarschuwen tegen fascisme, ”inspirerend” genoemd wordt[ 6] en dat eeninterview met hem wordt opgenomen in een ”Vrijheidsboek” [7]Hoe die ”Vrijheid” er dan uit zou moeten zien, is mij een raadsel, die wijsheidligt kennelijk bij het 4 en 5 Mei Comite! [8] Het lijkt dus wel, alsof het fascisme meer dan sluipend de samenlevingbinnenkomt, met co fascistische partij de PVV van G Wilders [9], kampioen in het spuienvan haat tegen niet-westerse allochtonen [10] en vluchtelingen [die Wildersooit testosteronbommen noemde [11], wat door de feiten werd geloochenstraft [12], als Grote Bondgenoot.’
VAARWATER Gevaarlijk vaarwater dus, waarin Nederland is beland, vooral omdatdeze partijen steeds meer worden beschouwd als ”normale partijen”, terwijlze dat niet zijn!
VERZET Maar er zijn er nog, die zich tegen hen verzetten!Zo was er op donderdag 29 juli een moedig verzet van een kleine groeptegen de komst van Forum voor Democratie Partijleider Thierry Baudet.Zie over het verslag ervan een stuk van schrijver en activist Peter Storm, zelfeen van de deelnemers. [13]Ook kwam er een verslag van op de website van Indymedia.nl [14]”Een memorable actieEen moedige actie, juist door het kleine aantal deelnemersDaarom heb ik daarop een adhesiebetuiging geschreven, die u direct hieronder kunt lezen TENSLOTTE
Het waren er zeven in getal [hoewel ook wordt geschreven over anderekleine groepjes, die zich verzetten, waardering voor hen ook!] [15]En dat maakt het nu juist indrukwekkend Het laat het tegenovergestelde zien van wat moedeloos geworden mensen[het heeft allemaal toch geen zin] misschien wel gaan denken door deopmars van deze extreem rechtse Schurken: Namelijk dat het verzet nog springlevend is en NIET zal doven Zolang er nog een is, die zich verzet tegen fascisme, is er verzetMet zeven in verzet, heeft het fascisme tegenstanders, die zich NIET gewonnen geven! Astrid Essed
ADHESIEBETUIGING MET HET VERZET TEGEN DE KOMST VANTHIERRY BAUDET [FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIE] IN TILBURG!
INDYMEDIAVERSLAG PROTEST TEGEN BAUDET EN FVD IN TILBURG! REPORTPROTEST AGAINST BAUDET AND THE FVD IN TILBURG! https://www.indymedia.nl/node/50149
NL: Na wat tijd te hebben genomen om even alles op een rijtje te zetten bij deze nog een klein verslag over de actie van Vrije Bond Tilburg tegen de F.v.D. op donderdag 29 juli.
ENG: Below you can find a report of the protest by Vrije Bond Tilburg at a gathering of the fascist party of F.v.D. on the 29th of July in Tilburg.
For English, see below)
Beste kameraden,
Na wat tijd te hebben genomen om even alles op een rijtje te zetten bij deze nog een klein verslag over de actie van Vrije Bond Tilburg tegen de F.v.D. op donderdag 29 juli.
Om 17:00 zijn wij met een klein groepje vertrokken naar het Koningsplein met een aantal spandoeken en borden. Op het plein werden we vrijwel onmiddellijk omsingeld door zowel de fascisten en politie, die ons weg probeerden te krijgen. Hier lieten wij ons echter niet zomaar door tegenhouden, en wij hebben daar dan ook in een paar minuten onze boodschap overgebracht. Nadat wij de indruk hadden dat onze boodschap goed was ontvangen door de fascisten en door een aantal goedwillende omstanders, hebben wij om arrestaties te voorkomen langzaam, maar met geheven hoofd en keel wijd open, het plein verlaten en hebben wij op een drukke locatie naast het betreffende plein onze boodschap verder verspreid:
“Toen niet, nu niet, nooit meer fascisme!”
Wat ook nog de moeite waard is om te weten: wij waren niet de enige protesterende groep, en hebben meerdere mensen op eigen initiatief actie zien voeren. Wij hebben achteraf vernomen dat er zelfs een kameraad het podium op is geklommen om het verspreiden van fascistische haat een halt toe te roepen, waarvoor zeer veel respect en hulde! Al met al hebben we onze stem laten horen en hebben we een mooi aantal fascisten geconfronteerd, en daar mogen we trots op zijn!
Mochten er kameraden zijn die in eigen stad soortgelijke initiatieven willen nemen en steun kunnen gebruiken, dan horen wij dit graag! Je kunt altijd mailen naar vrijebondtilburg@riseup.net.
Met strijdbare groet,
Vrije Bond Tilburg
p.s.: Wij willen graag de politie en gemeente Tilburg danken voor het geven van een podium aan fascisme, en voor het op onbeschofte en schaamteloze wijze tegenwerken van mensen met een antifascistische boodschap. Bedankt! p.s. 2: een van ons heeft een uitgebreider persoonlijk verslag geschreven. Zie https://peterstormt.nl/2021/07/31/op-antifavontuur-in-tilburg/
—————————————————— Good evening comrades,
Below you can find a report of the protest by Vrije Bond Tilburg at a gathering of the fascist party of F.v.D. on the 29th of July in Tilburg.
At 17:00 our group headed towards the fascist gathering at Koningsplein with some signs and banners. As soon as we arrived at the square, we were pretty much immediately surrounded by the fascists and police, who tried to send us away on false grounds. Of course we did not let this stop us from doing what we came for: to deliver our message against fascism and racism. So we took a few minutes, until we felt our message had upset enough of the fascists, and cheered up enough passerbys. Then, with our heads held high and our voices raised, we left the square in order to prevent any arrests, and moved on to a busy road nearby to continue delivering our message to the people of Tilburg: Fascists are not welcome here!!!
Another thing worth mentioning is that we were not the only protesters at the scene, and saw multiple others going against the fascists by themselves. Afterwards, we even learned that one comrade climbed the stage on their own and tried to stop the fascists from spreading their message of hate, which deserves massive respect! All in all, we have let the people hear our voices loud and clear, and successfully confronted a good amount of fascists, which we are more than proud of.
If there are any comrades in other cities who want to do something similar and could use any help, please let us know! You can always reach us at vrijebondtilburg@riseup.net.
With solidarity,
Vrije Bond Tilburg
p.s.: We would like to thank the municipality and police of Tilburg for giving fascists a stage, and for very rudely, disrespectfully and shamelessly trying to prevent people with an anti-fascist and anti-racist message from spreading it. Thank you!
Veel respect voor jullie actie! Juist een kleine groep maakt indruk tegenover een meerderheid van fascistische maatschappelijke Gifmengers! Hoewel het steeds meer lijkt, dat het fascistische gif salonfahig wordt, bewijzen jullie het tegendeel
Though long the fight, we know that right will triumph at the end!
YOUTUBE.COM THIERRY BAUDET: ”IK WIL GRAAG DAT EUROPA DOMINANT,BLANK EN CULTUREEL BLIJFT, ZOALS HET IS”[THIERRY BAUDET BIJ HET DEBAT ”DE VLUCHTWEEK”,RADIOZENDER FM, DONDERDAG 17 SEPTEMBER 2015] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBzt9PyU5w
TRANSCRIPTIE[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Wat maakt het uit, als die mensen niet teruggaan?Dat is helemaal niet relevant.[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar…..”[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Ik erger mij een beetje aan de houding….”[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik vind het wel relevant!”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar Thierry, waarom is….[THIERRY BAUDET]”Omdat ik niet wil, dat Europa Afrikaniseert….”[GESPREKSPARTNER];;”Deze opmerking van Thierry vind ik best wel kwalijk,als je bedenkt, dat 20 procent van migranten, die naar Europakomen, Afrikanen zijn.Dus zo’n complete demonisering van Afrikanen is niet nodig.Tegelijkertijd…..[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik demoniseer niet, ik zeg wat ik wil, wat ik wenselijk vind enwat ik niet wenselijk vind.En wat ik niet wenselijk vind, is dat wij veel meer gaan lijkenop delen van de wereld waar heel veel mensen weg willen….”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Je wil zeg maar een bepaald Europees goed.wil je eigenlijkzo houden zoals het is..Op zich mag dat….”’[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik wil graag, dat Europa dominant, blank en cultureel blijft zoals het is.”EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE YOUTUBE.COM DE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDET https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt-s0B7mZn0 TRANSCRIPTIE”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.” EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE
Forum voor Democratie-voorman Thierry Baudet verkeert regelmatig in het gezelschap van extreemrechtse figuren. Hij had onder meer een vijf uur durende ontmoeting met de Amerikaanse racist Jared Taylor, sprak in 2014 op de IJzerwake en ging trots op de foto met de racistische auteur James Ronald Kennedy en diens boek ‘The South Was Right’. Volgens de partij wordt er door journalisten een campagne gevoerd om hun leider via ‘guilt by association’ extreemrechtse ideeën aan te wrijven, maar dat verklaart niet waarom Baudet zelf keer op keer het gezelschap van extreemrechtse figuren opzoekt. De Correspondent onthult vandaag dat Baudet maar liefst twee keer de extreemrechtse grondlegger van het Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen, bezocht en dat er opvallende ideologische overeenkomsten tussen hen bestaan.
Baudet ging samen met historicus en publicist Geerten Waling, dan nog student geschiedenis in 2009 op bezoek bij Le Pen, die bij herhaling heeft verklaard dat de gaskamers ‘een detail in de geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog’ zijn. Nadien doen zij verslag aan Daniel Knegt, een Nederlandse geschiedenisstudent die op dat moment voor scriptieonderzoek in de stad verblijft:
Ze kwamen er dolenthousiast vandaan. Ze hadden het er over hoe Le Pen werd gedemoniseerd en hoe onterecht het was dat hij steeds werd vastgepind op die opmerkingen over dat ‘detail’. Volgens Baudet en Waling was dat in de media steeds terugkerende ‘detail’ een voorwendsel om het niet over zijn ideeën te hoeven hebben. Ik stelde toen dat Le Pen zulke dingen heel bewust zegt, dat hij zijn dwarse imago ermee cultiveert, en er het aanzienlijke antisemitische electoraat in Frankrijk mee mobiliseert.
De uitspraken van Le Pen over de gaskamers staan niet op zichzelf, hij staat erom bekend de Franse collaboratie met de nazi’s goed te praten en de gewelddadigheid van de Duitse bezetting af te zwakken. Ook propageert hij rassendenken en dat bepaalde rassen inferieur zijn aan anderen. Zijn veroordeling voor zijn uitspraken over ‘het detail’ was slechts de laatste in een lange reeks strafmaatregelen na racistische en antisemitische uitspraken. Hij vertegenwoordigt daarmee een lange traditie van Frans etnonationalisme, bekend van onder meer de Dreyfus-affaire en het Vichy-regime.
Journalist Marijn Kruk schrijft vervolgens over de opvallende overeenkomsten in taalgebruik tussen Baudet en Le Pen:
Maar er is meer. Behalve dat veel geciteerde ‘auto-immuunsysteem’ had Baudet het daar ook over ‘ons boreaal Europa’… ‘Boreaal’ verwijst namelijk óók naar een belangrijke stichtingsmythe van Europees ultrarechts: de ‘arische’ en ‘polaire’ wortels van het Indo-Europese volk, de veronderstelde voorouders van de witte Europeanen… Prominente nazi’s als Heinrich Himmler meenden dat het arische ras uit een mythische noordelijke provincie stamde: ‘Hyperborea’. Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog blijft de term in Frankrijk opduiken in de teksten van Europe-Action, de beweging van de historicus en verklaard racist Dominique Venner… Tenslotte komt de term ‘boreaal’ in de jaren tachtig bij het Front National terecht en is het in gebruik geraakt als een codewoord, een dog-whistle. Het verwijst naar hetzelfde gedachtegoed van raszuiverheid dat in het Derde Rijk centraal stond. Dus: ‘boreaal’, de term die voor Le Pen zijn politieke graf opende, gebruikte Baudet bij de geboorte van zijn partij.
Kruk concludeert op basis van een lange rij overeenkomsten, dat niet Paul Cliteur, maar Jean-Marie Le Pen Baudets intellectuele peetvader is. Lees het hele artikel van De Correspondent hier.
Journalist Marijn Kruk beschrijft na weken onderzoek de verwantschap tussen zijn goede kennis Thierry Baudet en de radicaal-rechtse politicus Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Dat Thierry Baudet graag flirt met radicaal rechts, is inmiddels geen geheim meer. Wat wij nog niet wisten is dat de populaire politicus twee keer Jean-Marie Le Pen bezocht en dat er opvallende ideologische overeenkomsten tussen hen bestaan.
Begin 2009 ging Thierry Baudet op bezoek bij Jean-Marie Le Pen, de oprichter van het Front National, vader van Marine en voor altijd icoon van extreem-rechts. Ik kende Baudet toen net een paar weken. Hij leek me sympathiek, maar wat ik hiervan moest denken wist ik niet goed.
Baudet was bezig een netwerk op te bouwen in Parijs (waar ik sinds 2004 woon en werk) en hij bezocht wel meer prominenten. Maar Le Pen is een veroordeeld Holocaustontkenner en een etnonationalist, die streeft naar het behoud van ‘het witte ras’. Een paar jaar later ging Baudet nog een tweede keer op audiëntie bij Le Pen, nu om hem een exemplaar van zijn proefschrift aan te bieden.
Dit blijkt uit mijn onderzoek naar het Franse netwerk van Thierry Baudet.
Fastforward naar het heden, nu we een aantal dingen over Baudet hebben geleerd. Op 14 januari 2017 houdt Baudet de oprichtingsspeech van zijn politieke partij, Forum voor Democratie. Daarin maakt hij gewag van een ‘auto-immuunziekte’, waaraan we in het Westen zouden lijden. Vluchtelingen en migranten noemt hij er ‘kwaadwillende, agressieve elementen’, die ons ‘maatschappelijk lichaam in ongehoorde aantallen worden binnengeloodst’.
Dit is de klassieke taal van het organisch (of romantisch) nationalisme, de denktrant die het twintigste-eeuwse fascisme inspireerde. Het ‘organische’ staat voor het beeld van het lichaam, iets met een onveranderlijke kern, waar buitenstaanders geen deel aan hebben.
Later dat jaar brengt de Volkskrant het contact tussen Baudet en Erkenbrand aan het licht, een extreem-rechts genootschap dat zich opmaakt voor ‘de strijd om de blanke natie’. Daarop volgt de onthulling van De Correspondent Lees hier hoe Thierry Baudet vijf uur lang dineerde met Jared Taylor, een bekende extreem-rechtse Amerikaan.over het vijf uur durende diner dat Baudet had met Jared Taylor, een van de leiders van de Amerikaanse white supremacist movement.
En zo hebben we in Nederland, dankzij Baudet, nu een discussie over volkeren en gedetermineerde verschillen in IQ.
Dit zijn meer dan uitschieters
Deze reeks feiten werpt nieuw licht op Baudets ontmoetingen met Le Pen. Die ontmoetingen betekenen méér dan uitschieters tijdens een intellectuele tour d’horizon langs spraakmakende Fransen in wie hij geestverwanten vermoedde.
Ze leggen een jarenlang patroon bloot van sympathie voor een denktraditie die Baudet zelf ‘Romantisch nationalisme’ noemt en waarin het gaat om kleur, ras, bloed – en uiteindelijk: strijd.
In zijn boek De Aanval op de natiestaat uit 2012 wijst Baudet dat type denken weliswaar af, maar daarbuiten wordt hij er continu door aangetrokken – als een mot door een kaarsvlam.
Zolang Baudet nog met zijn denktank in een keldertje aan de Herengracht in Amsterdam zou zitten, was dit misschien niet zo zorgelijk. Maar nu is hij een populaire politicus, die in sommige peilingen op 15 zetels staat.
Hoe Baudet bij Le Pen terechtkwam
Baudet wordt bij beide bezoeken aan Le Pen vergezeld door historicus en publicist Geerten Waling, dan nog student geschiedenis. Volgens Waling wilden zij tijdens de eerste ontmoeting Le Pen interviewen en de weerslag daarvan aanbieden aan Elsevier en een Amerikaans tijdschrift.
Een dag na die eerste ontmoeting in 2009 doen zij verslag aan Daniel Knegt, een Nederlandse geschiedenisstudent die op dat moment voor scriptieonderzoek in de stad verblijft.
‘Ze kwamen er dolenthousiast vandaan’, herinnert Knegt zich. ‘Ze hadden het er over hoe Le Pen werd gedemoniseerd en hoe onterecht het was dat hij steeds werd vastgepind op die opmerkingen over dat ‘detail’.’
Vanaf 1987 heeft Le Pen bij verschillende gelegenheden gezegd dat de gaskamers ‘een detail in de geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog’ zijn.
‘Volgens Baudet en Waling was dat in de media steeds terugkerende ‘detail’ een voorwendsel om het niet over zijn ideeën te hoeven hebben’, zegt Knegt, inmiddels gepromoveerd op het Franse fascisme. ‘Ik stelde toen dat Le Pen zulke dingen heel bewust zegt, dat hij zijn dwarse imago ermee cultiveert, en er het aanzienlijke antisemitische electoraat in Frankrijk mee mobiliseert.’
Waling, die ik persoonlijk ken, verricht in 2009 aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam scriptieonderzoek naar de negentiende-eeuwse filosoof Ernest Renan, auteur van een beroemde rede over de natiestaat. In een reactie nu zegt Waling dat hij en Baudet ‘uitgelaten’ waren omdat zij in ‘gebrekkig Frans, een uur lang, zo’n berucht Frans politicus hadden kunnen spreken.’
Baudet is op het moment van zijn eerste ontmoeting met Le Pen als promovendus verbonden aan de Universiteit Leiden. Onder leiding van Paul Cliteur werkt hij aan een proefschrift over de natiestaat, of beter: over de uitholling daarvan.
Baudet wilde meer aandacht voor het gedachtegoed van Le Pen
Het interview in Elsevier komt niet tot stand. Op een ander toneel ijvert Baudet ervoor om Le Pen naar Nederland te laten komen. Baudet is reünist van de BKB-Academie, onderdeel van het Amsterdamse campagnebureau BKB. Die leidt ieder jaar een groep ambitieuze en betrokken jongeren op. Ze houden debatavonden en bezoeken verkiezingen in het buitenland.
‘Figuren als Le Pen of Dewinter zijn te extreem. Die plaatsen zich buiten het democratische debat’
Tijdens brainstormsessies met reünisten pleit Baudet er voor om Le Pen (en Filip Dewinter van het Vlaams Belang) in Nederland uit te nodigen. Volgens Erik van Bruggen, mede-oprichter van BKB, bestond er geen enkel animo voor zo’n bezoek. ‘In principe willen we iedere politieke kleur de ruimte bieden’, zegt hij desgevraagd. ‘Maar figuren als Le Pen of Dewinter, dat gaat te ver, die zijn te extreem, die plaatsen zich buiten het democratische debat’.
Hij schept zichtbaar genoegen in de verontwaardiging
Van de ontmoeting met Le Pen nabij Parijs maakt Baudet intussen geen geheim. Sterker: hij schept zichtbaar genoegen in de verschrikte reacties en verontwaardiging binnen de kleine wereld van Nederlandse journalisten, promovendi en uitwisselingsstudenten in Parijs.
In 2012 gaan Baudet en Waling nog een keer bij Le Pen langs, nu om een exemplaar van Baudets proefschrift aan te bieden: The Significance of Borders (in 2012 in handelseditie verschenen als De Aanval op de natiestaat). Volgens Waling wilde Baudet Le Pens bemiddeling vragen bij de verwezenlijking van een Franse vertaling.
Kleis Jager is op dat moment Frankrijk-correspondent voor dagblad Trouw. Voorafgaand aan deze tweede ontmoeting spreken Baudet en Waling nabij Parijs uitvoerig met hem. Jager was naar eigen zeggen wel gecharmeerd van het ‘beetje baldadige enthousiasme’ waarmee de twee aankondigen dat ze Le Pen weer gaan opzoeken. ‘Le Pen is een troebele bron, maar op een bepaalde manier fascineert hij ook’, zegt Jager desgevraagd. ‘Hij voorzag dat de natie en identiteit grote politieke thema’s zouden worden.’
Baudet en Waling willen van Jager weten of hij óók vindt dat Le Pen ten onrechte was gedemoniseerd. Jager: ‘Dat Le Pen een Holocaustontkenner is, daar is geen twijfel over en die demonisering heeft hij helemaal zelf over zich afgeroepen, dat heb ik ook gezegd.’
Het donkerbruine imago van Le Pen
Wie is Jean-Marie Le Pen op het moment dat Baudet hem in 2009 voor het eerst bezoekt? Zijn finest hour had ‘le Menhir’ zeven jaar eerder beleefd, toen hij tot ontzetting van velen wist door te dringen tot de tweede ronde van de Franse presidentsverkiezingen.
Na 2011, wanneer Le Pens dochter Marine hem opvolgt als voorzitter van het Front National, wordt hij op een zijspoor gezet. Het is onderdeel van Marines streven naar ‘ontdemonisering’ (dédiabolisation) van de partij. Als geen ander begrijpt ze dat ze het Front National van zijn donkerbruine imago moet ontdoen, wil de partij enige serieuze kans maken. Kortom: Marine moet haar vader op afstand zetten.
Jean-Marie Le Pen is immers niet alleen omstreden wegens de affaire van het ‘detail’. Hij heeft er ook een handje van de Franse collaboratie met de nazi’s goed te praten en de gewelddadigheid van de Duitse bezetting af te zwakken (daarmee voorbijgaand aan de deportatie van tienduizenden Franse Joden).
Le Pen gelooft bovendien in het bestaan van rassen en ook dat die niet gelijk zijn. De veroordeling in de affaire van ‘het detail’ kwam bovenop een lange reeks veroordelingen wegens racistische en antisemitische uitspraken.
Le Pens denkbeelden passen in een lange traditie van Frans etnonationalisme, waarvan de Dreyfus-affaire en het met de nazi’s collaborerende Vichy-regime de bekendste uitingen zijn.
Gezien Baudets interesse voor de natiestaat was het nog wel voorstelbaar dat hij Le Pen eens wilde meemaken. Maar hem een podium bieden in Elsevier? Hem naar Nederland halen? Hem zijn proefschrift aanbieden?
Baudet blijft gefascineerd door radicaal en extreem-rechts
Baudet blijft regelmatig naar Parijs komen. Dankzij een combinatie van verleidingskunst en doortastendheid zit hij al snel aan tafel bij Marc Fumaroli en Alain Finkielkraut, prominente leden van de Parijse conservatieve intelligentsia.
Baudets fascinatie voor radicaal en extreem-rechts is onverminderd. Zo sluit hij vriendschap met Julien Rochedy, tussen 2012 en 2014 voorzitter van de jongerenafdeling van het Front National en een discipel van Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Op het moment dat Baudet hem leert kennen, rond 2015, is Rochedy weliswaar nog steeds loyaal aan het Front National, maar heeft hij een grondige afkeer gekregen van de openlijk homoseksuele Florian Philippot, na Marine de nummer 2 van het FN, en de ‘ettertjes’ in diens entourage.
Rochedy verwijt hen kwaad te spreken over ‘Jean-Marie’ en zou ze graag een paar ‘rake klappen’ willen geven. Hij staat dicht bij de GUD, een militante nationalistische studentenvereniging. In 2016 duikt hij plotseling op in Damascus aan de zijde van de Syrische dictator Assad.
Rochedy is een romantische ziel, die van mening is dat de viriliteit door feministen wordt ondergraven
Tegelijk is Rochedy een romantische ziel, die maar slecht kan aarden in de moderniteit en van mening is dat het mannelijk ideaal van viriliteit door feministen wordt ondergraven – thema’s die Baudet na aan het hart liggen.
Met Rochedy maakt Baudet goed wat hem eerder met Le Pen niet lukte: hem in Elsevier een podium bieden waar hij vrijelijk zijn visie kan ontvouwen.
Eind 2015 verschijnt een interview van Baudets hand in Juist, het maandblad van Elsevier. Rochedy gaat er ongehinderd tekeer tegen niet-westerse immigratie en de ‘volksvervanging’ die daar het gevolg van is, en tegen het homohuwelijk. ‘Straks mag je ook trouwen met je zus of met je hond’.
In Baudet lijken twee verschillende personen te huizen
In De Aanval op de natiestaat uit 2012 wekt Baudet nog de indruk niets te moeten hebben van duistere figuren als Jean-Marie Le Pen en Rochedy en bepleit hij een ‘open idee van nationaliteit’ voor mensen met ‘elke denkbare achtergrond’.
In Baudets werkkamer in het parlement hangt een groot portret van Alexis de Tocqueville, de Franse denker die de democratie als een onstuitbare kracht zag – en waar je je dus maar beter naar kon voegen.
Daardoor lijkt het of er in de politicus Baudet twee verschillende personen huizen: een die zich presenteert als nette conservatief-liberaal én een die zich laat kennen als een romantisch nationalist, die flirt met bloed-en-bodemdenken.
Een treffend voorbeeld van dat romantisch nationalisme is de column die Baudet eind 2015 publiceert in het Franse weekblad Valeurs Actuelles. Alle elementen zijn aanwezig: het beeld van het lichaam, het idee dat alles in het leven zich via strijd verwezenlijkt en dat er een homogeniteit bestaat die door buitenstaanders wordt bedreigd.
Aanleiding zijn de aanslagen in Parijs van 13/11 (onder meer in concertzaal Bataclan). Baudet ontwaart een parallel tussen de jihadisten en Gilles, de hoofdpersoon uit de gelijknamige roman van Pierre Drieu de la Rochelle uit 1939. Beide zoeken een diepere zin in het leven, weg van het decadente en materialistische burgerbestaan.
Helemaal ongelijk kan Baudet de jihadisten en Gilles niet geven:
‘Alles in het leven verwezenlijkt zich nu eenmaal via strijd.’ Hij geeft het voorbeeld van het menselijk lichaam, waarin dagelijks ontelbare bacteriën vernietigd worden. Na een mijmering over de jaren dertig, verplaatst Baudet het toneel weer terug naar onze tijd.
Het is eten of gegeten worden, lijkt Baudet te willen zeggen. ‘Radicale actie’ is geboden
Massa-immigratie en islamisering maken dat we op het punt staan ‘te worden overgenomen’. Op het moment dat dit daadwerkelijk zover is, zullen we voor dezelfde keuze staan als Gilles in de jaren dertig: ‘Leven met een valse vrede of ten strijde trekken’. Het is eten of gegeten worden, ‘radicale actie’ is geboden.
Het is de retoriek die we twee jaar later zullen terugzien in de oprichtingsspeech van Forum voor Democratie.
Maar er is meer. Behalve die veel geciteerde ‘auto-immuunziekte’ had Baudet het daar ook over ‘ons boreaal Europa’.
Het zei me aanvankelijk niets.
Tot ik afgelopen najaar zelf tegenover Jean-Marie Le Pen zat.
Straatvechter Le Pen was nog springlevend
Voor een Frankrijk-correspondent is een interview aan Le Pen vroeg of laat deel van het werk. Een dergelijke grote factor in de politieke arena moet een keer beschreven worden.
En zo ging ik naar Montretout, het villapark in Saint-Cloud waar Le Pen een huis met uitzicht over Parijs bezit. De inmiddels 89-jarige Le Pen was slechthorend, maar de straatvechter in hem was niet verdwenen. Hij stond pal voor zijn standpunten.
Sprekend over niet-westerse immigratie had hij het gedurende het interview over ‘le danger mortel’ – het dodelijke gevaar. Le Pen gaf het voorbeeld van de RER B, de metrotrein die een deel van de banlieue met Parijs verbindt. Die was geleidelijk steeds ‘zwarter’ geworden. Autochtone ‘witte’ Fransen voelden zich er ongemakkelijk. In het klein was dit het gevaar dat Frankrijk en de rest van Europa bedreigde. Volgens Le Pen was het een kwestie van leven en dood.
Ik dacht meteen terug aan de speech van Baudet, die in verband met immigratie eveneens onze samenleving ‘dodelijk gewond’ noemde. Nog onwerkelijker werd het toen Le Pen verder ging en net als Baudet zei dat het zaak was ‘ons boreaal Europa’ te beschermen.
Wat bedoelt Le Pen met ‘boreaal’?
Geïntrigeerd door dat vreemde woord ‘boreaal’ besloot ik me er bij thuiskomst in te verdiepen. Op het oog leek het een onschuldige term. Het betekent ‘noordelijk’ – naar Boreas, de Griekse god van de noordenwind. Geografen en botanici spreken over boreale bossen.
Maar in een politieke context is de term allerminst onschuldig. ‘Boreaal’ verwijst namelijk óók naar een belangrijke stichtingsmythe van Europees ultrarechts: de ‘arische’ en ‘polaire’ wortels van het Indo-Europese volk, de veronderstelde voorouders van de witte Europeanen.
Prominente nazi’s als Heinrich Himmler meenden dat het arische ras uit een mythische noordelijke provincie stamde: ‘Hyperborea’. Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog blijft de term in Frankrijk opduiken in de teksten van Europe-Action, de beweging van de historicus en verklaard racist Dominique Venner.
Europe-Action maakt zich sterk voor wat zij ‘le monde blanc’ noemt – de witte wereld. Venner baart in 2013 opzien door zich op 78-jarige leeftijd achter het altaar van de Notre-Dame in Parijs een kogel door het hoofd te jagen.
Ik herinner me dat moment goed. Het was een wanhoopsdaad, waarmee Venner voor een ommekeer in het publieke bewustzijn hoopte te zorgen. In een afscheidsbrief waarschuwde hij voor het gevaar van niet-westerse immigratie, dat neerkwam op wat hij ‘ de grote vervanging van de Franse en Europese bevolking’ noemde.
Enkele jaren later zal Baudet op Twitter een boek van Venner in de schijnwerpers zetten.
Een codewoord voor raszuiverheid
Via Europe-Action vond de term ‘boreaal’ gedurende de jaren zeventig zijn weg naar La Nouvelle Droite van Alain de Benoist en Guillaume Faye, een verklaard racist. Faye bepleit het idee van een ‘Eurosiberië’ – een as Parijs-Berlijn-Moskou. Op sociale media prijst Baudet een artikel van Faye over Poetin enthousiast aan.
Tenslotte komt de term ‘boreaal’ in de jaren tachtig bij het Front National terecht en is het in gebruik geraakt als een codewoord, een dog-whistle. Het verwijst naar hetzelfde gedachtegoed van raszuiverheid dat in het Derde Rijk centraal stond.
Ook buiten het interview dat ik met hem hield heeft Jean-Marie Le Pen het te pas en te onpas over ‘een boreale as’, die loopt van ‘Gibraltar tot Vladivostok’. Ten noorden van die as lopen bevolkingsaantallen terug, ten zuiden exploderen ze. Ook spreekt hij wel over een ‘boreale ruimte’, waarin het Rusland van Vladimir Poetin volgens hem een belangrijke rol te spelen heeft als bondgenoot. Dit is nadrukkelijk een christelijke ruimte, afgeschermd van het zuiden, ‘dat ons zal overspoelen’.
Het gebruik van deze terminologie kost Jean-Marie Le Pen uiteindelijk de kop. In 2015 wordt hem het lidmaatschap van zijn eigen partij ontnomen. De druppel die voor dochter Marine de emmer deed overlopen is een interview in het beruchte extreem-rechtse tijdschrift Rivarol, later vertaald door een Amerikaanse neonaziwebsite. Titel: ‘We Must Save Boreal Europe & the White World’. ‘Je mag het tegenwoordig niet eens meer over ‘boreaal Europa’ of ‘de blanke wereld’ hebben’, klaagde Le Pen achteraf in een communiqué.
Dus: ‘boreaal’, de term die voor Le Pen zijn politieke graf opende, gebruikte Baudet bij de geboorte van zijn partij.
De vraag is waarom.
Waarom gebruikte Baudet identieke woorden in de oprichtingsspeech van zijn politieke partij?
Waarom gebruikte Baudet zulke beladen woorden in de oprichtingsspeech van zijn politieke partij?
Als politicus die zich laat voorstaan op zijn grote belezenheid, moét hij de extreem-rechtse toe-eigening van het begrip ‘boreaal’ kennen.
En zou hij die niet kennen, dan zou het een onvergeeflijke politieke blunder zijn geweest. Het zou zoiets zijn als je hakken tegen elkaar slaan, je rechterhand naar voren zwaaien en zeggen dat je niet weet dat je de Hitlergroet brengt.
Heeft Baudet de term als dog-whistle gebruikt, net als eerder Le Pen? En zo ja, wie riep hij dan aan? Het antwoord op deze vragen staat open.
Op vragen over zijn ontmoetingen met Le Pen en het woord ‘boreaal’ antwoordt zijn persvoorlichter dat de partij niet ingaat op ‘doorzichtige pogingen ons via ‘guilt by association’ van alles en nog wat aan te smeren.’
Toen Baudet eerder op het gebruik van dubieuze terminologie werd aangesproken, speelde hij de vermoorde onschuld. Zoals toen hij eerst met veel pathos sprak over ‘homeopathische verdunning’, maar later zei dat dit ‘misschien niet zo handig’ was.
Ineens viel alles op zijn plek: Le Pen is Baudets peetvader
Dankzij mijn interview met Le Pen leken ineens allerlei zaken op hun plek te vallen.
Baudets verwijzen naar een ‘boreaal Europa’ en een door immigratie ‘dodelijke gewonde’ samenleving;
Eerdere opmerkingen dat hij niet wil dat Europa ‘afrikaniseert’ en wenst dat het continent ‘dominant blank en cultureel blijft, zoals het is’;
Zijn vrees dat Europa door niet-westerse migranten zal worden ‘overspoeld’;
Zijn tweets over werk van Guillaume Faye en Dominique Venner – twee voorvechters van een ‘wit Europa’;
Zijn wens dat migranten uit moslimlanden en uit sub-Saharisch Afrika zonder omhaal worden ‘teruggestuurd’;
Zijn militante column, in het Franse weekblad Valeurs Actuelles, over het ten strijde te trekken tegen de islamisering van Europa;
Zijn pleidooi voor het normaliseren van de banden met Poetin en het afschaffen van de NAVO.
Als ik op deze opsomming afga, kan ik eigenlijk maar één conclusie trekken: niet Paul Cliteur, maar Jean-Marie Le Pen is Baudets intellectuele peetvader.
Hij noemde zich socialist, al zag ik dat in zijn ideeën nooit terug
Toen Baudet in 2009 bezig was contacten te leggen in Parijs, benaderde hij ook mij. Op dat moment was ik werkzaam als Frankrijk-correspondent voor dagblad Trouw en weekblad De Groene Amsterdammer. Ook werkte ik aan een boek over het Franse publieke debat en het Parijse intellectuele leven.
Dat intrigeerde Baudet, net als mijn afstudeerscriptie over Tocqueville. Hij stelde voor dat ik een bijdrage aan zijn boek Conservatieve vooruitgang zou leveren, een bundeling opstellen over conservatieve denkers, die begin 2010 zou verschijnen.
Dat deed ik niet, wel leverde ik op zijn verzoek een wervend tekstje voor het omslag. Baudet was aanwezig op mijn boekpresentatie, ik op de zijne. Ik kan onze persoonlijke betrekkingen niet anders dan hartelijk noemen, zeker in die periode.
Hij was levendig en ontplooide allerlei initiatieven, van muziekavondjes tot boekenclubs. Hij noemde zich toen, in navolging van de Poolse filosoof Leszek Kolakowski, een ‘conservatief-liberaal-socialist’, al zag ik dat socialistische nooit echt in zijn ideeën terug. In discussies kon het er hard aan toegaan, maar dat had ook wel weer wat.
Je kunt beter niet met Le Pen gezien worden, vond Baudet ook
Begin 2010 had ik het met hem over Jean-Marie Le Pen. Ik probeerde Baudet duidelijk te maken dat Le Pen een antisemiet en een etnonationalist was met wie je als serieuze intellectueel niet gezien kunt worden. Ik gebruikte een voorbeeld uit 2007, waarbij Le Pen stelde dat oud-president Sarkozy vanwege zijn Hongaarse vader niet ‘Frans’ genoeg was om president te mogen worden. In een email gaf Baudet me gelijk. Dat zou hem er dus niet van weerhouden zijn proefschrift aan Le Pen te gaan aanbieden. Geen gering gebaar.
Vanaf eind 2010 zagen Baudet en ik elkaar minder geregeld. Ik was druk met het verslaan van de opstanden in de Arabische wereld en bevond mij vanaf begin 2011 veelvuldig aan de andere kant van de Middellandse Zee; Baudet zette zich in Nederland aan de afronding van zijn dissertatie.
‘Thierry provoceert gewoon een beetje’, dacht ik dan. ‘Hij meent het vast niet.’ Maar hij meent het wel
Gelijktijdig begon hij in de media zijn kruistocht tegen de EU, moderne kunst en wat niet al. Zijn publieke stellingnames, zijn sympathie voor Wilders en de steeds alarmistischer toon die hij aansloeg, stonden me tegen. Een tijdlang probeerde ik dat weg te lachen, het allemaal niet zo serieus te nemen. ‘Thierry provoceert gewoon een beetje’, dacht ik dan. ‘Hij meent het vast niet.’ Maar hij meent het wel.
Een ziekelijke afkeer van het eigene: het blijkt een keerpunt
In augustus 2013 troffen we elkaar op een avond langs de Seine. Een paar dagen eerder had ik op Facebook de flaptekst van Oikofobie onder ogen gehad – een bundeling columns uit NRC Handelsblad die op het punt stond te verschijnen. Hierin verwijt Baudet de maatschappelijke elite een ‘ziekelijke afkeer van het eigene’. Ik weet nog dat ik van de term schrok. Hoezo ‘ziekelijk’? Wat was dat nu weer voor jaren-dertig-taal?
Baudet stond pal voor zijn ideeën merkte ik die avond, tijdens een hoogoplopende discussie. Hij was bloedserieus, en allesbehalve de ‘intellectuele dandy’ of de ‘provocateur’, zoals sommigen hem tot op de dag van vandaag kenschetsen. De avond aan de Seine blijkt een keerpunt in onze relatie. Tot een definitieve breuk komt het niet, maar ieder voor zich trekken we onze conclusies.
De politiek: daar is moed voor nodig, sms ik. Hij antwoordt niet
De laatste keer dat ik Baudet zie, is in de zomer van 2016. Ik kom hem tegen in de Spuistraat te Amsterdam. Hij is onderweg naar boekhandel Athenaeum om een besteld boek af te halen. Ik ook, dus dat trof. Later die dag deelt hij zijn aankoop instemmend op Twitter. Het is La Guerre civile qui vient (De komende burgeroorlog) van de uiterst rechtse opiniemaker Ivan Rioufol.
Niet lang daarna kondigt Baudet aan dat hij de politiek in gaat. Ik sms hem dat daar moed voor nodig is, maar ook dat ik niet op hem zal stemmen. Hij antwoordt niet.
‘Onderzoek alles en behoud het goede’.
Met die zin uit de Bijbel verweerde Baudet zich tegen De Correspondent toen die diens geruchtmakende diner met Jared Taylor onthulde. Maar deze zin is slechts een deel van het citaat.
‘En vermijd elk kwaad, in welke vorm het zich ook voordoet’, zo gaat het verder.
Baudet zegt steeds geen romantisch nationalist of racist te zijn. Dat wil ik graag geloven. Maar waarom wekt hij dan zo vaak de indruk dat hij dat wél is?
Thierry Baudet en het Forum voor Democratie wilden geen antwoord geven op onze vragen. Zij zeggen niet in te willen gaan op ‘doorzichtige pogingen ons via ‘guilt by association’ van alles en nog wat aan te smeren.’
Jean-Marie Le Pen is ook gecontacteerd, maar hij herinnerde zich de ontmoetingen met Baudet niet.
[9] PROTOTYPICAL FASCISM IN CONTEMPORARY DUTCH POLITICSHENK BOVEKERK Prototypical Fascism in Contemporary Dutch Politics Henk Bovekerk (s475630) Tilburg Universitythe Netherlands BA Liberal Arts & Sciences (Humanities major) Under the supervision of dr. A.C.J. de Ruiter Read by prof. dr. J.M.E. Blommaert Fall Semester 2011
Vorige week werd in Almere taxichauffeur Henk Schuurman door drie beesten van Surinaamse afkomst doodgestoken.”……..””De Partij voor de Vrijheid heeft de ambitie om in Nederland minstens dezelfde duizelingwekkende criminaliteitsvermindering te realiseren. De misdaad in ons land kan zeer fors teruggedrongen worden met meer politieagenten op straat, met minimumstraffen en met strafkampen.’
COLUMN WILDERS [IN GEEN STIJL] CRIMINELE ALLOCHTONEN
Vorige week werd in Almere taxichauffeur Henk Schuurman door drie beesten van Surinaamse afkomst doodgestoken. Dat het geen toeval is dat het om niet-Westers allochtone daders gaat, blijkt uit het recent verschenen onderzoeksrapport ‘Allochtone en autochtone verdachten van verschillende delicttypen nader bekeken’ van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC).
Het rapport beantwoordt onder andere de vraag in welke mate autochtonen en niet-Westers allochtonen zich schuldig maken aan misdaad, en vergelijkt daarbij beide groepen.
De uitkomsten zijn huiveringwekkend.
Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat van circa een derde van alle gepleegde delicten de vermeende dader een niet-Westers allochtoon is, terwijl deze groep ‘slechts’ ongeveer elf procent van onze bevolking omvat.
Marokkanen, Turken, Antillianen en Surinamers zijn fors oververtegenwoordigd binnen alle onderzochte misdaadgebieden. Zowel diefstal met geweld, vernieling en verstoring van de openbare orde als gewelds-, vermogens-, verkeers-, drugs- en wapendelicten worden relatief veel vaker door leden van deze vier grote allochtone groepen gepleegd dan door autochtone Nederlanders.
Deze gegevens zijn op zichzelf al schrikbarend, maar enkele specifieke cijfers betreffende Antillianen en Marokkanen zijn nog veel schokkender.
Vergeleken met autochtone Nederlanders is de kans dat volwassen Marokkanen van de tweede generatie van wie beide ouders in het buitenland geboren zijn, verdacht worden van vernieling en verstoring van de openbare orde acht keer zo groot. Voor bedreiging is dat elf keer, voor een vermogensdelict vijftien keer en voor diefstal met geweld maar liefst vierendertig keer.
De kans dat volwassen Antillianen van de eerste generatie verdacht worden van een zedendelict is zeven keer zo groot dan dat een autochtoon hiervan wordt verdacht, voor een wapendelict is dat veertien keer en voor diefstal met geweld is dat zelfs tweeëntwintig keer.Met Marokkaanse en Antilliaanse jongeren is het minstens zo erg gesteld De kans dat 12 tot 17 jarige Marokkanen en Antillianen van de tweede generatie van wie beide ouders niet in Nederland geboren zijn, verdacht worden van diefstal met geweld is vergeleken met autochtone leeftijdsgenoten zesentwintig respectievelijk drieëntwintig keer zo groot, en de kans dat eerste generatie Marokkaanse en Antilliaanse jongeren verdacht worden van dat misdrijf is zelfs eenendertig dan wel tweeëndertig keer zo groot.
Met deze horrorcijfers in de hand zou je denken dat het kabinet de misdaad onder met name Antillianen en Marokkanen nu eens eindelijk echt gaat aanpakken. Maar niets is minder waar. Zowat het eerste besluit van dit kabinet was het intrekken van het wetsontwerp ‘Terugzending criminele Antillianen’, waarmee Antilliaanse misdadigers naar hun boeveneilanden teruggestuurd zouden kunnen gaan worden.
Wel strooit dit socialistenkabinet met extra miljoenen voor met name softe preventieprojectjes én er zal aangaande de misdaad onder allochtonen zelfs een heuse werkconferentie met een paar wetenschappers belegd worden… Grotere lamlendigheid is nauwelijks voorstelbaar.Anders dan dit kabinet weet men in de Verenigde Staten wél hoe misdaad aangepakt moet worden. Tussen 1990 en 2000 daalde in New York het aantal autodiefstallen, inbraken, berovingen en moorden stuk voor stuk met maar liefst minstens zeventig procent. Tussen 2000 en 2005 daalde de criminaliteit nog eens met bijna een derde.
Deze spectaculaire daling van de misdaad werd niet met welzijnswerkers, maar met meer politie en met langere celstraffen tot stand gebracht.De Partij voor de Vrijheid heeft de ambitie om in Nederland minstens dezelfde duizelingwekkende criminaliteitsvermindering te realiseren. De misdaad in ons land kan zeer fors teruggedrongen worden met meer politieagenten op straat, met minimumstraffen en met strafkampen.
Verder moeten niet-Westers allochtone criminelen met een dubbel paspoort gedenaturaliseerd en uitgezet worden, en gezien de enorme oververtegenwoordiging van deze groep in de misdaadstatistieken zal Nederland dan in een mum van tijd voorgoed verlost zijn van enkele tienduizenden misdadigers.
Daarnaast moet het ingetrokken ‘Antillianenwetsvoorstel’ nieuw leven ingeblazen worden. Tot slot stel ik een nieuwe maatregel voor: laat niet-Westers allochtonen, ongeacht of zij wel of geen dubbele nationaliteit bezitten, hun straf uitzitten in het land van afkomst. De cellen in Rabat en Ankara zijn vast niet zo comfortabel als de hotelkamers van de Bijlmerbajes.
Nederland zou hiertoe verdragen moeten afsluiten, om te beginnen met Marokko, Turkije en Suriname.De Nederlandse burgers snakken naar veel minder misdaad en aan de andere kant van de oceaan is aangetoond dat het kan. Maar voordat de zon in ons land weer kan gaan schijnen moet dit kabinet verdwijnen, nog liever vandaag dan morgen.
GEERT WILDERS: MANNELIJKE ASIELZOEKERS OPSLUITEN IN AZC’S
Geert Wilders [PVV]:”Duizenden Arabische mannen hebben de afgelopen tijd honderden vrouwen sexueel aangevallen, vernederd, verkracht.Alle vrouwen zijn loslopend wild.Testosteronbommen heb ik de daders genoemd.We hebben gezien, waar ze toe in staat zijn.Het is sexueel terrorisme, een sexuele Jihad.En het gebeurt overal in Europa.In Nederland, Duitsland, Zweden, Oostenrijk.Overal.Waar honderdduizenden vooral alleenstaande mannen uit een cultuur van vrouwenonderdrukking werden binnengelaten.Overal waar de onverantwoorde Open Deur politie zoals premier Rutte en kanselier Merkel de rode loper wordt uitgerold voor deze testosteronbommen.Overal krijgen we nu te maken met een verkrachtingsepidemie.Het is een ramp, die vermeden had kunnen worden en vermeden had moeten worden, maar niet vermeden werd.Op vele plaatsen probeerden de autoriteiten en de media het verschrikkelijke nieuws onder de pet te houden, onder het tapijt te schuiven, maar dat lukt ze niet meer.De geest is uit de Fles.En er heerst, terecht, woede, angst, in Nederland en in de rest van Europa.Mensen zijn, terecht, heel erg boos, duizenden Nederlandse vrouwen stellen zich grote vragen bij hun eigen veiligheid.”Wie zal mij beschermen”Duizenden Nederlandse mannen maken zich grote zorgen over de veiligheid van hun vrouwen.”Wie zal hen helpen”En duizenden Nederlandse ouders zijn bang voor wat hun dochters kan overkomen.”Wie waakt er over hen”Vreselijke massa aanrandingen zoals in Keulen kunnen ook hier in Nederland gebeuren.En het is tijd, die waarheid onder ogen te zien.Deze daders komen uit een cultuur waarin vrouwen minderwaardige wezens zijn, een cultuur van eerwraak en vernedering.Een cultuur, gesticht door een Profeet, die seksslavinnen had en een negenjarig meisje verkrachtte.Het is tijd, ook die waarheid onder ogen te zien.Want wie wegkijkt, wie wegkijkt, is medeschuldig.En het wordt steeds duidelijker:Premier Rutte, mevrouw Merkel en al die andere politici in Europa, die hun grenzen weigerden te sluiten, ze laten onze vrouwen en dochters keihard in de steek en zijn dus medeverantwoordelijk.Wat de PVV betreft is het duidelijk:Onze grenzen moeten dicht.Dicht voor alle asielzoekers en alle immigranten uit islamitische landen.Maar zolang dat niet gebeurt, zolang de islamitische testosteronbommen als een Zwaard van Damocles boven de Nederlandse vrouwen hangen, stel ik voor, dat we mannelijke asielzoekers opsluiten in de AZC’s.Voor hen moeten de AZC’s gesloten instellingen worden.Zodat geen enkele mannelijke asielzoeker nog de straat op kan en zodat onze vrouwen eindelijk worden beschermd.”
In de Beverwaard, een arme wijk aan de rand van Rotterdam, vlogen in 2015 de bakstenen nog door de lucht. Bewoners waren woedend over de komst van een asielzoekerscentrum (azc), met mensen die erop uit zouden zijn om te ‘grabbelen en verkrachten’. Ondanks de hevige protesten hield het stadsbestuur vast aan de plannen en anderhalf jaar later blijkt de zorg ongegrond en de afkeer grotendeels verdwenen. Dat schrijft de Volkskrant.
De onderzoeksconclusie van een onderzoek van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) – dat vandaag aan de Tweede Kamer wordt gepresenteerd – is dat de komst van een azc geen effect heeft op de veiligheid in de buurt:
In vergelijking met leeftijdsgenoten, seksegenoten en mensen met een lage sociaal-economische status onder de Nederlandse bevolking zijn asielzoekers iets ondervertegenwoordigd in de politiestatistieken, ook als het gaat om zedendelicten.
Els Visser (50) woont in de Beverwaard en is een van de mensen die eerst fel tegen de komst van het asielzoekerscentrum was. Tegen de Volkskrant zegt ze:
Ik heb me vergist. Ik heb totaal geen last van die mensen. We hebben ons gek laten maken door verhalen die rondgingen. Vrouwen konden niet meer alleen over straat omdat ze verkracht zouden worden. Ik was ook bang dat ze hier de boel kort en klein zouden komen slaan als ze geen verblijfsvergunning kregen. Nu denk ik: ik heb me laten meeslepen terwijl ik eigenlijk helemaal niet wist wat we konden verwachten. We zijn opgehitst. We hebben elkaar gek gemaakt. Het was kuddegedrag.
Visser ging ook zelf kijken in het asielzoekerscentrum:
Ik verwachtte royale hotelkamers, maar het waren heel kleine, sobere ruimtes, nog net geen gevangenis.
Ali Honor, manager van het azc in de Beverwaard, vertelt dat de schrik er goed in zat bij bewoners, onder meer vanwege rechtse bangmakerij:
Daarbij kwam dat er verhalen de ronde deden waar niets van klopte. Er zouden alleen alleenstaande mannen komen, de criminaliteit zou toenemen, maar de groep van vierhonderd asielzoekers die op de locatie verblijven, bestaat grotendeels uit gezinnen met jonge kinderen, waarvan de meesten uit Syrië zijn gevlucht.
De aanwezigheid van een asielzoekerscentrum (azc) heeft geen effect op de veiligheid in een buurt. Tot die slotsom komt het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) dat onderzocht of het terecht is dat veel mensen de komst van een azc vrezen omdat dat voor meer criminaliteit in de wijk zou zorgen.
In het rapport staat dat het aantal woninginbraken en overige misdrijven in de buurt van een azc dan wel hoger is dan gemiddeld, maar dat ligt niet hoger van vergelijkbare wijken zonder azc. Verder valt te lezen dat asielzoekers met een zwakke economische positie minder vaak verdacht worden van criminaliteit dan autochtone Nederlanders in dezelfde situatie.
Syrië en Eritrea
Van alle asielzoekers worden mensen uit Syrië en Eritrea het minst verdacht van criminaliteit. Juist mensen uit betrekkelijk veilige landen die weinig kans hebben op een verblijfsvergunning belanden op het foute pad.
Het onderzoeksinstituut van het ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid maakte gebruik van gegevens van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). Dat koppelde gegevens over plaatsen delict, aangiften en processen-verbaal aan alle Nederlandse buurten. Ook de adressen van de azc’s werden meegenomen.
NL: Na wat tijd te hebben genomen om even alles op een rijtje te zetten bij deze nog een klein verslag over de actie van Vrije Bond Tilburg tegen de F.v.D. op donderdag 29 juli.
ENG: Below you can find a report of the protest by Vrije Bond Tilburg at a gathering of the fascist party of F.v.D. on the 29th of July in Tilburg.
For English, see below)
Beste kameraden,
Na wat tijd te hebben genomen om even alles op een rijtje te zetten bij deze nog een klein verslag over de actie van Vrije Bond Tilburg tegen de F.v.D. op donderdag 29 juli.
Om 17:00 zijn wij met een klein groepje vertrokken naar het Koningsplein met een aantal spandoeken en borden. Op het plein werden we vrijwel onmiddellijk omsingeld door zowel de fascisten en politie, die ons weg probeerden te krijgen. Hier lieten wij ons echter niet zomaar door tegenhouden, en wij hebben daar dan ook in een paar minuten onze boodschap overgebracht. Nadat wij de indruk hadden dat onze boodschap goed was ontvangen door de fascisten en door een aantal goedwillende omstanders, hebben wij om arrestaties te voorkomen langzaam, maar met geheven hoofd en keel wijd open, het plein verlaten en hebben wij op een drukke locatie naast het betreffende plein onze boodschap verder verspreid:
“Toen niet, nu niet, nooit meer fascisme!”
Wat ook nog de moeite waard is om te weten: wij waren niet de enige protesterende groep, en hebben meerdere mensen op eigen initiatief actie zien voeren. Wij hebben achteraf vernomen dat er zelfs een kameraad het podium op is geklommen om het verspreiden van fascistische haat een halt toe te roepen, waarvoor zeer veel respect en hulde! Al met al hebben we onze stem laten horen en hebben we een mooi aantal fascisten geconfronteerd, en daar mogen we trots op zijn!
Mochten er kameraden zijn die in eigen stad soortgelijke initiatieven willen nemen en steun kunnen gebruiken, dan horen wij dit graag! Je kunt altijd mailen naar vrijebondtilburg@riseup.net.
Met strijdbare groet,
Vrije Bond Tilburg
p.s.: Wij willen graag de politie en gemeente Tilburg danken voor het geven van een podium aan fascisme, en voor het op onbeschofte en schaamteloze wijze tegenwerken van mensen met een antifascistische boodschap. Bedankt! p.s. 2: een van ons heeft een uitgebreider persoonlijk verslag geschreven. Zie https://peterstormt.nl/2021/07/31/op-antifavontuur-in-tilburg/
—————————————————— Good evening comrades,
Below you can find a report of the protest by Vrije Bond Tilburg at a gathering of the fascist party of F.v.D. on the 29th of July in Tilburg.
At 17:00 our group headed towards the fascist gathering at Koningsplein with some signs and banners. As soon as we arrived at the square, we were pretty much immediately surrounded by the fascists and police, who tried to send us away on false grounds. Of course we did not let this stop us from doing what we came for: to deliver our message against fascism and racism. So we took a few minutes, until we felt our message had upset enough of the fascists, and cheered up enough passerbys. Then, with our heads held high and our voices raised, we left the square in order to prevent any arrests, and moved on to a busy road nearby to continue delivering our message to the people of Tilburg: Fascists are not welcome here!!!
Another thing worth mentioning is that we were not the only protesters at the scene, and saw multiple others going against the fascists by themselves. Afterwards, we even learned that one comrade climbed the stage on their own and tried to stop the fascists from spreading their message of hate, which deserves massive respect! All in all, we have let the people hear our voices loud and clear, and successfully confronted a good amount of fascists, which we are more than proud of.
If there are any comrades in other cities who want to do something similar and could use any help, please let us know! You can always reach us at vrijebondtilburg@riseup.net.
With solidarity,
Vrije Bond Tilburg
p.s.: We would like to thank the municipality and police of Tilburg for giving fascists a stage, and for very rudely, disrespectfully and shamelessly trying to prevent people with an anti-fascist and anti-racist message from spreading it. Thank you!
Wat ook nog de moeite waard is om te weten: wij waren niet de enige protesterende groep, en hebben meerdere mensen op eigen initiatief actie zien voeren. Wij hebben achteraf vernomen dat er zelfs een kameraad het podium op is geklommen om het verspreiden van fascistische haat een halt toe te roepen, waarvoor zeer veel respect en hulde!
INDYMEDIAVERSLAG PROTEST TEGEN BAUDET EN FVD IN TILBURG! REPORTPROTEST AGAINST BAUDET AND THE FVD IN TILBURG! https://www.indymedia.nl/node/50149 ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 14
EINDE NOTEN
Astrid Essed
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Verzet tegen komst Thierry Baudet naar Tilburg/A Few Good People!/Adhesiebetuiging!
YOUTUBE.COM THIERRY BAUDET: ”IK WIL GRAAG DAT EUROPA DOMINANT,BLANK EN CULTUREEL BLIJFT, ZOALS HET IS”[THIERRY BAUDET BIJ HET DEBAT ”DE VLUCHTWEEK”,RADIOZENDER FM, DONDERDAG 17 SEPTEMBER 2015] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBzt9PyU5w
TRANSCRIPTIE[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Wat maakt het uit, als die mensen niet teruggaan?Dat is helemaal niet relevant.[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar…..”[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Ik erger mij een beetje aan de houding….”[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik vind het wel relevant!”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar Thierry, waarom is….[THIERRY BAUDET]”Omdat ik niet wil, dat Europa Afrikaniseert….”[GESPREKSPARTNER];;”Deze opmerking van Thierry vind ik best wel kwalijk,als je bedenkt, dat 20 procent van migranten, die naar Europakomen, Afrikanen zijn.Dus zo’n complete demonisering van Afrikanen is niet nodig.Tegelijkertijd…..[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik demoniseer niet, ik zeg wat ik wil, wat ik wenselijk vind enwat ik niet wenselijk vind.En wat ik niet wenselijk vind, is dat wij veel meer gaan lijkenop delen van de wereld waar heel veel mensen weg willen….”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Je wil zeg maar een bepaald Europees goed.wil je eigenlijkzo houden zoals het is..Op zich mag dat….”’[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik wil graag, dat Europa dominant, blank en cultureel blijft zoals het is.”EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE YOUTUBE.COM DE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDET https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt-s0B7mZn0 TRANSCRIPTIE”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.” EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE
Forum voor Democratie-voorman Thierry Baudet verkeert regelmatig in het gezelschap van extreemrechtse figuren. Hij had onder meer een vijf uur durende ontmoeting met de Amerikaanse racist Jared Taylor, sprak in 2014 op de IJzerwake en ging trots op de foto met de racistische auteur James Ronald Kennedy en diens boek ‘The South Was Right’. Volgens de partij wordt er door journalisten een campagne gevoerd om hun leider via ‘guilt by association’ extreemrechtse ideeën aan te wrijven, maar dat verklaart niet waarom Baudet zelf keer op keer het gezelschap van extreemrechtse figuren opzoekt. De Correspondent onthult vandaag dat Baudet maar liefst twee keer de extreemrechtse grondlegger van het Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen, bezocht en dat er opvallende ideologische overeenkomsten tussen hen bestaan.
Baudet ging samen met historicus en publicist Geerten Waling, dan nog student geschiedenis in 2009 op bezoek bij Le Pen, die bij herhaling heeft verklaard dat de gaskamers ‘een detail in de geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog’ zijn. Nadien doen zij verslag aan Daniel Knegt, een Nederlandse geschiedenisstudent die op dat moment voor scriptieonderzoek in de stad verblijft:
Ze kwamen er dolenthousiast vandaan. Ze hadden het er over hoe Le Pen werd gedemoniseerd en hoe onterecht het was dat hij steeds werd vastgepind op die opmerkingen over dat ‘detail’. Volgens Baudet en Waling was dat in de media steeds terugkerende ‘detail’ een voorwendsel om het niet over zijn ideeën te hoeven hebben. Ik stelde toen dat Le Pen zulke dingen heel bewust zegt, dat hij zijn dwarse imago ermee cultiveert, en er het aanzienlijke antisemitische electoraat in Frankrijk mee mobiliseert.
De uitspraken van Le Pen over de gaskamers staan niet op zichzelf, hij staat erom bekend de Franse collaboratie met de nazi’s goed te praten en de gewelddadigheid van de Duitse bezetting af te zwakken. Ook propageert hij rassendenken en dat bepaalde rassen inferieur zijn aan anderen. Zijn veroordeling voor zijn uitspraken over ‘het detail’ was slechts de laatste in een lange reeks strafmaatregelen na racistische en antisemitische uitspraken. Hij vertegenwoordigt daarmee een lange traditie van Frans etnonationalisme, bekend van onder meer de Dreyfus-affaire en het Vichy-regime.
Journalist Marijn Kruk schrijft vervolgens over de opvallende overeenkomsten in taalgebruik tussen Baudet en Le Pen:
Maar er is meer. Behalve dat veel geciteerde ‘auto-immuunsysteem’ had Baudet het daar ook over ‘ons boreaal Europa’… ‘Boreaal’ verwijst namelijk óók naar een belangrijke stichtingsmythe van Europees ultrarechts: de ‘arische’ en ‘polaire’ wortels van het Indo-Europese volk, de veronderstelde voorouders van de witte Europeanen… Prominente nazi’s als Heinrich Himmler meenden dat het arische ras uit een mythische noordelijke provincie stamde: ‘Hyperborea’. Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog blijft de term in Frankrijk opduiken in de teksten van Europe-Action, de beweging van de historicus en verklaard racist Dominique Venner… Tenslotte komt de term ‘boreaal’ in de jaren tachtig bij het Front National terecht en is het in gebruik geraakt als een codewoord, een dog-whistle. Het verwijst naar hetzelfde gedachtegoed van raszuiverheid dat in het Derde Rijk centraal stond. Dus: ‘boreaal’, de term die voor Le Pen zijn politieke graf opende, gebruikte Baudet bij de geboorte van zijn partij.
Kruk concludeert op basis van een lange rij overeenkomsten, dat niet Paul Cliteur, maar Jean-Marie Le Pen Baudets intellectuele peetvader is. Lees het hele artikel van De Correspondent hier.
Journalist Marijn Kruk beschrijft na weken onderzoek de verwantschap tussen zijn goede kennis Thierry Baudet en de radicaal-rechtse politicus Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Dat Thierry Baudet graag flirt met radicaal rechts, is inmiddels geen geheim meer. Wat wij nog niet wisten is dat de populaire politicus twee keer Jean-Marie Le Pen bezocht en dat er opvallende ideologische overeenkomsten tussen hen bestaan.
Begin 2009 ging Thierry Baudet op bezoek bij Jean-Marie Le Pen, de oprichter van het Front National, vader van Marine en voor altijd icoon van extreem-rechts. Ik kende Baudet toen net een paar weken. Hij leek me sympathiek, maar wat ik hiervan moest denken wist ik niet goed.
Baudet was bezig een netwerk op te bouwen in Parijs (waar ik sinds 2004 woon en werk) en hij bezocht wel meer prominenten. Maar Le Pen is een veroordeeld Holocaustontkenner en een etnonationalist, die streeft naar het behoud van ‘het witte ras’. Een paar jaar later ging Baudet nog een tweede keer op audiëntie bij Le Pen, nu om hem een exemplaar van zijn proefschrift aan te bieden.
Dit blijkt uit mijn onderzoek naar het Franse netwerk van Thierry Baudet.
Fastforward naar het heden, nu we een aantal dingen over Baudet hebben geleerd. Op 14 januari 2017 houdt Baudet de oprichtingsspeech van zijn politieke partij, Forum voor Democratie. Daarin maakt hij gewag van een ‘auto-immuunziekte’, waaraan we in het Westen zouden lijden. Vluchtelingen en migranten noemt hij er ‘kwaadwillende, agressieve elementen’, die ons ‘maatschappelijk lichaam in ongehoorde aantallen worden binnengeloodst’.
Dit is de klassieke taal van het organisch (of romantisch) nationalisme, de denktrant die het twintigste-eeuwse fascisme inspireerde. Het ‘organische’ staat voor het beeld van het lichaam, iets met een onveranderlijke kern, waar buitenstaanders geen deel aan hebben.
Later dat jaar brengt de Volkskrant het contact tussen Baudet en Erkenbrand aan het licht, een extreem-rechts genootschap dat zich opmaakt voor ‘de strijd om de blanke natie’. Daarop volgt de onthulling van De Correspondent Lees hier hoe Thierry Baudet vijf uur lang dineerde met Jared Taylor, een bekende extreem-rechtse Amerikaan.over het vijf uur durende diner dat Baudet had met Jared Taylor, een van de leiders van de Amerikaanse white supremacist movement.
En zo hebben we in Nederland, dankzij Baudet, nu een discussie over volkeren en gedetermineerde verschillen in IQ.
Dit zijn meer dan uitschieters
Deze reeks feiten werpt nieuw licht op Baudets ontmoetingen met Le Pen. Die ontmoetingen betekenen méér dan uitschieters tijdens een intellectuele tour d’horizon langs spraakmakende Fransen in wie hij geestverwanten vermoedde.
Ze leggen een jarenlang patroon bloot van sympathie voor een denktraditie die Baudet zelf ‘Romantisch nationalisme’ noemt en waarin het gaat om kleur, ras, bloed – en uiteindelijk: strijd.
In zijn boek De Aanval op de natiestaat uit 2012 wijst Baudet dat type denken weliswaar af, maar daarbuiten wordt hij er continu door aangetrokken – als een mot door een kaarsvlam.
Zolang Baudet nog met zijn denktank in een keldertje aan de Herengracht in Amsterdam zou zitten, was dit misschien niet zo zorgelijk. Maar nu is hij een populaire politicus, die in sommige peilingen op 15 zetels staat.
Hoe Baudet bij Le Pen terechtkwam
Baudet wordt bij beide bezoeken aan Le Pen vergezeld door historicus en publicist Geerten Waling, dan nog student geschiedenis. Volgens Waling wilden zij tijdens de eerste ontmoeting Le Pen interviewen en de weerslag daarvan aanbieden aan Elsevier en een Amerikaans tijdschrift.
Een dag na die eerste ontmoeting in 2009 doen zij verslag aan Daniel Knegt, een Nederlandse geschiedenisstudent die op dat moment voor scriptieonderzoek in de stad verblijft.
‘Ze kwamen er dolenthousiast vandaan’, herinnert Knegt zich. ‘Ze hadden het er over hoe Le Pen werd gedemoniseerd en hoe onterecht het was dat hij steeds werd vastgepind op die opmerkingen over dat ‘detail’.’
Vanaf 1987 heeft Le Pen bij verschillende gelegenheden gezegd dat de gaskamers ‘een detail in de geschiedenis van de Tweede Wereldoorlog’ zijn.
‘Volgens Baudet en Waling was dat in de media steeds terugkerende ‘detail’ een voorwendsel om het niet over zijn ideeën te hoeven hebben’, zegt Knegt, inmiddels gepromoveerd op het Franse fascisme. ‘Ik stelde toen dat Le Pen zulke dingen heel bewust zegt, dat hij zijn dwarse imago ermee cultiveert, en er het aanzienlijke antisemitische electoraat in Frankrijk mee mobiliseert.’
Waling, die ik persoonlijk ken, verricht in 2009 aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam scriptieonderzoek naar de negentiende-eeuwse filosoof Ernest Renan, auteur van een beroemde rede over de natiestaat. In een reactie nu zegt Waling dat hij en Baudet ‘uitgelaten’ waren omdat zij in ‘gebrekkig Frans, een uur lang, zo’n berucht Frans politicus hadden kunnen spreken.’
Baudet is op het moment van zijn eerste ontmoeting met Le Pen als promovendus verbonden aan de Universiteit Leiden. Onder leiding van Paul Cliteur werkt hij aan een proefschrift over de natiestaat, of beter: over de uitholling daarvan.
Baudet wilde meer aandacht voor het gedachtegoed van Le Pen
Het interview in Elsevier komt niet tot stand. Op een ander toneel ijvert Baudet ervoor om Le Pen naar Nederland te laten komen. Baudet is reünist van de BKB-Academie, onderdeel van het Amsterdamse campagnebureau BKB. Die leidt ieder jaar een groep ambitieuze en betrokken jongeren op. Ze houden debatavonden en bezoeken verkiezingen in het buitenland.
‘Figuren als Le Pen of Dewinter zijn te extreem. Die plaatsen zich buiten het democratische debat’
Tijdens brainstormsessies met reünisten pleit Baudet er voor om Le Pen (en Filip Dewinter van het Vlaams Belang) in Nederland uit te nodigen. Volgens Erik van Bruggen, mede-oprichter van BKB, bestond er geen enkel animo voor zo’n bezoek. ‘In principe willen we iedere politieke kleur de ruimte bieden’, zegt hij desgevraagd. ‘Maar figuren als Le Pen of Dewinter, dat gaat te ver, die zijn te extreem, die plaatsen zich buiten het democratische debat’.
Hij schept zichtbaar genoegen in de verontwaardiging
Van de ontmoeting met Le Pen nabij Parijs maakt Baudet intussen geen geheim. Sterker: hij schept zichtbaar genoegen in de verschrikte reacties en verontwaardiging binnen de kleine wereld van Nederlandse journalisten, promovendi en uitwisselingsstudenten in Parijs.
In 2012 gaan Baudet en Waling nog een keer bij Le Pen langs, nu om een exemplaar van Baudets proefschrift aan te bieden: The Significance of Borders (in 2012 in handelseditie verschenen als De Aanval op de natiestaat). Volgens Waling wilde Baudet Le Pens bemiddeling vragen bij de verwezenlijking van een Franse vertaling.
Kleis Jager is op dat moment Frankrijk-correspondent voor dagblad Trouw. Voorafgaand aan deze tweede ontmoeting spreken Baudet en Waling nabij Parijs uitvoerig met hem. Jager was naar eigen zeggen wel gecharmeerd van het ‘beetje baldadige enthousiasme’ waarmee de twee aankondigen dat ze Le Pen weer gaan opzoeken. ‘Le Pen is een troebele bron, maar op een bepaalde manier fascineert hij ook’, zegt Jager desgevraagd. ‘Hij voorzag dat de natie en identiteit grote politieke thema’s zouden worden.’
Baudet en Waling willen van Jager weten of hij óók vindt dat Le Pen ten onrechte was gedemoniseerd. Jager: ‘Dat Le Pen een Holocaustontkenner is, daar is geen twijfel over en die demonisering heeft hij helemaal zelf over zich afgeroepen, dat heb ik ook gezegd.’
Het donkerbruine imago van Le Pen
Wie is Jean-Marie Le Pen op het moment dat Baudet hem in 2009 voor het eerst bezoekt? Zijn finest hour had ‘le Menhir’ zeven jaar eerder beleefd, toen hij tot ontzetting van velen wist door te dringen tot de tweede ronde van de Franse presidentsverkiezingen.
Na 2011, wanneer Le Pens dochter Marine hem opvolgt als voorzitter van het Front National, wordt hij op een zijspoor gezet. Het is onderdeel van Marines streven naar ‘ontdemonisering’ (dédiabolisation) van de partij. Als geen ander begrijpt ze dat ze het Front National van zijn donkerbruine imago moet ontdoen, wil de partij enige serieuze kans maken. Kortom: Marine moet haar vader op afstand zetten.
Jean-Marie Le Pen is immers niet alleen omstreden wegens de affaire van het ‘detail’. Hij heeft er ook een handje van de Franse collaboratie met de nazi’s goed te praten en de gewelddadigheid van de Duitse bezetting af te zwakken (daarmee voorbijgaand aan de deportatie van tienduizenden Franse Joden).
Le Pen gelooft bovendien in het bestaan van rassen en ook dat die niet gelijk zijn. De veroordeling in de affaire van ‘het detail’ kwam bovenop een lange reeks veroordelingen wegens racistische en antisemitische uitspraken.
Le Pens denkbeelden passen in een lange traditie van Frans etnonationalisme, waarvan de Dreyfus-affaire en het met de nazi’s collaborerende Vichy-regime de bekendste uitingen zijn.
Gezien Baudets interesse voor de natiestaat was het nog wel voorstelbaar dat hij Le Pen eens wilde meemaken. Maar hem een podium bieden in Elsevier? Hem naar Nederland halen? Hem zijn proefschrift aanbieden?
Baudet blijft gefascineerd door radicaal en extreem-rechts
Baudet blijft regelmatig naar Parijs komen. Dankzij een combinatie van verleidingskunst en doortastendheid zit hij al snel aan tafel bij Marc Fumaroli en Alain Finkielkraut, prominente leden van de Parijse conservatieve intelligentsia.
Baudets fascinatie voor radicaal en extreem-rechts is onverminderd. Zo sluit hij vriendschap met Julien Rochedy, tussen 2012 en 2014 voorzitter van de jongerenafdeling van het Front National en een discipel van Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Op het moment dat Baudet hem leert kennen, rond 2015, is Rochedy weliswaar nog steeds loyaal aan het Front National, maar heeft hij een grondige afkeer gekregen van de openlijk homoseksuele Florian Philippot, na Marine de nummer 2 van het FN, en de ‘ettertjes’ in diens entourage.
Rochedy verwijt hen kwaad te spreken over ‘Jean-Marie’ en zou ze graag een paar ‘rake klappen’ willen geven. Hij staat dicht bij de GUD, een militante nationalistische studentenvereniging. In 2016 duikt hij plotseling op in Damascus aan de zijde van de Syrische dictator Assad.
Rochedy is een romantische ziel, die van mening is dat de viriliteit door feministen wordt ondergraven
Tegelijk is Rochedy een romantische ziel, die maar slecht kan aarden in de moderniteit en van mening is dat het mannelijk ideaal van viriliteit door feministen wordt ondergraven – thema’s die Baudet na aan het hart liggen.
Met Rochedy maakt Baudet goed wat hem eerder met Le Pen niet lukte: hem in Elsevier een podium bieden waar hij vrijelijk zijn visie kan ontvouwen.
Eind 2015 verschijnt een interview van Baudets hand in Juist, het maandblad van Elsevier. Rochedy gaat er ongehinderd tekeer tegen niet-westerse immigratie en de ‘volksvervanging’ die daar het gevolg van is, en tegen het homohuwelijk. ‘Straks mag je ook trouwen met je zus of met je hond’.
In Baudet lijken twee verschillende personen te huizen
In De Aanval op de natiestaat uit 2012 wekt Baudet nog de indruk niets te moeten hebben van duistere figuren als Jean-Marie Le Pen en Rochedy en bepleit hij een ‘open idee van nationaliteit’ voor mensen met ‘elke denkbare achtergrond’.
In Baudets werkkamer in het parlement hangt een groot portret van Alexis de Tocqueville, de Franse denker die de democratie als een onstuitbare kracht zag – en waar je je dus maar beter naar kon voegen.
Daardoor lijkt het of er in de politicus Baudet twee verschillende personen huizen: een die zich presenteert als nette conservatief-liberaal én een die zich laat kennen als een romantisch nationalist, die flirt met bloed-en-bodemdenken.
Een treffend voorbeeld van dat romantisch nationalisme is de column die Baudet eind 2015 publiceert in het Franse weekblad Valeurs Actuelles. Alle elementen zijn aanwezig: het beeld van het lichaam, het idee dat alles in het leven zich via strijd verwezenlijkt en dat er een homogeniteit bestaat die door buitenstaanders wordt bedreigd.
Aanleiding zijn de aanslagen in Parijs van 13/11 (onder meer in concertzaal Bataclan). Baudet ontwaart een parallel tussen de jihadisten en Gilles, de hoofdpersoon uit de gelijknamige roman van Pierre Drieu de la Rochelle uit 1939. Beide zoeken een diepere zin in het leven, weg van het decadente en materialistische burgerbestaan.
Helemaal ongelijk kan Baudet de jihadisten en Gilles niet geven:
‘Alles in het leven verwezenlijkt zich nu eenmaal via strijd.’ Hij geeft het voorbeeld van het menselijk lichaam, waarin dagelijks ontelbare bacteriën vernietigd worden. Na een mijmering over de jaren dertig, verplaatst Baudet het toneel weer terug naar onze tijd.
Het is eten of gegeten worden, lijkt Baudet te willen zeggen. ‘Radicale actie’ is geboden
Massa-immigratie en islamisering maken dat we op het punt staan ‘te worden overgenomen’. Op het moment dat dit daadwerkelijk zover is, zullen we voor dezelfde keuze staan als Gilles in de jaren dertig: ‘Leven met een valse vrede of ten strijde trekken’. Het is eten of gegeten worden, ‘radicale actie’ is geboden.
Het is de retoriek die we twee jaar later zullen terugzien in de oprichtingsspeech van Forum voor Democratie.
Maar er is meer. Behalve die veel geciteerde ‘auto-immuunziekte’ had Baudet het daar ook over ‘ons boreaal Europa’.
Het zei me aanvankelijk niets.
Tot ik afgelopen najaar zelf tegenover Jean-Marie Le Pen zat.
Straatvechter Le Pen was nog springlevend
Voor een Frankrijk-correspondent is een interview aan Le Pen vroeg of laat deel van het werk. Een dergelijke grote factor in de politieke arena moet een keer beschreven worden.
En zo ging ik naar Montretout, het villapark in Saint-Cloud waar Le Pen een huis met uitzicht over Parijs bezit. De inmiddels 89-jarige Le Pen was slechthorend, maar de straatvechter in hem was niet verdwenen. Hij stond pal voor zijn standpunten.
Sprekend over niet-westerse immigratie had hij het gedurende het interview over ‘le danger mortel’ – het dodelijke gevaar. Le Pen gaf het voorbeeld van de RER B, de metrotrein die een deel van de banlieue met Parijs verbindt. Die was geleidelijk steeds ‘zwarter’ geworden. Autochtone ‘witte’ Fransen voelden zich er ongemakkelijk. In het klein was dit het gevaar dat Frankrijk en de rest van Europa bedreigde. Volgens Le Pen was het een kwestie van leven en dood.
Ik dacht meteen terug aan de speech van Baudet, die in verband met immigratie eveneens onze samenleving ‘dodelijk gewond’ noemde. Nog onwerkelijker werd het toen Le Pen verder ging en net als Baudet zei dat het zaak was ‘ons boreaal Europa’ te beschermen.
Wat bedoelt Le Pen met ‘boreaal’?
Geïntrigeerd door dat vreemde woord ‘boreaal’ besloot ik me er bij thuiskomst in te verdiepen. Op het oog leek het een onschuldige term. Het betekent ‘noordelijk’ – naar Boreas, de Griekse god van de noordenwind. Geografen en botanici spreken over boreale bossen.
Maar in een politieke context is de term allerminst onschuldig. ‘Boreaal’ verwijst namelijk óók naar een belangrijke stichtingsmythe van Europees ultrarechts: de ‘arische’ en ‘polaire’ wortels van het Indo-Europese volk, de veronderstelde voorouders van de witte Europeanen.
Prominente nazi’s als Heinrich Himmler meenden dat het arische ras uit een mythische noordelijke provincie stamde: ‘Hyperborea’. Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog blijft de term in Frankrijk opduiken in de teksten van Europe-Action, de beweging van de historicus en verklaard racist Dominique Venner.
Europe-Action maakt zich sterk voor wat zij ‘le monde blanc’ noemt – de witte wereld. Venner baart in 2013 opzien door zich op 78-jarige leeftijd achter het altaar van de Notre-Dame in Parijs een kogel door het hoofd te jagen.
Ik herinner me dat moment goed. Het was een wanhoopsdaad, waarmee Venner voor een ommekeer in het publieke bewustzijn hoopte te zorgen. In een afscheidsbrief waarschuwde hij voor het gevaar van niet-westerse immigratie, dat neerkwam op wat hij ‘ de grote vervanging van de Franse en Europese bevolking’ noemde.
Enkele jaren later zal Baudet op Twitter een boek van Venner in de schijnwerpers zetten.
Een codewoord voor raszuiverheid
Via Europe-Action vond de term ‘boreaal’ gedurende de jaren zeventig zijn weg naar La Nouvelle Droite van Alain de Benoist en Guillaume Faye, een verklaard racist. Faye bepleit het idee van een ‘Eurosiberië’ – een as Parijs-Berlijn-Moskou. Op sociale media prijst Baudet een artikel van Faye over Poetin enthousiast aan.
Tenslotte komt de term ‘boreaal’ in de jaren tachtig bij het Front National terecht en is het in gebruik geraakt als een codewoord, een dog-whistle. Het verwijst naar hetzelfde gedachtegoed van raszuiverheid dat in het Derde Rijk centraal stond.
Ook buiten het interview dat ik met hem hield heeft Jean-Marie Le Pen het te pas en te onpas over ‘een boreale as’, die loopt van ‘Gibraltar tot Vladivostok’. Ten noorden van die as lopen bevolkingsaantallen terug, ten zuiden exploderen ze. Ook spreekt hij wel over een ‘boreale ruimte’, waarin het Rusland van Vladimir Poetin volgens hem een belangrijke rol te spelen heeft als bondgenoot. Dit is nadrukkelijk een christelijke ruimte, afgeschermd van het zuiden, ‘dat ons zal overspoelen’.
Het gebruik van deze terminologie kost Jean-Marie Le Pen uiteindelijk de kop. In 2015 wordt hem het lidmaatschap van zijn eigen partij ontnomen. De druppel die voor dochter Marine de emmer deed overlopen is een interview in het beruchte extreem-rechtse tijdschrift Rivarol, later vertaald door een Amerikaanse neonaziwebsite. Titel: ‘We Must Save Boreal Europe & the White World’. ‘Je mag het tegenwoordig niet eens meer over ‘boreaal Europa’ of ‘de blanke wereld’ hebben’, klaagde Le Pen achteraf in een communiqué.
Dus: ‘boreaal’, de term die voor Le Pen zijn politieke graf opende, gebruikte Baudet bij de geboorte van zijn partij.
De vraag is waarom.
Waarom gebruikte Baudet identieke woorden in de oprichtingsspeech van zijn politieke partij?
Waarom gebruikte Baudet zulke beladen woorden in de oprichtingsspeech van zijn politieke partij?
Als politicus die zich laat voorstaan op zijn grote belezenheid, moét hij de extreem-rechtse toe-eigening van het begrip ‘boreaal’ kennen.
En zou hij die niet kennen, dan zou het een onvergeeflijke politieke blunder zijn geweest. Het zou zoiets zijn als je hakken tegen elkaar slaan, je rechterhand naar voren zwaaien en zeggen dat je niet weet dat je de Hitlergroet brengt.
Heeft Baudet de term als dog-whistle gebruikt, net als eerder Le Pen? En zo ja, wie riep hij dan aan? Het antwoord op deze vragen staat open.
Op vragen over zijn ontmoetingen met Le Pen en het woord ‘boreaal’ antwoordt zijn persvoorlichter dat de partij niet ingaat op ‘doorzichtige pogingen ons via ‘guilt by association’ van alles en nog wat aan te smeren.’
Toen Baudet eerder op het gebruik van dubieuze terminologie werd aangesproken, speelde hij de vermoorde onschuld. Zoals toen hij eerst met veel pathos sprak over ‘homeopathische verdunning’, maar later zei dat dit ‘misschien niet zo handig’ was.
Ineens viel alles op zijn plek: Le Pen is Baudets peetvader
Dankzij mijn interview met Le Pen leken ineens allerlei zaken op hun plek te vallen.
Baudets verwijzen naar een ‘boreaal Europa’ en een door immigratie ‘dodelijke gewonde’ samenleving;
Eerdere opmerkingen dat hij niet wil dat Europa ‘afrikaniseert’ en wenst dat het continent ‘dominant blank en cultureel blijft, zoals het is’;
Zijn vrees dat Europa door niet-westerse migranten zal worden ‘overspoeld’;
Zijn tweets over werk van Guillaume Faye en Dominique Venner – twee voorvechters van een ‘wit Europa’;
Zijn wens dat migranten uit moslimlanden en uit sub-Saharisch Afrika zonder omhaal worden ‘teruggestuurd’;
Zijn militante column, in het Franse weekblad Valeurs Actuelles, over het ten strijde te trekken tegen de islamisering van Europa;
Zijn pleidooi voor het normaliseren van de banden met Poetin en het afschaffen van de NAVO.
Als ik op deze opsomming afga, kan ik eigenlijk maar één conclusie trekken: niet Paul Cliteur, maar Jean-Marie Le Pen is Baudets intellectuele peetvader.
Hij noemde zich socialist, al zag ik dat in zijn ideeën nooit terug
Toen Baudet in 2009 bezig was contacten te leggen in Parijs, benaderde hij ook mij. Op dat moment was ik werkzaam als Frankrijk-correspondent voor dagblad Trouw en weekblad De Groene Amsterdammer. Ook werkte ik aan een boek over het Franse publieke debat en het Parijse intellectuele leven.
Dat intrigeerde Baudet, net als mijn afstudeerscriptie over Tocqueville. Hij stelde voor dat ik een bijdrage aan zijn boek Conservatieve vooruitgang zou leveren, een bundeling opstellen over conservatieve denkers, die begin 2010 zou verschijnen.
Dat deed ik niet, wel leverde ik op zijn verzoek een wervend tekstje voor het omslag. Baudet was aanwezig op mijn boekpresentatie, ik op de zijne. Ik kan onze persoonlijke betrekkingen niet anders dan hartelijk noemen, zeker in die periode.
Hij was levendig en ontplooide allerlei initiatieven, van muziekavondjes tot boekenclubs. Hij noemde zich toen, in navolging van de Poolse filosoof Leszek Kolakowski, een ‘conservatief-liberaal-socialist’, al zag ik dat socialistische nooit echt in zijn ideeën terug. In discussies kon het er hard aan toegaan, maar dat had ook wel weer wat.
Je kunt beter niet met Le Pen gezien worden, vond Baudet ook
Begin 2010 had ik het met hem over Jean-Marie Le Pen. Ik probeerde Baudet duidelijk te maken dat Le Pen een antisemiet en een etnonationalist was met wie je als serieuze intellectueel niet gezien kunt worden. Ik gebruikte een voorbeeld uit 2007, waarbij Le Pen stelde dat oud-president Sarkozy vanwege zijn Hongaarse vader niet ‘Frans’ genoeg was om president te mogen worden. In een email gaf Baudet me gelijk. Dat zou hem er dus niet van weerhouden zijn proefschrift aan Le Pen te gaan aanbieden. Geen gering gebaar.
Vanaf eind 2010 zagen Baudet en ik elkaar minder geregeld. Ik was druk met het verslaan van de opstanden in de Arabische wereld en bevond mij vanaf begin 2011 veelvuldig aan de andere kant van de Middellandse Zee; Baudet zette zich in Nederland aan de afronding van zijn dissertatie.
‘Thierry provoceert gewoon een beetje’, dacht ik dan. ‘Hij meent het vast niet.’ Maar hij meent het wel
Gelijktijdig begon hij in de media zijn kruistocht tegen de EU, moderne kunst en wat niet al. Zijn publieke stellingnames, zijn sympathie voor Wilders en de steeds alarmistischer toon die hij aansloeg, stonden me tegen. Een tijdlang probeerde ik dat weg te lachen, het allemaal niet zo serieus te nemen. ‘Thierry provoceert gewoon een beetje’, dacht ik dan. ‘Hij meent het vast niet.’ Maar hij meent het wel.
Een ziekelijke afkeer van het eigene: het blijkt een keerpunt
In augustus 2013 troffen we elkaar op een avond langs de Seine. Een paar dagen eerder had ik op Facebook de flaptekst van Oikofobie onder ogen gehad – een bundeling columns uit NRC Handelsblad die op het punt stond te verschijnen. Hierin verwijt Baudet de maatschappelijke elite een ‘ziekelijke afkeer van het eigene’. Ik weet nog dat ik van de term schrok. Hoezo ‘ziekelijk’? Wat was dat nu weer voor jaren-dertig-taal?
Baudet stond pal voor zijn ideeën merkte ik die avond, tijdens een hoogoplopende discussie. Hij was bloedserieus, en allesbehalve de ‘intellectuele dandy’ of de ‘provocateur’, zoals sommigen hem tot op de dag van vandaag kenschetsen. De avond aan de Seine blijkt een keerpunt in onze relatie. Tot een definitieve breuk komt het niet, maar ieder voor zich trekken we onze conclusies.
De politiek: daar is moed voor nodig, sms ik. Hij antwoordt niet
De laatste keer dat ik Baudet zie, is in de zomer van 2016. Ik kom hem tegen in de Spuistraat te Amsterdam. Hij is onderweg naar boekhandel Athenaeum om een besteld boek af te halen. Ik ook, dus dat trof. Later die dag deelt hij zijn aankoop instemmend op Twitter. Het is La Guerre civile qui vient (De komende burgeroorlog) van de uiterst rechtse opiniemaker Ivan Rioufol.
Niet lang daarna kondigt Baudet aan dat hij de politiek in gaat. Ik sms hem dat daar moed voor nodig is, maar ook dat ik niet op hem zal stemmen. Hij antwoordt niet.
‘Onderzoek alles en behoud het goede’.
Met die zin uit de Bijbel verweerde Baudet zich tegen De Correspondent toen die diens geruchtmakende diner met Jared Taylor onthulde. Maar deze zin is slechts een deel van het citaat.
‘En vermijd elk kwaad, in welke vorm het zich ook voordoet’, zo gaat het verder.
Baudet zegt steeds geen romantisch nationalist of racist te zijn. Dat wil ik graag geloven. Maar waarom wekt hij dan zo vaak de indruk dat hij dat wél is?
Thierry Baudet en het Forum voor Democratie wilden geen antwoord geven op onze vragen. Zij zeggen niet in te willen gaan op ‘doorzichtige pogingen ons via ‘guilt by association’ van alles en nog wat aan te smeren.’
Jean-Marie Le Pen is ook gecontacteerd, maar hij herinnerde zich de ontmoetingen met Baudet niet.
[9] PROTOTYPICAL FASCISM IN CONTEMPORARY DUTCH POLITICSHENK BOVEKERK Prototypical Fascism in Contemporary Dutch Politics Henk Bovekerk (s475630) Tilburg Universitythe Netherlands BA Liberal Arts & Sciences (Humanities major) Under the supervision of dr. A.C.J. de Ruiter Read by prof. dr. J.M.E. Blommaert Fall Semester 2011
Vorige week werd in Almere taxichauffeur Henk Schuurman door drie beesten van Surinaamse afkomst doodgestoken.”……..””De Partij voor de Vrijheid heeft de ambitie om in Nederland minstens dezelfde duizelingwekkende criminaliteitsvermindering te realiseren. De misdaad in ons land kan zeer fors teruggedrongen worden met meer politieagenten op straat, met minimumstraffen en met strafkampen.’
COLUMN WILDERS [IN GEEN STIJL] CRIMINELE ALLOCHTONEN
Vorige week werd in Almere taxichauffeur Henk Schuurman door drie beesten van Surinaamse afkomst doodgestoken. Dat het geen toeval is dat het om niet-Westers allochtone daders gaat, blijkt uit het recent verschenen onderzoeksrapport ‘Allochtone en autochtone verdachten van verschillende delicttypen nader bekeken’ van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC).
Het rapport beantwoordt onder andere de vraag in welke mate autochtonen en niet-Westers allochtonen zich schuldig maken aan misdaad, en vergelijkt daarbij beide groepen.
De uitkomsten zijn huiveringwekkend.
Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat van circa een derde van alle gepleegde delicten de vermeende dader een niet-Westers allochtoon is, terwijl deze groep ‘slechts’ ongeveer elf procent van onze bevolking omvat.
Marokkanen, Turken, Antillianen en Surinamers zijn fors oververtegenwoordigd binnen alle onderzochte misdaadgebieden. Zowel diefstal met geweld, vernieling en verstoring van de openbare orde als gewelds-, vermogens-, verkeers-, drugs- en wapendelicten worden relatief veel vaker door leden van deze vier grote allochtone groepen gepleegd dan door autochtone Nederlanders.
Deze gegevens zijn op zichzelf al schrikbarend, maar enkele specifieke cijfers betreffende Antillianen en Marokkanen zijn nog veel schokkender.
Vergeleken met autochtone Nederlanders is de kans dat volwassen Marokkanen van de tweede generatie van wie beide ouders in het buitenland geboren zijn, verdacht worden van vernieling en verstoring van de openbare orde acht keer zo groot. Voor bedreiging is dat elf keer, voor een vermogensdelict vijftien keer en voor diefstal met geweld maar liefst vierendertig keer.
De kans dat volwassen Antillianen van de eerste generatie verdacht worden van een zedendelict is zeven keer zo groot dan dat een autochtoon hiervan wordt verdacht, voor een wapendelict is dat veertien keer en voor diefstal met geweld is dat zelfs tweeëntwintig keer.Met Marokkaanse en Antilliaanse jongeren is het minstens zo erg gesteld De kans dat 12 tot 17 jarige Marokkanen en Antillianen van de tweede generatie van wie beide ouders niet in Nederland geboren zijn, verdacht worden van diefstal met geweld is vergeleken met autochtone leeftijdsgenoten zesentwintig respectievelijk drieëntwintig keer zo groot, en de kans dat eerste generatie Marokkaanse en Antilliaanse jongeren verdacht worden van dat misdrijf is zelfs eenendertig dan wel tweeëndertig keer zo groot.
Met deze horrorcijfers in de hand zou je denken dat het kabinet de misdaad onder met name Antillianen en Marokkanen nu eens eindelijk echt gaat aanpakken. Maar niets is minder waar. Zowat het eerste besluit van dit kabinet was het intrekken van het wetsontwerp ‘Terugzending criminele Antillianen’, waarmee Antilliaanse misdadigers naar hun boeveneilanden teruggestuurd zouden kunnen gaan worden.
Wel strooit dit socialistenkabinet met extra miljoenen voor met name softe preventieprojectjes én er zal aangaande de misdaad onder allochtonen zelfs een heuse werkconferentie met een paar wetenschappers belegd worden… Grotere lamlendigheid is nauwelijks voorstelbaar.Anders dan dit kabinet weet men in de Verenigde Staten wél hoe misdaad aangepakt moet worden. Tussen 1990 en 2000 daalde in New York het aantal autodiefstallen, inbraken, berovingen en moorden stuk voor stuk met maar liefst minstens zeventig procent. Tussen 2000 en 2005 daalde de criminaliteit nog eens met bijna een derde.
Deze spectaculaire daling van de misdaad werd niet met welzijnswerkers, maar met meer politie en met langere celstraffen tot stand gebracht.De Partij voor de Vrijheid heeft de ambitie om in Nederland minstens dezelfde duizelingwekkende criminaliteitsvermindering te realiseren. De misdaad in ons land kan zeer fors teruggedrongen worden met meer politieagenten op straat, met minimumstraffen en met strafkampen.
Verder moeten niet-Westers allochtone criminelen met een dubbel paspoort gedenaturaliseerd en uitgezet worden, en gezien de enorme oververtegenwoordiging van deze groep in de misdaadstatistieken zal Nederland dan in een mum van tijd voorgoed verlost zijn van enkele tienduizenden misdadigers.
Daarnaast moet het ingetrokken ‘Antillianenwetsvoorstel’ nieuw leven ingeblazen worden. Tot slot stel ik een nieuwe maatregel voor: laat niet-Westers allochtonen, ongeacht of zij wel of geen dubbele nationaliteit bezitten, hun straf uitzitten in het land van afkomst. De cellen in Rabat en Ankara zijn vast niet zo comfortabel als de hotelkamers van de Bijlmerbajes.
Nederland zou hiertoe verdragen moeten afsluiten, om te beginnen met Marokko, Turkije en Suriname.De Nederlandse burgers snakken naar veel minder misdaad en aan de andere kant van de oceaan is aangetoond dat het kan. Maar voordat de zon in ons land weer kan gaan schijnen moet dit kabinet verdwijnen, nog liever vandaag dan morgen.
GEERT WILDERS: MANNELIJKE ASIELZOEKERS OPSLUITEN IN AZC’S
Geert Wilders [PVV]:”Duizenden Arabische mannen hebben de afgelopen tijd honderden vrouwen sexueel aangevallen, vernederd, verkracht.Alle vrouwen zijn loslopend wild.Testosteronbommen heb ik de daders genoemd.We hebben gezien, waar ze toe in staat zijn.Het is sexueel terrorisme, een sexuele Jihad.En het gebeurt overal in Europa.In Nederland, Duitsland, Zweden, Oostenrijk.Overal.Waar honderdduizenden vooral alleenstaande mannen uit een cultuur van vrouwenonderdrukking werden binnengelaten.Overal waar de onverantwoorde Open Deur politie zoals premier Rutte en kanselier Merkel de rode loper wordt uitgerold voor deze testosteronbommen.Overal krijgen we nu te maken met een verkrachtingsepidemie.Het is een ramp, die vermeden had kunnen worden en vermeden had moeten worden, maar niet vermeden werd.Op vele plaatsen probeerden de autoriteiten en de media het verschrikkelijke nieuws onder de pet te houden, onder het tapijt te schuiven, maar dat lukt ze niet meer.De geest is uit de Fles.En er heerst, terecht, woede, angst, in Nederland en in de rest van Europa.Mensen zijn, terecht, heel erg boos, duizenden Nederlandse vrouwen stellen zich grote vragen bij hun eigen veiligheid.”Wie zal mij beschermen”Duizenden Nederlandse mannen maken zich grote zorgen over de veiligheid van hun vrouwen.”Wie zal hen helpen”En duizenden Nederlandse ouders zijn bang voor wat hun dochters kan overkomen.”Wie waakt er over hen”Vreselijke massa aanrandingen zoals in Keulen kunnen ook hier in Nederland gebeuren.En het is tijd, die waarheid onder ogen te zien.Deze daders komen uit een cultuur waarin vrouwen minderwaardige wezens zijn, een cultuur van eerwraak en vernedering.Een cultuur, gesticht door een Profeet, die seksslavinnen had en een negenjarig meisje verkrachtte.Het is tijd, ook die waarheid onder ogen te zien.Want wie wegkijkt, wie wegkijkt, is medeschuldig.En het wordt steeds duidelijker:Premier Rutte, mevrouw Merkel en al die andere politici in Europa, die hun grenzen weigerden te sluiten, ze laten onze vrouwen en dochters keihard in de steek en zijn dus medeverantwoordelijk.Wat de PVV betreft is het duidelijk:Onze grenzen moeten dicht.Dicht voor alle asielzoekers en alle immigranten uit islamitische landen.Maar zolang dat niet gebeurt, zolang de islamitische testosteronbommen als een Zwaard van Damocles boven de Nederlandse vrouwen hangen, stel ik voor, dat we mannelijke asielzoekers opsluiten in de AZC’s.Voor hen moeten de AZC’s gesloten instellingen worden.Zodat geen enkele mannelijke asielzoeker nog de straat op kan en zodat onze vrouwen eindelijk worden beschermd.”
In de Beverwaard, een arme wijk aan de rand van Rotterdam, vlogen in 2015 de bakstenen nog door de lucht. Bewoners waren woedend over de komst van een asielzoekerscentrum (azc), met mensen die erop uit zouden zijn om te ‘grabbelen en verkrachten’. Ondanks de hevige protesten hield het stadsbestuur vast aan de plannen en anderhalf jaar later blijkt de zorg ongegrond en de afkeer grotendeels verdwenen. Dat schrijft de Volkskrant.
De onderzoeksconclusie van een onderzoek van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) – dat vandaag aan de Tweede Kamer wordt gepresenteerd – is dat de komst van een azc geen effect heeft op de veiligheid in de buurt:
In vergelijking met leeftijdsgenoten, seksegenoten en mensen met een lage sociaal-economische status onder de Nederlandse bevolking zijn asielzoekers iets ondervertegenwoordigd in de politiestatistieken, ook als het gaat om zedendelicten.
Els Visser (50) woont in de Beverwaard en is een van de mensen die eerst fel tegen de komst van het asielzoekerscentrum was. Tegen de Volkskrant zegt ze:
Ik heb me vergist. Ik heb totaal geen last van die mensen. We hebben ons gek laten maken door verhalen die rondgingen. Vrouwen konden niet meer alleen over straat omdat ze verkracht zouden worden. Ik was ook bang dat ze hier de boel kort en klein zouden komen slaan als ze geen verblijfsvergunning kregen. Nu denk ik: ik heb me laten meeslepen terwijl ik eigenlijk helemaal niet wist wat we konden verwachten. We zijn opgehitst. We hebben elkaar gek gemaakt. Het was kuddegedrag.
Visser ging ook zelf kijken in het asielzoekerscentrum:
Ik verwachtte royale hotelkamers, maar het waren heel kleine, sobere ruimtes, nog net geen gevangenis.
Ali Honor, manager van het azc in de Beverwaard, vertelt dat de schrik er goed in zat bij bewoners, onder meer vanwege rechtse bangmakerij:
Daarbij kwam dat er verhalen de ronde deden waar niets van klopte. Er zouden alleen alleenstaande mannen komen, de criminaliteit zou toenemen, maar de groep van vierhonderd asielzoekers die op de locatie verblijven, bestaat grotendeels uit gezinnen met jonge kinderen, waarvan de meesten uit Syrië zijn gevlucht.
De aanwezigheid van een asielzoekerscentrum (azc) heeft geen effect op de veiligheid in een buurt. Tot die slotsom komt het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) dat onderzocht of het terecht is dat veel mensen de komst van een azc vrezen omdat dat voor meer criminaliteit in de wijk zou zorgen.
In het rapport staat dat het aantal woninginbraken en overige misdrijven in de buurt van een azc dan wel hoger is dan gemiddeld, maar dat ligt niet hoger van vergelijkbare wijken zonder azc. Verder valt te lezen dat asielzoekers met een zwakke economische positie minder vaak verdacht worden van criminaliteit dan autochtone Nederlanders in dezelfde situatie.
Syrië en Eritrea
Van alle asielzoekers worden mensen uit Syrië en Eritrea het minst verdacht van criminaliteit. Juist mensen uit betrekkelijk veilige landen die weinig kans hebben op een verblijfsvergunning belanden op het foute pad.
Het onderzoeksinstituut van het ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid maakte gebruik van gegevens van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). Dat koppelde gegevens over plaatsen delict, aangiften en processen-verbaal aan alle Nederlandse buurten. Ook de adressen van de azc’s werden meegenomen.
NL: Na wat tijd te hebben genomen om even alles op een rijtje te zetten bij deze nog een klein verslag over de actie van Vrije Bond Tilburg tegen de F.v.D. op donderdag 29 juli.
ENG: Below you can find a report of the protest by Vrije Bond Tilburg at a gathering of the fascist party of F.v.D. on the 29th of July in Tilburg.
For English, see below)
Beste kameraden,
Na wat tijd te hebben genomen om even alles op een rijtje te zetten bij deze nog een klein verslag over de actie van Vrije Bond Tilburg tegen de F.v.D. op donderdag 29 juli.
Om 17:00 zijn wij met een klein groepje vertrokken naar het Koningsplein met een aantal spandoeken en borden. Op het plein werden we vrijwel onmiddellijk omsingeld door zowel de fascisten en politie, die ons weg probeerden te krijgen. Hier lieten wij ons echter niet zomaar door tegenhouden, en wij hebben daar dan ook in een paar minuten onze boodschap overgebracht. Nadat wij de indruk hadden dat onze boodschap goed was ontvangen door de fascisten en door een aantal goedwillende omstanders, hebben wij om arrestaties te voorkomen langzaam, maar met geheven hoofd en keel wijd open, het plein verlaten en hebben wij op een drukke locatie naast het betreffende plein onze boodschap verder verspreid:
“Toen niet, nu niet, nooit meer fascisme!”
Wat ook nog de moeite waard is om te weten: wij waren niet de enige protesterende groep, en hebben meerdere mensen op eigen initiatief actie zien voeren. Wij hebben achteraf vernomen dat er zelfs een kameraad het podium op is geklommen om het verspreiden van fascistische haat een halt toe te roepen, waarvoor zeer veel respect en hulde! Al met al hebben we onze stem laten horen en hebben we een mooi aantal fascisten geconfronteerd, en daar mogen we trots op zijn!
Mochten er kameraden zijn die in eigen stad soortgelijke initiatieven willen nemen en steun kunnen gebruiken, dan horen wij dit graag! Je kunt altijd mailen naar vrijebondtilburg@riseup.net.
Met strijdbare groet,
Vrije Bond Tilburg
p.s.: Wij willen graag de politie en gemeente Tilburg danken voor het geven van een podium aan fascisme, en voor het op onbeschofte en schaamteloze wijze tegenwerken van mensen met een antifascistische boodschap. Bedankt! p.s. 2: een van ons heeft een uitgebreider persoonlijk verslag geschreven. Zie https://peterstormt.nl/2021/07/31/op-antifavontuur-in-tilburg/
—————————————————— Good evening comrades,
Below you can find a report of the protest by Vrije Bond Tilburg at a gathering of the fascist party of F.v.D. on the 29th of July in Tilburg.
At 17:00 our group headed towards the fascist gathering at Koningsplein with some signs and banners. As soon as we arrived at the square, we were pretty much immediately surrounded by the fascists and police, who tried to send us away on false grounds. Of course we did not let this stop us from doing what we came for: to deliver our message against fascism and racism. So we took a few minutes, until we felt our message had upset enough of the fascists, and cheered up enough passerbys. Then, with our heads held high and our voices raised, we left the square in order to prevent any arrests, and moved on to a busy road nearby to continue delivering our message to the people of Tilburg: Fascists are not welcome here!!!
Another thing worth mentioning is that we were not the only protesters at the scene, and saw multiple others going against the fascists by themselves. Afterwards, we even learned that one comrade climbed the stage on their own and tried to stop the fascists from spreading their message of hate, which deserves massive respect! All in all, we have let the people hear our voices loud and clear, and successfully confronted a good amount of fascists, which we are more than proud of.
If there are any comrades in other cities who want to do something similar and could use any help, please let us know! You can always reach us at vrijebondtilburg@riseup.net.
With solidarity,
Vrije Bond Tilburg
p.s.: We would like to thank the municipality and police of Tilburg for giving fascists a stage, and for very rudely, disrespectfully and shamelessly trying to prevent people with an anti-fascist and anti-racist message from spreading it. Thank you!
Wat ook nog de moeite waard is om te weten: wij waren niet de enige protesterende groep, en hebben meerdere mensen op eigen initiatief actie zien voeren. Wij hebben achteraf vernomen dat er zelfs een kameraad het podium op is geklommen om het verspreiden van fascistische haat een halt toe te roepen, waarvoor zeer veel respect en hulde!
INDYMEDIAVERSLAG PROTEST TEGEN BAUDET EN FVD IN TILBURG! REPORTPROTEST AGAINST BAUDET AND THE FVD IN TILBURG! https://www.indymedia.nl/node/50149 ZIE VOOR GEHELE TEKST, NOOT 14
EINDE NOTEN
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noten 1 t/m 15/Verzet tegen komst Thierry Baudet in Tilburg
Afgelopen donderdag, 29 juli 2021, was er weer eens iets te beleven op antifascistisch gebied. Thierry Baudet was in de stad, samen met een boel van zijn fans. Dat vroeg om protest, en dat kwam er dan ook. Vanzelf ging dat niet. Mooi ging dat e uiteindelijk wel. Een middagje op antifavontuur was het hoogtepunt, na een paar hectische dagen van voorbereiding en gespannen anticipatie. Het was het waard!
Hoe kwam dit zo? In de nacht van maandag op dinsdag kreeg ik via mail en vervolgens Brabants Dagblad lucht van wat komen ging. Het Forum voor Democratie (FvD) ging een manifestatie houden op donderdag 29 op het Koningsplein in Tilburg. Daar zou ook de Grote Leider Thierry Baudet het woord voeren. De samenkomst was bedoeld ter voorbereiding van mogelijke deelname aan gemeenteraadsverkiezingen in 2022. Potentiële kandidaten konden zich melden. Dat was de opzet van the enemy.(1)
Een openbare manifestatie van deze fascistenclub, in de stad waar ik woon… dat is natuurlijk niet te verteren. Hier en daar werd de info rondgemaild en er werd overlegd: kunnen we iets doen? Binnen 24 uur was er een groepje antifascisten in Tilburg aan de slag gegaan. Ik was er eentje van. Iets van een zichtbaar protest moest van de grond ter krijgen zijn, toch? Een publieke aankondiging was er niet. Een melding bij de gemeente nog minder: die zou antifascisten in een onderhandelingsproces verstrikt hebben waarbij aan demonstranten tegen Baudet een plek aan de andere kant van Tilburg, ver uit het gezicht van de FVD, zou zij toegewezen, en/of wie weet wat voor repressieve voorwaarden nog meer. Bovendien ontbrak de tijd. Een openlijk maar niet aangekondigd protest, dat gingen we doen.
En dat hebben we gedaan! Paar dagen plannen maken, iemand vroeg een advocaat om stand by te staan voor het geval dat er mensen opgepakt werden, iemand bood aan eerste hulp setje mee te nemen. Graag! Je weet maar nooit. En intussen meer mensen informeren. Middagje materiaal maken, borden en een spandoek. E en daarna er op af!
Onderweg in de binnenstad kwamen sommigen van ons langs een groepje FvD-ers dat flyers voor hun evenement uitdeelden. Dat namen we vriendelijk aan, om twintig meter verderop in proestlachen uit te barsten: ze moesten es weten… Vervolgens op een afgesproken punt onderlinge afspraken gemaakt en relevante informatie uitgewisseld. Op naar het Koningsplein! Onderweg, toen we in een onduidelijk zijstraatje waren beland, vroeg een voorbijganger of we op zoek waren naar de FvD-manifestatie. Ja dus. ‘Jullie zijn toch wel tegen, hè?’ liet deze behulpzame persoon er op volgen. Helemaal opgelucht toen dat inderdaad het geval was. We waren niet de enige tegenstanders!
Op het Koningsplein sloot nog een medestander zich bij ons aan, en eventjes later stonden we met zeven mensen, twee flinke spandoeken en een paar borden, vrij achteraan min of meer recht voor het podium. Een van de borden: ‘Fascisten Voor Discriminatie’. Voor ons en om ons heen vele tientallen Baudet-fans, ik schatte zelf tussen de vijftig en honderd, maar ik was meer bezig met kijken waar we konden staan dan met het tellen van chagrijnige fascistenkoppen. Ik las later dat het er veel meer zijn geweest. Het verslag in het Brabants Dagblad (2) sprak van een opkomst van ‘een kleine driehonderd’, lang niet allemaal uit Tilburg trouwens. Dat verslag bevat trouwens ook een mooie foto van het vrolijke zevental.
De Baudet-fans waren niet blij met ons, haha. Smalend gelach, boze blikken, een enkeling die echt agressief deed. Ook FvD-security, die ons op de anderhalve meter afstandsregel wees en zelf geen mondkapje op had, haha. Wij wel trouwens. Security wilde ons intomen, weerhield ook iemand van eigen mensen om op de vuist te gaan. Men was zich daar blijkbaar bewust van het nadelige effect van een knokpartij en liet het misschien ook maar wat graag aan het bevoegd gezag over.
Vrijwel meteen politie die voor ons ging staan. Om een grotere botsing te voorkomen, ongetwijfeld: openbare orde, nietwaar? Maar de agenten misbruikten het verhaal dat ze er ook waren om ons te bescherm,en, door ons te vragen en vervolgens te vorderen om van het plein te vertrekken. Dat deden we, traag en protesterend, en al snel ook leuzen roepend. ‘Racisme? Nee! Fascisme? Nee? Baudet, FvD, Nee, Nee, Nee!’. Dat soort werk. Zo dwong de politie ons om te vertrekken, waarmee ze feitelijk de fascisten beschermde zodat die ongestoord en onweersproken haar gif kon rondstrooien. What else is new?’ ‘Politie, fascisten, twee handen op een buik’, zat ook nog in ons leuzenrepertoire.
We liepen vervolgens naar de Schouwburgring en gingen dicht bij de opgang naar het Koningsplein staan met onze spandoeken en borden. Een antifascistische picketline, om tenminste voorbijgangers te waarschuwen. ‘Tilburg, wees paraat, geen fascisten op de straat!’ ‘Toen niet, nu niet, nooit meer fascisme!’ ‘Baudet, FvD, opgerot, weg ermee!’ Een enkele voorbijganger maakte ons voor sukkels uit en kreeg van onze kant te horen dat we ook van hem hielden. Maar er was ook bijval, zelfs twee jonge mensen met een vuist omhoog toen ze ons zagen. We hadden onze borden en leuzen natuurlijk graag pal voor de neus van Baudet laten zien en horen, maar dit was allemaal niet zinloos.
We wilden nog even verder gaan en staken over, zodat we hopelijk in het gezicht zouden komen van FvD-ers die van de manifestatie zouden vertrekken. Dat vond de politie die ons alweer in de gaten hield, helemaal geen goed idee. Die verwees ons door naar het Willemsplein, uit het zicht van veel voorbijgangers, en stelde ons vervolgens bloot aan ID-controle, of anders fouillering en mogelijk aanhouding. Op onze vraag op welke grond ze dit deden, antwoordde een van de agenten: ‘in het kader van de uitoefening van mijn politietaak’ of zoiets nietszeggends. Zeven vreedzame actievoerders, twee bewapende agenten die in no time versterking konden optrommelen. Geen heel gunstige krachtsverhoudingen. Ons antifascistische punt tegenover FvD-ers en omstanders hadden we intussen al lang gemaakt. En zo zinvol en prettig leek leek een avondje cel nu ook weer niet. Knarsetandend kwamen de IDs tevoorschijn. Grrr.
Voor ons was het daarna wel mooi geweest, het antifavontuur zat er goeddeels op. Maar nog niet helemaal! Eerst even nagepraat en uitgewisseld hoe we het hadden ervaren. Veel voldoening: het was gelukt, en we waren ongedeerd en zonder arrestaties weer weggekomen. Jammer van de timing: toen Baudet kwam, waren wij al weggestuurd. Daar zit een leermomentje in. Ik was en ben nog steeds heel blij dat ik kon optrekken met deze vriendelijke maar tegelijk onverschrokken lieve mensen. Volgens mij kon en kan dit zevental heel trots zijn op zichzelf en elkaar.
Maar het avontuur was nog niet ten einde! We gingen ons weegs, een deel van ons te voet richting binnenstad en huisadres. In no time reden er twee fietsagenten mee, en een van hen probeerde gezellig te doen en een praatje met ons aan te knopen, Ik had daar al heel snel genoeg van, maakte mijn afwijzing duidelijk van de rol die politiemensen als gezagsdragers uitoefenen, en zei dat het gesprek wat mij betreft afgelopen was. Dat vond oom agent helemaal niet aardig van me. Zeer tot mijn ergernis bleven de twee agenten wel op enige afstand achter ons aan fietsen, tot in de Nieuwlandstraat aan toe. Ook zoiets werkt als intimidatie. Repressie begint dus niet pas als de knuppels tevoorschijn komen en het traangas in het rond vliegt.
Een paar concluderende opmerkingen nog. Allereerst over de FvD samenkomst zelf. Veerle Slegers, ook heel links, heeft zich als toeschouwer op Twitter daar verslag van gedaan.(3) Daar kun je lezen hoe giftig en reactionair het allemaal was. Ik denk dat het wijs is om niet te geringschattend te doen. Nee, enkele honderden is niet heel veel. Maar het betreft hier niet zomaar een paar honderd mensen, het gaat om fascisten in groepsverband. Bij vol daglicht, op een doordeweekse namiddag samengekomen om hun Leider toe te juichen en zo. Hoeveel andere politieke partijen krijgen op ene doordeweekse dag buiten verkiezingstijd trouwens zoveel mensen op en plein bijeen? Er mag best een iets groter alarm afgaan bij linkse en antifascistische mensen. Voor lacherigheid en de houding van ‘ze maken zichzelf wel kapot’ is het niet het goede seizoen, en dat is een understatement.
Dat maakte onze actie ook echt zinnig! Fascisten moeten merken en voelen dat ze op weerstand en afwijzing stuiten, dat hun houding en gedachtegoed mogen niet genormaliseerd worden! Gelukkig waren we niet de enigen die dat vonden. Ik zag op Twitter iemand met een bord: ‘If it looks like a nazi and quacks like a nazi ….’ De persoon die dit bij zich had, bleek ook te zijn weggestuurd door de politie. Stel je voor zeg, dat de vrijheid van meningsuiting ook in de publieke ruimte geldt, en voor antifascisten! Later zag ik, eveneens via Twitter, dat iemand zelfs op het podium had weten te springen tijdens een optreden van een zekere Rapper K.A.F..K.A, een hele fouter rapper die deel van de show uitmaakte. Die actievoerder – hulde! Zo dapper! – werd hardhandig weggewerkt door security. Ik geef hier geen bron van, want dan moet ik naar het twitteraccount van die rapper linken, en die heeft al veel te veel publiek.
Al met al kijk ik met veel voldoening terug op ons antifavontuur tegen Baudet en zijn fascistenclub. Ging alles perfect? Natuurlijk niet, ook antifascisme is een permanent leerproces. En wie weet wat er bij een volgende gelegenheid uit het actierepertoire wordt opgediept of aan dat repertoire toegevoegd. Maar dit dagje van antifascistisch protest pakt niemand ons meer af. Ja, we kunnen fascisten dwarszitten. En dat zullen we maar beter blijven doen ook. Zoals Chumbawamba dat zo mooi zingt: ‘Until Every Nazi Dies!’(5)
5 Chumbawamba, ‘On the day the nazi died’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYG7-d_Q9zU Een van de meerdere opnames die je op YouTube kunt vinden. Deze is live en biedt ook de tekst.
Peter Storm
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Artikel Peter Storm]/Op antifavontuur in Tilburg
