[11]
DAILY MAIL
BRIGHTON COUNCILLORS WILL DISCUSS STOPPING
HARRY AND MEGHAN USING SUSSEX TITLE TODAY
AFTER THOUSANDS SIGNED PETITION BRANDING
THE HONOURS ”MORALLY WRONG AND DISRESPECTFUL”
18 DECEMBER 2019
SEE FOR THE WHOLE TEXT UNDER NOTE 12
[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’. ”
DAILY MAIL
BRIGHTON COUNCILLORS WILL DISCUSS STOPPING
HARRY AND MEGHAN USING SUSSEX TITLE TODAY
AFTER THOUSANDS SIGNED PETITION BRANDING
THE HONOURS ”MORALLY WRONG AND DISRESPECTFUL”
18 DECEMBER 2019
- 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.”
THE MIRROR
COUNCIL TO DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE AND
PRINCE HARRY OF THEIR ROYAL TITLES
18 DECEMBER 2019
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.
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.
MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY’S SON IS NOTA PRINCE BUT HE’S STILL IN LINE FOR THE BRITISH THRONE12 MARCH 2021
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-12/who-is-in-the-line-to-the-british-throne-royal-family-tree/13243558
SEE FOR THE WHOLE TEXT, NOTE 3
[15]
”’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”
NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE
HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!
ASTRID ESSED
21 DECEMBER 2019
[17]
NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE
HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!
ASTRID ESSED
21 DECEMBER 2019
[18]A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry
Published 8 November 2016
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
[19]SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITHSOME RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED17 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
[20]
WIKIPEDIAPIERS MORGAN/MEGHAN, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan#Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex
ORIGINAL SOURCE
WIKIPEDIAPIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITHSOME RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED17 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
OR
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
[21]
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITHSOME RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED17 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
OR
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
[22]
BBCPIERS MORGAN LEAVES ITV’S GOOD MORNINGBRITAIN AFTER ROW OVER MEGHAN REMARKS10 MARCH 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082
Piers Morgan has left ITV’s Good Morning Britain following a row over comments he made about the Duchess of Sussex.
It brings the controversial host’s time on the show to an end after six years.
ITV announced the decision after Ofcom said it was investigating his comments after receiving 41,000 complaints.
On Monday’s show, Morgan said he “didn’t believe a word” the duchess had told Oprah Winfrey about her mental health in an interview.
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.
Also on Tuesday, ITV chief executive Dame Carolyn McCall said she “completely believed what [the duchess] says”, adding that ITV is “totally committed to” mental health.
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
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/
SEE FOR THE WHOLE TEXT, LATER BELOW
[24]
”
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.”BBCPIERS MORGAN LEAVES ITV’S GOOD MORNINGBRITAIN AFTER ROW OVER MEGHAN REMARKS10 MARCH 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56334082
SEE FOR THE WHOLE TEXT NOTE 22
BBCPIERS MORGAN: FROM MEGHAN’S ”GHOSTING” TO GOODMORNING BRITAIN EXIT10 MARCH 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56326337
Piers Morgan first met Meghan Markle at a bar in Kensington in 2016.
At the time, the US actress was starring in legal drama Suits. She met Morgan while on a spring visit to the UK, as part of a trip that also included watching Wimbledon matches with her friend Serena Williams.
“We spent two hours in a pub, she had a couple of dirty martinis, I had a couple of pints, we got on brilliantly,” Morgan told Ryan Tubridy on RTÉ’s The Late Late Show.
“And then I put her in a cab, and it turned out to be a cab which took her to a party where she met Prince Harry. And the next night they had a solo dinner together, and that was the last I heard from Meghan Markle.
“She ghosted me, Ryan,” Morgan concluded. “Meghan Markle ghosted me.”
She might have gone quiet on Morgan, but it certainly wasn’t the last he and the rest of the world heard of Meghan.
Five years after those dirty martinis, she is the Duchess of Sussex, and her recent interview with Oprah Winfrey prompted so much anger from Morgan that it ultimately led to his exit from Good Morning Britain.
His departure has prompted a huge reaction from viewers and commentators, both positive and negative. But beyond those declaring their love or hatred for him, many have pointed out the far-reaching consequences of his exit.
It may be a symbolic and important gesture by a broadcaster concerned not to contradict its own message about mental health. But it will also mean the show loses its Rottweiler, who was widely praised for holding government ministers to account during the pandemic.
His absence will also almost certainly harm viewing figures. ITV shares fell nearly 5% on Wednesday, wiping almost £200m off its market value, following the announcement of Morgan’s departure.
At the point Morgan entered the world of breakfast television, ITV had been suffering poor viewing figures for several years. GMTV had been rebranded as Daybreak in 2010, but that was failing to match the ratings of its predecessor.
In 2014, ITV decided it was time for another change. Daybreak was scrapped, Good Morning Britain was launched, and Susanna Reid was poached from BBC Breakfast.
Morgan’s arrival the following year was disruptive, to put it mildly. He was combative and opinionated, a far cry from the usual warm, cuddly tone of breakfast television, and closer to the style of some morning programmes in the US.
Scepticism of woke culture was at the core of Morgan’s appeal, to the point where he wrote a book on the subject in 2020. While the rest of society grappled with issues of social progress, Morgan’s refusal to toe the politically correct line led to both backlash and praise.
His impact could be measured in a number of ways. First, there were the viewing figures, which increased dramatically. While BBC Breakfast held on to its crown, GMB improved its viewing share as people tuned in to hear Morgan’s take on the day’s events. As a result, ITV made more money from advertising.
You could also look at the column inches. The more outrageous Piers was, the more people would talk about him. The more news outlets wrote stories about him, the more clicks and ad revenue they got. By complaining so vocally, his critics were keeping him relevant, completing the cycle.
Those complaints from viewers and campaign groups were made both to Ofcom and ITV.
In 2019, an item about gender identity in which Morgan claimed he now “identifies as a penguin” prompted 1,000 complaints to the media regulator and outcry from charities and viewers. It sparked a petition, signed by more than 90,000 people, calling for his sacking. Proving his divisiveness, a counter petition was set up to keep him, and was signed by 72,000.
When a TV producer said on Twitter earlier this year that he would not work with Morgan again, the presenter responded by saying he would “rather employ a lobotomised Aardvark”. That led to an open letter to ITV accusing Morgan of bullying, signed by more than 1,000 industry workers.
And yet, Morgan has always considered himself to have liberal views. His CNN programme in the US was famous for his campaigning on gun control. And he claims “not to have a prejudiced bone in his body”, much to the incredulity of his opponents.
“The woke crowd loathe me, because the informed ones know I’m actually a liberal,” he wrote in his book, Wake Up, last year. “So on paper, I’m one of them. I’m therefore the enemy within.”
Morgan added that he considers himself a feminist and a supporter of gay rights, civil rights and transgender rights – “apart from the absurd new trend of limitless self-identification”.
But the damage his words have inflicted also cannot be ignored, such as his apparent dismissal of mental health issues. This is what ultimately led to his downfall after the Duchess of Sussex said she felt she “didn’t want to be alive any more”.
Morgan said he “didn’t believe a word” the duchess had said in the interview. He later attempted to clarify his comments, saying his disbelief referred specifically to her claim that her request for support was rejected by Buckingham Palace. But by then, the damage was done.
Welsh Health Minister Vaughan Gething spoke for many when he described Morgan’s comments as “wholly unacceptable, incredibly unkind and exactly where we should not be in public debate and discourse”.
“We’ve won lots of ground by talking and being more open about mental health challenges,” he said. “I think the comments and the tone of them would have set a number of people back.”
Morgan was also accused of missing the mark on the issues of racism raised by Meghan. He has always maintained the press’s coverage of her is motivated by her behaviour, not underlying racism.
“I’m sorry Piers, you don’t get to call out what is and isn’t racism against black people,” Trisha Goddard told him on Monday’s programme. “I’ll leave you to call out all the other stuff you want, but leave the racism stuff to us, eh?”
However, Morgan had also won over some of his previous critics in the past year, for his challenging interviews with government ministers. The absence of these exchanges will be a big loss to the show, as Kevin Maguire and Krishnan Guru-Murthy have pointed out.
Hiring a shock jock was always going to result in controversy. But could ITV have done more to rein him in?
Channel 4 historian and media commentator Maggie Brown said: “Piers Morgan needed a stronger editor or producer to just keep him in check while allowing him to be bombastic, mainstream and successful. Himself. This is a common pattern for much appreciated TV stars who go on to overstep the mark.”
And what might Morgan do next? Losing jobs has never stopped his career progression in the past.
After his exit from GMB, former politician George Galloway tweeted: “Dear Piers Morgan. You told me once ‘a sacking is an opportunity’. It turned out that way for me and I hope it will for you. In fact I’m sure it will.”
Morgan will not come cheap, but many would be keen to hire him all the same, particularly the soon-to-be-launched GB News. The channel’s chairman Andrew Neil said on Wednesday that he would be open to giving Morgan a job.
It is perhaps fitting that Morgan’s last ever appearance as a GMB presenter saw him finally get his six-year long wish.
“Good Morning Britain beat BBC Breakfast in the ratings yesterday for the first time,” Morgan pointed out when he received the viewing figures for Tuesday’s episode.
“My work is done.”
END OF ARTICLE
[25]
THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE’S DAMED.LET’S NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS2019
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure
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.
END OF ARTICLE
[26]
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITHSOME RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED17 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
OR
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
[27]
THE GUARDIANPUT SIMPLY, IT’S BULLYING: PRINCE HARRY’S FULLSTATEMENT ON THE MEDIA
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media
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.
END OF THE ARTICLE
THE GUARDIAN
MEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE
HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
Prince compares wife’s treatment to Diana’s as proceedings over private letter are announced
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.
The decision came as Prince Harry launched an extraordinary and highly personal attack on the British tabloid press and its treatment of his wife, saying he could no longer be a “silent witness to her private suffering”.
Emphasising his respect for the importance of “objective, truthful reporting”, he accused parts of the media of “waging campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences” and compared the treatment of Meghan to coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.
The duke said his “deepest fear is history repeating itself”. He wrote: “There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.
“Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one … I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person.
“I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
The statement, issued on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s official website on Tuesday, was published as Meghan moved to start proceedings in the high court over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The Guardian reported this year that the Mail on Sunday was being threatened with legal action because the authors of letters retain ownership of the copyright even after the physical correspondence is in the possession of another individual. Pursuing legal action on this narrow basis also gives the royals a greater chance of success against DMG Media, formerly Associated Newspapers, which also owns the Daily Mail and MailOnline – both of which have run a substantial number of stories about Meghan.
The Mail on Sunday has run multiple embarrassing stories involving the duchess’s father, Thomas Markle, including staged paparazzi photographs of him visiting an internet cafe to read about his daughter’s engagement to the prince.
Other critical coverage of the couple has ranged from their use of private jets to their refusal to allow media coverage of the christening of their baby son Archie or name his godparents. They have also been criticised for the £2.4m cost to the public purse for renovations at their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage.
However, the royals have limited ability to stop the publication of such stories, prompting the decision to focus on the publication of Meghan’s letter to her father.
The photographs of the letter remain available on MailOnline. A spokesman for the newspaper stood by its reporting, setting up a potential court showdown: “The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”
Meghan and Harry, who are on a 10-day tour of southern Africa, have employed the libel lawyers Schillings, using private funds to bring the case.
In his statement, Harry emphasised that he and Meghan believed in “media freedom and objective, truthful reporting” as a “cornerstone of democracy”.
“There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been.
“Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.“I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.”
The statement is unprecedented in the scale of its attack on the media, although it is far from the first time Harry has taken on the press.
When news of his relationship with Meghan Markle became public, he criticised “racial overtones” in reporting.
Last week, it emerged he had complained to the BBC for broadcasting and publishing online an image from a neo-Nazi social media site that called him a “race traitor” and depicted the royal with a gun pointed at his head. Although the BBC internally and the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom rejected the complaint, ruling that the use of the image in a report about the activities of the group was in the public interest, the BBC did apologise for not warning the duke in advance.
His latest statement accused the British tabloid press of waging a “ruthless” campaign against Meghan that had “escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son”.
Harry, said the recent positive coverage of their African tour exposed “the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave”.
“She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.
“For these select media, this is a game and one we have been unwilling to play from the start.”
A legal spokesperson for Schillings said: “We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband.
“Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
END OF THE ARTICLE
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITHSOME RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED17 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
OR
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/
[28]
WIKIPEDIAARCHIE MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Mountbatten-Windsor
A ROYAL BABY FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX!/LORD ARCHIE, WELCOME TO THE WORLD!ASTRID ESSED9 MAY 2009
https://www.astridessed.nl/a-royal-baby-for-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-lord-archie-welcome-to-the-world/
Prince Harry announced Meghan had given birth to their first child – a boy – on 6 May 2019. It was delivered at 05:26 BST, weighing 7lbs 3oz (3.2kg).
BBC
ROYAL BABY: ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BIRTH
OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S CHILD
6 MAY 2019
So how much do we know about the newest royal?
When was the baby born?
Prince Harry announced Meghan had given birth to their first child – a boy – on 6 May 2019. It was delivered at 05:26 BST, weighing 7lbs 3oz (3.2kg).
The sex was a surprise for Harry and Meghan – as well as the public – who had chosen not to find out what they are having.
Meghan had told well-wishers during a royal visit to Merseyside in January that they didn’t know the sex of the baby.
Interestingly, two of the baby’s cousins were both born at a similar time of year – Prince Louis (23 April) and Princess Charlotte (2 May).
Where did Meghan give birth?
Remember the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge stepping outside the Lindo Wing at St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington, central London?
Well that scene was not recreated, with reports claiming the couple ruled out that option because of the lack of privacy.
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.
Meghan is not the first royal to give birth at home. The Queen gave birth to all four of her children at home.
Any idea what the baby will be called?
That’s the million dollar question. After the birth, Harry said the couple were still considering different options.
There aren’t any rules for choosing royal baby names, but the decision is often guided by tradition.
Arthur and James are the favourites – but they were also frontrunners for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s third child last year.
Prince William and Catherine sprung something of a surprise by opting for Louis instead.
What about the surname?
One option for Prince Harry and Meghan could be the Royal Family name – Mountbatten-Windsor.
That was created by combining the surnames of the Queen and Prince Philip when they married.
But the couple is much more likely to copy the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge by using the title given to them by the Queen – Sussex.
Prince William and Catherine’s three children all have Cambridge on their birth certificates.
Will the baby become a prince or princess?
You’d better ask the Queen, but in short – not automatically, no.
The Queen brought in new rules for Prince William in 2012 so that all his children would become princes or princesses.
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
And, according to etiquette guide Debrett’s, the eldest son of a duke can use one of his father’s “lesser” titles.
So the child could become Earl of Dumbarton.
Could Harry and Meghan reject a title?
Well it has happened before.
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
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.
Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.
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.”
- In full: Buckingham Palace statement
- Harry and Meghan step back: What we know so far
- In pictures: Harry and Meghan’s life together
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.”
Harry is sixth in line to the throne – behind Prince Charles, Prince William and his three children.
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
BBCIN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947
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.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
BBCMEGHAN, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX SAYS, FRIENDS TOLD HER NOTTO MARRY PRINCE HARRY21 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50119219
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’.”
Meghan also told the programme that that it was a “struggle” being pregnant and a new mother amid the intense interest from newspapers.
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.”
- Becoming a mother has been ‘struggle’ – Meghan
- Meghan sues Mail on Sunday over private letter
- Harry sues Sun and Mirror owners in hacking claim
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.
Prince Harry filed his own proceedings at the High Court against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking dating back more than a decade.
END OF THE ARTICLE
END OF THE ARTICLE
”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
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.
- Meghan talks about tackling violence against women
- Harry crosses minefield and retraces Diana’s steps
- Baby Archie meets Archbishop Tutu on royal tour
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
Nederland levert Rwandese genocideverdachte uitVenant R., destijds werkzaam bij een landbouwinstituut, zou een moordpartij op burgers van de Tutsi-minderheid i… Nederland heeft een 72-jarige Rwandese asielzoeker uitgeleverd aan Rwanda, waar hij wordt verdacht van deelname aan de genocide van 1994. Het vliegtuig met Venant R. aan boord landde gisteravond laat op de luchthaven van de hoofdstad Kigali. Justitie in Rwanda bedankt Nederland in een persbericht voor de uitlevering van R. en meldt dat hij vandaag zal worden ondervraagd.R., destijds werkzaam bij een landbouwinstituut, zou een moordpartij op burgers van de Tutsi-minderheid in zijn regio hebben aangestuurd. Dat gebeurde tijdens de volkerenmoord waarbij 27 jaar geleden in 100 dagen naar schatting tussen de 500.000 en 800.000 Tutsi’s en gematigde Hutu’s omgebracht. Hutu’s zijn in Rwanda in de meerderheid.Asiel in NederlandR. vluchtte nadien naar Nederland en vroeg in 2000 asiel aan. Drie jaar later trok de immigratiedienst IND zijn verblijfsvergunning in na een waarschuwing van Buitenlandse Zaken. In 2019 werd R. aangehouden in Leersum en vastgezet. In de tussenliggende jaren bleef R. procederen om een verblijfsvergunning te krijgen. Ook vocht hij zijn aanstaande uitlevering naar Rwanda aan, maar de rechter verwierp zijn verweer.Een organisatie van overlevenden van de genocide heeft de uitlevering van R. verwelkomd. “Elke keer dat een gevluchte genocideverdachte aan Rwanda wordt uitgeleverd, wordt er een stap gezet in de richting van gerechtigheid”, zei een woordvoerder van de groepering tegen persbureau AFP.R. is de derde Rwandese genocideverdachte die Nederland terugstuurt naar Kigali.Juristen en mensenrechtenorganisaties hebben in het verleden herhaaldelijk gewaarschuwd voor een oneerlijke rechtsgang in Rwanda, waar processen vaak politiek gemotiveerd zouden zijn en aan verdachten bekentenissen worden ontlokt door hen te martelen.EINDE BERICHT EINDE NOTEN
.jpg)
