Tagarchief: Henry VI

Rozenoorlogen tussen Huizen York en Lancaster/Onzininformatie over hoofdrolspeler Richard Neville, 16e Graaf van Warwick, de ”Kingmaker”

Ontdek 02-2019: Game of Thrones

HISTORISCHE ACCURATESSE IS HET EERSTE VEREISTE BIJDE BESCHRIJVING VAN HISTORISCHE GEBEURTENISSEN!DAARAAN ONTBRAK HET IN TIJDSCHRIFT ”ONTDEK” MET ALSTHEMA THE GAME OF THRONES

Image result for edward iv in the white queen

750 × 447Images may be subject to copyright. Find out moreImage credits
AFBEELDING/HISTORISCHE FICTIERICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK [ACHTERIN] MET ZIJNNEEF EN KONING, EDWARD IV [VOORAAN], VAN WIE HIJ DE EERSTEJAREN VAN ZIJN KONINGSCHAP DE VOORNAAMSTE ADVISEUR ENBONDGENOOT WAS TOTDAT ZIJ DOOR EEN SAMENSPEL VAN FACTOREN GEBROUILLEERD RAAKTEN EN RICHARD NEVILLE OVERLIEP NAAR HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER, DE AARTSVIJANDEN VAN EDWARD IV[DIE TOT HET HUIS VAN YORK BEHOORDE]DE LANCASTERS EN DE YORKS, BEIDEN BEHOREND TOT HET ENGELSE KONINGSHUIS PLANTAGENET, VOERDEN EEN DERTIG JAAR DURENDE, VERBITTERDE STRIJD OM DE ENGELSE TROON, DE ROZENOORLOGEN OF COUSINS WAR GENOEMD
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the-wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to-the-past/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

747 × 696

AFBEELDING HISTORISCHE FICTIEKONING EDWARD IV 
MET AAN DE ZIJKANT MARGARET BEAUFORT, MOEDERVAN HENRY TUDOR [DE LATERE HENRY VII, DIE NA ZIJN OVERWINNINGIN DE SLAG BIJ BOSWORTH IN 1485, HET OFFICIELE EINDE VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN, TROUWDE MET ELISABETH OF YORK, EDWARD IV”S OUDSTE DOCHTER, WAARMEE DE HUIZEN VAN LANCASTER EN YORKWAREN VERENIGD.HENRY VI EN ELISABETH OF YORK WAREN DE OUDERS VAN DE LATERE HENRY VIII]NAAST MARGARET BEAUFORT [BEHOREND TOT DE ONWETTIGE TAK VAN HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER, DE BEAUFORTS], HAAR DERDE MANTHOMAS STANLEY, EERSTE GRAAF VAN DERBY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby

KONING EDWARD IVAFBEELDING HISTORISCHE FICTIE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England
Richard Neville
Warwick as drawn in the Rous Roll. He displays on his shield the arms of Montagu quartering Monthermer. The bull’s head is the crest of the Neville family, the eagle is the crest of Montagu.

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY[RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, BIJGENAAMD ”DE KINGMAKER”[AFBEELDING IS HISTORISCHE NON FICTIE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

Image result for edward iv in the white queen

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE

Related image

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE


HISTORISCHE FICTIE [AFBEELDING]RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, AAN DE VOORAVOND VAN DE SLAG BIJ BARNET IN 1471 [DE DEFINITIEVE EINDSTRIJD TUSSEN HEM EN ZIJN NEEF KONING EDWARD IV, VAN WIE HIJ DE VOORMALIGE EN BELANGRIJKSTE ADVISEUR WAS.IN DEZE SLAG SNEUVELDE WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet

Battle of Barnet
Part of the Wars of the Roses

Late 15th-century artistic portrayal of the battle: Edward IV (left), wearing a circlet and mounted on a horse, leads the Yorkist charge and pierces the Earl of Warwick (right) with his lance; in reality, Warwick was not killed by Edward.

VIJFTIENDE EEUWSE VOORSTELLING VAN DE SLAG BIJ BARNET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet

DE UITEINDELIJKE STRIJD TUSSEN RICHARD NEVILLE EN KONING EDWARD IV, WAS EEN ONDERDEEL VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN, DE 30 JAAR DURENDE STRIJD OM DE ENGELSE TROON TUSSEN HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER EN HET HUIS VAN YORK, TWEE TAKKEN VAN HET ENGELSE KONINGSHUIS PLANTAGENET [DAT HEERSTE VAN 1154 TOT 1485]DE ROZENOORLOGEN DUURDEN VAN 1455 TOT 1485, WAARMEE EENEINDE KWAM AAN HET HUIS PLANTAGENET

ZIE VOOR ACHTERGRONDINFORMATIE EN OORZAKEN VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN

ROZENOORLOGEN TUSSEN HUIZEN YORK EN LANCASTER/ONZININFORMATIE OVER HOOFDROLSPELER RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK ”DE KINGMAKER”

AANDe Redactie van Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of ThronesUitgegeven in 2019
[Wegens drukke werkzaamheden is deze historische kritiek nu, september 2021, aan u verstuurd.Onderstaand magnum opus, want zo mag ik het wel noemen, is door mij aangevangen in september 2019, kort na lezing van uw tijdschriftDuik dus even in uw archieven]
Onderwerp:
Onzininformatie over Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, beter bekend als ”The Kingmaker”

Geachte Redactie,
Alvorens met mijn kritiek los te barsten, een oprecht woord van waardering.Als groot fan van de nu afgelopen grootse serie ”Game of Thrones” heb ik het buitengewoon gewaardeerd, dat u een uitgebreide achtergrondspecial hebt samengesteld, waarin u op een diversiteit aan aspecten over de serie zelf, maarook op een aantal historische perioden, zoals de Vikingen, de eerste christenen, kaliefen in het Midden-Oosten en andere onderwerpen, bent ingegaan.Of het allemaal historisch klopt, wat u schrijft, heb ik nog niet in detail kunnen nagaan, omdat ik nog niet alles heb gelezen [aanstonds zult u begrijpen, waarom ik dit naar voren breng], maar wat ik er wel van gelezen heb, komtals redelijk betrouwbaar en goed doorwrocht over.
Totdat ik bij het gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen kwam [blz 20 t/m 25 van uw Magazine] en, excusez les mots,op een aantal ronduit onzinopmerkingen van uw kant stuitte.Kijk, DAT u de Rozenoorlogen in uw special hebt betrokken, vind ik interessant en is bijna vanzelfsprekend, omdat The Game of Thrones er in belangrijke mate op is gebaseerd.Of beter uitgedrukt:Schrijver George R.R. Martin heeft zich door die Rozenoorlogen in belangrijke mate laten inspireren, met hoog kwalitatief resultaat!
Maar als u nader op die Rozenoorlogen ingaat, mag verwacht worden, dat u met historisch juiste informatie komt.Anders zeg ik:Schrijf er dan niet over.
Ik ben nog niet in de gelegenheid geweest, alles en detail te lezen [wel enkele passages], wat u over die Rozenoorlogen geschreven hebt, vanwege een druk bezette agenda [misschien komt er nog een aanvullende brief, waarin ik u daarover te grazen neem, als ik dat nodig acht], maar ronduit belachelijk en historisch totale NONSENS [nogmaals, excusez lets mots] was, wat u over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville, 16 de Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”the Kingmaker” genoemd [1], hebt neergeschreven.
UW SCHRIJFSEL OVER RICHARD NEVILLE, DE KINGMAKER
Eerst maar eens uw schrijfsel over Richard Neville, de Kingmaker, wat te lezen is.Ik lees [en u nu met mij] bladzijde 24, links bovenaan:
”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Einde uw tekst
Dit, waarde Redactie, is een warwinkel van nonsens, taalverwarring en historische inaccuratesse.
TEN EERSTE:
Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, liep, hoewel aanvankelijk inderdaadeen ”aanhanger” van koning Hendrik VI [van het Huis van Lancaster, klopt], NIETover naar het Huis van York, NADAT zijn neef Eduard, 7e Earl [Graaf] of Marchen zoon van Richard, de hertog van York, als Eduard IV tot koning werd gekroond:Neen, hij [Richard Neville dus] was al jaren in oppositie tegen koning Hendrik VI, waarbij hij samenwerkte met zijn eigen vader  Richard, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en de hertog van York, vader van de latere Eduard IV [vanaf hier aangeduid als Edward, het was tenslotte een Engelse koning!]
Bovendien was hij juist de grote voortrekker van de kroning van neef Edward totkoning Edward IV! [2]
Ik kom hierop aanstonds uitgebreider terug.
TEN TWEEDE:
U schrijft
”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Dat ..machtswellust” is een zeer kort door de bocht en simplistische verklaringvoor de oorzaken tot het latere conflict tussen koning Edward IV en Richard Neville [van nu af aan aangeduid met de Graaf Warwick of Warwick], waarover aanstonds uitleg volgt.
Het klopt, dat Warwick de koning gevangen nam, maar het is aperte nonsens om neer te pennen, dat Warwick zelf op de Engelse troon wilde komen!Hij had [en dat was erg belangrijk in de Middeleeuwen!] in geen enkel opzicht, niet eens in de verte, recht op die troon, omdat hij niet tot het Huis Plantagenet behoorde en er ook niet zijdelings van afstamde.Kortom:Naar Middeleeuwse mores zou niemand voor hem gevochten hebben en al evenmin was er een schijn van kans, dat hij als koning zou zijn geaccepteerd.Wel probeerde hij, door een slimme wijze van uithuwelijking van zijn tweewettige dochters [hij had ook nog een onwettige dochter, Margaret]. [3],zo dicht bij de troon te komen, dat hij effectief macht kon uitoefenen.
Hierop kom ik terug.
TEN DERDE:Taalverwarring:
U schrijft
”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen”
Uit bovenstaande zin wordt volstrekt niet duidelijk om welke koning het nu ging en om welke veldslag.U had moeten aangeven, dat het hier ging om koning Edward IV [want zoalsu het hebt  neergeschreven, kon het ook wel om koning Hendrik VI, vanaf nu aangeduid als Henry VI,  gaan] en dat het ging om de volgende veldslag:The  Battle of Edgecote in 1469, waaraan de slimme Warwick overigens niet zelf deelnam….] [4]
Dergelijke duidelijkheid is van groot belang, omdat het anders de toch al ingewikkelde verwikkelingen rond de Rozenoorlogen nog gecompliceerder maakt!

ACHTERGRONDGRAAF WARWICK EN DE ROZENOORLOGEN
Om Graaf Warwick te kunnen begrijpen, moet hij gezien worden tegen het licht van de Rozenoorlogen, waarin hij zo’n belangrijke rol speelde.
Om de Rozenoorlogen te kunnen begrijpen, moet je iets afweten van het toenmalige recht van opvolging op de Engelse troon en de verwikkelingenrond de regering van koning Richard II. [5]Want de Rozenoorlogen wortelen diep en zijn in feite gezaaid door de afzettingvan Richard II.[6]

ROZENOORLOGEN:
We beginnen met de voorgeschiedenis van de Rozenoorlogen, waarover u al geschreven hebt in uw Magazine.Globaal lezend heb ik echter gezien, dat u weliswaar de Rozenoorlogen alssuccessiestrijd aanmerkt, maar niet duidelijk hebt gemaakt, hoe het zat met de exacte claims van de Huizen Lancaster en York [De Tweede en Derde Zoon problematiek, zie onderstaand] en ook niet naar de wortels van het conflict gegaan bent.Daarom krijgt u hier deze informatie gratis en voor niets.Eigenlijk zou u mij hiervoor moeten betalen, HAHAHAHAHA
De Rozenoorlogen, ook wel ”the Cousins War” genoemd [7] [pas een eeuw na het conflict raakte de term ”Rozenoorlogen;’ in zwang] waren een 30 jaar lang durend binnenlands militair conflict [burgeroorlog dus]  tussen tweetakken van het toenmalige Engelse Koningshuis, het Huis Plantagenet[aan de macht vanaf 1154 tot 1485], de Huizen Lancaster en York.Een ”adellijke” burgeroorlog, die hoogst bloedig werd uitgevochten, waarbijde diverse adellijke families partij kozen voor Lancaster en York , weer van kant wisselden, als het hen zo uitkwam en verraad, kuiperijen, intriges en bloedige veldslagen elkaar afwisselden.Voor meer verdieping en informatie [die u ook deels hebt beschreven] zie noot 8
GEZAAID ZAAD
Maar het conflict begon niet bij de eerste militaire veldslag of liever gezegd schermutseling, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans in 1455 [9]Ook niet bij het gerezen en hoogopgelopen conflict tussen de vrouw vande vreedzame en geestelijk labiele koning Henry VI, de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou [10]en haar gunsteling, Edmund Beaufort, Duke [hertog] of Somerset [behorend tot de Beauforts, de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster en neef van de Lancaster koning Henry VI] enerzijds en anderszijdsRichard, de hertog van York [vader van de latere koning Edward IV], ook een [weliswaar verdere] neef van koning Henry VI[11]Neen, het wortelde in de afzetting van koning Richard II door zijn neef, de latere koning Henry IV. [12]

RICHARD II/PRIMOGENITUUR RECHT
Ik heb weleens gekscherend opgemerkt, dat de diepere oorzaken van de Rozenoorlogen scholen in het feit, dat Edward III, de Engelse koning, die deHonderdjarige oorlog tegen Frankrijk startte, ook een soort successiestrijd [13],teveel zoons had.Het uiteindelijke Rozenoorlog conflict woedde dan ook tussen de nakomelingenvan de tweede zoon van Edward III [van wie de hertog van York van moederskant afstamde] en de derde zoon van Edward III [waartoe het Huis van Lancaster behoorde, de wettige tak en de onwettige tak]
Genoemde Koning Richard II was een zoon Edward of Woodstock, beter bekend als ”’De Zwarte Prins” [14] de oudste zoon van Edward III en volgde zijn grootvader Edward III op tienjarige leeftijd op, omdat zijn eigen vader reeds was overleden.En bij de Engelse troonopvolging gold het primogenituur recht [recht van de eerstgeborene] [15]Als de koning overleed, volgde zijn oudste zoon op.Wanneer deze overleed, diens zoon/nageslachtEn pas als zijn dynastie was uitgestorven, kwam de lijn van de tweede zoon aan de beurt,En zo ging het door.Vrouwen hadden in Engeland het recht op troonsopvolging, maar door de uitgesproken patriarchale samenleving in Middeleeuws Engeland probeerde men dat zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen. [16]
Door een aantal oorzaken en hoogoplopende conflicten met zijn edelen liep het helemaal mis met de regering van Richard II en werd deze uiteindelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke [Bolingbroke, naar het kasteel waar hij geboren was], afgezet [Richard II was kinderloos] [17] en liet Bolingbroke zichzelf kronen tot Henry IV en werd daarmee de  grootvader van Henry VI, die koning was tijdens het begin van de Rozenoorlogen. [18]
EN DAAR WRONG DE SCHOEN!
Niet alleen, dat de wettige koning van Engeland, Richard II, werd afgezet, was van doorslaggevend belang [19] maar ook door wie, namelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, zoon van de DERDE zoon vanEdward III, John of Gaunt [Jan van Gent, hij was in Gent geboren gedurende Edward III’s oorlog tegen Frankrijk], hertog van Lancaster [die titel had hij gekregen via zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche van Lancaster, die de dochter was van de hertog van Lancaster] [20]
Maar in feite waren er nog de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp [Lionel van Antwerpen, in Antwerpen geboren] [21], die dus een sterkere claim hadden op de Engelse troon.Lionel of Antwerp had echter geen zoons gehad, maar een dochter,  Philippa Plantagenet [22] en Philippa’s kleinzoon [zij was al overleden tijdens de afzetting van neef Richard II] Edmund was ten tijde van de afzetting van Richard II een kind van acht jaar en kon dus gemakkelijk opzij geschoven worden. [23]
TWEEDE EN DERDE ZOON VAN EDWARD III
Waar het dus op neer kwam was, dat de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III [Lionel of Antwerp], door die van de DERDE zoon [John of Gaunt dus] opzijgeschoven waren, terwijl in feite die ”tweede zoon” nakomelingen een groter recht hadden op de Engelse troon!En Richard, de hertog van York, die met bondgenoten uiteindelijk de strijd tegenLancaster aan zou gaan, was via zijn moeders kant [Anne Mortimer] [24], een afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp![Richard’s moeder, Anne Mortimer, was via de kant van haar vader, Roger Mortimer, de achterkleindochter van Lionel of Antwerp, zie de stamboom onder noot 25]

Om het lekker simpel te houden was Richard, de hertog van York [ik kan er ook niets aan doen, dat ze allemaal onder elkaar trouwden] van vaderskant ook nog eens de kleinzoon van de VIERDE ZOON van Edward III, Edmund of Langley, hertog van York.
Maar zijn recht op de troon, dat superieur was boven Lancaster, kwam van zijn MOEDERSKANT!, afstammende van de TWEEDE zoon! [25]
Dus samengevat:
De hertog van York, vader van de latere koningen Edward IV en Richard III [die de laatste Plantagenet koning was], had een sterkere claim op de troon dan Lancaster, omdat hij van moederskant afstamde van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III en Lancaster van de DERDE zoon.

LANCASTERS OP DE TROON
Wat het nog simpeler maakte was echter, dat de regerende koningen sinds de afzetting van Richard III dus uit het Huis Lancaster kwamen en al vanaf 1399 koning waren, wat ze een zekere legitimiteit gaf.
Onder koning Henry IV, de feitelijke usurpator [26] van de Engelse troon,brak er nog geen dynastieke twist uit [denk eraan, dat de claimant van deEngelse troon, zoals gezegd, een jongen van 8 jaar was bij afzettingvan Richard II] [27], maar bij zijn zoon Henry V, de grote militaire leider inde nog voortwoedende Honderdjarige Oorlog, gestart door overgrootvader Edward III [28], zag je al het prille begin, belichaamd in het Southampton complot in 1415, waarbij onder andere Richard Conisburgh, de derde Graaf van Cambridge en de vader van Richard, de latere hertog van York met handlangers had geprobeerd, koning Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [ Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, de broer van zijn vrouw Anne Mortimer [Edmund was [de ”achtjarige jongen” met de grotere claim, ten tijde van de afzetting vanRichard II en oom van moederskant van de latere Richard, hertog van York.]Dat hele complot mislukte en de complotteurs werden geexecuteerd. [29]R.I.P. [30]
KONING HENRY VI/HET FEEST KAN BEGINNEN/ROZENOORLOGEN
Maar het werd pas echt hommeles onder koning Henry VI, kleinzoon van usurpator koning Henry IV [onze ”Bolingbroke]Belangrijke oorzaak was de ontevredenheid, ontstaan door hetvoor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige Oorlog, het feit,dat de vreedzame Henry VI het tegenovergestelde was van een flinke militaire leider EN vooral het feit, dat de arme man ernstige psychische problemen had, waardoor ambitieuze mannen probeerden zichzelf en hun familie naar voren te schuiven en grip op de macht te krijgen.Waardoor de Engelse troon een speelbal werd in handen van mannen met echte en vermeende claims.
Tegen deze achtergrond laaide de strijd op tussen de Huizen Lancaster en York,aanvankelijk nog om de controle over de koning, maar gaandeweg om de troomzelf.
Grote tegenstanders waren bij het uitbreken van de strijd enerzijds Richard, derde hertog van York, als afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III[Lionel of Antwerp] [31] de man met de sterkste claim op de troon.Anderszijds Edmund Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, behorend tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster [32], die namens koning Henry VI optrad en gunsteling was van diens strijdbare vrouw, Margaret of Anjou.[33]Gaandeweg echter werd het steeds openlijker een strijd tussen York en zijn bondgenoten enerzijds en Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van de koning [de koning kon door zijn psychische problemen vaak niet effectief regeren] en haar bondgenoten anderszijds, zeker na cde geboorte van haar en de koning’s zoon in 1453.
Het verbale en politieke steekspel tussen de heren [York en Somerset], die beurtelings ”protectors of the realm” [een soort regenten, vervangers van de koning] waren in de tijd, dat koning Henry VI niet kon regeren [staat voor: geestelijke inzinking] [34] duurde voort tot de eerste militaire confrontatie in de Rozenoorlogen, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans [35], waarin Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, sneuvelde [36]
Daarna ging het van Kwaad tot Erger [lees noot 37] , ondanks EEN poging om de partijen te verzoenen, de door de vreedzame koning Henry VI goedbedoelde maar te laat gekomen geinstigeerde ”Loveday]] [door u genoemd in uw artikel: complimenten, niet veel mensen kennen deze gebeurtenis!] [38], maar daarna ging het al snel helemaal mis!En vanaf het sluiten van het Act of Accord [tussen York en koning Henry VI] [39] al snel gevolgd door de Slag bij Wakefield, waarin de hertog van York omkwam [40], ging het er niet meer om, wie koning Henry VI controleerde, maar een keihard gevecht om de troon.GAME OF THRONES! [41]

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground….” [42]Ja, DAT bewezen die Rozenoorlogen wel!

Het tijdperk brak aan  van de door u ook genoemde koning Edward IV, de Rozenoorlogkoning [43], die een redelijk stabiel bewind gevoerd heeft, slechts onderbroken door de Warwick opstand [44], waarover straks meer.Edward IV werd, niet geheel volgens wet en recht, opgevolgd door zijn broer Richard [Richard III]. [45]En tijdens zijn regering werden de Rozenoorlogen definitief beslecht in de Slag bij Bosworth in 1485 [46] tussen Richard III en Henry Tudor [de latere koning Hendrik VII][47], zoon van Margaret Beaufort [48] [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Bosworth werd gewonnen door Henry Tudor, waarbij niet alleen een definitief einde kwam aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ook aan het Huis Plantagenet. [49]en in feite aan de Engelse Middeleeuwen.Richard III was de laatste koning uit het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors [50] brak aan.
Henry Tudor, die zichzelf in feite koning maakte ”by right of conquest”  [51] was, bezegelde zijn legitimiteit als kining door te trouwen met Elisabeth of York, oudste dochter van koning Edward IV. [52]Slimme politieke zet:Want feite had Elisabeth of York [zoals zij werd genoemd en ook heette] natuurlijk koningin moeten worden, als dochter van Edward IV,die niet alleen koning geweest was, maar via zijn vader de hertog van York die superieure claim op de troon had geerfd, boven Lancaster en zeker boven de Beauforts, die onwettige [en later gewettigde tak van het Huis van Lancaster [53] [superieure York claim, weet u nog: via de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp….] [54]
Maar ja, Elisabeth of York was geen strijdbare Margaret of Anjou [55], anders had ze wel gevochten voor haar recht op de troon!Nu werd zij in plaats van Queen by right [heersend monarch], Queen consort [echtgenote van de ko ning][56]
Militaire overwinningen, he….Overigens waren Henry Tudor [Henry VII] en Elisabeth of York de ouders vande latere Henry VIII en dus de grootouders van koningin Elisabeth I.EN de voorouders van alle latere Engelse koningen!
Nou Redactie, was dat een mooi college over de Rozenoorlogen of niet somsHAHAHAHAHA!
NU naar Graaf Warwick, waar het om was begonnen en ZIJN plaats in die Rozenoorlogen.

RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK/DE KINGMAKER/THE STORY
De geschiedenis van de Kingmaker is fascinerend en door uw redactie deelsverkeerd verteld en neergeschreven.Dat heb ik hierboven al gecorrigeerd:
Nu een uitgebreider curriculum vitae, om een modern woord te gebruiken:Geboren als Richard Neville in 1428, was hij de zoon van Richard Neville,[door zijn huwelijk, via het recht van zijn vrouw]  5e Graaf van Salisbury [57] en Alice Montegu, 5e Gravin van Salisbury [Salisbury was in feite haar bezit en haar wettelijke titel] [58]Richard Neville stamde uit het Geslacht Neville, een oud-adellijke geslacht [teruggaand van nog voor Willem de Veroveraar] [59], dat als bondgenoten vanRichard, hertog van York, een doorslaggevende rol zou spelen in de Rozenoorlogen. [60]
De Nevilles waren ook verwant aan de hertog van York!Want de tante van Richard Neville [de zuster van zijn vader] Cecily Neville, wasgetrouwd met de hertog van York. [61]Dus simpeler gezegd:
Richard Neville, onze latere ”Kingmaker” was de volle neef van de latere koning Edward IV [zoon dus van de hertog van York en Lady Cecily Neville]
De titel ”Graaf van Warwick” verwierf Richard Neville door zijn huwelijk metLady Anne Beauchamp, de dochter van de dertiende Graaf van Warwick.Door een aantal sterfgevallen binnen de Familie Warwick, werd Richard Neville[jure uxoris: bij het recht van zijn vrouw] [62], de 16e Graaf van Warwick.Genoeg over de ingewikkelde erfelijkheidskwesties binnen de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel.Nu waar het om begonnen is:De Rozenoorlogen.
DIE ROZENOORLOGEN EN DE ROL VAN GRAAF WARWICK, IN VOGELVLUCHT
De wortels van de Rozenoorlogen, dat gewapende conflict tussen de HuizenLancaster en York, dat broeder tegen broeder en neef tegen neef opzette [63] en de mannelijke lijn van zowel het Huis van Lancaster als York zou uitroeien [64], alsmede een groot deel van de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel, lagen, zoals ik al schreef, in het verleden en wel bij de afzetting van Richard II door zijn neef, Henry of Bolingbroke [de latere Henry IV] [zie uitgebreid relaas, hierboven] En zie noot 65
Maar hoewel het zaad reeds in 1399 [bij de afzetting van Richard II dus] was gezaaid, brak het feitelijke conflict uit tijdens de regering van Henry VI, kleinzoon van Henry IV, hoewel het al voorbodes had in the Southampton plot [66],waarbij de vader van de hertog van York, Richard Conisburgh [derde Graaf van Richmond] had geprobeerd [zonder enig succes!], Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [Richard of Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, 5e Graaf van March en feitelijke troonopvolger van Richard II, die in 1399 aan de kant was geschoven door de neef van zijn [Edmund’s] moeder, Henry of Bolingbroke [latere Henry IV] [67]

GOEDHet gewapende conflict brak dus uit onder de regering van Henry VI, in 1455,56 jaar na de afzetting van Richard II.
Uiteraard gingen er groeiende spanningen aan vooraf, met name tussenEdward IV’s vader Richard, de [derde, zal ik niet steeds meer vermelden] hertog van York, die in feite de superieure rechten op de troon had [als neef van Edmund Mortimer en via moederszijde afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp] [68], met als grote tegenspeler Edmund Beaufort [behorend dus tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster], tweede hertog van Somerset. [69]Tussen die twee, van wie Edmund Beaufort een grote gunsteling was van de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou, vrouw van Henry VI, barstte vanaf eind veertiger jaren tot 1455 [toen Somerset sneuvelde in de Eerste Slag bij St Albans] [70] een verbitterde machtsstrijd uit, waarbij op een zeker moment edelen partij gingen kiezen.
Grote spelers waren dus de hertog van York en de hertog van Somerset, waarbij de sympathie van de Kroon [in feite Margaretha van Anjou] duidelijk aan de kant van Somerset lag en er een steeds grotere vijandschap ontstond tussen Margaretha van Anjou en de hertog van York
Een machtsstrijd tussen twee machtige mannen dus, die in feite escaleerde door het feit, dat Henry VI een  vrome en zachtmoedige man,[In de Middeleeuwen was zachtmoedigheid niet bepaald handig voor een koning, die een keihard leider en een bekwaam militair moest zijn, wilde hij zijn macht handhaven], geen spoor van overwicht had.Rampzalig was bovendien, dat de man heftige psychische problemen had [71], waardoor hij hele periodes niet kon regeren en er een soort Regentschap[Protectoraat] werd ingesteld, beurtelings ingevuld door Somerset en York. [72]
Wat Henry VI miste aan vastberadenheid en overwicht, was aanwezig in Margaretha van Anjou, maar in die tijd was er voor een vrouw geen directe regeermacht weggelegd [wat ze wel graag wilde] [73], wat haar echter niet belette, het vuurtje flink op te stoken [zo zat zij nu eenmaal in elkaar], waardoor het conflict alleen maar excaleerde.
Naast de zwakke regering van de onevenwichtige Henry VI en de daaruitvolgende spanningen tussen de adel, speelde het slechte verloopvan de Honderdjarige Oorlog en sociale onrust ook een belangrijke rol. [74]
WHERE THE EARL OF WARWICK IS COMING IN
Wat opvalt aan de Rozenoorlogen was, dat de keuze, die edellieden maakten[voor Lancaster, dus trouw aan koning Henry VI] of voor York [een bondgenoot van de hertog van York [die steeds openlijker tegenover de koning kwam te staan, hoewel hij zijn trouw aan de koning bleef volhouden] [75], niet zozeer gebaseerd was op principes [het al dan niet erkennen van de betere claim op de troon, die de hertog van York inderdaad had] [76] en zelfs niet op het feit, dat ”s konings positie steeds onhoudbaarder werd door zijn psychische problemen [77], maar door hetzij eigen persoonlijke belangen, hetzij conflicten met andere edellieden.Het is niet teveel gezegd, dat heel veel edellieden tot begin vijftiger jaren nog de kat uit de boom keken.Zo ook Warwick, die het aanvankelijke protest en verzet in 1452, van zijn aangetrouwde oom, de hertog van York [de man van Warwick’s tante van vaderszijde, Cecily Neville] niet steunde, zoals vrijwel alle edelen, die trouw bleven aan Henry VI. [78]Maar dat zou om diverse redenen veranderen, waardoor Warwick EN zijn vader, ook een Richard Neville, de 5de Graaf van Salisbury, de trouwste bondgenoten werden van de hertog van York.Drie Richards, door historische fictie-schrijver Con Iggulden in zijn serie over de Rozenoorlogenaangeduid [hij refereerde aan de vijftiger jaren van die vijftiende eeuw] metde aparte benaming ”Trinity” in het Nederlands [correcter] vertaald als ”Het Drievoudig Verbond” [79]Maar goed:Wat Warwick triggerde om gaandeweg te belanden in het kamp van zijn aangetrouwde oom Richard, de hertog van York, was zijn conflict met zijn zwager, de 2de hertog van Somerset.[Somerset was getrouwd met de halfzuster van Warwick’s vrouw Anne Beauchamp.Zij heette Eleanor Beauchamp] [80]JA, dezelfde Somerset, die de aartsvijand/rivaal was van de hertog van York en een diehard gunsteling van Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van koning Henry VI.Dat Warwick/Somerset conflict ging, zoals zo vaak bij de Middeleeuwse adel, over land en dreef Warwick in de armen van de hertog van York. [81]Hierdoor, maar ook naarmate het conflict tussen de hertog van York en Somerset [lees ook de koning en vooral zijn vrouw Margaretha van Anjou] verder opliep en York [tijdelijk] Protector of the Realm [een soort regent] werd[de koning was weer eens uitgeschakeld], kwam ook de vader van Warwick [dus de broer van York’s vrouw Cecily Neville] steeds meer in het kamp van York [82] en vormden deze drie Richards, Richard, de hertog van York, Richard Neville, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en diens zoon, Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, een geducht bondgenootschap in de vijftiger jaren van de vijftiende eeuw!Daarnaast woedde ook nog een vernietigend conflict tussen de Huizen Neville[met aan het hoofd Warwick’s vader] en Henry Percy, 2de Graaf van Northumberland, over land, wat de geschiedenis in zou gaan als de Percy-Neville feud [de Percy Neville vete] [83]En de Percy’s waren felle verdedigers van de Kroon, dus langs deze lijnen ontvouwde het conflict zich ook nog eens.En alles liep zo hoog en fel op, dat in de eerste Rozenoorlog veldslag, de Eerste Slag om St Albans, Warwick’s vader [en zijn zoon en York] tegenover Henry Percy en de hertog van Somerset zouden komen te staan, die beiden sneuvelden, waardoor het zaad van verbittering en haat [hun zoons wilden wraak] verder werd gezaaid. [84][Extra pijnlijk, omdat die Henry Percy weer getrouwd was met een zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Eleanor, waardoor ook de neven tegenover elkaar kwamen te staan!]”[85]
Maar samengevatHet voor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige oorlog, de mentale instabiliteit van de koning, dat Percy Neville conflict en allerlei andere conflicten tussen edelen, triggerden die Rozenoorlogen. [86]En in deze atmosfeer maakte een man als Warwick zijn carriere!

WARWICK EN KONING EDWARD IVTOEN NOG THICK AS BROTHERS………….
Wat in de vijftiger jaren begon als een schermutseling tussen de aanhangers van de hertog van York [met als bondgenoten Warwick en zijn vader ook een Richard Neville, weet u nog?] enerzijds en de getrouwen van koning Henry VI anderszijds [87], De zogenaamde Eerste Slag bij St Albans [88], werd gaandeweg steeds grimmiger, wat uiteindelijk uitmondde in een verbitterde burgeroorlog en een regelrechte strijd om de troon.Zie voor dat verloop noot 89, waarin de strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, steeds meer de leider van de Lancaster Partij werd.Ook wel begrijpelijk:Ze verdedigde niet alleen haar incapabele echtgenoot, maar ook de rechten van haar in 1453 geboren zoon, de toenmalige Prince of Wales, Edward of Westminster [90]
Om een lang en bitter verhaal kort te maken:Na de nederlaag in de Slag bij Ludlow Bridge in 1459 waren de drie Richards gedwongen, in ballingschap te gaan, York en zijn tweede zoon Edmund, Earl of Rutland, naar Ierland, Warwick, zijn vader en York’s oudste zoon Edward, Earl of March [later Edward IV] naar Calais [91], ze kwamen terug, overwonnen aanvankelijk [92], waarna York koning Henry het recht van troonsopvolging afdwong [93], maar leden een bittere nederlaag in Wakefield, waarbij de hertog van York sneuvelde [of na afloop van de strijd gedood], zijn tweede zoon Edmund werd geexecuteerd, Warwick’s vader werd geexecuteerd en Warwick’s broer Sir Thomas Neville, sneuvelde. [94]Een militaire ramp dus, maar ook een persoonlijke tragedie,voor Warwick en Edward [latere Edward IV], die op dat moment pas 18 jaar oud was.Want beiden waren hun vader en een broer kwijt.
Natuurlijk triggerde deze rampzalige verliezen deze twee heren, zowel om wraak te willen nemen als wel om nu echt voor de troon te gaan, wat in 1461 lukte, toen Edward, mede door inspanning van Warwick, tot koning werd gekroond na een aantal klinkende York overwinningen! [95]De nieuwe, jongere generatie York Leiders was dus aanmerkelijk harder en ging verder.Voor vader York was de troonsopvolging van Henry VI genoeg [96], de zoon echter ging direct voor de hoofdprijs.DE TROON!

EDWARD EN WARWICKPARADISE?OR TROUBLE IN PARADISE…..THE BEGINNING:
In het begin van de heerschappij van Edward IV leek alles nog zo goed te gaan.Warwick was king’s best ally and trusted advisor[97], bekwaam als hij was op diplomatiek gebied.Vooral op de Fransen maakte hij indruk.Zo merkte de Gouverneur van Abbeville op in een brief aan de Franse koningLouis XI [Lodewijk XI]:[vertaald naar het Engels]””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.” [98]
Naar mijn mening vulden Warwick en zijn koning Edward IV elkaar perfect aan.Warwick had het politieke inzicht en hoewel een redelijk goed militair, was het Edward IV, die een brilliant legeraanvoerder was en zelden een veldslag  verloor.Zelfs op zijn achttiende had hij in de slag bij St Mortimers Cross in 1461, kort na de dood van zijn vader en broer [99] Jasper Tudor [oom van de latere koning Henry VII] , halfbroer [van moederskant] van koning Henry VI, verslagen en een zeer ervaren legeraanvoerder. [100]
Zelf schrijf ik in mijn artikel ”The Causes of the wars of the Roses/A travel to the Past:”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.” [101]
Het was een Golden Couple:
Edward IV, jong en een van de mooiste mannen van zijn tijd, een brilliant legeraanvoerder en Warwick, charmant, geslepen, zeer ervaren, een goed militair maar een nog veel betere diplomaat.
Helaas…..het mocht niet duren….
Het is nu eenmaal zo
”When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.There is no middleground” [102]
Maar naast die machtsstrijd, die er ook tussen hen was, was het breekpunt het Geheime Huwelijk, dat Edward IV sloot met Elizabeth Woodville, weduwe van nota bene een Lancaster supporter, de edelman John Grey, die in de Tweede Slag om St Albans was gesneuveld [1461, uitgevochten tussen Warwick en Margaretha van Anjou/supporters, beslissende Lancaster overwinning] [103]Warwick was aan het onderhandelen over een politiek zeer voordelig huwelijk met de Franse prinses Bona, schoonzuster van de Franse koning Louis XI, toen bleek, dat de koning [zonder Warwick in kennis te stellen, al met Elizabeth Woodville getrouwd was. [104]Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick’s ego, die in het buitenland voor gek stond, de dame was ook nog eens weduwe van een man, die supporter geweest was van de Lancaster erfvijand!En tot overmaat van ramp begon de koning de aanzienlijke familie van zijn koningin, de Wooodvilles, te bevoordelen en aanzienlijke posities te geven, waardoor Warwick aan macht inboette! [105]Van Warwick’s kant dus wel begrijpelijk, dat zijn wrok gevoed werd en daarmee zijn zijn vervolgstappen beter te verklaren.Wat uw opmerking:”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.’ [106], dus wel zeer simplistisch maakt!
HEBT U ZOVER NOG MEEGELEZEN?/MOOI!/DAN STAAT U ECHT OPEN VOOR KRITIEK EN BENT U BEREID, BIJ TE LEREN:
VERVOLG:
EDWARD AND WARWICKDE BREUK
Ondanks de strubbelingen over het Geheime Huwelijk van de koningen de toenemende invloed van de Woodvilles [de familie van Edward IV’s koningin], hield, om het even populair te zeggen, Edward IV nog van Warwick.Zo werd zijn broer, George Neville, tot Aartsbisschop van York benoemd en in juli 1465, toen de tragische [voormalige] koning Henry VI gevangen genomen werd, begeleidde Warwick hem naar gevangenschap in The Tower. [107]

MAAR TOEN KWAM DE KLAPPER [OF KLAPPERS], DIE WARWICK EN EDWARD IV UIT ELKAAR DREEF!
Terwijl Warwick de Koninklijke Opdracht kreeg, zowel met de Fransen en de Boergondiers [elkaars vijanden, de Bourgondiers waren de bondgenoten van de Engelsen geweest gedurende de Honderdjarige Oorlog] [108] te onderhandelen over een huwelijk van de zuster van de koning [Margaret] met een van de twee partijen en Warwick langzamerhand de aandacht verschoof naar de Fransen, bij wie hij een uitstekende reputatie genoot [109], sloot Edward IV een geheim verdrag met de Bourgondiers [uiteindelijk werd Margaret uitgehuwelijkt aan de Boergondische Graaf Karel de Stoute] [110], waardoor Warwick weer voor Gek stond!Zaken liepen nog meer uit de hand, omdat de schoonvader van de koning, Richard Woodville, Graaf Rivers, fel voor de verbintenis met de Boergondiers was. [111]Maar los daarvan:Het WAS verstandige en wijze politiek van Warwick, de voorkeur te geven aan een Franse alliantie:Frankrijk was een machtige monarchie en de voormalige tegenstander in de door Engeland begonnen Honderdjarige Oorlog [112] en als bondgenoot veel waardevoller dan het Graafschap Boergondie!
MAAR ER GEBEURDE MEER TUSSEN WARWICK EN EDWARD IV
Want tot overmaat van ramp weigerde Edward IV een huwelijk goed te keuren tussen Warwick’s oudste dochter en zijn [Edward IV’s] broer George, de hertog van Clarence. [113]Waarmee de maat voor Warwick vol was en duidelijk werd, dat Graaf Rivers [de schoonvader van Edward IV] de machtsstrijd had gewonnen.Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick persoonljk, maar ook voor de gehele Familie Neville, waarvan Warwick het Hoofd was. [114]
Om een lang Verhaal kort te maken:
Warwick stoorde zich niet aan het verbod van de koning, maar huwelijkte zijn dochter Isabel vrolijk uit aan ’s Konings broer George, hertog van Clarence, die ook al zo zijn eigen ambities had en graag met Warwick opliep, ook al omdat hij de illusie had [en misschien was dat ook Warwick’s intentie], dat Warwick Edward IV door hem zou willen vervangen als koning [115] [en vergeet ook niet, dat Warwick, na de koning, de rijkste man in Engeland was en dat een huwelijk met zijn dochter een zeer lucratieve zaak was. [116]Het Paar trouwde in 1469 in Calais, met de zegen van de Aartsbisschop van York, George Neville, broer van Warwick. [117]
Daarna escaleerde de Zaak snel en een wervelwind aan gebeurtenissen volgde
Warwick orchestreerde een opstand in het Noorden, waarmee hij schijnbaar niets te maken had [slim!], onder leiding van een mysterieuze ”Robin van Redesdale” [118], keerde  [in 1469] met schoonzoon George PLantagenet terug naar Engeland, ’s koning’s troepen werden door Robin of Redesdale verslagen in de slag bij Edgecote [119], waarna de vader en broer van deKoningin gevangengenomen werden en geexecuteerd [120]
Drama ging door:Later werd de koning zelf gevangengezet, weer vrijgelaten door Warwick [121], een tijd leek dat dan weer redelijk te gaan tussen de koning en Warwick [de koning had Warwick en George hun verraad vergeven] [122], totdat de bom weer barstte, Warwick en George opnieuw in opstand kwamen en de koning gedwongen was, Engeland te verlaten en met een kleine groep getrouwen, waaronder zijn toen zeer loyale broer Richard. hertog van Gloucester en zijn boezemvriend, Lord Hastings [123].De koning ging in ballingschap  naar Bourgondie, waar zijn zuster Margaret inmiddels met Graaf van Bourgondie Karel de Stoute getrouwd was. [124]
Warwick sloot intussen een bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou en plaatste de geestelijk instabiele koning Henry VI opnieuw op de troon [maar Warwick regeerde uiteraard] [125]Hiermee was Warwick definitief naar de kant van Lancaster overgelopen,iets wat enkele jaren daarvoor nog ondenkbaar was [zijn eigen vader en broer waren omgekomen tijdens de strijd in 1461] [126]Zijn bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou werd bezegeld [voor wat, hoort wat!] door het huwelijk tussen Warwick’s jongste dochter Anne Neville en Margaretha’s en Henry VI’s zoon, Edward of Westminster, de Lancaster Prince of Wales. [127]

Het Einde verliep tragisch, want Warwick’s periode van macht was een korte vreugde.Edward IV [wat was ook anders te verwachten] keerde naar Engeland terug met een leger [geholpen door zijn zwager Graag Karel de Stoute van Bourgondie] en versloeg Warwick in de slag bij Barnet [128], waarbij Warwick en zijn broer John, de Eerste Markies van Montagu, sneuvelden.Warwick’s schoonzoon George Plantagenet had zich inmiddels weer verzoend met broer Edward, waarschijnlijk gepiqueerd omdat Warwick zijnkaarten niet meer op hem als koning zette. [129]

Zie voor een zeer interessant overzicht van Warwick’s carriere de documentaire van de Britse historicus Dan Jones [130]
Met de dood van Warwick kwam feitelijk een einde aan de machtspositie van de Familie Neville.Erbij gezegd moet nog worden, dat zij tot een van de weinige adellijke Families behoorden, die aan de kant van het Huis van York stonden.De meeste adelsfamilies waren Lancaster, en dus koning Henry VI, trouw gebleven. [131]Want de monarchie was nog praktisch sacraal en het afzetten van een koning, ook al was dat al wel gebeurd met Edward II [hoewel ten gunste van zijn eigen zoon] en Richard II [usurpatie door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, waarmee die het zaad van die ellende van de Rozenoorlogen werd gezaaid] [132], het afzetten van een koning dus, was nog net geen heiligschennis.

Margaretha van Anjou, die ook met een troepenmacht naar Engeland was gezeild, maar helaas voor de Lancaster zaak te laat in Engeland aankwam om samen met Warwick Edward IV in een militaire tangpositie te nemen, werd in mei 1471 door Edward IV verslagen in de slag bij Tewkesbury, waarbij de kans op een Lancaster heerschappij verkeken was. [133]Tijdens het leven van Edward IV, althans.
Na de dood van Edward IV bemachtigde zijn broer Richard, de hertog vanGloucester, de troon, als Richard III [Zie noot 45]] en werd hij, na twee jaar koningschap, zoals ikal in bovenstaande had vermeld, in de slagbij Bosworth verslagen door Henry Tudor, de latere Hendrik VII,  zoon van Margaret Beaufort [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Hiermee kwam niet alleen definitief een einde aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ookaan het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors brak aan. [Zie noten 46 t/m 50]
EPILOOG
Aanleiding tot mijn schrijven, een Opus, dat ik in september 2019 ben begonnen en nu heb voltooid, is uw ongenuanceerde uitspraakover een van de belangrijkste Spelers tijdens de Rozenoorlogen, Richard Neville,16e Graaf van WarwickNogmaals herhaald mijn reden tot kritiek:Op bladzijde 24 van uw uitgave ”De geschiedenis achter de Game of Thrones”,schreef u dus:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Einde uw tekst
In bovenstaande heb ik u niet alleen uitgelegd, waarom deze Passage uituw tijdschrift kort door de bocht, verward en historisch onjuist is [ik verwijsnaar het begin van mijn schrijven], ook heb ik u meegenomen opeen Reis door de Tijd, met uitgebreide informatie over de achtergrondenvan de Rozenoorlogen, tegen welks licht de carriere van Richard Neville,bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” gezien moet worden.
Mensen zijn complexe wezens en zelden is iemand alleen ”de verrader” en handelt/zij hij alleen ”uit machtswellust”Handelingen van mensen, zeker uit voorbije tijden, die qua wereldbeelden opvattingen ver afstaan van de onze, moeten bekeken worden vanuitde complexiteit, die zij verdienen.
Ik hoop, dat ik met dit commentaar ertoe heb bijgedragen, dat u inhet vervolg complexe historische gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingenniet zult afdoen met goedkope one liners, maar recht doetaan de tijd, waarin een en ander dient te worden geplaatst en deafwegingen die iemand tot zijn gedrag hebben bewogen, ook meeweegt.
Alleen dan doet u recht aan de historische werkelijkheid, voor zover wij die kennen.
Een gecompliceerd en veelzijdig carrierepoliticus [om maar eenmodern woord te gebruiken] als de Graaf van Warwick verdient beter.
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid EssedAmsterdam 
NOTEN
Voor uw gemak heb ik de bijbehorende noten in links ondergebrachtZie voor noten 1 t/m 133
LINKS

OF

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/noten-1-t-m-133-bij-brief-aan-historisch-tijdschrift-ontdek-over-verkeerde-historische-informatie-over-de-rozenoorlogen/

FYSIEKE NOTEN

[1]

Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, werd bekend als ”the Kingmaker”omdat hij twee koningen in het zadel heeft geholpen, eerst zijn neef Edward, de 7de Earl [Graaf] of March en zoon van Richard, hertog van York.Edward werd na een aantal overwinningen op de Lancasters, in 1461,tot koning gekroond, waarbij Warwick een beslissende rol speelde.Nadat er een breuk was ontstaan met zijn neef, koning Edward IV, trachtte Warwick George Plantagenet, de broer van Edward IV, die inmiddels metWarwick’s dochter getrouwd was [tegen de wil van Edward IV], op de troon te brengen.Toen dat mislukte, liep Warwick over naar de kant van Lancaster, zette de in 1461 afgezette koning Hendrik VI weer op de troon en bracht een huwelijktot stand tussen zijn jongste dochter Anne Neville en de zoon van koning Hendrik VI en zijn strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, Edward van Westminster.Tenslotte sneuvelde Warwick in de slag bij Barnet, de eindstrijd tegen zijnneef, koning Edward IV [die vanuit ballingschap in Bourgondie met een leger naar Engeland was teruggekeerd.
ZIE OP WIKIPEDIA:
”After a failed plot to crown Edward’s brother, George, Duke of Clarence, Warwick instead restored Henry VI to the throne.”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

LUMINARIUMRICHARD NEVILLE, EARL OF WARWICK
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warwick.htm

[2]

YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE[WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY]

[3]
NEVILL FEASTA GLIMPSE AT WARWICK’S NATURAL DAUGHTER MARGARET
https://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/a-glimpse-at-warwicks-natural-daughter-margaret/

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HISTORYMARGARET ALMOST-NEVILLE
http://cupboardworld.blogspot.com/2014/08/margaret-almost-neville.html

[4]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE MOOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edgecote_Moor

LUMINARIUMTHE BATTLE OF EDGECOTE
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edgecote.htm

[5]

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

[6]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

”Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

[7]

Door tijdgenoten werd het conflict ”Cousins war” genoemd, omdat de Huizen Lancaster en York aan elkaar verwant waren, beiden behorend tot het Huis Plantagenet, en zij cousins [neven, vaak verre neven] van elkaar waren.De term ”Rozenoorlogen”, verwijzend naar de symbolen de Witte Roos [Huis van York] en de Rode Roos [Huis van Lancaster] is pas een eeuw later in zwang gekomen, met name door Shakespeare’s koningsdrama ”Henry VI, bestaande uit drie delenIn deel 1 romantiseert Shakespeare de gebeurtenissen [er is geen enkel historisch bewijs voor, dat het ook zo is gegaan] door de vertegenwoordigers van het Huis van York en Het Huis van Lancaster een respectievelijk witte en rode roos te laten plukken als ”strijd” symbool:
‘PLANTAGENET

Since you are tongue-tied and so loath to speak,
In dumb significants proclaim your thoughts:
Let him that is a true-born gentleman
And stands upon the honour of his birth,
If he suppose that I have pleaded truth,
From off this brier pluck a white rose with me.

SOMERSET

Let him that is no coward nor no flatterer,
But dare maintain the party of the truth,
Pluck a red rose from off this thorn with me.

WARWICK

I love no colours, and without all colour
Of base insinuating flattery
I pluck this white rose with Plantagenet.

SUFFOLK

I pluck this red rose with young Somerset
And say withal I think he held the right.

VERNON

Stay, lords and gentlemen, and pluck no more,
Till you conclude that he upon whose side
The fewest roses are cropp’d from the tree
Shall yield the other in the right opinion.

SOMERSET

Good Master Vernon, it is well objected:
If I have fewest, I subscribe in silence.
RICHARD

PLANTAGENET

And I.

VERNON

Then for the truth and plainness of the case.
I pluck this pale and maiden blossom here,
Giving my verdict on the white rose side.

SOMERSET

Prick not your finger as you pluck it off,
Lest bleeding you do paint the white rose red
And fall on my side so, against your will.

VERNON

If I my lord, for my opinion bleed,
Opinion shall be surgeon to my hurt
And keep me on the side where still I am.

SOMERSET

Well, well, come on: who else?

Lawyer

Unless my study and my books be false,
The argument you held was wrong in you:

To SOMERSETIn sign whereof I pluck a white rose too.
RICHARD

PLANTAGENET

Now, Somerset, where is your argument?

SOMERSET

Here in my scabbard, meditating that
Shall dye your white rose in a bloody red.
RICHARD

PLANTAGENET

Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses;
For pale they look with fear, as witnessing
The truth on our side. SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART ONE, SCENE IV, LONDON, THE TEMPLE GARDEN http://shakespeare.mit.edu/1henryvi/full.html

”PLANTAGENET” IS RICHARD PLANTAGENET, DE HERTOG VAN YORK, MET ALS SYMBOOL DE WITTE ROOS
SOMERSET, HENRY BEAUFORT, POLITIEKE TEGENSTANDER  VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK EN BEHOREND TOT DE ONWETTIGE TAK VAN HET HUIS LANCASTER, MET ALS SYMBOOL DE RODE ROOS

[8]

WIKIPEDIA
WARS OF THE ROSES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses
YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

WARS OF THE ROSES/CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL TO THE PAST
ASTRID ESSED
3 FEBRUARY 2015

[9]
WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[10]

WIKIPEDIAENMITY OF MARGARET AND THE DUKE OF YORK  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou#Enmity_between_Margaret_and_the_Duke_of_York

ORIGINELE BRONWIKIPEDIA MARGARET OF ANJOU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/MARGARET OF ANJOU AND RICHARD, DUKE OF YORK, TWO MAJOR PLAYERSASTRID ESSED11 JANUARY 2015
https://www.astridessed.nl/english-historythe-wars-of-the-rosesmargaret-of-anjou-and-richard-duke-of-york-two-major-players/

[11]

Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset,[a]KG ( c. 1406 – 22 May 1455), was an English nobleman and an important figure in the Wars of the Roses and in the Hundred Years’ War. He also succeeded in the title of 4th Earl of Somersetand was created 1st Earl of Dorset and 1st Marquess of Dorset (previously held by his father and later forfeited), and Count of Mortain. He was known for his deadly rivalry with Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York.”

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND OF BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

HOUSE OF BEAUFORT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Beaufort

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[12]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

[13]

Toen de laatste koning uit het Franse geslacht Capet, koning Charles IV overleed, was zijn naaste mannelijke bloedverwant de zoon van zijn zusterIsabella of France, de Engelse koning Edward IIIDe Franse troon werd door zijn moeder Isabella [die toen de macht achter de troon was] voor hem geclaimd, maar aangezien vrouwen in Frankrijk waren  uitgesloten van de erfopvolging, kon de zoon van een vrouw [Isabella was de dochter van de in 1314 overleden koning Philips IV en zuster van Charles IV]ook niet opvolgen
Gevolg was uiteindelijk, dat Edward III later de Honderdjarige Oorlog startteom de Franse troon te bemachtigen

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEAR’S WAR/ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Origin_of_the_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIA HUNDRED YEARS WAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

[14]

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD, THE BLACK PRINCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Black_Prince

[15]

WIKIPEDIAPRIMOGENITURE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

[16]
KONING HENRY I, ZOON VAN WILLEM DE VEROVERAAR, LIET DE EDELEN ZWEREN, ZIJN ENIG OVERGEBLEVEN KIND, DOCHTER MATHILDA, TE ERKENNEN ALS KONINGIN VAN ENGELANDDIT DEDEN ZE ZEER TEGEN HUN ZIN, MAAR NA DE DOOD VAN HENRY I KWAMEN DE EDELEN DAARTEGEN IN OPSTAND EN CLAIMDE DE NEEF VAN MATHILDA, STEPHEN VAN BLOIS, EEN KLEINZOON VAN WILLEN DE VEROVERAAR VAN MOEDERSKANT, DE TROONEEN JARENLANGE STRIJD TUSSEN MATHILDA EN STEPHEN BRANDDE LOS, DE ANARCHY GENAAMD, MAAR EINDIGDE TOCH IN EEN OVERWINNING VOOR MATHILDA, OMDAT IN HET VERDRAG VAN WALLINFORD [OOK WEL BEKEND ALS VERDRAG VAN WINCHESTER] WERD BEPAALD, DAT STEPHEN TIJDENS ZIJN LEVEN KONING ZOU ZIJN, MAAR DAT MATHILDA’S ZOON, DE LATERE HENRY II [VADER VAN RICHARD LEEUWENHART EN JAN ZONDER LAND] HEM ZOU OPVOLGEN
ZIE:

”Meanwhile, Matilda’s younger brother, William Adelin, died in the White Ship disaster of 1120, leaving Matilda’s father and England facing a potential succession crisis. On Emperor Henry V’s death, Matilda was recalled to Normandy by her father, who arranged for her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou to form an alliance to protect his southern borders. Henry I had no further legitimate children and nominated Matilda as his heir, making his court swear an oath of loyalty to her and her successors, but the decision was not popular in the Anglo-Norman court. Henry died in 1135, but Matilda and Geoffrey faced opposition from Anglo-Norman barons. The throne was instead taken by Matilda’s cousin Stephen of Blois, who enjoyed the backing of the English Church. Stephen took steps to solidify his new regime but faced threats both from neighbouring powers and from opponents within his kingdom.”

WIKIPEDIA EMPRESS MATHILDA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda

WIKIPEDIATHE ANARCHY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy

”Stephen announced the Treaty of Winchester in Winchester Cathedral: he recognised Henry FitzEmpress as his adopted son and successor, in return for Henry doing homage to him. Other conditions included:

  • Stephen promised to listen to Henry’s advice, but retained all his royal powers;
  • Stephen’s remaining son, William, would do homage to Henry and renounce his claim to the throne, in exchange for promises of the security of his lands;
  • Key royal castles would be held on Henry’s behalf by guarantors, whilst Stephen would have access to Henry’s castles;
  • The numerous foreign mercenaries would be demobilised and sent home.[4]

Stephen and Henry sealed the treaty with a kiss of peace in the cathedral.[5] Henry II later rewarded Wallingford for its assistance in the struggle by giving the town its royal charter in 1155.”
TREATY OF WALLINGFORD/TERMS OF THE TREATY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Wallingford#Terms_of_the_treaty

ORIGINELE BRON
TREATY OF WALLINGFORD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Wallingford

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALESASTRID ESSED17 FEBRUARY 2015
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-roseslancaster-and-yorkusurpation-and-the-right-to-the-throne-through-females-2/

[17]

‘Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODIEST DYNASTYTYRANNYPART 4 OF 4[RICHARD II]

Henry IV (15 April 1367 – 20 March 1413), also known as Henry Bolingbroke (/ˈbɒlɪŋbrʊk/), was King of England from 1399 to 1413.”
WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England

[18]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England

[19]
Voor het eerst in de geschiedenis van het Huis Plantagenet was met afzetting van een koning de erfelijke lijn verbroken:Er was al eerder een koning afgezet, koning Edward II, door toedoen van zijn van hem vervreemde vrouw, Isabella of France en haar bondgenoot [wellicht minnaar] Roger Mortimer, maar dat was geweest ten gunste van zijn [Edward II’s] eigen zoon, de latere Edward III, waarmee de opvolgingslijn niet werd verbroken
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England


YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[20]

JOHN OF GAUNT, OFTEWEL JAN VAN GENT, WERD HERTOG VAN LANCASTER ”JURE UXORIS”/BIJ HET RECHT VAN ZIJN VROUWZIJN VROUW, BLANCHE VAN LANCASTER, WAS DE DOCHTER VAN HENRY GROSMONT, HERTOG VAN LANCASTER EN JOHN OF GAUNT ERFDE BIJ DE DOOD VAN ZIJN SCHOONVADER DIENS HERTOGELIJKE TITELBLANCHE OF LANCASTER WAS DE MOEDER VAN DE LATERE KONING HENRY IV [HENRY OF BOLINGBROKE], DIE ZIJN NEEF,KONING RICHARD II, AFZETTE ALS KONING

ZIE
Jure uxoris (a Latin phrase meaning “by right of (his) wife”[1][2]) is a title of nobility used by a man because his wife holds the office or title suo jure (“in her own right”). Similarly, the husband of an heiress could become the legal possessor of her lands. For example, married women in England were legally incapable of owning real estate until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

WIKIPEDIAJURE UXORIS

WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt

”On 19 May 1359 at Reading Abbey, John married his third cousinBlanche of Lancaster, younger of the two daughters of Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Both shared a common descent from King Henry III. The wealth she brought to the marriage was the foundation of John’s fortune. Blanche died on 12 September 1368 at Tutbury Castle, while her husband was overseas. 
WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT/MARRIAGES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt#Marriages

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt

WIKIPEDIABLANCHE OF LANCASTER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_of_Lancaster

”Henry was the son of John of Gaunt (the fourth son of Edward III) and Blanche of Lancaster. ”
WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England

[21]

WIKIPEDIALIONEL OF ANTWERP, 1ST DUKE OF CLARENCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_of_Antwerp,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

[22]

Philippa of Clarence (16 August 1355 – 5 January 1382) was the suo jureCountess of Ulster.  

WIKIPEDIAPHILIPPA, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulster

[23]

‘Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England


YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[24]

”Born on 27 December 1388,[2][3][4] Anne Mortimer was the eldest of the four children of Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March (1374–1398), and Eleanor Holland(1370–1405).[3] She had two brothers, Edmund, 5th Earl of March (1391–1425), and Roger (1393–1413?), as well as a sister, Eleanor.[3]

Anne’s father was a descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, second surviving son of King Edward III of England, an ancestry which made Mortimer a potential heir to the throne during the reign of the childless King Richard II. Upon Roger Mortimer’s death in 1398, this claim passed to his son and heir, Anne’s brother Edmund, Earl of March.[5] In 1399, Richard II was deposed by Henry IV, of the House of Lancaster, making Edmund Mortimer a dynastic threat to the new king, who in turn placed both Edmund and his brother Roger under royal custody.”

WIKIPEDIA

ANNE DE MORTIMER/EARLY LIFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mortimer#Early_life

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

ANNE DE MORTIMER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mortimer

[25]

KORTE STAMBOOM/AFSTAMMING RICHARD, HERTOG VAN YORK VAN DE TWEEDEZOON VAN EDWARD III

VOORAF:
KING EDWARD III [married with Philippa of Hainault
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_of_Hainault

A

LIONEL OF ANTWERP, FIRST DUKE OF CLARENCE ENDE TWEEDE ZOON VAN EDWARD III [ [married with Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_of_Antwerp,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_de_Burgh,_4th_Countess_of_Ulster
B
PHILIPPA OF CLARENCE, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER, DOCHTER VAN LIONEL OF ANTWERP EN ELIZABETH DE BURGH:
PHILIPPA OF CLARENCE, 5TH COUNTESS OF ULSTER[Married with Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa,_5th_Countess_of_Ulster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

C

ROGER MORTIMER, FOURTH EARL OF MARCH, ZOON VAN PHILIPPA OF CLARENCE EN EDMUND MORTIMER, 3RD EARL OF MARCH.[Married with Alianore Holland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Mortimer,_4th_Earl_of_March

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alianore_Holland,_Countess_of_March

D

ANNE DE MORTIMER, DOCHTER VAN ROGER MORTIMER, 4RD EARLOF MARCH EN ALIANORE HOLLAND [Married Richard of Conisburgh, Third Earl of Cambridge en zoonvan Edmund of Langley, First Duke of York,, vierde zoon van Edward III ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_de_Mortimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_Conisburgh,_3rd_Earl_of_Cambridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_of_Langley,_1st_Duke_of_York

RICHARD, THIRD DUKE OF YORK [Titel erfde hij van de oudere broervan zijn vader Richard Conisburgh, genaamd Edmund, second Duke of York,die kinderloos overleed][Married Cecily Neville, uit de beroemde en invloedrijke familie Neville]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

RICHARD, HERTOG VAN YORK WAS DE VADER VAN DE LATERE KONINGEN EDWARD IV EN RICHARD III [MOEDER WAS CECILY NEVILLE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

[26]

WIKIPEDIAUSURPATOR

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usurpator

[27]

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND MORTIMER, 5TH EARL OF MARCH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Mortimer,_5th_Earl_of_March


YOUTUBE.COM
THE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[28]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY V OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England

[29]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Plot

[30]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Plot

NEVILFEASTLETTERS OF RICHARD EARL OF CAMBRIDGE TO HENRY V
https://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/letters-from-richard-earl-of-cambridge-to-henry-v/

TEXT

In 1415, when his son, Richard (later duke of York), was four years old, Richard, earl of Cambridge, was “accused of a treasonable conspiracy, indicted, convicted and beheaded” (p45). This has come to be known as the Southampton Plot. During his captivity he wrote two letters to the king, Henry V: a letter of confession and a plea for mercy, “but neither had any effect upon Henry” (p45).

Cambridge’s letter of confession:

My most dredfulle and sovereyne lege Lord, lyke to yowre hynesse to wete touchyng the purpose cast ageyns ʒowre hye estate. Havyng ye Erle of Marche by his aune assent, and by the assent of myself, Wher of y most me repent of all worde [worldly] thyng and by the acord of the lord Scrop and Sir Thomas Grey, to have hadde ye forseyd erle into the lond of Walys wyth outyn yowre lycence, takying upon hym the sovereynte of ʒys lond; ʒyf yondyr manis persone wych they callyn kynge Richard hadde nauth bene alyve, as Y wot wel yat he nys not alyve, for the wyche poynt I putte me holy in ʒowre grace. And as for ye forme of a proclamacyon wych schulde hadde bene cryde in ye Erle name, as he heyre to the Corowne of Ynglond ageyns ʒow, my lege lord, calde by auntreu [untrue] name Harry of Lancastre usurpur of Yngland, to the entent to hadde made the more people to hadde draune to hym and from ʒow, of the wych crye Scrop knew not of by me, but Grey dyd, havyng wyth the erle a baner of ye Armes of Ynglond, havyng also ye coroune of Speyne on a palet, wych, my lege Lord, is one of ʒowre weddys, for ye wych offence y put me holy in ʒowre grace. And as for ye p’pose takyn by Unfrevyle and Wederyngtoun for ye bryngyng in of that persone whych they namyd kyng Richard, and Herry Percye oute of Scotland wyth a power of Scottys, and theyre power togedyrs neyming to theyme able to geve ʒow a bataylle, of ye wych entent Sir Thomas Grey wyste of, and i also, but nauth Scrop as by me; of ye wych knawing i submytte me holy into ʒowre grace. And as touchyng the Erle of Marche, and Lusy hys man, they seyden me both yat the Erle was nauth schreven of a great whyle, but at all hys confessours putte hym in penaunce to clayme yat yey callyddyn hys ryth that wold be that tyme that every iknew, heny thyng yat ever to hym longyd … … … Of ye which poynttes and artycles here befor wretyn, and of al odyr wych now arne nauth in mynde, but treuly as oft as heny to myn mynd fallyn i schal deuly and treuly certefye now thee of, besekyng to now, my lege Lord, for hys love yat syffyrd passyoun on ye good fryday see compassyoun on me ʒowre lege men, and yf heny of thes persones whos names arne contenyd in ʒyz tyme, i schalle be redy wyth the myth of god to make hyt good, as ʒee my lege Lord will awarde me.

_____________________

_____________________

A plea for mercyMyn most dredfull and sovereyne Lege Lord, i Richard York ʒowre humble subgyt and very lege man, beseke ʒow of Grace of al maner offenses wych y have done or assentyd to in heny kynde, by steryng of odyr folke eggynge me yer to, where in y wote wel i have hyll offendyd to ʒowre Hynesse; besechyng ʒow at the reverence of God yat ʒyke to take me in to the handys of ʒowre gred goodnesse. My lege Lord, my fulle trust is yat ʒee wylle have consyderacyoun, thauth yat myn persone be of none valwe, ʒowre hye goodnesse wher God hath sette ʒow in so hye estat to every lege man yat to ʒow longyth plenteousely to geve grace, yat ʒow lyke to accept ʒys myn symple reqwest for ye love of oure Lady and of ye blysfulle Holy Gost, to whome I pray yat yey mot ʒowre hert enduce to all pyte and grace for yeyre hye goodnesse. 

[30]

R.I.P.
 Latin requiēscat (or requiēscantin pāce

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/r-i-p-

[31]

ZIE NOOT 25

[32]
KORT:De Beauforts, ook wel de ”onwettige” tak van het Huis Lancaster genoemd, behoorden feitelijk helemaal niet tot het Huis Lancaster,.aangezien zijgeen kinderen waren van John of Gaunt [derde zoon van Edward III]en zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche of Lancaster, maar afstamden van John of Gaunt en zijn DERDE vrouw, Katherine Swynford:
John of Gaunt’s eerste vrouw, Blanche of Lancaster, was de dochter van Henry Grosmont, de eerste hertog van Lancaster [zijn vader was Graaf Henry of Lancaster] en als zodanig erfde John of Gaunt de hertogelijke titel van zijnvrouw.”Jure uxoris”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris

John of Gaunt’s zoon, Henry Bolingbroke, de latere Henry IV, was ook de zoon van Blanche of Lancaster en als zodanig een Lancaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanche_of_Lancaster

DE BEAUFORTS echter waren dus kinderen van John of Lancaster en zijn derde vrouw Katherine Swynford, zijn gewezen maitresse.Omdat zij waren geboren tijdens het huwelijk van John of Gaunt, waren ze onwettig, maar werden achteraf gewettigd door zowel Richard II als  Paus Bonifacius IX  en kregen de naam Beaufort.
Maar met de fysieke Lancaster afstamming hadden zij dus niets te maken.Wat hen echter een rol gaf, was dat zij halfbroers/zusters waren van de eerste Lancaster koning, Henry IV en dus partij werden in het conflict .

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Beaufort

[33]

WIKIPEDIAMARGARET OF ANJOU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND  BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[34]
WIKIPEDIARICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK, PROTECTOR OF THE REALM, 1453-1455
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York#Protector_of_the_Realm,_1453–1455

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET, POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Political_power_and_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England

[35]

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

”The first battle of St Albans was relatively minor in military terms,[dubious – discuss] but politically was a complete victory for York and the Nevilles: York had captured the king and restored himself to complete power, while Somerset and the Nevilles’ northern rivals Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford all fell during the rout”

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS/RESULT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans#Result

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[36]

”By now York was determined to depose Somerset by one means or another, and in May 1455 he raised an army. He confronted Somerset and the King in an engagement known as the First Battle of St Albans which marked the beginning of the Wars of the Roses. Somerset was killed in a last wild charge from the house where he had been sheltering.

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET/POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Political_power_and_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[37]

WIKIPEDIAWARS OF THE ROSES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

[38]

WIKIPEDIALOVEDAY, 1458

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveday,_1458

[39]

”The Act of Accord was passed by the English Parliament on 25 October 1460,[1] three weeks after Richard, Duke of York, had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed, excluding Henry’s son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.”

WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Accord

[40]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield

[41]

WIKIPEDIAGAME OF THRONES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones

[42]

”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground”[Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones]

YOUTUBE.COMCERSEI LANNISTER: IN THE GAME OF THRONES YOU WIN OR YOU DIE

”The title of the episode is part of a quote from Cersei Lannister during the final confrontation with Eddard: “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

WIKIPEDIAYOU WIN OR YOU DIE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Win_or_You_Die

[43]

De term voor Edward IV ”Rozenoorlogkoning” houdt verband met het feit, dat Edward, als 7de Earl [Graaf] van March en erfgenaam van zijn vader de hertog van York, letterlijk met ”bloed, zweet en tranen” voor de troon heeft moeten vechten:Zijn vaders superieure claim op de troon [van moederskant afstammend van de TWEEDE  zoon van Edward III, terwijl de Lancasters afstamden van de DERDEzoon] ging na zijn vaders dood op hem over.En dan was er ook nog het [van koning Henry VI afgedwongen] Act of Accord, dat inhield, dat Henry VI tijdens zijn leven zou regeren, maar dat na zijn dood de hertog van York en zijn erfgenamen de troon zouden bestijgen [waarmee de eigen zoon van de koning, Edward van Westminster, werd gepasseerd]Helemaal ”eerlijk” was de troonsbestijging van Edward IV [ondanks zijn superieure claim dus niet, want Henry VI was op dat moment nog in leven…..
MAAR GOED:Edward heeft dus keihard moeten vechten voor zijn troon en tijdens zijn bewind hebben de meeste veldslagen van de Rozenoorlogen plaatsgehad….
ZIE AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN ONDERSTAANDE LINK
http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warsoftheroses.htm

[44]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[45]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND/KING OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#King_of_England

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

[46]
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BOSWORTH [BATTLE OF  BOSWORTH FIELD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field

[47]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND/ANCESTRY AND EARLY LIFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England#Ancestry_and_early_life

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England

[48]

”She was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (1404–1444), a legitimised grandson of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third surviving son of King Edward III) by his mistress Katherine Swynford.”

WIKIPEDIALADY MARGARET BEAUFORT/ORIGINS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort#Origins

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIALADY MARGARET BEAUFORT 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Beaufort

[49]
”The Battle of Bosworth Field (or Battle of Bosworth) was the last significant battle of the Wars of the Roses, the civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York that extended across England in the latter half of the 15th century. Fought on 22 August 1485, the battle was won by the Lancastrians. Their leader Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, became the first English monarch of the Tudor dynasty by his victory and subsequent marriage to a Yorkist princess. His opponent Richard III, the last king of the House of York, was killed during the battle, the last English monarch to die in battle. Historians consider Bosworth Field to mark the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, making it one of the defining moments of English history.”

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BOSWORTH [BATTLE OF  BOSWORTH FIELD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field

[50]

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF TUDOR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Tudor

[51]

”Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII, succeeded in presenting himself as a candidate not only for traditional Lancastrian supporters, but also for discontented supporters of their rival House of York, and he took the throne by right of conquest
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF TUDOR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Tudor

WIKIPEDIARIGHT OF CONQUEST

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_conquest

[52]

”By 1483, Henry’s mother was actively promoting him as an alternative to Richard III, despite her being married to Lord Stanley, a Yorkist. At Rennes Cathedral on Christmas Day 1483, Henry pledged to marry Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV, who was also Edward’s heir since the presumed death of her brothers, the Princes in the Tower, King Edward V and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND/RISE TO THE THRONE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England#Rise_to_the_throne

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VII OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England

[53]

”The family is descended from John of Gaunt by his then-mistress Katherine Swynford. Gaunt married Swynford in 1396, and their children were legitimized by Richard II and Pope Boniface IX. ”

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Beaufort

[54]

ZIE NOOT 25

[55]

WIKIPEDIA MARGARET OF ANJOU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou

WIKIPEDIAELIZABETH OF YORK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_York

[56]

QUEEN BY RIGHT OF QUEEN REGNANT

”A queen regnant (plural: queens regnant) is a female monarch, equivalent in rank to a king, who reigns in her own right, as opposed to a queen consort, who is the wife of a reigning king, or a queen regent, who is the guardian of a child monarch and reigns temporarily in the child’s stead”

WIKIPEDIAQUEEN REGNANT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant

WIKIPEDIAQUEEN CONSORT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_consort

[57]

”Three of Richard’s sisters married dukes (the youngest Cecily, marrying Richard, Duke of York), and Richard himself married Alice Montacute, daughter and heiress of Thomas Montacute, the Earl of Salisbury………..”At the time of the marriage, the Salisbury inheritance was not guaranteed, as not only was Earl Thomas still alive, but in 1424 he remarried (to Alice Chaucer, granddaughter of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer). This second marriage was without issue and when the Earl Thomas Montacute died in 1428, Richard Neville and Alice were confirmed as the Earl and Countess of Salisbury. From this point on, Richard Neville will be referred to as Salisbury.”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY/BACKGROUND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury#Background

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury

WIKIPEDIAJURE UXORIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris

[58]

ZIE NOOT 57

[59]

”But the male line of the Nevilles was of native origin, and the family may well have been part of the pre-conquest aristocracy of Northumbria.[1] The continuation of landowning among such native families was more common in the far north of England than further south.”
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/ORIGINS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville#Origins

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville

[60]

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/WARS OF THE ROSES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville#Wars_of_the_Roses

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville

[61]

Cecily Neville (3 May 1415 – 31 May 1495) was an English noblewoman, the wife of Richard, Duke of York (1411–1460), and the mother of two kings of EnglandEdward IV and Richard III. Cecily Neville was known as “the Rose of Raby”, because she was born at Raby Castle in Durham, and “Proud Cis”, because of her pride and a temper that went with it, although she was also known for her piety. She herself signed her name “Cecylle”.”
WIKIPEDIACECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_Neville,_Duchess_of_York

CECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS [HERTOGIN] OF YORK, WAS DE ZUSTER VAN DE VADER VAN DE 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK [THE KINGMAKER],RICHARD, DE VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURYMET ANDERE WOORDEN:CECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF YORK WAS WARWICK’S TANTE.
ZIE OOK

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury

[62]
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/BECOMING WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Becoming_Warwick

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[63]

BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER/COUSIN AGAINST COUSIN
VOORBEELD:
IN DE SLAG BIJ NORTHAMPTON [1460] STONDEN DE LATERE EDWARD IV [TOEN NOG EDWARD OF YORK,  7DE EARL OF MARCH] EN DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK TEGENOVER ONDER ANDERE HUN NEEF, THOMAS PERCY, EERSTE BARON EGREMONT, DIE AAN DE LANCASTER KANT VOCHT EN IN DEZE SLAG SNEUVELDE

THOMAS PERCY WAS EEN ZOON VAN HENRY PERCY, TWEEDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND EN LADY ELEANOR NEVILLE, DE ZUSTERVAN CECILY OF YORK-NEVILLE [MOEDER VAN EDWARD IV] EN RICHARD,VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, DE VADER VAN GRAAF WARWICK

WIKIPEDIATHOMAS PERCY, 1ST BARON EGREMONT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Baron_Egremont

WIKIPEDIA BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)

IN DE SLAG BIJ TOWTON [1461] STONDEN EDWARD IV [TOEN NET TOT KONING GEKROOND, WAARMEE HIJ HENRY VI VERVING] EN DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, SAMEN MET ANDERE FAMILIELEDEN, ONDER ANDERE TEGENOVER HENRY PERCY, DE DERDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND EN BROER VAN THOMAS PERCY, EERSTE BARON VAN EGREMONT[ZIE DIRECT HIERBOVEN]DUS WEER TEGENOVER EEN NEEF, DIE AAN DE KANT VAN LANCASTER VOCHT.OOK HENRY PERCY SNEUVELDE, IN DE SLAG BIJ TOWTON
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF TOWTON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton

WIKIPEDIAHENRY PERCY, 3RD EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy,_3rd_Earl_of_Northumberland

EN ZO GING HET SCHERING EN INSLAGBROTHER AGAINST BROTHER/COUSIN AGAINST COUSIN……

[64]

The Wars of the Roses were a series of English civil wars for control of the throne of England fought between supporters of two rival cadet branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster, associated with the Red Rose of Lancaster, and the House of York, whose symbol was the White Rose of York. Eventually, the wars eliminated the male lines of both families. 

WIKIPEDIAWARS OF THE ROSES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

[65]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Plot

Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA RICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England

 [66]

WIKIPEDIASOUTHAMPTON PLOT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Plot

[67]
ZIE NOOT 23 EN 65

[68]
ZIE NOOT 23

[69]

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET/POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Political_power_and_conflict

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[70]

ZIE NOOT 69

ZIE OOK
WIKIPEDIA FIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[71]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England

[72]

WIKIPEDIARICHARD OF YORK, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_of_York,_3rd_Duke_of_York

WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

[73]

”Margaret at the time seven months pregnant, attempted to claim the regency, but gained no support. It was given instead to Henry’s cousin, Richard, Duke of York, much to the annoyance of the Queen, who strongly felt that she and her party should govern England.”
ENGLISH MONARCHSMARGARET OF ANJOU
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_26.html

[74]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER

[75]

”What Cade and York were challenging was the improper influence of the king’s advisors on the application of royal authority. It is difficult to regard this as anything other than a tactic intended to prevent the imputation of treason against them. In York’s case he embellished his complaints with the inference that the king was the innocent victim of evil councillors. It was a situation from which York — the king’s true and loyal subject — would recue him; thus, allowing him to rule properly as was always his intention. 

DUKE RICHARD, THE 3RD DUKE OF YORK, THE KING’S TRUE LIEGEMAN?

ZIE OOK
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosesmurreyandbluewordpress-comduke-richard-the-3rd-duke-of-york-the-kings-true-liegeman/

[76]

ZIE NOOT 23

ZIE OOK

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER

[77]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER

[77]

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND/INSANITY AND THE ASCENDANCY OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England#Insanity,_and_the_ascendancy_of_York

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAHENRY VI OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England

[78]
[78]

”When Richard, Duke of York, unsuccessfully rose up against the king in 1452, both Warwick and his father rallied to the side of King Henry VI”

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, BECOMING WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Becoming_Warwick

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[79]

CON IGGULDENTRINITY
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22468475-trinity
CON IGGULDEN [Vertaald in het Nederlands]HET DRIEVOUDIG VERBOND
https://www.bol.com/nl/f/de-rozenoorlogen-het-drievoudig-verbond/9200000036034854/
 [80]

STAMBOOM, WAARUIT HET ZWAGERSCHAP VAN RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK MET EDMUND BEAUFORT, 2DE HERTOG VAN SOMERSET, IS AF TE LEIDEN.HUN VROUWEN WAREN ELKAARS HALFZUSTERS, KINDEREN VANRICHARD, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK UIT ZIJN EERSTE EN TWEEDE HUWELIJKZIE DIRECT HIERONDER:

RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICKUIT ZIJN EERSTE HUWELIJK MET ELIZABETH DE BERKELEY WERDEN GEBOREN:
MARGARET BEAUCHAMP, DE LATERE COUNTESS OF SHRESBURYELEANOR BEAUCHAMP, DE LATERE DUCHESS OF SOMERSETELIZABETH BEAUCHAMP, DE LATERE BARONESS LATIMER
UIT ZIJN TWEEDE HUWELIJK MET ISABEL LE DESPENSER WERDEN GEBOREN
HENRY, 14E GRAAF VAN WARWICK [OVERLEDEN IN 1446]ANNE [DIE DAARDOOR LATER DE TITEL ERFDE], 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK[NA HET OVERLIJDEN VAN DE DOCHTER VAN HAAR BROER HENRY, OOKEEN ANNE [OVERLEDEN IN 1449]
ZIEHIER DE DRAMATIS PERSONAE
RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beauchamp,_13th_Earl_of_Warwick
ZIJN EERSTE VROUW ELIZABETH DE BERKELEY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Berkeley,_Countess_of_Warwick
HUN DRIE DOCHTERS
MARGARET, COUNTESS OF SHREWSBURY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beauchamp,_Countess_of_Shrewsbury
ELEANOR, DUCHESS OF SOMERSET, GETROUWD MET EDMUND BEAUFORT, 2E HERTOG VAN SOMERSET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Beauchamp,_Duchess_of_Somerset

ELIZABETH, BARONESS LATIMER [GEEN WIKIPEDIA]

TWEEDE VROUW VAN RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK
ISABEL LE DESPENSER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Despenser,_Countess_of_Warwick

ZOON EN DOCHTER UIT DIT TWEEDE HUWELIJK
HENRY BEAUCHAMP, 14E GRAAF VAN WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Beauchamp,_1st_Duke_of_Warwick

ANNE BEAUCHAMP, 16E GRAVIN VAN WARWICKGETROUWD MET RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK [JURE UXORIS]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Beauchamp,_16th_Countess_of_Warwick
[81]

”In June 1453, Somerset was granted custody of the lordship of Glamorgan – part of the Despenser heritage held by Warwick until then – and open conflict broke out between the two men.[15] Then, in the summer of that year, King Henry fell ill.[16] Somerset was a favourite of the king and Queen Margaret, and with the king incapacitated he was virtually in complete control of government.[17] This put Warwick at a disadvantage in his dispute with Somerset, and drove him into collaboration with York”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/CIVIL WAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Civil_War

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[82]

” The political climate, influenced by the military defeat in France, then started turning against Somerset. On 27 March 1454, a group of royal councillors appointed the Duke of York protector of the realm.[19] York could now count on the support not only of Warwick, but also of Warwick’s father Salisbury, who had become more deeply involved in disputes with the House of Percy in the north of England

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/CIVIL WAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Civil_War

ORIGINELE BRONWIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[83]
WIKIPEDIAPERCY-NEVILLE FEUD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy–Neville_feud

[84]

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

[85]

Thomas Percy, 1st Baron Egremont (29 November 1422 – 10 July 1460) was the son of Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland, and Eleanor Neville, being made Lord Egremont in 1449. A northern baron, he became a leading figure in the internecine Percy-Neville feud, fighting at the Battle of Heworth Moor. When the Wars of the Roses began mid-decade, Egremont fought for the king on the Lancastrian side, being killed five years later at the Battle of Northampton.

WIKIPEDIATHOMAS PERCY, 1ST BARON EGREMONT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Baron_Egremont
ZOALS TE LEZEN [ZIE BOVENSTAANDE]
HET TRIESTE WAS, DAT DEZE THOMAS PERCY DE ZOON WAS VANGENOEMDE LORD PERCY, MAAR OOK VAN ELEANOR NEVILLE, TANTE VAN VADERSZIJDE [ZUSTER VAN ZIJN VADER] VAN WARWICK EN TANTE VAN MOEDERSZIJDE VAN DE LATERE EDWARD IV [ZUSTER VAN ZIJN MOEDER CECILY NEVILLE] , TOEN NOG DE 7E EARL OF MARCH [ZOON VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK]

IN DE BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON STREED THOMAS PERCY TEGEN ZIJN NEVEN WARWICK EN DE EARL OF MARCH [ZOON VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK] EN SNEUVELDE
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)

[86]

YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES

WIKIPEDIAPERCY-NEVILLE FEUD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy–Neville_feud

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEARS WAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

 [87]

BELANGRIJKE EDELEN, DIE GETROUWEN WAREN VAN KONING HENRY VI:
Edmund Beaufort, 2de hertog van York
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset

Henry Percy, 2e Graaf van Northumberland, getrouwd met Lady Eleanor Neville, zuster van Richard Neville [de vader van Warwick, tegenpartij en bondgenoot van York] en Cecily Neville, vrouw van de hertog van York.
Humphrey Stafford, Eerste hertog van Buckingham , getrouwd met Lady Anne Neville, ook een zuster van Richard Neville en Cecily Neville, vrouw van de hertog van YorkToen al liepen de Families in de Rozenoorlogen door elkaar!
HENRY PERCY, TWEEDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy,_2nd_Earl_of_Northumberland

HUMPHREY STAFFORD, EERSTE HERTOG VAN BUCKINGHAM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Stafford,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham

Eleanor Neville, Richard Neville en Cecily Nevilles zuster, Humphrey Stafford, Eerste hertog van Buckingham en getrouwd met de zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Anne Neville, die eveneens de zuster was van Cecily Neville, de vrouw van de hertog van York/Toen al stonden de families tegenover elkaar]

[88]

WIKIPEDIAFIRST BATTLE OF ST ALBANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans

[89]

WIKIPEDIAWARS OF THE ROSES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

DE DRIE RICHARDS WERDEN DOOR HET ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS” ALS VERRADERS GEBRANDMERKT [FIGUURLIJK] EN HUN BEZITTINGEN VERBEURD VERKLAARD [ATTAINDER]DIT WAS VOORAL HET WERK VAN MARGARETHA VAN ANJOUKONING HENRY VI NEIGDE ALTIJD TOT VERGEVINGSGEZINDHEIDIK DENK, DAT DE PASSAGE [ZIE HET LAATSTE CITAAT, NA DE STIPPELLIJNEN] WAARBIJ VOLLEDIG PARDON WERD AANGEBODEN VOOR WIE ZICH AAN DE KONING ONDERWIERP, VAN DE HAND VAN HENRY VI KWAM……

”The Parliament opened in the chapter house of St. Mary’s priory with a speech by the chancellor, William Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, preaching on the text ‘Grace to you and peace be multiplied’, but the government’s purpose was undoubtedly to condemn York and his kinsmen and allies as traitors. A bill accused twenty-four persons of levying war against the King at Blore Heath and Ludford, and three more (including the countess of Salisbury) of plotting  his death elsewhere. It recited York’s treasons since 1450; what had been done at St. Albans (in 1455 when the duke had eliminated several of his political opponents in a pitched battle in the streets of the town) had been an ‘execrabill and moost detestable dede’, prompted by ‘the moost diabolique unkyndnesse and wrecched envye’. Attainder was fully justified, whereby the traitors were condemned to death and all their possessions declared forfeit. Furthermore, their heirs were to be barred from inheritance forever”…………”The chancellor’s choice of text for his sermon could be taken to imply an intention to pursue peace by softening the rigour of justice with the King’s prerogative of mercy, and at the end of the session Henry VI did indeed mitigate the effects of the act of attainder, insisting on a proviso that he could grant full pardon and restoration to those who humbly sought his grace”

THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENTON THIS DAY: 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS” ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/periods/medieval/day-20-november-1459-parliament-devils-assembles-coventry

”The main business of the Parliament was to pass bills of attainder for High treason against the leading Yorkist nobles, following the start of a new stage in the Wars of the Roses and the Battle of Ludford Bridge.”

WIKIPEDIAPARLIAMENT OF DEVILS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Devils

”A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.”

WIKIPEDIABILL OF ATTAINDER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

NA DEZE HANDELINGEN VAN HET PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS, ONTVLUCHTTEN DE  DRIE RICHARDS [MET YORK’S ZOON EDWARD, DE EARL OF MARCH, LATER EDWARD IV] HET LAND
YORK NAAR IERLAND, WARWICK, NEEF EDWARD [EARL OF MARCH] EN VADER RICHARD NEVILLE, 5E GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, NAAR FRANKRIJK, CALAIS [LAATSTE ENGELSE BOLWERK IN FRANKRIJK,WARWICK WAS KAPITEIN VAN CALAIS

”Forced to flee the country, York left for Dublin, Ireland, with his second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, while Warwick and Salisbury sailed to Calais, accompanied by the Duke’s son, Edward, Earl of March (the future King Edward IV).”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/HOUSE OF YORK TRIUMPHANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#House_of_York_triumphant

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIA
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[90]

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD OF WESTMINSTER, PRINCE OF WALES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminster,_Prince_of_Wales

[91]

‘Forced to flee the country, York left for Dublin, Ireland, with his second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, while Warwick and Salisbury sailed to Calais, accompanied by the Duke’s son, Edward, Earl of March (the future King Edward IV).”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/HOUSE OF YORK TRIUMPHANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#House_of_York_triumphant
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[92]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)

[93]
”The Act of Accord was passed by the English Parliament on 25 October 1460,[1] three weeks after Richard, Duke of York, had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed, excluding Henry’s son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.”

WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Accord

[94]

”The Duke of York was either killed in the battle or captured and immediately executed. Some later works support the folklore that he suffered a crippling wound to the knee and was unhorsed, and he and his closest followers then fought to the death at that spot;[38] others relate the account that he was taken prisoner (by one Sir James Luttrell of Devonshire), mocked by his captors and beheaded.[40]

His son Edmund, Earl of Rutland attempted to escape over Wakefield Bridge, but was overtaken and killed, possibly by Clifford in revenge for his father’s death at St Albans. Salisbury’s second son Sir Thomas Neville also died in the battle.[21] Salisbury’s son in law William, Lord Harington and Harington’s father, William Bonville, were captured and executed immediately after the battle. (The Bonvilles had been engaged in a feud with the Earl of Devon and the Courtenay family in Devon and Cornwall.) Salisbury himself escaped the battlefield but was captured during the night, and was taken to the Lancastrian camp. Although the Lancastrian nobles might have been prepared to allow Salisbury to ransom himself, he was dragged out of Pontefract Castle and beheaded by local commoners, to whom he had been a harsh overlord”

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD/CASUALTIES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield#Casualties

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield

[95]

[95]

”The death of his father left Edward, now Duke of York, at the head of the Yorkist faction. He defeated a Lancastrian army at Mortimer’s Cross in Herefordshire on 2–3 February 1461. He then united his forces with those of Warwick, whom Margaret’s army had defeated at the Second Battle of St Albans (17 February 1461), during which Henry VI had been rescued by his supporters.[7] Edward’s father had restricted his ambitions to becoming Henry’s heir, but Edward now took the more radical step of proclaiming himself king in March 1461.[7] He then advanced against the Lancastrians, having his life saved on the battlefield by the Welsh Knight Sir David Ap Mathew. He defeated the Lancastrian army in the exceptionally bloody Battle of Towton in Yorkshire on 29 March 1461.[8] Edward had effectively broken the military strength of the Lancastrians, and he returned to London for his coronation. King Edward IV named Sir David Ap Mathew Standard Bearer of England and allowed him to use “Towton” on the Mathew family crest.”

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/ACCESSION TO THE THRONE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Accession_to_the_throne

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

[96]

WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Accord

[97]

”Warwick’s position after the accession of Edward IV was stronger than ever.[59] He had now succeeded to his father’s possessions, and in 1462 he also inherited his mother’s lands and the Salisbury title.[60] Altogether he had an annual income from his lands of over £7,000 far more than any other man in the realm but the king.[61] Edward confirmed Warwick’s position as Captain of Calais, and made him High Admiral of England and Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster, along with several other offices”

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/WARWICK’S APEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Warwick’s_apex

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[98]

””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.”– The Governor of Abbeville in a letter to Louis XI[2][58]

AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/WARWICK’S APEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Warwick’s_apex

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick [99]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF MORTIMER’S CROSS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mortimer%27s_Cross

[100]

WIKIPEDIAJASPER TUDOR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Tudor

[101]

”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.”

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL OF THE PASTASTRID ESSED3 FEBRUARI 2015
https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the-wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to-the-past/

[102]
”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground”[Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones]

YOUTUBE.COMCERSEI LANNISTER: IN THE GAME OF THRONES YOU WIN OR YOU DIE

”The title of the episode is part of a quote from Cersei Lannister during the final confrontation with Eddard: “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

WIKIPEDIAYOU WIN OR YOU DIE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Win_or_You_Die

[103]

”Sir John Grey was killed in the Second Battle of St Albans in 1461, fighting for the Lancastrian cause.[1] His widow, Dame Elizabeth Grey, later secretly married Edward IV who was the successful Yorkist claimant to the throne.”
WIKIPEDIAJOHN GREY OF GROBY/DEATH AT THE BATTLE OF ST ABLANS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby#Death_at_the_battle_of_St_Albans
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAJOHN GREY OF GROBY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

[104]
”At the negotiations with the French, Warwick had intimated that King Edward was interested in a marriage arrangement with the French crown, the intended bride being Louis XI’s sister-in-law, Bona, daughter of Louis, Duke of Savoy.[71] This marriage was not to be, however, because in September 1464, Edward revealed that he was already married, to Elizabeth Woodville.[72] The marriage caused great offence to Warwick: not only due to the fact that his plans had been sabotaged, but also the secrecy with which the king had acted.[73] The marriage – contracted on 1 May of the same year – was not made public before Warwick pressed Edward on the issue at a council meeting, and in the meanwhile Warwick had been unknowingly deceiving the French into believing the king was serious about the marriage proposal.”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[105]

For Edward the marriage may very well have been a love match, but in the long run he sought to build the Woodville family into a powerhouse independent of Warwick’s influence.[74] The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville caused Warwick to lose his power and influence. He accused Elizabeth, and her mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg, of witchcraft to try and restore the power that he had lost 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick


YOUTUBE.COM
BRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE/EP 2 OF 4 (WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY

[106]

”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”

Bladzijde 24Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of Thrones

[107]
This was not enough to cause a complete fallout between the two men, though from this point on Warwick increasingly stayed away from court.[76] The promotion of Warwick’s brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king. In July 1465, when Henry VI was once more captured, it was Warwick who escorted the fallen king to his captivity in the Tower. 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

WIKIPEDIA
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[108]

”The Burgundian party was a political allegiance against France that formed during the latter half of the Hundred Years’ War. The term “Burgundians” refers to the supporters of the Duke of BurgundyJohn the Fearless, that formed after the assassination of Louis I, Duke of Orléans. Their opposition to the Armagnac party, the supporters of Charles, Duke of Orléans, led to a civil war.”
WIKIPEDIABURGUNDIAN (PARTY)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundian_(party)

”The English negotiated with their Burgundian allies to transfer her to their custody, with Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan, assuming a prominent role in these negotiations and her later trial.[68] The final agreement called for the English to pay the sum of 10,000 livres tournois[69] to obtain her from Jean de Luxembourg, a member of the Council of Duke Philip of Burgundy.”
WIKIPEDIAJOAN OF ARC/CAPTURE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Capture

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAJOAN OF ARC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

[109]

””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.”– The Governor of Abbeville in a letter to Louis XI[2][58]

AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/WARWICK’S APEX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Warwick’s_apex

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[110]

”Meanwhile, Edward’s father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had been created treasurer, was in favour of a Burgundian alliance.[80] This set up internal conflict within the English court, which was not alleviated by the fact that Edward had signed a secret treaty in October with Burgundy, while Warwick was forced to carry on sham negotiations with the French”

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

WIKIPEDIAMARGARET OF YORK/MARRIAGE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#Marriage

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAMARGARET OF YORK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York

[111]

Meanwhile, Edward’s father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had been created treasurer, was in favour of a Burgundian alliance 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[112]

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEARS WAR/BEGINNING OF THE WAR: 1337-1360
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Beginning_of_the_war:_1337–1360

ORIGINELE BERICHT

WIKIPEDIAHUNDRED YEARS WAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

[113]

”Later, George Neville was dismissed as chancellor, while Edward refused to contemplate a marriage between Warwick’s oldest daughter Isabel, and Edward’s brother George, Duke of Clarence.[82] It became increasingly clear that Warwick’s position of dominance at court had been taken over by Rivers
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE. 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE. 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[114]
WARWICK ALS HOOFD VAN DE NEVILLE FAMILIE

Most of England’s leading families had remained loyal to Henry VI or remained uncommitted in the recent conflict. The new regime, therefore, relied heavily on the support of the Nevilles, who held vast estates and had been so instrumental in bringing Edward to the throne. However, the king increasingly became estranged from their leader the Earl of Warwick, due primarily to his marriage 

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

Edward’s impetuous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville greatly offended the Nevilles, largely because Warwick had been negotiating several continental alliances to support Edward’s tenuous reign, including a marriage to one of several family members of Louis XI of France.  

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

[115]

Warwick now orchestrated a rebellion in Yorkshire while he was away, led by a “Robin of Redesdale“.[87] Part of Warwick’s plan was winning over King Edward’s younger brother, George Plantagenet, possibly with the prospect of installing him on the throne 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[116]

WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/DISAFFECTION AND DEFECTION

Disaffection and defection

Warwick, now the richest man in England after the king, was the power behind the throne in Edward’s regime during its early years, but the two men later fell out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville#Disaffection_and_defection

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

HOUSE OF NEVILLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Neville

[117]

The king opposed the marriage as it would bring the already powerful Earl of Warwick too close to the throne. However the ceremony took place in secret at Calais on 11 July 1469, conducted by Isabel Neville’s uncle George Neville, archbishop of York.  

WIKIPEDIA

ISABEL NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF CLARENCE/LIFE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville,_Duchess_of_Clarence#Life

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA

ISABEL NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF CLARENCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Neville,_Duchess_of_Clarence

”Warwick retired in dudgeon to his estates, and began to plot in secret for his revenge. In the summer of 1469 he went over to Calais, where Isabel and Clarence were married without the king’s knowledge. ”

LUMINARIUM

RICHARD NEVILLE, EARL OF WARWICK

 ”THE KINGMAKER”

(1428-1471)

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warwick.htm  [118]

Robin of Redesdale (fl. 1469), sometimes called “Robin Mend-All”, was the leader of an insurrection against King Edward IV of England.[1] His true identity is unknown, but it is thought he could have been either Sir John Conyers of Hornby (d. 1490) or his brother Sir William Conyers of Marske (d. 1469), or even both. Whoever he was, the power behind his rebellion was Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (“Warwick the Kingmaker”).”
WIKIPEDIAROBIN OF REDESDALE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_of_Redesdale

”Warwick now orchestrated a rebellion in Yorkshire while he was away, led by a “Robin of Redesdale“.[87] Part of Warwick’s plan was winning over King Edward’s younger brother, George Plantagenet, possibly with the prospect of installing him on the throne”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[119]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edgecote_Moor

[120]

”Following the battle, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, father of the Yorkist Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and his second son John were taken prisoners at Chepstow. Following a hasty show trial, they were beheaded at Kenilworth on 12 August 1469”

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE/THE REBELLION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edgecote_Moor#The_rebellion
ORIGINELE BRON
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF EDGECOTE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edgecote_Moor

[121]

With his army now defeated, King Edward IV was taken under arrest by George Neville.[95] Warwick then imprisoned the king in Warwick Castle, and in August, the king was taken north to Middleham Castle.[96] In the long run, however, it proved impossible to rule without the king, and continuing disorder forced Warwick to release King Edward IV in September 1469 
WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick
[122]
At this point, Edward did not seek to destroy either Warwick or Clarence but sought reconciliation instead 

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

”A modus vivendi had been achieved between Warwick and the king for some months, but the restoration of Henry Percy to Montagu’s earldom of Northumberland prevented any chance of full reconciliation.[97] A trap was set for the king when disturbances in Lincolnshire led him north, where he could be confronted by Warwick’s men.[98] Edward, however, discovered the plot when Robert, Lord Welles, was routed at Losecote Field in Rutland, and gave away the plan

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[123]

”A few months later in March 1470, Warwick and Clarence chose this opportunity to rebel against Edward IV again”
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

”This time, Edward IV was forced to flee to Flanders when he learned that Warwick’s brother John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, had also switched to the Lancastrian side, making Edward’s military position untenable.[WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England 



”Despite this matrimonial relationship with the Nevilles, when Warwick drove Edward IV into exile in 1470, Hastings went with Edward and accompanied the king back the following spring

WIKIPEDIAWILLIAM HASTINGS, 1ST BARON HASTINGS/BIOGRAPHY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings#Biography 

ORIGINELE BRON


WIKIPEDIAWILLIAM HASTINGS, 1ST BARON HASTINGS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings  

”During the latter part of Edward IV’s reign, Richard demonstrated his loyalty to the king,[49] in contrast to their brother George who had allied himself with Warwick when the earl rebelled towards the end of the 1460s.[50] Following Warwick’s 1470 rebellion, before which he had made peace with Margaret of Anjou and promised the restoration of Henry VI to the English throne, Richard, William, Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers escaped capture at Doncaster by Warwick’s brother, Lord Montague.[51] On 2 October they sailed from King’s Lynn in two ships; Edward landed at Marsdiep and Richard at Zeeland.[52] It was said that, having left England in such haste as to possess almost nothing, Edward was forced to pay their passage with his fur cloak; certainly, Richard borrowed three pounds from Zeeland’s town bailiff.

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND/EXILE AND RETURN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England#Exile_and_return 

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD III OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England 
”Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne in 1470 in an event known as the Readeption of Henry VI, and Edward took refuge in Flanders, part of Burgundy, accompanied by his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III of England). The Duke of Burgundy had been Edward’s brother-in-law since the marriage of Edward’s sister Margaret of York to Charles, Duke of Burgundy, on 3 July 1468”
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/RESTORATION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Restoration  


ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England  


[124]

”Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne in 1470 in an event known as the Readeption of Henry VI, and Edward took refuge in Flanders, part of Burgundy, accompanied by his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III of England). The Duke of Burgundy had been Edward’s brother-in-law since the marriage of Edward’s sister Margaret of York to Charles, Duke of Burgundy, on 3 July 1468”
WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/RESTORATION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Restoration  


ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England  



[125]

”Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France.[100] Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick’s daughter Anne



WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death 

ORIGINELE BRON 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick 


”Warwick made an accord with Louis XI and Queen Margaret in which he agreed to restore Henry VI in return for French support for a military invasion of England”

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAEDWARD IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England 

[126]

”On 30 December, at the Battle of WakefieldYork was killed, as were York’s second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, and Warwick’s younger brother Thomas

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/HOUSE OF YORK TRIUMPHANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#House_of_York_triumphant

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[127]

Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France.[100] Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick’s daughter Anne 

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick

[128]

WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BARNET

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet

[129]

”Henry VI rewarded Clarence by making him next in line to the throne after his own son, justifying the exclusion of Edward IV either by attainder for his treason against Henry VI or on the grounds of his alleged illegitimacy.[citation needed] After a short time, Clarence realized that his loyalty to his father-in-law was misplaced: Warwick had his younger daughter, Anne Neville, Clarence’s sister-in-law, marry Henry VI’s son in December 1470. This demonstrated that his father-in-law was less interested in making him king than in serving his own interests and, since it now seemed unlikely that Warwick would replace Edward IV with Clarence, Clarence was secretly reconciled with Edward ”

WIKIPEDIAGEORGE PLANTAGENET, 1ST DUKE OF CLARENCE/LIFE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence#Life

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIAGEORGE PLANTAGENET, 1ST DUKE OF CLARENCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

[130]


YOUTUBE.COM
BRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE/EP 2 OF 4 (WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY

[131]
”Most of England’s leading families had remained loyal to Henry VI or remained uncommitted in the recent conflict. The new regime, therefore, relied heavily on the support of the Nevilles, who held vast estates and had been so instrumental in bringing Edward to the throne.”

WIKIPEDIA EDWARD IV OF ENGLAND/OVERTHROW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Overthrow

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIA EDWARD IV OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England

[132]

”Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood”
WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall

ORIGINELE BRON

WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

ZIE VOOR HET SUPERIEURE RECHT VAN HET HUIS YORK OP DE TROON, OOK DE NOTEN 24 EN 25 

[133]

WIKIPEDIA BATTLE OF TEWKESBURY

Battle of Tewkesbury
Battle of TewkesburyThe Battle of Tewkesbury, which took place on 4 May 1471, was one of the decisive battles of the Wars of the Ros…

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Rozenoorlogen tussen Huizen York en Lancaster/Onzininformatie over hoofdrolspeler Richard Neville, 16e Graaf van Warwick, de ”Kingmaker”

Opgeslagen onder Divers

The Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Interview/A Racist Cuckoo in the Royal Family?

THE PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE INTERVIEW/A RACIST CUCKOO IN THE ROYAL FAMILY?

Meghan and Harry, who introduced Archie in May 2019, said there were concerns about how dark their baby's skin would be
Meghan said the Queen was one of the first people she met
Related image


ASTRID ESSED KEEPS HER WORD!

YOUTUBE.COMGAME OF THRONESA LANNISTER ALWAYS PAYS HIS DEBTS4.16-4.18

CHAPTERS
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN

LEAVING THE COUNTRY 

GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS

THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!

RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE

STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEEN

WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE

DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE

SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!

ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM

MARCH UNTIL AUGUST

FINAL

[END OF THE CHAPTERS, NOW READ MY ARTICLE!]

[Written between 10 March and 7 August 2021!]

Readers!At 10 March anno Domini 2021  I did a promise to you, that I wouldcomment on the Sensational Oprah Winfrey interview with PrinceHarry and his wife Meghan Markle [1], who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties [2]However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne [3],which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! [4]Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. [5]HAHAHA/NO, That’s a half joke!I think one of the reasons is, that here I saw a Couple, that chose foreach other, despite the racist backlash Meghan Markle had from the beginning [6]and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf [7].Seems like a modern fairy Tale and Why not?People are allowed to dream, to juice the very life!
That was the Fairy Tale side of it.But like a bad dream in ”Alice in Wonderland” [8], it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first [9], but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later.
But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued [10], even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” [11]The petitioner considered the titles as ” ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’and considered them as ” ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. [12]Be that as it may [indeed, in 21st century monarchs and royal titles are a thing apart], but is this just an outburst of republicanism [13]or…it is more?Because, when it were just them ”holding royal titles”, then why especially directed against Prince Harry and his wife and not against the rest of the royal family, like Prince Harry’s elder brother, Prince William, heir to the throne after their father the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles?[Prince Willam is the Duke of Cambridge] [14]Seems suspicious to me!
Because the whole case felt unfair to me,  I send an email letter to the Council of Brighton, in which I wrote among else:
”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;” [15]
I was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr R. Watson, Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”
””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”

[16]

The haters did not win! [17]

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN

But like Prince Harry rightly stated in his declaration to defend his then

fiancee Meghan Marke [18], there has been a nasty, racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle from nearly the beginning the press [and others]

knew, that she had a love relation with Prince Harry. [19]

Of course it were not all journalists and the whole press:

Espexially low class ”journalist” Piers Morgan [20] led the smear campaign for resaons he knows best, followed by other journalistic

nobodies [21]

By the way:

This Piers Morgan journalist is so obsessed by his vendetta against

Meghan Markle, that he recently [march 2021] left the ITV Good Morning Britain show program because of his [again] hateful remarks about Meghan Markle, even though she and her husband left the country for a time already [22]

The reason for his nasty remarks led in the Oprah Winfrey interview [23]

and the remarks Meghan Markle made about her mental state of health 

[suicide thoughts] [24]

I refer to that later.

But of course not the whole press was led by either racist or hateful

[or a combination of the two] moties against Meghan Markle:

For example journalist Zoe Williams did a good job with her

article in the Guardian ”Whatever Meghan does, she’s damned. Let’s not

repeat history.”, fighting the nasty villification of Meghan Markle. [25]

Am I saying now, that Meghan Markle is a Saint?

Of course not!

Everybody makes mistakes and she will have made hers:

But here I am fighting the abnormal negative attention, with often

racist undertones Meghan Markle got [26] and I am glad that there were

journalists, who played fair play!

LEAVING THE COUNTRY 

Anyway, partly because of that continuing smear campaign against

Meghan Markle [27], Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, who became happy parents of a son, Lord Archie, on 6 may 2019 [28], decided 

to step back as senior royals, splitting their time between the UK and

North-America. [29]

That was in january 2020. [30]

The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it [31], as if Meghan Markle

made that decision alone…..! 

Cherchez la Femme…../HAHAHAHA

First the Royal Couple went to Canada, later they moved to L.A. [Los Angeles] [32]

According to my information, they now live in Montecito [33], where Meghan Markle expects their second child [34], a daughter, as they revealed

in the Oprah Winfrey interview. [35]

A special Blessing after the miscarriage Meghan suffered last year! [36]

By the way, I forgot to mention, that after leaving England, Prince

Harry and Meghan Markle signed contracts with Netflix and Spotify [37]

A Shrewd Couple!

GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS

As I wrote before, in the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and

Meghan made up their mind, not to return to their royal tasks and

duties. [38]

Also we have seen Prince Harry and his son Lord Archie’s right on

succession to the throne remains the same. [39]

 But [and that’s understandable, since they don’t do the

Royal Job anymore] that they lose their royal patronages. [40]

Prince Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, issued a declaration,

stating, confirming this grand step of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan,

stating ”While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family” [41]

The Statement of the Queen also referred to the fact, that

the royal patronages were withdrawn:

”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.'[42]

THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!

RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE

So far, so good.

Now the interview with Oprah Winfrey

That D….mnd interview. [43]

Now assuming, that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke the truth

with Oprah Winfrey, did it shocked me?

For a part, yes.

For a part, no, since I already learnt [and wrote about] the racist smearcampaign against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by the press. [44]

But now the Royal Family was involved, at least one [or more?] members,

uttering racist remarks. [45]

And not the least!

I quote from the interview:

”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.” [46]

AND THAT’S SOMETHING!

OR ISN’T IT?

Before going deeper into this, there were twelve higlights in the notorious

[or famous] interview, which BBC clarified for us [47]:

I mention them for you, one by one:

1 Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be

2 Kate ”made Meghan cry”, not the other way around

3 Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help

4  Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends

5  Harry feels ”let down” by Charles

6  But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good

7  Harry ”cut out financially”

8  The truth behind a photograph

9   Meghan ”didn’t do any research” on the Royal Family

10  They exchanged vowed three days before their wedding

11   Archie’s favourite phrase is ”drive safe”

12   And….it’s a girl!

[48]

Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing [49] I consider as less important, I can’t judge who is right, I was not there], I only mention those things

which I think are really important.

To begin with:

THE FIRM, THAT MYSTERIOUS FIRM

During the interview with Oprah Winfrey, several times Meghan Markle

refers to an institution within the British Royal Family, ”The Firm” and she is very vague about the person or persons who back[s] this:

I quote from the interview:

”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? [50]

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” [51]

ANOTHER QUOTE ABOUT ”THE FIRM”/THE PRESSURE

” 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’.” [52]

THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING

[Quote]

”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” [53]

THE FIRM/RACIST REMARKS

I must confess readers, that I don’t get grip on this, no persons

mentioned, no facts to check, no names

”It” or ” those people” can be anyone in the Royal Family, but, assuming that

Meghan Markle speaks the truth about some damaging sides of ”The Firm” [like having trouble with the skin colour of her and Prince Harry’s first child, Archie, a horror story, which was confirmed by Prince Harry, as denying Meghan a form of help, when she was depressed] [54], that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.

I puzzled and puzzled, but without more information I can’t make sense

of this.

Only of course, that assuming Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the truth, there must be a racist cuckoo in the British Royal Family, which is

no suprise to me, after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,

in time of  slavery and colonialism. [55]

Would have been strange if it had not affected the Royal Family.

So ”The Firm” is a vague Institution of a series of people [who, is the big question] in the Royal Family with some power and some of them

have uttered very painful, racist things against Prince Harry about

the possible skin colour of the baby [who turned to be ”Lord Archie] [56]

I’ve puzzled and puzzled, like as I’m sure most people, who

saw or read the interview [I did noth], who that mysterious person or

persons might be, who made those nasty remarks about the skin colour

of Lord Archie, the great grandson of reigning Queen Elizabeth II!

If the whole thing is true-if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the

truth and for now I have no reason to doubt that-it is a nasty business, but, again, not the whole amazing, that racism also exists between the British

Royal Family after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,

in time of  slavery and colonialism! [57]

STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS

More important is the Statement of the Queen, who spoke out concerns

about those racist remarks after the Oprah Winfrey interview. [58]

Quoting the message of Buckingham Palace:

”The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.

“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.

“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” [59]

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEENThat’s clear talk and as Meghan Markle remarked in the famous Oprah Winfreyinterview about the Queen:”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.”

AND

”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.” [60]

Prince Harry also commented:

” I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.

ALSO

”My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be. ” [61]

[HAHAHA, THE MILITARY WAY……]

WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE

DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE

As I said before, I don’t comment on all the topics of that famous

Oprah Winfrey Interview

I leave the Meghan/Katie thing [62] for what it is, that Meghan didn’t do research on the Royal Family [63] etcetera.

Also I don’t comment on Prince Harry’s relationship between his father 

and brother [64], because fathers and sons often have their issues, like brothers.

After all, fathers and sons are fathers and sons and brothers will 

be brothers and  in most cases, everything will be allright and they”

ll end as one big, happy fami!y!

And I do believe, that a Royal Life can be a golden harnass [as Prince Harry commented, that his father and brother are ”trapped” [64], but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?

As Prince Harry said himself ”It’s part of the job” [65]

Also Prince Harry’s remarks, that he was ”cut out financially” [66],

didn’t impress me.

When you are the grandson of the Queen, one of the richest women in

the world [67] and you have been raised with all kinds of privileges

and financial advantages, than ”cut out financially” means a totally

different story than when it happens to the common man.

Besides, the first task of any man and father, royalty or not, is

to provide for his family on his own force.

So that’s for the royal privileges

But of course that all changes , when you are twelve [two weeks after his mother’s death, Prince Harry became thirteen years old] and fifteen years old

when you loses your mother far too early by a car crashincident, pushed

by the tabloids and you have to walk behind her coffin for the eyes

of the whole world to see [68]

I felt really sorry for Prince Harry and his brother Prince William at that moment.

Too young, far too young to lose one;s mother [although it is never the right time]

That also changes when you feel that depressed, like Meghan Markle stated in the Oprah  interview,  that you want to take your own life…..[69]

SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!

Even about that statement boulevard hater Piers Morgan made a nasty remark, so he had to leave Good Morning Britain after more than 40.000 complaints!  [70]

GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!

So therefore I wanted to comment that depression of Meghan Markle,

nearly ruining her life and that of her family.

And if it’s really true, that Meghan knocked on the door of

”the Firm” and they didn’t open it, when she was in need [refused to give 

the necessary help] [71], that that’s more than scandalous.

ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM

MARCH UNTIL AUGUST

Since I began to comment the famous Oprah Interview [in March] until now [August], much has happened in the British Royal Family, so including in the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Prince Harry’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died [72]

Prince Harry and his brother Prince William unveil a statue in the honour of their mother,  Princess Diana [73] and of course the happy arrival of

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Lady Lilibeth, the eleventh grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and named after her greatgrandmother Queen Elizabeth [Lilibet was the name the Queen’s family called her] and her grandmother Princess Diana  [74]

[They listened to me:

I always said, that when Harry and Meghan became parents of a daughter,

they had to name her after her greatgrandmother the Queen/HAHAHA]

Also Prince Harry revealed some issues he had with his father concerning

the way he was raised [75], but I consider that as personal and I am sure

they will work that out.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have their own life now, far from any

racist smearcampaign [76] and I wish them, with their children, a happy life!

FINAL

So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini [77], I would comment on

the famous Oprah Winfrey interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Now I did.

And you readers probably will ask yourself:

Why she is bothering with an interview from march, we living in august?

Normally indeed I would not bother, but now it is important, because racism is there, that greeneyed monster [78] that can ruin lives.

But happily not the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who choose the

right way to leave this mess behind them.

But this is racism in the highest circles, the British Royal Family and you

would think, that somebody who is that priviliged as the Duchess of Sussex, should not be subject of it.

Yet it happened, but luckily she has a true husband, Prince Harry, who supports her no matter what, as he has proved. [79]

That made it worth to write about this, although it was months ago, that

the interview was taken.

As I wrote in this article, I could not track down, who is the racist cuckoo

in the British Royal Family, but that matters not.

Fact is, that racism is appartently also the issue in those circles.

And alas, racism is with us for a long time yet, perhaps until

we are attacked by aliens and together we are defending our Mother Earth

[HAHAHA]

But fighting against racism and prejudice, wherever you find it, was worth

to write this article.

And the fact that I completed this article five months after the famous Oprah Winfrey interview [80], adds the worth of fighting for equality.

It was nice to write this!

Astrid Essed

SEE FOR NOTES 

OR

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/notes-1-t-m-80-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-story-astrids-comments/

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Interview/A Racist Cuckoo in the Royal Family?

Opgeslagen onder Divers

A Royal Daughter for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!/Lady Lilibet Diana, welcome to the world!

A ROYAL DAUGHTER FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX!/LADY LILIBET DIANA, WELCOME TO THE WORLD!

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1401614927236841474

The Royal Family@RoyalFamilyCongratulations to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of Lilibet Diana! The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted with the news. Lilibet is Her Majesty’s 11th great-grandchild.9:00 PM · Jun 6, 2021·Twitter for iPhone3,275 Retweets511 Quote Tweets36.7K Like

PHOTO OF THE SECOND ROYAL BABY YET TO BE ADDED

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!


OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
”“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.

She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home. 

Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.

This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.” [1]

This was the official Statement of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, the happy parents of now a son [ Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor] and a daughter [Lilibet Diana  Mountbatten-Windsor ] [2]

As at the birth of their son, Lord Archie [3], I add my congratulations to the happy parents!

Also to the Royal Girl’s uncle and aunt, the Duke and Duchess ofCambridge [Prince Harry’s brother, Prince William andhis wife, Kate Middleton], paternal grandfather Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Prince Harry’s stephmother, her maternal grandparents Doria Ragland and Thomas Markle.And of course her great grandmother, Queen Elisabeth and alas for him, her husband, paternal great grandfather Prince Philip didn’t live long enough to see this day….[4]
Of course the Duke and Duchess of Sussex received congratulationsfrom the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William [5]

After the birth of Lady Lilibet’s brother, Lord Archie, I remarked jokingly, that it would be nice if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex became parents of a daughter, who would

be named after Queen Elisabeth and so nice that they did indeed! 

But the most of all I appreciate that the Royal Couple named their daughter after Prince Harry’s mother, Princess Diana,

who died so tragically and made such a great contribution to

the fight against landmines [6], which remains greatly

memorable.

Beautiful to honour her on this way, to name her granddaughter,

whom she regrettably never saw, after her.

Astrid Essed

NOTES

[1]

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.

She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.

Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.

This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.”

A MESSAGE OF THANKS FROM THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX

“On June 4th, we were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, Lili. She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”

ARCHEWELL

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF

SUSSEX

””It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.”
CNNMEGHAN AND HARRY WELCOME BABY GIRL, LILIBET DIANA
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/06/europe/meghan-harry-baby-girl-news-intl-scli/index.html

(CNN)Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has given birth to a daughter, the second child for her and Prince Harry, the couple announced in a statement on Sunday.”It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.Baby Lili is a sister for the couple’s 2-year-old son, Archie Harrison.Harry, Meghan and their baby son, Archie, meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu during their royal tour of South Africa on September 25, 2019.In a message on their Archewell foundation website, Meghan and Harry said they had been “blessed” by their daughter’s arrival.”She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”Buckingham Palace released a statement Sunday on the baby girl’s birth.”The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” it read.The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge tweeted their congratulations.The US Embassy in London also congratulated the Sussexes, noting the news comes just in time for Father’s Day.

‘Feeling of joy’

Harry and Meghan revealed they were expecting a girl during their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast in March.The newborn is the Queen’s 11th great-grandchild. She is eighth in line to the throne behind her grandfather Charles, uncle William, his three children (George, Charlotte and Louis), her father Harry, and big brother Archie.Her birth in the United States makes her the most senior royal in the line of succession to have been born overseas.It also makes her a dual US-UK citizen, meaning that the youngest Sussex could potentially go on to become US President when she grows up — while also being in line to the British throne.Meghan and Harry kept the pregnancy as private as possible, speaking just a handful of times about their daughter’s impending arrival.One of those occasions was for a pre-recorded message from Meghan for the recent Vax Live concert in May, which she and Harry co-chaired.”My husband and I are thrilled to soon be welcoming a daughter — it’s a feeling of joy we share with millions of other families around the world,” the Duchess told the audience at the event, intended to promote Covid-19 vaccine equity and gender equality.”When we think of her, we think of all the young women and girls around the globe who must be given the ability and support to lead us forward,” she said. “Their future leadership depends on the decisions we make, and the actions we take now to set them up, and set all of us up, for a successful, equitable, and compassionate tomorrow.”

Pregnancy announcement

The royal couple announced back in February they were expecting an addition to their family, sharing a black-and-white snap of them gazing at each other, while Meghan cradled her baby bump.The photo was shot by Misan Harriman, a Nigerian-born British photographer and friend of the couple, who took the picture remotely from his London residence.The timing of their Valentine’s Day announcement likely held special significance for the couple, coming almost exactly 37 years to the day after Prince Charles and Princess Diana revealed that they were expecting their second child: Prince Harry.

Meghan and Harry are expecting a second child

Meghan and Harry are expecting a second childMeghan disclosed in an opinion piece for The New York Times that she suffered a miscarriage last summer.Their newborn daughter is entitled to be a Lady from birth, but will likely not use the title.When Archie Harrison was born in 2019, the Duke and Duchess opted to forgo titles and indicated they would not use his father’s second peerage title, the Earl of Dumbarton.Neither of the Sussex children is currently eligible to use HRH titles, following the rules set out by George V in the 1917 Letters Patent. However, this will change when their grandfather Charles ascends to the throne.As for the question of whether Archie and his baby sister will be joined by more siblings in the future, that doesn’t seem to be on the cards right now.Harry revealed that he and his wife are likely to keep their brood limited to “two, maximum” while discussing the Earth’s dwindling resources with activist and chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall for a special edition of British Vogue last July.Harry and Meghan were married in a lavish wedding at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor, England, three years ago.They stepped back from their roles as senior working royals last year, relinquishing their HRH titles, and now live in Santa Barbara, California.

The private neighborhood

Harry and Meghan settled into their Santa Barbara home last July, according to August reports from People magazine.”They have settled into the quiet privacy of their community since their arrival and hope that this will be respected for their neighbors, as well as for them as a family,” a representative for the family told the magazine in August 2020.Richard Mineards, a columnist for Montecito Journal who covered the royals for 45 years, told CNN on Sunday that the area where they live is very “grand … with very large estates” and it does not have issues with paparazzi.”I mean, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, Oscar winner Kevin Costner (and) George Lucas live just down the road,” Mineards said. “We are a celebrity community.”The community also has “very wealthy people” such as tech billionaires, he said. “You name it, we have it,” he said.
END OF THE ARTICLE

[3]

WIKIPEDIA

ARCHIE 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 ESSED

[4]

BBC

PRINCE PHILIP HAS DIED AGED 99, BUCKINGHAM

PALACE ANNOUNCES

9 APRIL 2021

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11437314

Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband, has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace has announced.

A statement issued by the palace just after midday spoke of the Queen’s “deep sorrow” following his death at Windsor Castle on Friday morning.

The Duke of Edinburgh, the longest-serving royal consort in British history, was at the Queen’s side for more than her six decades of reign.

Boris Johnson said he “inspired the lives of countless young people”.

“It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband,” the Palace said.

“The Royal Family join with people around the world in mourning his loss.”

It is understood that the Prince of Wales travelled from his home in Gloucestershire to visit his mother at Windsor Castle on Friday afternoon.

Speaking at Downing Street, the prime minister said that the duke had “earned the affection of generations here in the United Kingdom, across the Commonwealth, and around the world”.

Meanwhile, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said he “consistently put the interests of others ahead of his own and, in so doing, provided an outstanding example of Christian service”.

In tribute to the duke, Westminster Abbey began tolling its tenor bell once every 60 seconds at 18:00 BST. It rang out 99 times to honour each year of his life.

Earlier, the flag at Buckingham Palace was lowered to half-mast and a notice was posted on the gates to mark the duke’s death.

People placed floral tributes outside the palace, while hundreds visited Windsor Castle to pay their respects.

However, the government urged the public not to gather or leave tributes at royal residences amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The Royal Family has asked people to consider making a donation to a charity instead of leaving flowers in memory of the duke, and an online book of condolence has been launched on the official royal website for those who wish to send messages.

A message on the website of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s non-profit organisation Archewell paid tribute to the “loving memory” of the Duke of Edinburgh, saying: “Thank you for your service… you will be greatly missed.”

From midday on Saturday, a 41-gun salute will take place for Prince Philip in cities including London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as in Gibraltar and at sea from Royal Navy warships, the Ministry of Defence said. They will be broadcast online and on television for the public to watch from home.

The BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said it was “a moment of sadness” for the country and “most particularly, for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years – a bigger span of years than most of us can imagine”.

He said Prince Philip had made “a huge contribution to the success of the Queen’s reign”, describing the duke as “utterly loyal in his belief in the importance of the role that the Queen was fulfilling – and in his duty to support her”.

“It was the importance of the solidity of that relationship, of their marriage, that was so crucial to the success of her reign,” he added.

A bank of photographers and cameramen were lined up around the growing number of tributes at Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon, said BBC News reporter Marie Jackson.

Rhea Varma, from Pimlico, pulled up to the gates on her bike to lay flowers and a note saying Rest in Peace Duke.

She said the news was “super sad”. To her, the duke was “the kind of stability that’s so old-fashioned it’s difficult to comprehend. He was a rock who brought integrity.”

Adam Wharton-Ward, 36, also arrived to leave lilies by the palace gates. He is visiting London from his home in France but was so moved by the news, he wanted to “rally round” for the Queen’s sake.

“It’s so sad. He’s been with her for 73 years. If it wasn’t for him who knows if she would have got through it,” he said.

The duke’s appeal, he added, was that he was “almost normal with his gaffes”.

“Now that normality has gone,” he said.

The prince married Princess Elizabeth in 1947, five years before she became Queen.

In March, the duke left King Edward VII’s hospital in central London after a month-long stay for treatment.

He was admitted on 16 February after feeling unwell, and later underwent a procedure for a pre-existing heart condition at another London hospital – St Bartholomew’s.

END OF THE ARTICLE

WIKIPEDIA

PRINCE PHILIP, DUKE OF EDINBURGH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

[5]
TOWN AND COUNTRY MAGAZINEQUEEN ELIZABETH AND THE ROYAL FAMILY SHARE A WELCOME MESSAGE TO MEGHAN AND HARRY’S DAUGHTER
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a36332986/queen-elizabeth-message-prince-harry-meghan-daughter/

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle just announced the birth of their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.

Queen Elizabeth is now a great-grandmother to eleven! With the birth of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s new daughter, the Queen added yet another little one to her royal brood.

The Queen has not been able to meet little Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor yet, as she was born in California. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now living in Montecito with their son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and their new baby girl. The pandemic has made international travel difficult and, given the Queen’s age and schedule, she probably will not head to California soon. However, despite the distance, the monarch shared a sweet public message welcoming the new baby, according to a Buckingham Palace spokesperson.

The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The Royal Family’s social media channels also shared a note about the new baby, along with a photo from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding day.This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Lilibet, whose name is a tribute to both Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana, was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m weighing in at a healthy 7 lbs 11 oz. Her parents and older brother were all happy to welcome the little royal to their family. According to the statement, grandparents Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall are also “delighted” about the newest addition to their brood.

Aside from Archie, the Queen’s other great-grandchildren include Prince William and Kate’s children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, who are the third, fourth, and fifth in line for the throne, respectively. There are also Peter Phillips’ two children, Savannah and Isla, and Zara Phillips’ kids, Mia, Lena, and Lucas. Princess Eugenie also recently welcomed her son, August Brooksbank, to the ever-growing British royal family.

END OF THE ARTICLEVANCOUVER SUNPRINCE WILLIAM REACHES OUT TO PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN AFTERBIRTH OF A DAUGHTER: REPORT
https://vancouversun.com/entertainment/celebrity/prince-william-reaches-out-to-prince-harry-meghan-after-birth-of-daughter-report/wcm/84e4eeba-a84c-4075-8a34-18ee0389c632


A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”

Prince William and Catherine, Duchess Of Cambridge have reportedly sent a gift to Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess Of Sussex for their new daughter Lilibet.

According to Us Weekly, the pair were “informed about the birth and have sent Lilibet a gift,” and later offered their congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, after it was confirmed that in their second child was born in Santa Barbara on June 4.

The Duke and Duchess admitted they were “delighted” to hear the news that Harry and Meghan have become parents to a little girl, whose full name is Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.

A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”

While the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall shared on their page: “Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana. Wishing them all well at this special time.”

Buckingham Palace officials also issued a statement to reveal the Royal Family were thrilled to hear about the baby’s arrival.

The statement released by the family read: “The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”

The couple’s happy news was confirmed on Sunday by their spokesperson.

They said in a statement: “It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1401614927236841474

The Royal Family@RoyalFamilyCongratulations to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of Lilibet Diana! The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted with the news. Lilibet is Her Majesty’s 11th great-grandchild.


The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall@ClarenceHouse·Jun 6Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana �� Wishing them all well at this special time

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge@KensingtonRoyal·Jun 6We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.

[6]

TIMEPRINCE HARRY IS HONOURING HIS MOTHER’S WORK INANGOLA. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT PRINCESS DIANA’S LANDMINES’WALK27 SEPTEMBER 2019

https://time.com/5682006/princess-diana-landmines/

The tour across southern Africa begun Monday by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex; and their son, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, will surely be as modern as they are — but Prince Harry’s plan for Thursday and Friday has also echoed the past. Harry is honoring Princess Diana’s advocacy against landmines in Angola by making a trip very similar to the one his mother made in January of 1997, when she walked across a minefield in Huambo in central Angola.

The photographs of Princess Diana wearing protective clothing and equipment, as well as her meeting landmine survivors, raised the profile of the work being done to clear landmines around the world. Her untimely death in August 1997 came only a few months before the United Nations Mine Ban Treaty — a legally binding prohibition on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of landmines — was opened for signature. Since then, 164 countries have become parties to the agreement, which is informally known as the Ottawa Treaty.

Here’s what to know about Princess Diana’s work on landmines, why it was so significant and how Prince Harry is continuing her legacy.

Why Princess Diana walked across a minefield

At the time of Princess Diana’s visit to Angola in January 1997, Prince William and Prince Harry were 14 and 12 years old, and her divorce from Prince Charles had been finalized the previous year. She was already known for her other charitable endeavors, such as her role in the 1987 opening of the U.K.’s first HIV/AIDS unit in London, which was designed specifically to treat patients with the virus at a time when it was perceived with much stigma.

Princess Diana brought her signature determination to her campaigning against landmines. She had been involved with the British Red Cross for several years before the charity organized and supported her January 1997 trip to Angola. It was there, in Huambo province, that she came across the work of the HALO Trust, which had been working to clear mines in Angola since 1994 amid the then-ongoing civil war there. (The civil war in Angola, which remains one of the world’s most heavily landmine-contaminated countries, ended in 2002 after more than 25 years of intermittent conflict.)

She met children who were landmine survivors, and she was also escorted by HALO students and mine-clearance experts through a cleared lane in one of the active minefields wearing protective armor and headgear. Images from her trip were immediately circulated across international media and provided a striking portrait of the princess among people in a humanitarian context.

“Diana’s visit is something that people in Huambo still talk about today,” says Ralph Legg, program manager of HALO Trust’s operations in Angola. “For the people that were here at that time, which was obviously still a time of conflict, it led to a feeling of acknowledgement, and that their plight was recognized around the world. The people I’ve spoken to who met Diana on that trip have all said how kind, considerate and how genuinely interested she seemed in them.”

After her visit to Angola, Princess Diana wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”

Angola wasn’t the only country affected by landmines that Diana visited; in early August 1997, she visited victims of mines in Bosnia and again focused the world’s attention on the issue. Zoran Ješić, now 46, remembers her visit well. Ješić stepped on a landmine in 1994, and now lives and works in Bosnia for the organization UDAS, which supports landmine survivors. “It was a very brave decision for her to come here only two years after the war,” he says. “The situation wasn’t so stable, and I had the feeling that Diana decided to use her popularity to help people in states like mine. Her contribution on the international level was enormous.”

The legacy of her advocacy against landmines

Diana’s Angola trip was reported on all over the world, and the legacy of her humanitarian work with landmines remains long-lasting. “At that time, she was probably the most recognizable person in the world, and so the fact that she went and met with landmine survivors was really quite incredible,” says Paul Hannon, Executive Director of Mines Action Canada, the Canadian member of International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which was awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. “She showed basic humanity to people who don’t normally get that, and I think that was a wake-up call to all of us.”

At the time of her visit at the beginning of 1997, negotiations were ongoing to initiate the Mine Bans Treaty. Diana had vocally appealed for an international ban on landmines during her time in Angola. Yet her efforts sparked criticism from U.K. lawmakers, who called her a “loose cannon” and out of line with government policy on the issue, which took a more cautious approach to negotiations about the use of landmines, which had not yet been banned in the U.K. Despite the controversy, she had a significant impact on the political process that successfully banned landmines.

The exposure she gave the issue on her visit, and her tragic death in August that year, created an added impetus for the treaty process; as TIME reported in September 1997: “[President Bill] Clinton and his wife Hillary had been touched by the Princess of Wales’ poignant visits to young victims of such mines in Bosnia and Angola a few weeks ago. After her death, the [mine bans] treaty being written in Oslo took on the luster of a humanitarian memorial to Diana and her cause.”

“We planned for the treaty signing here in Ottawa, and we would have loved to have had her there,” says Hannon, who volunteered at the signing of the treaty. “She was only involved for a few months, but everyone identifies her with the fight to ban landmines.”

How Prince Harry is continuing Princess Diana’s work

The upcoming visit is not the first time that the Duke of Sussex has visited the projects run by HALO Trust; he went to a minefield in Mozambique in 2010, and previously visited Angola in 2013. During the 10-day trip, Harry will visit other countries in southern Africa, including Malawi and Botswana, where he has connections with several other charities.

Over the past 22 years, several countries have made huge strides on clearing landmines. In 2015, the government in Mozambique declared the country was mine-free after two decades of clearance operations. With the financial support of international donors and the Angolan government, the HALO Trust alone has cleared about 100,000 landmines in the country, and 297 minefields across Huambo province — only one minefield away from the province being declared mine-free. On Friday, Harry detonated a landmine in southern Angola and walked across a minefield in Dirico province, echoing Diana’s 1997 walk in Huambo. However, the minefield area that his mother visited is now home to communities, schools and businesses. “It’s been totally transformed and is unrecognizable today from when she visited in 1997,” says program manager Legg.

However, campaigners are keen to highlight that there is still work to be done. According to the ICBL, some 61 countries and areas around the world are contaminated by landmines and 32 states remain outside of the Mine Ban Treaty. The Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor recorded over 7,200 casualties caused by mines in 2017, and at least two people clearing mines in southwest Bosnia were killed as recently as Aug. 25.

Harry’s visit to Angola, with its focus on landmines, falls two months before a major conference on achieving a mine-free world by 2025 — one of the major ambitions of the Mine Ban Treaty and a cause that the Duke has spoken about in the past. “I’m hoping that Harry provides the same visibility and added momentum from his trip that his mother did, and that he will remind people that this is a human story,” says Hannon. “It’s a success story in progress. I hope he can remind everybody that the job’s not done yet, but it can be finished.”

Landmine survivor Ješić agrees: “In a way, he will continue something that his mother proudly started.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

”Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.

Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.”

THE BRITISH RED CROSS

MEMORIES OF PRINCESS DIANA AND THE BRITISH RED CROSS

https://www.redcross.org.uk/stories/our-movement/our-history/princess-diana-a-strong-supporter-of-the-british-red-cross

Throughout her life, Princess Diana was a dedicated humanitarian who championed causes in the UK and overseas. We look back on her journey with the Red Cross.

Princess Diana was always committed to using her public profile to bring about positive change.

A firm believer in the power of young people, she became patron of the Red Cross Youth in 1983, which gave her an increasingly visible role with the British Red Cross.

In July 1985, Diana visited a Red Cross adventure camp for disabled children at Hindleap Warren, in East Sussex.

Barbara Summerfield, now in her 80s and from Saltdean, was a youth officer at the time and has fond memories of Diana’s visit.

“What went down well, more than anything else, was that Diana was a real person who the children could talk to,” said Barbara.

“They were very excited about her visit. I don’t think they got much sleep the night before. She watched them do their abseiling and other activities.

“They loved showing her what they could do. Some had serious disabilities and Diana was interested in their medical conditions.

THEY SPOKE TO DIANA AS A NORMAL PERSON, A FRIEND EVEN. AND THAT’S THE WAY SHE SPOKE TO THE CHILDREN.

Barbara Summerfield, British Red Cross vice president, Sussex

“The children made two lovely birdhouses for Diana to give to William and Harry, but they didn’t finish them in time. When they gave them to Diana, she said: ‘Don’t worry, they [William and Harry] will finish them off.’”

Barbara, who is currently British Red Cross vice president in Sussex, added: “I thought Diana had a lovely calming manner, soothing.

“You know how when you meet a princess you bow and there are the formalities, well the children didn’t seem to worry about that. They spoke to Diana as a normal person, a friend even. And that’s the way she spoke to the children.”

“She was interested in what we did”

Edith Conn is British Red Cross president for Greater Manchester. Edith met the Princess when she visited Manchester in the mid-1980s to see a youth orchestra perform.

“We spoke about the Red Cross Youth and she was interested in what we did,” recalled Edith.

“Then we just chatted about everyday things. The funny thing about it was I said to her: ‘What happens when you go home, do you go to another engagement?’

“She said: ‘Oh no I’m going home to have beans on toast and I’m going to watch EastEnders.’ That has always stuck in my mind!”

Diana later sent Edith a trinket for auction at a Red Cross gala ball.

“It was a real privilege to meet her”

“When she spoke to you she looked directly at you,” continued Edith. “You felt as though she was really very interested in what you did and what you had to say. She was lovely.

“I think I am very lucky to have met her. And to think back … that we chatted about beans on toast!

“It was a real privilege to have met her and this … should be a time to celebrate her life.”

In 1993, Diana became a vice president of the British Red Cross, and two years later she became patron of our 125th Birthday Appeal.

The Princess resigned her positions with the British Red Cross in July 1996, but continued to engage with the organisation until shortly before her death.

Princess Diana in Angola

Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.

Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.

She famously travelled to Angola in January 1997, a trip organised and supported by the British Red Cross.

In 1995, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched its international ‘Landmines must be stopped’ campaign in a bid to bring about the total ban on the use of anti-personnel mines.

Angola was littered with landmines, a deadly legacy from its civil war.

Estimates put the number of landmines in the country between nine and fifteen million. 

Between 1979 and 1996, the ICRC fitted 9,200 amputees with false limbs in Angola, and manufactured 12,800 prostheses in total.

A lasting impact

During her time in Angola, Princess Diana visited active minefields, met local victims of landmine violence and spoke in favour of a ban on anti-personnel mines.

After her visit, she wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”

Diana’s visit to Angola brought unprecedented attention to the landmine issue and sparked international discussion.

The Ottawa Treaty, which placed a ban on anti-personnel mines, was signed by 122 countries in December 1997 – less than a year after Diana’s Angola visit and a few months after her death. Today, 162 UN member states are parties to the treaty.

Dr Helen Durham, director of international law and policy at the ICRC, believes Diana’s visit to Angola highlighted the problems of using anti-personnel landlines to a broader audience.

“The glamour and global appeal of Princess Diana added another layer to the voices of lawyers, humanitarian workers and medical staff who were raising their concerns about weapons that cannot distinguish between children and combatants,” said Durham.

The treaty, also known as the Mine Ban Convention, has undoubtedly saved lives. Twenty years ago, the ICRC estimated that anti-personnel landmines maimed or killed 20,000 people every year.

In 2015, that number had dropped to 6,461 casualties, according to a report from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

However, due to conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Yemen, that figure actually represented a ten-year high of new casualties.

Durham added: “It is wonderful to see the progress today, but sadly we still have a long way to go to ensure that these weapons stop destroying the lives and livelihoods of thousands. Applying the Ottawa Treaty is the first step.”

END OF THE ARTICLE

WIKIPEDIA

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor A Royal Daughter for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!/Lady Lilibet Diana, welcome to the world!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Oprah Winfrey meets Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle/Full text of the interview

OPRAH WINFREY MEETS PRINCE HARRY AND HIS WIFE MEGHANMARKLE/FULL TEXT OF THE INTERVIEW

Meghan said the Queen was one of the first people she met
Meghan and Harry, who introduced Archie in May 2019, said there were concerns about how dark their baby's skin would be


Readers!Earlier I wrote about Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Dukeand Duchess of Sussex.I applauded their marriage, rejoiced about the birth of Lord Archie andmoreover:PAID ATTENTION TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE,BECAUSE OF THE RACIST UNDERTONES!I also applauded the fact, that Prince Harry loyally, like a true husband, defended his wife!
SEE
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/

INTERVIEW WITH OPRAH WINFREY
As you know, largely because of the hatred and smear campaign againstMeghan Markle, the royal couple [to me, they remain royals] left England,but it was  nice to see, that Queen Elisabeth, Prince Harry’s grandmother,remained loyal and supportive to the couple!
https://www.astridessed.nl/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

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]But firstly the interview!
READ!

THE OPRAH WINFREY  INTERVIEW!!

THE SUNMEGHAN MARKLE OPRAH INTERVIEW: READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPTOF DUCHESS AND PRINCE HARRY’S BOMBSHELL CONFESSIONS8 MARCH 2021
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14277841/meghan-markle-oprah-interview-full-transcript/

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.

END OF THE INTERVIEW

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Oprah Winfrey meets Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle/Full text of the interview

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Archie Harrison’s first Birthday!/Lord Archie, Happy Birthday for you and your parents, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!

ARCHIE HARRISON’S FIRST BIRTHDAY!/LORD ARCHIE, HAPPY BIRTHDAY FOR YOU AND YOUR PARENTS THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX! 

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Sussexes in South Africa

The Sussexes in South Africa. Credit: PA
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-06/in-pictures-archies-first-year/

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-revealshttps://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/https://www.astridessed.nl/a-royal-baby-for-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-lord-archie-welcome-to-the-world/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJSNMqub8g
Today, the 6th of may, is the first Birthday of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.It is my great pleasure , from my website, to congratulate Lord Archie and wish him and his parents a Happy Birthday!As also his grandparents.And especially too his greatgrandparents Queen Elisabeth and her husband, Prince Philip  [Duke of Edinburgh]

MANY HAPPY RETURNS OF THE DAY!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Mountbatten-Windsor

Astrid Essed 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Archie Harrison’s first Birthday!/Lord Archie, Happy Birthday for you and your parents, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor

ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN/LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Queen Elizabeth II and the Duchess of Sussex

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MAN!https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

INTRODUCTION
As my loyal readers know, I’ve recently written some pieces about the step by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle no longer to use their royal titles and divide their life between Great Britain and North America. [1]As I wrote before, I am convinced that this step, apart from  royalty pressure, the couple has been bullied away by the systematic smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, with racist undertones, openly and more hidden.[2]I wrote about this and pointed out some dirty examples. [3]But the beauty of the whole thing is, that Prince Harry and Meghan were completely supported by the Queen, who gave two firm statements to empower them [4]In the last statement, where all arrangements were confirmed regarding the new life of Prince Harry and Meghan, the Queen utterly stated, how proud she wsas of Meghan:I quote from the statement of the Queen:I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. [5]The Queen also stated:”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. [6]That’s a statement!Well done, Your Majesty, as I wrote at the occasion of her first supportive statement [7]

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
As I told you, I wrote an article about the racist smearcampagn against Meghan Markle [8], which was launched since Meghan was still a special girlfriend of Prince Harry.In the article you can read how some racist remarks were made already in 2016 [9] and also the statement of Prince Harry in which he referred to the ”racist undertones in some comments” [10]But the harassing of Meghan Markle went on and last year, in 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt compelled to sue a newspaper for publicizing a private letter of Meghan and again they referred to the bullying campaign of the press, or at least parts of them [11]
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
But I was not finished writing about the Prince Harry/Meghan case, mainly because I can’t stand injustice and racism is one of the most injustice things you can imagine.
So I decided to write a Letter to the Editor, which I’ve sent to a great scala of English, Scottish, US and also Irish newpapers.
No Idea whether it is published or not, so here I share my Letter to the Editor with you and you can read it right below.Under my Letter to the Editor, the notes belonging to this Introduction piece.
And especially for you, readers, in note 12 the consequences of the new step in the life of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
ENJOY READING!
Astrid Essed

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
TITLE:ROYAL EXIT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MAINLY CAUSED BY RACIST SMEARCAMPAIGN 

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

The role that parts of the British press and the tabloids have played in the decision of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to give up their role as senior royals and divide their life between England and North America, is a shame and disgrace.Because I am convinced that, except for other possible causes of their departure [like the burden of royal publicity], the couple is bullied away by a smear campaign against Meghan Markle.This smearcampaign with openly and more hidden racist undertones, is proven true by some very destructive comments in the press:The most horrible one was done by the now fired BBC radio broadcaster jour Danny Baker, calling Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie a chimpanzee.However, this racism started from the moment it was known, that Meghan Markle was Prince Harry’s special girlfriend.In november 2016, in a statement Prince Harry accused the press of  racist undertones in some comment against Meghan Markle and expressed his worries about her safety.A  tabloid columnist wrote in 2016  about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA” , referring to her Afro Americam descent from her mother’s side.Also in 2016,  a newspaper described Meghan Markle’s roots as almost ”straight outta Compton”, referring to ghetto and gang violence.Recently [january 2020] a radio producer called Meghan  ”uppity”, a word, wich, in connection with Afro Americans, meant, that they ”didn’t know their place”Then there is the exaggerated way every act of  Meghan Markle is watched, in the most childish way:She was criticized because she ate avocado’s [in 2019], another time because she kept holding her hands on her bump [in 2019], while pregnant [while Kate Middleton was praised for that same act by the same newspaper, in 2018], for wearing dark nail polish [in 2019], and so on.Why not blame her for the global warming and the forest fires in Australia?Again, in october 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan felt the need to complain about this harassment, sueing a newspaper for publicising a private letter of Meghan.One of the individuals who is nearly obsessed by Meghan Markle is TV personality Piers Morgan, who has made his life goal of harassing Meghan Markle nearly from the moment she set foot on British soil.But the haters didn’t win, because like the Queen stated, Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of her family.I wish the couple all the peace and happiness in the world and the journalists, under you, who harassed Meghan Markle:Shame on you!
Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands

NOTES AT ”INTRODUCTION”

[1]

BBCPRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

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.”

They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”

‘Major rift’

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.

“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.“This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.

During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.

“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.

Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.

Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.

And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.

She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.

They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.

But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.

There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?

And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?

It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.

But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.

He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.

And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.“That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.

Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.

“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.

He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.

“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?

“How is their security going to be funded?

“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.

But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.

He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.

The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.

Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.

Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.”“I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”

In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.

Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.

In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.

Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.

Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.

[2]
DEWERELDMORGEN.BEQUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!ASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[3]
DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[4]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
[5] 
”I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

The British Monarchy

Published 18 January 2020

Statement from HM The Queen.

Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my

grandson and his family.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.

I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.

I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.

ENDS

Statement from Buckingham Palace

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties.  With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private

patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.

This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.ENDS

[6]
”Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family 

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

[7]

DEWERELDMORGEN.BEQUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!ASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[8]

DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[9]

SEE FOR THE RACIST UNDERTONES OF PARTS OF THE BRITISH PRESS AND TABLOIDS

DEWERELDMORGEN.BESMEARCAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLESASTRID ESSED
https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/community/smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-with-racist-undertones-some-dirty-examples/

[10]
A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016 
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

The British Monarchy

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.
[11]

THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

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

THE GUARDIANPUT SIMPLY, IT’S BULLYING: PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT 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.

[12]

IS HARRY STILL A PRINCE & OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT HARRY & MEGHAN MARKLE’S NEW ROLES ANSWERED
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/01/9234123/is-harry-still-a-prince

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle continue to step further away from the traditional royal path by abandoning their titles, an unexpected announcement just 10 days after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said they would split their time between North America and the U.K. Buckingham Palace said in a statement that Prince Harry and Meghan have agreed to no longer use the titles His/Her Royal Highness (HRH) as they step away from public duties as senior members of the royal family. The two will continue to work towards financial independence and have made their intention to pay back the public for renovations of their home, Frogmore Cottage. The latest announcement comes to the surprise of those who suspected the couple would retain their titles while stepping back from the royal family.
What does it mean to give up royal titles? Will Prince Harry get a last name? Is he still in line for the throne? Here are the answers to these burning questions and everything else you need to know about what will happen now that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are stepping back from their roles as senior members of the royal family.

Is Harry still a prince?

Yes, Prince Harry’s title sticks because he was born into it as the child of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The titles in question that Prince Harry and Meghan are giving up are the HRH, or His/Her Royal Highness titles. These titles were limited to only the children (of either gender) and grandchildren of a sovereign in the male line by Queen Victoria in the 1830s, according to the BBC’s History Extra. It has since been expanded to include female heirs who may ascend to the throne. Additionally, Dr. Jonathan Spangler, a senior lecturer in history at Manchester Metropolitan University specializing in the history of the monarchy, explains that “George V in 1917, when modifying the house rules…clarified this, and added the eldest son of the eldest grandson.” Prince Harry will still be Prince Harry by birthright, but he will no longer be His Royal Highness Prince Harry, a title now granted at the pleasure of the Queen to senior working members of the royal family who are direct heirs.

Will Prince Harry and Meghan keep their titles?

Yes, Prince Harry and Markle are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The only title they are giving back are the HRH designation as they step back from royal duties. Otherwise, Prince Harry retains that official title, as well as those of Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. Meanwhile, Meghan’s official titles are Duchess of Sussex, which takes precedence because she holds it on her own right, and Princess Henry of Wales, which she holds through marriage.

What will Prince Harry and Meghan be called?

It is currently unknown whether the couple will take a last name after giving up their HRH titles. There is a case to be made for taking the name Wales, as Prince Harry was called Captain Harry Wales in the British Army. They may be known as the Sussexes, given that the Queen referred to them in her statement as “Harry and Meghan” and Buckingham Palace’s official statement referred to them as the Sussexes. The Sussex name is also prominent on baby Archie’s birth certificate, where Prince Harry’s full name is listed as His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex. The couple could also take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, as Windsor was officially adopted as the surname for the family in 1917 and Mountbatten-Windsor given as the specific distinction for direct descendants of the Queen and Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. They could also come up with something completely different, like when Princess Eugenie took on the title Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after her wedding. Prince Harry, Mr. Meghan Markle, anyone? If in doubt, however, you can still call them Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

What does this mean for Prince Harry’s role British line of succession?

Nothing has changed in this regard. Prince Harry still remains sixth in line for the throne. It is still unlikely he will face any need to worry about the line of succession. Additionally, Prince Harry has not turned his back on his royal position completely — just the HRH title — in contrast with Edward VIII, who abdicated to marry American divorcée Wallis Simpson in 1936, thus losing HRH and becoming the Duke of Windsor after his marriage. This led to King George VI, who left the throne upon his untimely death to his daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. Harry needing to ascend to the throne is a possibility only an is an extremely unlikely sequence of events. 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Royal exit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle mainly caused by racist smearcampaign/Letter to the Editor

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples

SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE WITH RACIST UNDERTONES/SOME DIRTY EXAMPLES

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

”Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you”
Those are the words of Afua Hirsch, writer, broadcaster and former barrister [1], in connection with all the tabloid fuss against Meghan Markle, wife of Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex. [2]Words she wrote in the New York Times. [3]
Now I think the truth is somewhat in the middle:Even though racism plays a destructive part in British society, as in so many other countries, European or not, I think that, although racism follows you, it is not the only factor and one’s behaviour can make a change.
At the other side:
I must admit, that in the case of Meghan Markle, racism played a big part in the way the tabloids commented on her.
I was and am very annoyed by that and as you know or don’t know, I wrote two articles and a letter to the Council of Brighton to defend her. [4]Who knows me realizes that I can’t stand injustice and feel myself obliged to fight it.
And racism is one of the ugliest forms of injustice!

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STEPPED BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
Now you all know, that recently, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepped back as senior royals [5] and that the Queen, Prince Harry’s grandmother, supported them in this [6], but declared:”Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ [7]
Of course she preferred them to stay.As a grandmother and greatgrandmother, wishing to spend time with her eighthgreatgrandchild, as a royal matriarch and as a Queen, keeping the roles of the Family intact!

RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Recently I wrote a defense article, prasing the supportive statement of the Queen and analysing what, according to my views, among else [there may be other reasons I don’t know about] have led to Megxit, the fact that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out,their roles as fulltime royals in England.
And I stated, and the more I read the more I am convinced, that an important reason was the smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, shich had dirty, racist undertones and sometimes more than just undertones.
LORD ARCHIE A ”CHIMPANZEE”
Like the hateful Tweet of Donald Baker, no fired BBC reporter, who compared Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle newborn son with a chimpanzee! [8]
DO YOU IMAGINE!
Not only highly racist [people, who deny that this person is a racist or at least racist led in his comments, are close to suffer the same racist ”decease”’ [9]also mean and ugly, when you realize that new parents, who just were blessed with their first son, were confronted with this despicable stuff!

RACIST UNDERTONES
From the beginning of the relation between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, a couple of tabloids and some other parts of the press launched a hateful smearcampaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones, as confirmed in a statement of Prince Harry, in november 2016, nearly two years before their marriage
I quote from the statement:
”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments” [10]
And although the racist thing is denied, for example by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle villifier, the broadcaster, journalist and TV personality, Piers Morgan [11], who stated, that their racism accusations are ”completely and grotesquely wrong” [12] I will show you in underlying, that there ARE racist undertones in the Meghan Markle smearcampaign broadcasting, as well openly, as more hidden.
But not only the press and tabloids!Newspaper The Sun wrote in march 2019, that Meghan Markle was bombed with 5200 hateful racist and sexist tweets in two months, and 70 percent abuse came from twenty trolls! [13]And also her sister in law, Kate Middleton, the wife of the Duke of Cambridge [Prince William, Harry’s elder brother and heir to the throne after his father, Prince Charles], was subjected to hateful, sexist tweets! [14]
READ ON ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESS/TABLOIDS AND BE INDIGNANT WITH ME!
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART IOPENLY RACIST

A
 ”EXOTIC DNA” 
A tabloid columnist wrote about Meghan Markle’s ”exotic DNA”, which refers to her Afro American descent [from her mother’s side, her father is a white American, Thomas Markle, a former TV lighting director and director of photography] [15] and therefore racist undertoned.
B
STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON
Another dubious  remark was made in a Daily Mail headline article, describing Meghan’s Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. [16]As you probably know, ”Straight outta Compton” as a picture about the rise and fall of the gangster rap group, N.W.A. from rapper and businessman Dr Dre and others[17]Those connection between being of Afro American descent and gangster life or ”gang-scarred neighborhood” is despicable and suggests THAT there is an automatic relation between being black and born in a hood [ghetto]and also being criminal.Newspapers should know better!

C
THE CHIMPANZEE AFFAIR
What was the limit, was the comparing of Prince Harry’s and Meghan Markle’s newborn son Archie, with a chimpzanzee by a now fired [because of this affair] BBC reporter, Danny Baker. [18]If that’s not a racist remark, then I don’t know what is!Yet idiots like Piers Morgan declare, that Danny Baker ”is not remotely racist as anyone who knows him” [19]I think that tells more about Piers Morgan than about Danny Baker…….
And now, a few minutes ago, I learnt, that Meghan has been bombarded with hundreds of racist and sexist tweets because of her and Harry’s stepping back as royals! [20]And not for the first time:As is written above, the newspaper the Sun wrote in march 2019 about thousands of racist and sexist tweets against Meghan, 70 percent coming from twenty trolls[see the notes 13 and 14]
How many idiots are there in this world?
D

UPPITY
There is more.Recently, after Megxit was announced [Harry and Meghan’s step out as senior royals], a Hannity radio producer called Meghan  ”uppity’ [21]I quote:”MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know? [22]
Now according to Cambridge dictionnary ”uppity” is a sort of ”neutral” term [I mean, nothing to do with race or descent]I quote Cambridge dictionnary:”An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are” [23]
However, that’s only part of the story.For historically,  the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations [24]Namely it was used in the US in the 19th century as an insult to black people, ”who didn’t know their place” [25]Places the word in a whole different other light…..
Of course:Most people don’t know the racist meaning of ”uppity”, but from journalists and TV personalities one may expect, that they know their historical stuff and otherwise do a proper investigation. After all, I found the sources also by proper searching! [26]
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE/PART II/RACIST, IN A HIDDEN FORM
CHILDISH TABLOID STUFF
Not all negative comments on Meghan Markle are openly racist or have a racist undertone:But striking is the abnormal attention Meghan Markle gets, in the most silly circumstances.That says a lot and although not provable, seen in the whole light of the anti Meghan smear campaign, those not openly racist related comments must have a racist undertone, since Meghan Markle is practically singled out in the tsunami of negativity and other royals are more or less off the hook.
AND since the facts the socalled critique is that childish, that even children of primary school would find it below their dignity.



PIERS MORGAN/NOTORIOUS MEGHAN MARKLE STALKER
There isfor example  journalist and TV personality Piers Morgan, who seems obssessed by Meghan Markle, and also, in a lesser extent, by Prince Harry.  [27]So it was no surprise that he ranted and raved at the news that Harry and Meghan wanted to step out as senior royals and the supportive reaction of the Queen. [28]
LOL!AND THEN THE SUPER CHILDISH STUFF
Now some examples of being on Meghan’s ”tail” [29], which make no sense.There are a lot more, I presume, yet underlying things give an idea of the nonsense written about Meghan:
LOL 1
LOL!MEGHAN MARKLE EATS AVOCADO’S!/HOW DARES SHE!/
Surprise, surprise, the Daily Mail again…..In a nonsense article, Meghan Markle was critized for…..eating avocado’s [I quote] ”the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.” [30]
YEAH….A GREAT ONEFirstly, the one, who wrote that nonsense article, admitted, that avocado’s are well loved by all millennials [31], so why single Meghan Markle out!Secondly, I can understand, that people protest when avocado’s are produced in occupation countries as Israel, openly violating elementary human rights [32], but then there is a choice not to eat them, when descending from those countries, like I do.But not to eat all avocado’s is just nonsense.The problems the writer of this article mentioned ”water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation” [33], refers to more Third World products and has everything to do with unfair relations in the world, caused for a great part [apart from natural and climatical causes] by Western economic dominance of the Third World, supported by their local elites.
Does the writer of this article protests against those injustices?
No, he only uses it to attack Meghan Markle, simply eating an avocado!What about all the other royals, eating avocado’s?What about all milennials, eating avodaco’s?
No, this is only a childish attack on Meghan Markle!And I have news for him
I, Astrid Essed, eat avocado’s too [although not from certain countries like Israel, that very openly and shamelessly violate human rights]So I am a Third World destroyer too?
NONSENSE

LOL 2
VAIN AND PRIDEN  MEGHAN, YOU KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR BUMP!/OF COURSE IT IS ”TENDER” WHEN YOUR SISTER IN LAW KATE MIDDLETON DOES THE SAME THING!THERE MUST BE A DIFFERENCE/QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI! [33]
The following all too childish thing, Meghan Markle was critized for, of course [among else], again by stalking newspaper Daily Mail, was the fact, that Meghan, mother to be, had had the audacity to ”keep her hands on her bump”, a normal and affectionate thing any pregnant mother does.This nonsense article was titled ”Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride, vanity, acting – or a new age bonding technique?” [34]
No you, readers, will probably say”What nonsenseWhat is it to the Daily Mail, whether Meghan Markle keeps her hands on her OWN bump or not?What’s the newsvalue in it, even for tabloids?It is a private gesture of a happy mother to be, done by milliards of mothers before and after us!
It’s about stalking and harassing Meghan Markle again!
But now the cat is out of the bag! [35]
The Daily Mail anti Meghan article about ”keep her hands on her bump” was written on 26 january 2019 [36]But when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, acted on a similar way, that same Daily Mail wrote on 21 march 2018 ”NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW” [37]

Clearly, according to The Daily Mail, when Meghan’s sister in law, Kate Middleton, keeps her hand on her bump” it is ”tenderly cradling her baby bump” [38], but when Meghan Markle acts the similar way, a year later it is suddenly ”vain” or acting” [39] 

Striking, isn’t it. Is this mere ”coincidence” or has it perhaps something to do with the fact that Kate Middleton is white and Meghan Markle is black.I don’t like to draw the black and white card, but the reader must admit, that this difference in approach from, here the Daily Mail, is at least, odd.
YEAH”QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI’ !” [40]

LOL 3O, NAUGHTY NAUGHTY MEGHAN, WEARING DARK NAIL POLISH
I think this newsmessage has written to give me a good laughHereby:HAHAHAHAHA!
It is really written:Meghan Markle wearing dark nail polish at some charity event and some Fashion award….. [41] and some royal watchers ”questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol” [42] Yes, some newsvalue.Of course I am not going to analyse such nonsense.I only mentioned it to show, what happens when they look at you through a magnifying glass.
EPILOGUE
I have enough of it!And if I do, how tiring and exhausting must it be for Meghan and also her husband Prince Harry.For it seems, that Meghan can’t do good, whatever she does. [43]
Types like obsessed Meghan stalker Piers Morgan [44]should be delighted, that the couple stepped out as senior royals, but yet they have something to bully and stalking them again! [45]
I can only cheer them on, taking the step to choose a new life [46] and the Queen for supporting them. [47]

EPILOGUE
Is Meghan the only British royal, ever to be bullied by the tabloid press?Of course not!In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops. [48]Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed. [49] 
But however unpleasant that is, that is nothing to compare with the ”damned if you do, damed if you don’t” campaign against Meghan Markle, with the apparent racist undertones:
Not convinced?Then againAbout Meghan is written among else [there was more, but Google for yourself]
Her “exotic” DNAHer Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood” She is described as ”uppity”Meghan’s and Prince Harry’s newborn son had been compared with a ”chimpanzee” [SEE MY NOTES]
That are all, without excemption, racist expressions!
FURTHER THE SILLY STUFF
That she keeps her hand on her OWN bump, that she is eating avocado’s, that she is wearing dark nail polish
By the way”:Did you know, dear readers, that the Global Warmimg, the outburst of Ebola and the forest fires in Australia is also Meghan’s fault?

EVERYTHING SAID AND DONE
Meghan and Prince Harry are driven out of England, mainly out of racism and parts of the British press and the tabloids are guilty of that.
Be proud of yourself, Meghan haters
It is in fact, what Guardian journalist Zoe Williams recently wrote
”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice.” [50]

Happily, she has a supportive husband and I admire him for that, like I said before ‘[51]

The Queen also supports them [52]

And again, from this place, I defend them and especially -and that is the main reason I wrote this article – I fiercely condemn the racism that lead to it.

But haters, you will not win,

The fight for Freedom and Equality will continue, whether you like it or not!

Astrid Essed

NOTES[1]

WIKIPEDIAAFUA HIRSCH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch

[2]
“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK
https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

TEXT

LONDON (AP) — When accomplished, glamorous American actress Meghan Markle married Prince Harry in 2018, she was hailed as a breath of fresh air for Britain’s fusty royal family. That honeymoon didn’t last.

Now the couple wants independence, saying the pressure of life as full-time royals is unbearable. And a debate is raging: Did racism drive Meghan away?When Prince Harry, who is sixth in line to the throne, began dating the “Suits” actress — daughter of a white father and African American mother — the media called it a sign that Britain had entered a “post-racial” era in which skin color and background no longer mattered, even to the royal family.

U.K. Labour Party lawmaker Clive Lewis, who like Meghan has biracial heritage, says the royal rift shows that Britain still has a problem with “structural racism.”

“We can see it with Meghan Markle and the way that she’s been treated in the media, we know that this is a reality of the 21st century, still,” Lewis told Sky News. “After 400 years of racism you can’t just overturn it overnight.”

Frederick W. Gooding, an assistant professor of African American studies at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas, said it would be “disingenuous” to claim race had not been a factor in Meghan’s treatment.

“She was always going to be an outsider,” he said. “There was always going to be this barrier because of her race.”

From the start, some in the media wrote about Meghan using racially loaded terms. One tabloid columnist referred to her “exotic” DNA. A Daily Mail headline described her Los Angeles roots as “(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighborhood. A TV host described Meghan as “uppity.”

Meghan was criticized for everything from eating avocados — which the Daily Mail claimed fuel “human rights abuses, drought and murder” — to wearing dark nail polish, apparently an etiquette faux pas.

Morgan Jerkins, a senior editor at Zora, a Medium.com site for women of color, said that because Meghan was “an outsider, culturally, racially, and socioeconomically, she has been the royal family’s scapegoat.”

Others point out that Meghan is hardly the first royal to get a rough ride in the media. The press and the royal family have an intense and often toxic relationship going back decades. Harry’s mother, Princess Diana, was snapped by paparazzi wherever she went. When she and Prince Charles admitted that their marriage was in trouble, her private life became public property.

Diana was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997 while being pursued by photographers. Prince Harry, who was just 12 when his mother died, said in October he feared “history repeating itself. … I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

After Diana’s death, a chastened British press mended its ways — a bit. The media left young William and Harry alone in exchange for carefully staged interviews and photo opportunities as they grew up. That practice has continued with the three young children of William and his wife, Kate.

But in many ways little really changed. Royal stories still sell newspapers and generate clicks. That has meant intense — and even illegal — scrutiny. In the early 2000s, tabloid reporters hacked the voicemails of Prince William and royal staff members in pursuit of scoops.

Younger female royals are routinely judged on appearance, demeanor and habits. Prince William’s wife was relentlessly scrutinized for years: dismissed as dull, accused of being lazy for not having a full-time job, and dubbed “waity Katy” before William proposed.

Still, Meghan’s treatment has sometimes seemed harsher. Last year the Daily Mail ran photos of a pregnant Meghan cradling her bump under the headline: “Why can’t Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump?” Months earlier the same paper had described a pregnant Kate as “tenderly” cradling her bump.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel denied Meghan has suffered from racist media coverage,

“I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all,” Patel, who is of Indian heritage and whose parents emigrated to Britain from Uganda, told the BBC. “I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.”

But others say the media double standard Meghan faced is evidence that talk of “post-racial” Britain is wildly premature.

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times.

That feeling was echoed by Hayley Oliver, a recent Virginia Tech graduate who wrote a college essay about how Meghan and other mixed-race women are treated in popular culture. She said Meghan had years of charitable work, including advocacy for women’s healthcare and gender equality worldwide that preceded her marriage into the royal family.

“What about her in those roles?” said Oliver, who is also biracial and says she’s inspired by Meghan for the stances she takes. “When you see someone who looks like you. … it makes it easier to imagine yourself in that situation or the possibility of where you could go.”

While Britain is by most measures less racist than it used to be, non-white Britons are still over-represented among the poor and imprisoned, and under-represented at the top of well-paid professions, including politics, journalism and the law. Britain’s 2016 decision to leave the European Union — a move fueled in part by concerns about immigration — was followed by an increase in cases of racist abuse reported to police.

Meghan acknowledged in an October interview that she had been unprepared for the intense media scrutiny she would get as a member of the royal family. She told ITV journalist Tom Bradby that before she married Harry, “my British friends said to me, ‘I’m sure he’s great, but you shouldn’t do it, because the British tabloids will destroy your life.’”

“And I very naively … I didn’t get it,” she said.

Unlike other members of the royal clan, Meghan and Harry have pushed back. As long ago as 2017, Harry criticized “the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.”

Now the couple has had enough. They plan to move part-time to Canada, withdraw from royal media-coverage arrangements and seek financial independence. The queen has reluctantly agreed to let them become semi-detached royals in order to avoid a damaging family split.

The racism debate will rage on. Writing in The Guardian, British columnist Nesrine Malik said she doubted it would have much positive effect.

She argued that the racism debate had become a “pantomime, in which everyone — people of color, tabloid journalists, TV hosts — is playing well-rehearsed parts.”

“Britain’s conversation about race endlessly repeats itself, first as tragedy, and for ever thereafter as farce,” she wrote.

[3]

“Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you,” writer Afua Hirsch, author of the book “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging,” wrote in the New York Times. 
QUESTIONS OF RACISM LINGER AS HARRY, MEGHAN, STEP BACK

https://apnews.com/1420bd1ff04ac8f330bdd9cf9d061e52

[4]

QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!

ASTRID ESSED

14 JANUARY 2020

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL 

ASTRID ESSED

20 DECEMBER 2019

NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!

ASTRID ESSED

21 DECEMBER 2019

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[5]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

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.” 

END OF NEWS MESSAGE

STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUT

INSTAGRAM SUSSEXROYAL

https://www.instagram.com/sussexroyal/?utm_source=ig_embed

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.

END OF THE INSTAGRAM MESSAGE OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE

SEE ALSO FOR THE MESSAGE

BBC

IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947

[6]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

END OF THE ANNOUCEMENT OF THE QUEENBBCQUEEN  AGREES ”TRANSITION” TO NEW ROLE FOR HARRY AND MEGHAN14 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51099102

TEXT

The Queen has agreed a “period of transition” in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.

She said she was “entirely supportive” of their desire for a new role but “would have preferred” them to remain full-time working royals.

She expected final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.

Senior royals have been in talks about Prince Harry and Meghan’s role after they said they wanted to “step back”.

In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been “very constructive”.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family,” she said.

“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

She said it had been agreed there would be “a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK” after Harry and Meghan “made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives”.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days,” she said.

The urgent talks were convened after the Sussexes surprised the rest of the Royal Family on Wednesday with a statement expressing their desire to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family”.

They also said they wanted a “progressive new role” within the institution, where they would be financially independent and divide their time between the UK and North America.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Global News there had been “no discussions” about the details of the couple’s move, including on the issues of security and any potential impact on Canada’s taxpayers.

Although no other family member was consulted about the timing of the announcement, the duke and duchess said it came after “many months of reflection and internal discussions”.

Both Prince Harry and Meghan spoke of the difficulties of royal life and media attention in recent months, with the duke saying he feared his wife would fall victim to “the same powerful forces” that led to his mother’s death.

The talks about their future took place as Prince Harry and Prince William issued a joint statement denying “false claims” that their relationship had been damaged by “bullying” on the part of the older brother.

They said that the “inflammatory language” in the claims was “offensive” and “potentially harmful”, given their support for mental health causes.

This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.

Her regret over Harry and Meghan’s move is obvious – she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.

But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.

There are buckets of questions outstanding – on their future royal role, their relationship with the rest of the Palace, on who will pay what (not, the Queen says, the taxpayer), and on how Harry and Meghan will support themselves.

There’s still a lot to thrash out and to agree on. Not all of it may become public.

And it looks like the Queen sees this as a process, not an event. She writes of a transition period when Harry and Meghan divide their time between Canada and the UK.

The Queen has asked for decisions to be made over the next few days. But those decisions may well be up for review in the coming months and years.

line

Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4’s PM programme the Queen’s statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to “my family” and “my grandson”.

“It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels,” he said.

Instead of using the formal titles of the couple – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – the Queen simply called them “Harry and Meghan”.

Penny Junor, an author of books about the royals, said that the statement “read to me like a grandmother talking about the family”, adding that it would “take the pressure off” the duke and duchess.

“I think they’re in a very vulnerable state at the moment. I think they’re unhappy, they feel isolated and unloved, unappreciated and they needed careful handling,” she said.

“My reading from that statement is that the family has been sensitive to their vulnerability.”

How did we get here?

In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple’s official Instagram account, the duke and duchess said they intend to “step back” as senior royals, spending time in North America, while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

It came after an interview last October, when Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

The duke also issued an impassioned statement attacking what he described as “relentless propaganda” in parts of the media, as lawyers for his wife began legal action against the Mail on Sunday.

The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s foundation in June last year.

It was revealed in December that the couple had made an application to trademark their Sussex Royal brand for items including books, calendars, clothing, charitable fundraising, education and social care services.

[7]

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family. 


THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885 [8]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[9]

”Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

TEXT

Piers Morgan clashed with a Good Morning Britain guest in an explosive debate about whether the British press has been racist towards Meghan Markle. Writer, broadcaster, and former barrister Afua Hirsch joined the programme alongside columnist Sarah Vine, PR expert Nick Ede and former royal butler Paul Burrell and locked horns with the host as they discussed coverage of the Duchess of Sussex. ‘There have been allegations that she has been associated with very racialised forms of crime, there have been discussions about her “exotic” DNA, her newborn baby was compared to a baby chimp,’ Afua began. But Piers quickly snapped back: ‘Is her DNA not exotic by royal standards? She’s the first mixed-race person to enter the royal family. Why do you take exception to the word exotic?’ ‘Because it others her and associates her with a history that has posited people of African heritage as other,’ Afua responded.

Susanna Reid then chipped in to urge Piers to let Afua speak as he attempted to speak over her. ‘You can’t just say these things are racist when they’re not,’ Piers quipped. ‘I’m telling you that as someone who’s lived the experience of being a person of African heritage in this country that there are narratives that are regularly…’ Afua continued. But before she had time to continue her point, Piers asked if she was accusing him of being racist. ‘I’m saying that the narratives that you’re perpetuating are racist,’ Afua added.

And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

[10]

A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
8 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

TEXT

The British Monarchy

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.

[11]

WIKIPEDIAPIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[12] 
”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/13/piers-morgan-clashes-good-morning-britain-guest-explosive-meghan-markle-racist-media-coverage-debate-12048124/ 
[13]

THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

TEXT
The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by a group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

MEGHAN Markle was bombarded with 5,200 hateful and racist tweets in two months with the majority of abuse coming from 20 vile trolls, an investigation has found.The Duchess of Sussex is being targeted by the group of trolls whose accounts appear to have been created specifically to spew bile about the former Suits star.

New analysis has revealed that these 20 accounts sent more than 3,600 hateful tweets directed at, or about, the Duchess of Sussex in just two months, CNN reported.

The Twitter bios associated with the trolls typically contained Meghan-related hashtags like #Megxit and #Charlatanduchess.

Advocacy group Hope Not Hate analysed a sample of more than 5,000 tweets, posted between January and the middle of February, that contained the most commonly used anti-Meghan hashtags.

VILE TROLL GANG

Analysis of the tweets found that 20 accounts were responsible for about 70 per cent of the tweets, sharing anti-Meghan hashtags, pictures and memes.

The small group of accounts that troll the Duchess often re-tweet news articles that portray Meghan negatively and use racist language.

The findings come after the Royal Family declared war on social media trolls warning that the worst offenders will be reported to police.

Buckingham Palace published rules for those wanting to post on all social media channels run by them, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.

Courtiers have said they will block abusers and even encourage police to take legal action if tweets or posts are particularly bad.

ABUSE TARGETED AT MEGHAN AND KATE

It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.

The Palace statement said: “We ask that anyone engaging with our social media channels shows courtesy, kindness and respect for all other members of our social media communities.”

The rules, listed on the Royal Family’s website, call for comments not to “contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence” or “promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”

ROYALS DECLARE WAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA TROLLS

Palace aides are understood to have been particularly concerned about users abusing one another, often in the guise of supporting “Team Meghan” or “Team Kate”.

Meghan has been accused of faking her pregnancy, had horrendous racist abuse and even been subject to threats of violence.

When Meghan made a surprise appearance at the British Fashion Awards, the British Fashion Council removed an Instagram picture of her as there were more than 500 abusive comments.

In one appalling post about Meghan, a user wrote: “I publicly state I believe this woman is a textbook sociopath narcissist. 99.99999% she’s a vile wreckingball.”

On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”

Kensington Palace has already said that aides spend several hours a week trying to moderate and delete abusive comments – often on pictures of the Cambridges or the Sussexes.The statement said: “We reserve the right to determine, at our discretion, whether contributions to our social media channels breach our guidelines.

[14]
”It follows growing alarm at the abuse targeted at all royals – but particularly Kate and Meghan.

The two women have had vile sexist and abusive messages on Instagram and Twitter – with Meghan also receiving racist abuse.”

….

”On Kate, another wrote: “Can we talk about Kate’s manic face and weird body movement. Is she copying Meghan?”  
THE SUN MEGA TROLLS: MEGHAN MARKLE BOMBARDED WITH 5200 HATEFUL TWEETS IN TWO MONTHS-AND 70 PERCENT OF ABUSE CAME FROM TWENTY TROLLS8 MARCH 2019
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8588968/meghan-markle-social-media-abuse-trolls-duchess-of-sussex/

[15]EXOTIC DNA

”If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”

THE DAILY MAILRACHEL JOHNSON: SORRY HARRY, BUT YOUR BEAUTIFUL BOLTER HAS FAILED MY MUM TEST6 NOVEMBER 2016
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909362/RACHEL-JOHNSON-Sorry-Harry-beautiful-bolter-failed-Mum-Test.html

When I look at Meghan Markle – the American small-screen actress currently starring as “Harry’s Hottie” – I can’t help it. I assess her as a future daughter-in-law.

Prince Harry, 32, lost his mother when he was a boy, and ever since that dark day I’ve had feelings for him. Maternal feelings. And every time he has a girlfriend, I subject her to the “Mum Test”. I try to decide whether Princess Diana (and the Queen) would give Chelsy, or Cressida, or Jenna, or whomever, the thumbs-up or down as a potential Royal consort and addition to The Firm.

So I have done my due diligence on Miss Markle, and this is where I stand. Genetically, she is blessed. If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA. Miss Markle’s mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye. Miss Markle has an active social conscience, and anti-landmine campaigner Princess Diana would be delighted that she is the Ambassador for World Vision and has toured Afghanistan and Rwanda as part of her humanitarian effort.

She is also an accomplished actress and, indeed, her role as sultry paralegal Rachel Zane in TV series Suits is so popular that some clips from it have been viewed many, many thousands of times online (on a site I’m afraid readers will be unacquainted with called YouPorn).

Like Princess Diana, she wears her heart on her sleeve, and is emotionally open. “My cup runneth over,” she told the Toronto Sun, in her only comment on her new squeeze. “And I’m the luckiest girl in the world.”

As part of my research I had a look at her Instagram feed, along with the rest of the world, trying to read clues of her relationship status into pictures of bananas spooning and one of a jigsaw puzzle and a tea cup. (That one’s easy. “Jigsaw and cup of tea?” is, obvs, the couple’s secret, social media code for ‘Netflix and chill?’)

Apart from these teasing images (which add to the impression this showgirl has expertly ‘played’ the playboy Prince) you will find motivational quotes such as “Throw Kindness Around Like Confetti” and cute pictures of her two rescue dogs. This is all good so far, but there are, I admit, a couple of things that don’t pass the Mum Test.

She’s divorced and, as soon as she met Prince Harry, she is said to have dropped her gorgeous chef boyfriend like a hot brick, as she reeled in the biggest fish in the dating universe by not replying to Harry’s texts for several days (that old trick!).

And that’s a red line for a future mother-in-law. You see, if a girl does it to one man, to two men – there’s every chance she’ll do it to your son, too. As far as the Royal Family is concerned, a bolter is far worse than a black sheep.

Harry needs a sticker, a tremendous, limpet-like sticker, like Sophie Wessex. Or Kate Middleton. Nobody cares that Miss Markle is mixed race or a tease, but racy is a different story. Racy is not official Wife Material. Flirty Harry has met his match – and that means one thing.

I’ve turned up my hearing aid, but I’m still not hearing wedding bells, not this side of the Atlantic, anyway. Miss Markle may be truly scrumptious, but she still fails my Mum Test. 

WIKIPEDIA

THOMAS MARKLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

[16]THE DAILY MAILEXCLUSIVE: HARRY’S GIRL IS (ALMOST) STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON, GANG SCARRED HOME OF HER MOTHER REVEALED-SO WILL HE BE DROPPING BY FOR TEA?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

Plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs, the troubled Los Angeles neighborhood that Doria Ragland, 60, calls home couldn’t be more different to London’s leafy Kensington.

But social worker Ragland might now find herself welcoming a royal guest to downtrodden Crenshaw after Prince Harry was revealed to be dating her daughter – Suits actress Meghan Markle.Markle, 35, is now based in Toronto, Canada, but her mother remains in LA and moved to her modest green-painted home five years ago after the death of her own father, Alvin, in 2011.

Markle was brought up in a large yellow-colored detached home in central Los Angeles, while her rumored royal boyfriend spent much of his childhood between Kensington Palace and Prince Charles’ Gloucestershire mansion, Highgrove.

But Harry’s literally palatial homes couldn’t be more different from the tatty one-storey homes that dominate much of Crenshaw.

And while there have been a total of 21 crimes in the immediate area around Highgrove over the past 12 months, 47 have taken place in Crenshaw in the last week alone – including murder and robbery.Other crimes noted over the past seven days include multiple drug-related misdemeanors, vehicle thefts, vandalism and disturbing the peace.

Local gangs include Crenshaw Mafia Gangster, which has been plaguing the area since 1981, and Bloods affiliates Center Park Blood.

Operating close by are the Westside Rollin’ 60’s Neighborhood Crips, one of the largest street crime collectives in Los Angeles, and branches of the Compton-based Piru gang.

Nevertheless – and in spite of the gangs – parts of Crenshaw are considered to be improving, among them the aptly named Windsor Hills.

Neighbor Michael McWilliams, 49, said he had not seen Doria since news of her daughter’s alleged dalliance with Prince Harry broke but described her as ‘a nice woman’.

‘I’ve never seen the little girl [Meghan] though,’ added McWilliams. ‘She [Doria] has been living here since her daddy [Alvin] died.’

Markle remains close to her mother, who divorced her father Thomas, 72, when she was six, and is often seen with her on the red carpet.

Thomas, a lighting director, is currently thought to be in Mexico and recently filed for bankruptcy after racking up debts of $30,000 (£24,000).Doria, who also filed for bankruptcy herself in 2002 over a $52,750 credit-card bill, appears to be the one of the defining influences in her daughter’s life.

Writing in an article about her background, Markle addressed being mixed race, saying: ‘While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: “My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African-American.”‘

She also wrote about being a ‘light-skinned’ baby so when people saw her black mother pushing her in the pram ‘they assumed she was the nanny.’And she has spoken of how her mother’s great-great grandfather was born into slavery and freed at the end of the Civil War.

Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs – along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood.

The latter, which borders Crenshaw to the south, is also home to another member of Meghan’s family – her maternal aunt, Ava Burrow, 63.Burrow, who was not at home when DailyMail.com visited, lives on an Inglewood street with the dubious distinction of having its own branch of the Bloods crime gang in situ.

Known as the Queen Street Bloods, famous former members include rapper Mack-10 and Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver Marqise Lee.

Indeed, so famous is the area for gang crime, it was name-checked in Dr Dre’s 1999 rap hit The Next Episode along with Compton and Long Beach.

The crime-plagued neighborhoods of Markle’s mother and aunt are a far cry from the leafy part of Long Island where her former husband, Trevor Engleson, 40, grew up.

The Hollywood producer now lives in Los Angeles but was brought up in an affluent suburb of Long Island close to the New York City limits.

His parents declined to comment at their detached home.

One family friend, who declined to be named, said that the family had not spoken to Markle since the divorce.

Her ex-husband told relatives that he had learned of the actress’s new romance at the weekend but was reticent to discuss it further.

Their divorce was in Los Angeles, where Markle legally resides although she spends much of her time in Toronto.

It was a ‘quickie’ divorce which used a legal procedure which limits the information the couple have to disclose – including their marital assets.

The papers associated with it show that both parties agreed to the split and that any financial settlement was entirely confidential.

Markle also gave up using her ex-husband’s surname, the papers said.He continues to run his production company from an office in Los Angeles and was not available for comment.

[17]

WIKIPEDIASTRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON (FILM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Outta_Compton_(film)

WIKIPEDIADR. DRE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre

[18] 

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series. 

[19]

”And the heated discussion didn’t stop there. ‘You say we’re demonising a woman of colour, you’re the one bringing race into this,’ Piers scolded. ‘They’re [Prince Harry and Meghan] driving the narrative that this is all driven by racism and sexism, which I think is completely and grotesquely wrong.’ Afua then brought Danny Baker’s racist royal baby tweet into the argument, to which Piers replied: ‘Danny Baker’s not remotely racist as anyone who knows him knows.

PIERS MORGAN  CLASHES WITH AFUA HIRSCH IN EXLPOSIVE MEGHAN MARKLE ”RACISM ” DEBATE

13 JANUARY 2020

[20]ALPHANEWSEXCLUSIVE: MEGHAN MARKLE TARGETED BY HUNDREDS OF RACIST AND SEXIST TWEETS AMID PLAN TO STEP BACK15 JANUARY 2020
https://alphanews.co/exclusive-meghan-markle-targeted-by-hundreds-of-racist-and-sexist-tweets-amid-plan-to-step-back/

TEXT

Hundreds of tweets containing sexist and racist abuse aimed at Meghan Markle were posted following the announcement that she and Prince Harry were quitting royal duties

A study for HuffPost UK carried out by digital journalism analysts at the University of Sunderland captured the offensive posts mentioning the Duchess of Sussex.

Some 400 tweets were captured in the the most severe category of abuse, containing sexist and racist insults.

Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash”, “meghan the queen, of monkey island”, “the woke Meghan bint” and “poisonous cow”. Markle was also described as a “bitch”, “c*nt”, “whore”, “slut” and “witch”, among other terms.

Responding to the analysis, Dr John Price, senior lecturer in journalism at Sunderland, said: “These results give a sense of the levels of abuse that have been published about Meghan Markle in the days after the announcement.

“There will be many more tweets not captured in the study, as racism and misogyny are often expressed in more subtle terms that do not use overtly abusive language.

“The vast amount of abuse captured in these findings is startling. It shows that aspects of social media, such as Twitter, have become a haven for people wishing to express hatred against women.”

Researchers set up a program using negative sentiment analysis to capture all tweets mentioning variations of the duchess’ name and an array of commonly used misogynistic and racist terms of abuse. 

The sample of social media posts was collected between the time of the royal couple’s announcement on January 8 and midnight the following day.

The same researchers previously investigated trolling of female MPs during the 2017 general election.

It comes amid national discussion about the duchess’s treatment by parts of the UK media – and whether it factored into her and Harry’s big announcement.

The couple have faced significant media scrutiny and Markle has endured frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.

In July, presenter Eamonn Holmes came under fire for calling Markle “uppity” on This Morning during a discussion about the Duchess’s requests for privacy with reporter Lainey Lui who was in Canada.

Historically the word was used in the US in the 19th Century as an insult to Black people who “didn’t know their place”.

She also claimed anchor Piers Morgan was “spouting […] nasty and vile comments” loaded with “bigotry, misogyny, sexism and racism” aimed at the duchess.

Jeremy Corbyn shared Prince Harry’s concerns over the “racial undertones” of media coverage of his wife Meghan, the Labour Party revealed on Wednesday.

The Labour leader’s spokesperson said: “Jeremy has commented in the past in relation to Prince Harry and Meghan, about press intrusion and its impact on people and their families and, to use Prince Harry’s words as well, the ‘racial undertones’ in relation to how the media has approached Meghan.”

Corbyn’s message came as another Labour MP, Holly Lynch, told HuffPost UK that Meghan had been “hounded” by the press.Lynch, who was personally phoned by the duchess last year to thank her for an open letter signed by 72 female MPs attacking “colonial undertones” of her treatment, said it was time to “call out” the media “frenzy” around the Sussexes’ decision to step away from the royal family. 
[21]

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): There’s something off here. Don’t you think there’s something off? Apparently William, his brother, said, “You know, you may be moving a little too fast, maybe slow it down,” apparently that didn’t go over well.  

LYNDA MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, I think his family thinks he’s an idiot, because he is. And I think that —

HANNITY: Why do you think he’s an idiot?

MCLAUGHLIN: Oh, Harry’s always been the red-headed child. He’s always been the one, he can’t get it together, he’s at the parties, the clubs, he’s a hot mess.

HANNITY: What I didn’t like in this whole thing — I’ll say one thing I didn’t like.  I didn’t like that Meghan didn’t even get on the phone as she was in Canada, and she was invited to be a part of that meeting. That I didn’t like. That, to me is –MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?

[22]
  MCLAUGHLIN: Yeah, she’s very uppity. She’s — she’s one of those liberal elitists, you know?  

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICAHANNITY RADIO PRODUCER CALLS MEGHAN MARKLE ”VERY UPPITY”14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/hannity-radio-producer-calls-meghan-markle-very-uppity
[23]

An uppity person behaves in an unpleasant way because they think that they are more important than they really are”
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONNARY
”UPPITY”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/uppity

[24]

;”
A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations”
THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

TEXT

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history.ELSPETH REEVENOVEMBER 22, 2011

A lot of people have no idea that the word “uppity,” when applied to black people, has racist connotations, but it’s getting harder and harder to understand how public figures, in particular, are able to maintain their ignorance of the term’s history. President Obama has been a well-known public figure for several years and his conservative critics, in particular, keep making the “uppity” mistake. This week it’s Rush Limbaugh, who said Michelle Obama was booed at a weekend Nascar race because she showed “uppity-ism,” as well as the conservative site Newsbusters, which is just shocked that anyone might call that comment racially problematic. Glenn Beck, too, is defending Limbaugh’s analysis, saying it’s just a synonym for snobby. It’s hard to explain how they’ve managed to avoid finding out about “uppity” secret past.
Limbaugh said Monday “Nascar people… are mature, tolerant people who fully understand when they’re being insulted and condescended to,” Limbaugh said, then listed Obama’s transgressions such as taking expensive vacations and saying exercise is good. He continued, “They understand it is a little bit of uppity-ism.”  Glenn Beck defended the comment, saying on Imus’ radio show, “Uppity? You don’t think she’s a little snotty? Really? Really? Miss Arugula? Come on!”  (Arugula is a type of lettuce that is offensive to some conservatives.) “I’m not going to apologize for saying the woman who says ‘I’d like a good steak and arugula once in a while’… Please. We’re living in a country where you can’t say that’s a little uppity?” 

Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place. In fairness, a lot of people don’t know for sure whether “uppity” is racist. Various forms of the question “Is uppity racist?” is a very popular on Yahoo Answers. But a little more digging could help these guys out. The most liked and most disliked definition at Urban Dictionary notes that “uppity” is often followed by the n-word. Maybe these media guys don’t know how to Google. Even so, they’ve had a lot of practice with uppity in recent years. In 2008, Rep. Lynn Westmorland claimed he didn’t know “uppity” had racial connotations when he used the term to describe then-Sen. Barack Obama. This is especially curious because Westmorland is from Georgia. In 2010, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree said Sarah Palin’s habit of deriding Obama as a “professor” was code for “uppity.” Limbaugh responded by saying the term was racist when applied to Clarence Thomas, but true when applied to Obama: “Obama is uppity, but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he’s smarter and better than everybody else. That’s what he was taught. He’s a Harvard man.” (Thomas received his law degree, by contrast, from plebian institution Yale.)But maybe that practice is starting to sink in. While Newsbusters’ Brent Baker was appalled that ABC News had “elevated” the “left-wing hit,” he didn’t quite go so far as to explicitly say the comment wasn’t racist. That’s progress.

[25]
”Beck seemed unaware “uppity” was a term racist southerners used for black people who didn’t know their place.”

THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[26]THE ATLANTICYEP, UPPITY IS RACIST
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/335160/

[27]WIKIPEDIA
PIERS MORGAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan

THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

[28]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[29]
FREE DICTIONNARYBE (SITTING] ON (ONE’S) TAIL
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+on+her+tail

”be (sitting) on (one’s) tailTo follow close behind someone or something.Why is this guy sitting on my tail when I’m already going over the speed limit?The cops are definitely on our tail now—we have to turn ourselves in!

[30]

”The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.”
THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html

The Duchess of Sussex has rightly been praised for making the fusty old Royal Family more socially and ethically aware.

But that was until an old friend from her Hollywood days was invited round for a bite to eat and posted online a picture of what was widely assumed to be high tea.

Pride of place went to avocado on toast —on silver platters, no less. ‘Still being the avocado toast whisperer, YUM!’, trilled her guest, Daniel Martin. The celebrity make-up artist said it took him back to the days when he and Meghan Markle collaborated on her lifestyle blog, The Tig.

‘The consummate hostess,’ he enthused.Well, perhaps not so much.

The campaigning duchess may be passionate when it comes to racial equality and female empowerment, but for someone who wants to save the planet, she’s committed something of a faux pas with avocados.

For all their health benefits and tastiness, the fact is that rampant avocado production in the Third World has been linked with water shortages, human rights abuses, illegal deforestation, ecosystem destruction and general environmental devastation.

It has proved so lucrative in Mexico that it has been dubbed ‘green gold’ and is even filling the coffers of brutal drug cartels.

In her defence, the duchess is hardly the only celebrity who’s extolled the wonders of avocados, which are full of vitamins, proteins and healthy fats.

The lifeblood of the millennial generation — who can’t stop posting pictures of avocado on toast on Instagram — this so-called ‘super food’ has been championed by everyone from nutritionists to Hollywood stars.

The duchess revealed in her Grenfell cookbook that a green chilli and avocado dip was a favourite. Pop star Miley Cyrus went further with an avocado tattoo on her arm.

Grown in Mexico for 9,000 years, the avocado has come a long way since the 16th century, when Spanish conquistadors disparagingly called it aguacate, after ahuacatl, Aztec for testicle. Between 2000 and 2015, avocado consumption in the U.S. tripled. In the UK, the avocado market is estimated to be worth around £200 million a year.

But it has become a victim of its own popularity, prompting restaurants and cafes to remove it from menus over concerns about its environmental and social impact.

The Wild Strawberry Cafe in Bucks substituted avocados, its most popular item, with garlic-sauteed mushrooms on toast. Its owner cited the ‘demand on avocado farmers, pushing up prices to the point where there are even reports of Mexican drug cartels controlling lucrative exports’.

Tincan Coffee in Bristol has replaced ‘avo’ with pea guacamole after they were judged not to ‘fit’ with it’s ‘core beliefs’. The Wildflower Restaurant in South London followed suit, citing the violence in Mexico.

Its chef, Joseph Ryan, suggested the world may be entering a ‘post-avocado era’.

Haute cuisine has also jumped on board. In Ireland, the Michelin-starred chef JP McMahon has called them the ‘blood diamonds of Mexico’ and compared avocados to battery chickens. Where trendy restaurants and chefs go, the image-conscious supermarkets may not be far behind.

The problems that come from the West’s trendy fascination with avocados have a lot to do with geography. Some 40 per cent come from Mexico and almost all of that is grown in the rural western state of Michoacan.

The region’s fertile volcanic soil and temperate climate allow avocados to be harvested all year round (in other countries they can only be harvested in summer). The rich soil means the notoriously thirsty avocado trees need only a third as much water as they do elsewhere.

Mexico now makes more money exporting avocados than oil. Unfortunately, Michoacan is also home to some of Mexico’s most violent cartels. They include La Familia Michoacana, whose leaders once tossed five rivals’ heads on to the dance floor of a nightclub; their equally vicious rivals in the Knights Templar, a quasi-religious death cult; and Los Viagras, named for their leader’s heavily moussed, erect hair.

In Michoacan, the cartels now make more money from avocados than cannabis. Some drug criminals are becoming growers themselves, others simply terrorise the industry. Avocado farmers, who in Michoacan can easily earn more than £115,000 a year, a vast sum in Mexico, live in continual fear of kidnapping and extortion.

The Knights Templar started charging a fee for every box of avocados gathered by farmers. They also extorted money from the fertiliser and pesticide retailers. Many farmers have been forced to hand over the title deeds to their farms.

If they don’t pay protection money, growers and packers risk being raped or killed, their bodies tied to avocado trees with warning notices attached. Some kidnapped farmers have been killed even after their families paid their ransom.

A businessman whose family refused to pay up was chained to one of his trees and shot dead. Officials estimated the Knights Templar alone earn as much as £115 million a year from avocados.

The cartel’s 2014 kidnap, rape and murder of an avocado farmer’s young daughter prompted the town of Tancitaro to drive out the Knights after a bloody battle. However, the cartels remain a menacing presence.

Mexico’s avocado industry is also accused of damaging the health of locals with the chemicals sprayed on the orchards. Experts are concerned that the fumigation of the trees is behind growing breathing and stomach problems, and may be polluting water supplies.

Unscrupulous farmers are clearing land for avocado orchards, often illegally by cutting down oak and pine forests. The latter provide a crucial winter nesting ground for the imperilled Monarch butterfly.

Indeed, a Mexican government study concluded that soaring avocado production has caused a loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution and soil erosion. It has also damaged the natural water cycle and threatened the survival of animal species only found in the area. Farmers exacerbate deforestation by using trees for avocado crates.

We can’t be certain where Meghan’s avocados came from, but fashionable eaters who think they can safely switch to sourcing them from the Dominican Republic, Chile or Peru should think again.

Wherever they come from, the thousands of miles any avocado has to travel to get to Britain means they leave a heavy carbon footprint.

This is because they are perishable but cannot be frozen because it alters their texture.

They must therefore be transported either by air or in air-conditioned container ships so they ripen at just the right moment.

Their relatively heavy weight and bulky packaging to prevent bruising further ratchets up their carbon footprint. Two avocados have a footprint of 846g of CO2, compared to 160g for two bananas.

The enormous amounts of water required to grow avocados is even more of an eco-issue in countries without Mexico’s volcanic soil. It can take as much as 1,000 litres (220 gallons) to grow a single kilo (about three avocados).

The Chilean province of Petorca is suffering an acute water shortage thanks to ‘green gold’. Water has been privatised in Chile (which specialises in the Hass variety so popular in the UK), meaning that those who pay — such as deep-pocketed big avocado growers — can use as much as they want.

When activists complained after a 2012 aerial survey revealed 64 pipelines were diverting river water underground to irrigate the orchards, they received death threats. Local rivers have now dried up and supplies have to be trucked in for local people while the avocado farms rely on artificial reservoirs.

Although the avocado is essentially a jungle plant, greedy growers are determined to cultivate it in dry, perennially sunny areas such as California, where orchards sap water from a state already prone to wildfires and drought.

In Israel, avocado trees are irrigated with treated waste-water, prompting fears that harmful nano-particles are not only permanently damaging the soil but penetrating the fruit.

The Chinese are being gripped by avocado mania, too, so demand is expected to keep soaring.

But given the damaging cost of ‘avocado fever’, might it not be better to eat them more sparingly — and not, for example, serve them up on silver platters?

Since Meghan’s guest was invited to high tea, surely it should have been a case of let him eat cake.

[31]THE DAILY MAILHOW MEGHAN’S FAVOURITE AVOCADO SNACK -BELOVED OF ALL MILLENNIALS – IS FUELLING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES, DROUGHT AND MURDER”22 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html
[32]

ISRAEL/HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
BTSELEM.ORG
TORTURE AND ABUSE IN INTERROGATION
https://www.btselem.org/topic/torture

BTSELEM.ORGFATALITIES DURING OPERATION CAST LEAD
https://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event

ISRAELI OCCUPATION AND PALESTINIAN RIGHTS/LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DUTCH PARLIAMENTASTRID ESSED4 FEBRUARI 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/israeli-occupation-and-palestinian-rights-letter-to-the-members-of-the-dutch-parliament/

EU CANCELS MEETING WITH ISRAEL AFTER SETTLEMENT’S VOTE/EU, TAKE MEASURES AGAINST ISRAEL NOW!ASTRID ESSED1 MARCH 2017
https://www.astridessed.nl/eu-cancels-meeting-with-israel-after-settlements-voteeu-take-measures-against-israel-now/

[33]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[34]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

  • Meghan cradling her baby bump is a subject that has got the nation talking
  • From a double hand clasp to handbag shield we identify different types of holds 
  • Experts were asked to explain why they think she does it so often in public

It’s the subject that has got the nation talking: why does Meghan constantly cradle her bump? Here we identify the different types of embrace… and ask experts to explain why they think she does it.

Make like Meghan in a burgundy dress by Club Monaco

The Duchess of Sussex turned to one of her favourite labels, Club Monaco for an engagement in London last week.

Meghan wore the brand’s ‘Sallyet’ dress in a chic burgundy colour that simply exuded winter-chic vibes. We love the contrasting velvet collar! The stylish royal then finished off with a co-ordinating coat also by Club Monaco and a pair of cut-out ankle boots by Givenchy.

We’ve spotted her wearing the label on a lot of different occasions, most recently throughout the Royal tour, plus back in August when she attended a wedding on her birthday.

Deep berry and plum shades are perfect for this time of year, so click (right) to snap up this exact dress before the Meghan effect takes hold. You can also get your hands on her exact coat and ankle boots below to recreate the look in full.

Alternatively, we’ve hand-picked even more must-have maroon dresses that have a cute collar neckline just like Meghan’s. La Redoute and Warehouse have the best lookalikes.[35]
”the cat is out of the bagSome secret or surprise has been revealed or exposed.Well, we were going to keep this project a secret until we were a little further along in development, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now.We’ve had hidden cameras and microphones installed in his apartment to gather incriminating evidence, but I think the cat’s out of the bag.

FREE DICTIONARYTHE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+cat+is+out+of+the+bag

[36]
THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?26 JANUARY 2019
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[37]

THE DAILY MAILNOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

  • Pregnant Duchess is attending symposium at Royal Society of Medicine in London
  • Event will discuss early intervention to support child mental health 
  • Kate, 36, is due to give birth to her third child next month 
  • Is set to complete celebratory Commonwealth engagements with William tomorrow

She’s weeks away from having her third child, but there’s no rest for the Duchess of Cambridge as she continues her busy schedule of royal engagements ahead of the birth.

Pregnant Kate, 36, is this morning attending a symposium at the Royal Society of Medicine in London of leading academics and charities championing early intervention into the lives of children.

The mother-to-be looked radiant in a bespoke green coat dress with a bow detail at the collar by Jenny Packham, worn over a mint dress, teamed with her favourite blush suede heels.  

And she looked as if she’d taken inspiration from the Queen who wore a remarkably similar ensemble to watch polo at Windsor in 1973.

Today’s meeting is thought to be Kate’s penultimate engagement before she commences her maternity leave and comes after Prince William’s confirmation that she’s due to give birth ‘any minute now’. 

According to Hello! magazine, the Duke of Cambridge made the revelation that the new royal baby will be here sooner rather than later, while knighting Ringo Starr yesterday. 

Despite the impending birth, Kate has had her busiest start to the year yet and if William’s admission is anything to go by, it seems that she’s determined to keep working as close to her due date as possible. 

The royal used today’s engagement to call for teenagers to be taught parenting and relationship skills to avoid the danger of their future children developing mental health problems in later life.

In a speech on the benefits of early intervention in supporting children’s mental wellbeing she said it was important to get the next generation of parents ‘child-ready’ even before they have children.

Go green like the Duchess of Cambridge in Jenny Packham

The Duchess of Cambridge is getting closer and closer to her due date, but that’s not holding her back from her duties. It’s certainly not holding her back in the style stakes, either.

Arriving for a conference held by The Royal Foundation today, Kate worked a new maternity look. Despite re-wearing most of her outfits lately, she had splashed out here opting for a bespoke dress and coat by one of her go-to British designers, Jenny Packham.

The look was a bright one that ensured she stood out on arrival and we love the pretty bow detail at the collar.

You cannot buy this outerwear as it’s bespoke, but click right to head to NET-A-PORTER where you can shop ready-to-wear pieces by the brand. Or you can go green and look royally stylish in one of our alternative coats below by Theory, Harris Wharf London, Boden and more. 

Kate was speaking at a symposium of academics, professionals and charities organised by the Royal Foundation, the charitable arm of William, Kate and Harry’s public work.

The royal also announced she was setting up a steering group to explore how to help experts provide children with the best start in life.

It will look at how to create a partnership between experts and organisations examining issues around as perinatal, maternal and infant mental health. The steering group will also look at how to improve the support for children, parents and teachers.

Kate’s busiest year yet 

At the beginning of March, the Duchess had completed 38 official engagements – including.

That’s compared with just 11 for the same period in 2017 and seven in 2016.

In January and February in 2015, when Kate was pregnant with Charlotte, she completed 13 engagements.

In 2014 and 2013, she completed three official engagements in the first two months of the year.

In 2012, she completed 10 engagements during the same period. 

Aides say it will report back to the duchess later this year and it is hoped the Royal Foundation will announce a strategy in late autumn or early next year.

In her speech at the Royal Society of Medicine, the duchess said she believes society ‘cannot intervene early enough’ to break ‘the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage’.

She said: ‘We need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

‘We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children.

‘We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially even before they give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

‘And potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.’

She added: ‘Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.’

Professor Peter Fonagy, chief executive of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, described the duchess as the person ‘who has done more to turn the tide of stigma around mental health more than any other single individual that I could name.’

He had seen her visiting providers, ‘energising, enthusing, deepening the commitment of front-line workers in an invaluable way’, he said.

He added: ‘She has also changed all our way of thinking by her intelligent questioning and crystal-clear focus.

‘It is vitally important to work together, to form a community that cares about early childhood.’

The Duchess of Cambridge’s speech on early intervention

As I look around the room, I see friends from many different sectors: friends who have shared with me their knowledge, and who have answered my questions patiently whilst I’ve interrogated them in my endeavour to learn about this complex range of issues. 

  • Academic colleagues who have shown me their ground-breaking research into the causes of perinatal and post-natal depression, and how they are addressing these in the clinic; 
  • Those who I have visited over the years who provide crucial links within the community, and whose services help families with essential parenting support and guidance;
  • and other wonderful organisations which have done so much to improve support for the emotional wellbeing of children in schools. I could name so many of you, but I’m utterly grateful to you all for giving your time and wisdom so freely. 

We all know how important childhood is; and how the early years shape us for life. We also know how negative the downstream impact can be, if problems emerging at the youngest age are overlooked, or ignored. It is therefore vital that we nurture children through this critical, early period.

But as we’ve heard, at what stage in a child’s development could we, or should we, intervene, to break the inter-generational cycle of disadvantage?

The more I have heard, the more I am convinced that the answer has to be: ‘early’ and ‘ ‘the earlier, the better’.

In fact, it would seem that we cannot intervene early enough.

We do need mental health support in primary schools before the biological changes and academic pressures of adolescence kick in.

We also need a focus on parenting and family support, so that parents feel able to get their children ‘school ready’, and are confident that they themselves can cope with the mental and emotional needs of their own children. 

We need to highlight how important it is to support mothers too, potentially before they even give birth. They need to be aware how vulnerable they might be and, critically, know where they can find help for themselves, as well as for their babies and toddlers.

But potentially we could start to look even earlier, by teaching parenting and relationship skills to teenagers, to get the next generation of parents child-ready, well before they have to put these skills into practice.

After listening to those working in this complex area, my own view is that children’s experiences in their early years are fundamental. They lay the foundations not only for healthy outcomes during the teenage years, but also for adulthood.

Addressing the issues only when they take root, later in life, results in huge detriment; detriment to the healthcare, education and social support systems in our country; but, perhaps more importantly, detriment to future generations over the long term.

In 2011, Graham Allen, who is with is here today, wrote a report for Government on the need for early intervention. 

I hope, Graham, you don’t mind me quoting from your report, in which you referred to the cycle of deprivation and dysfunction, from generation to generation.

There, you said that, ‘If we intervene early enough, we can give children a vital social and emotional foundation, which will help to keep them happy, healthy and achieving throughout their lives and, above all, equip them to raise children of their own.’

I could not agree more.

Because these are ‘lifetime’ issues, they require a very long term perspective. But the issues are also complex and multi-sided, so they need integrated, collective approaches to create real impact. This is what I am so keen to explore.

We are here today because we all believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life.

I have therefore entrusted The Royal Foundation, under the leadership of Aida Cable, to gather a group of experts to develop the thinking in this critical area: experts and partners to build upon existing work, and to look at developing sustainable solutions which will help deliver our shared ambitions.

Providing children in their earliest years with social and emotional security builds strong foundations which last a lifetime. I really do feel so passionately about the importance of early intervention, and that by working on new approaches together, we can make a real difference for generations to come.

Thank you. 

Prof Fonagy said the Royal Foundation could play a massive role in bringing voluntary organisations and statutory services to work together.

Professor Sir Simon Wessely, president of the Royal Society for Medicine and Regius Professor of Psychiatry at King’s College London, thanked the duchess for the work she and Prince William and Prince Harry had done on mental health.

It had, he said, been ‘fantastic in all sorts of ways, and in particular in engaging with ordinary people, with friends, families, relatives and indeed non-professionals for the work they can do, which is probably more important than the work any of us do… in improving the mental health and resilience of our nation.’

He said: ‘About 50 per cent of the work that adult psychiatry does arises from childhood adversity, mistreatment and so on.’

Tomorrow, Kate and Prince William will complete two engagements celebrating the Commonwealth before Kate signs off for her maternity leave. 

The Duke and Duchess will begin the day at a SportsAid event to learn how the charity is helping the next generation of aspiring Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth and world champions, before taking part in preparations for a Commonwealth Big Lunch at a London community centre.  

[38]
THE DAILY MAIL
NOT LONG TO GO! PREGNANT KATE TENDERLY CRADLES HER BABY BUMP WILE WRAPPING UP HER ROYAL DUTIES AHEAD OF MATERNITY LEAVE. AND WILLIAM CONFIRMS SHE IS DUE ”ANY MINUTE NOW”21 MARCH 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5526339/Pregnant-Kate-looks-blooming-green.html

[39]

THE DAILY MAILWHY CAN’T MEGHAN MARKLE KEEP HER HANDS OF HER BUMP?EXPERTS  TACKLE THE QUESTION THAT GOT THE NATION TALKING:
IT IS PRIDE, VANITY, ACTING- OR A NEW AGE BONDING TECHNIQUE?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

[40]
Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is a Latin phrase, literally “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a bull”
WIKIPEDIAQUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi

[41]

”Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem.”……..”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible”

BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

Meghan Markle wore dark nails again last night while attending a charity gala performance of Cirque du Soleil’s Totem. However, the Duchess of Sussex didn’t wear the bold polish on her hands. Instead, she wore a deep shade on her toes while rocking a light pink color on her finger tips.Meghan’s pedicure was noticeable as she wore open-toe shoes (Stuart Weitzman heeled sandals, to be exact) for the event. It also helped that her glittery Roland Mouret gown had a leg slit, revealing her footwear as she walked.
The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.” After all, Meghan had been wearing neutral manicures for past royal appearances, and other women in the family like Duchess Kate, Duchess Camilla, and even the Queen have frequented natural-looking nails.

However, “there’s no actual protocol about dark nail polish,” royal correspondent Omid Scobie told BAZAAR.com at the time. “It’s simply about being appropriate—we’d never see this at a royal engagement. But tonight’s event is a celebration of fashion and there’s a lot more flexibility on what one can wear.”And ultimately, it looked good with her outfit. The same goes for last night’s pedi.

The Cirque du Soleil performance at Royal Albert Hall, which raised money for Prince Harry’s charity, Sentebale, was previously announced by Kensington Palace. However, perhaps there was more leeway for daring nail shades considering it was an evening gala rather than, say, a formal daytime engagement with Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace.
Kate Middleton has actually rocked a dark pedicures at similar events with glamorous looks of her own. One of them was also at Royal Albert Hall years ago, while attending a concert celebrating the 2012 Olympics in London.

[42]
”The last time Meghan wore dark nail polish was at the British Fashion Awards in December, and she wore the shade on her hands, where it was more visible. The cosmetic choice raised some eyebrows at the time, as some royal watchers questioned whether the unexpected shade was a breach in “royal protocol.”
BAZAARMEGHAN MARKLE SNUCK IN DARK NAIL POLISH WITH ANOTHER ROYAL LOOK

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25924837/meghan-markle-dark-nail-polish-cirque-du-soleil/

[43]
THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

TEXT
The level of scrutiny the Duchess of Sussex receives is devoid of human feeling. This vilification must end  

Last month I nominated Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as a hate figure for the nation in 2019: the person we all need to get us through a difficult time, like your cousin’s girlfriend who waxes her eyebrows and yammers on about yoga at the start of a fraught Christmas. As I then explained about a million times on Twitter, I was joking: I do not hate Meghan, or even consider her vaguely hateful. I could no more despise the woman than I could flick through the pages of a magazine and take against a salt-and-pepper male model with a watch on. She wasn’t the point; the point was that society quests ceaselessly for an enemy, and if you’re going to have one, at least let it be one who probably won’t care.

This was right in an ambient, premonitory way, but I was wrong to think it was funny. The poor woman is being vilified round the clock – this week for having the audacity to have a baby shower with her friends in New York. It has gone beyond the point of mattering what her personality is like, were anyone in any position to know: she would have to be so thoroughly bad to warrant this level of scrutiny, so devoid of human feeling, so malicious in every intention, that the media’s daily censure wouldn’t be enough. We’d have to paint her yellow and black like a bee.

She can’t leave the house, pregnant, without being accused of “flaunting” her bump. She can’t walk into a room without wild speculation about whether or not she breached a protocol, by people who have no idea what royal protocols are. If a friend comes to her defence and asks people to stop hounding her, then who does she think she is, having a friend like that? OK, so maybe it is George Clooney. Someone’s got to be his friend. He might be perfectly nice.

If she smiles for the cameras, then she’s luxuriating in the attention. “She’s being victimised, you say, George; you with your fancy hair and your coffee habits … then why is she smiling? Riddle me that.”

 Tormenting Meghan Markle has become a national sport that shames us

Catherine Bennett

Catherine Bennett

 Read more

If she goes to New York, she’s pointedly “without Prince Harry”. But if she had taken Prince Harry, then you can guarantee that she would have been dragging her husband away from his duties, to partake of her frivolity, and what kind of princelet might she raise with priorities like that? If she has a baby shower, some journalist, who was most likely trained to dig into the affairs of the mighty and powerful, sets those investigative skills to pricing her gifts then translating dollars into pounds. We’re asking the big questions, here: who spends $379 (£290) on a crib? For their friend’s baby? And besides: ew, baby shower, that’s so American. But isn’t she, though? No, she’s English now, until she gives any sign that she considers herself English, whereupon she will be American again. Randomised disapproval has rendered her stateless.Advertisement

If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.We did this before, remember? Lost all sense of proportion around princessly deficiencies, and ended up chasing one into a pillar. This is not a mistake any nation should make twice. 

[44]
THE SUNPIERS MORGAN’S ”FEUD” WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND PRINCE HARRY EXPLAINED: WHAT HAS THE GMB PRESENTOR SAID ABOUT MEGCIT?14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10736574/piers-morgan-feud-meghan-markle-prince-harry-megxit/
TEXT

PIERS Morgan does not shy away from his dislike of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.In fact, he writes and rants about the pair regularly. So what happened to kick-start the GMB presenter’s feud with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

What is Piers Morgan feud with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Over the years, Piers Morgan has criticised Meghan Markle, repeatedly calling her “fake”, a “ruthless social climber” and accused her of using her marriage to “get to the top”.

The media broadcaster has also described Prince Harry as hypocritical, accusing the Duke of “playing the victim.”

It is long-running commentary that has seen Morgan accused of bullying, sexism, and racism.

While the feud has remained one sided with the Duke and Duchess staying tight-lipped on Piers Morgan’s take-downs, the pair have been vocal in their criticism of tabloid media and its ‘ruthless campaign’ of Meghan Markle, and accused the press of bullying.

What has Piers Morgan said about Megxit?

Piers Morgan has accused Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ‘bullied’ the Queen into allowing them to leave the Royal Family.

He wrote on social media: “BREAKING: Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.”

Before the talks he branded Prince Harry a “whiny, entitled parody of himself… bullying Queen into a woke monarchy.”

He went on to call the couple “two spoiled brats” whose behaviour towards the Queen is “utterly outrageous”, again attacking the 10-year veteran army captain Harry, calling him “weak, whiny and miserable”.

What is Pierce Morgan’s history with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?

Piers Morgan’s feud with Meghan Markle stems back to 2015, when the broadcaster says the now-Duchess “ghosted” him.

2015

  • In 2015, the pair were friendly and followed each other on Twitter.
  • Piers Morgan described their friendship to have started over his interest in Meghan’s then acting role in US drama, Suits. He said: “She even started sending me early preview episodes of her show so we could debate juicy storylines yet to air – which we did, at length.”

2016

  • In 2016, the pair met for drinks in London at Piers’ favourite pub while Markle was in town. 
  • Morgan described the incident: “She met Prince Harry at the dinner that night, went on a solo date with him the next night, and I never heard from her again. Not a word. I’d been ghosted.”
  • In December 2016, Morgan wrote about Harry and Meghan’s courtship after the pair were photographed together for the first time.
  • On rumours of their engagement, Piers encouraged the Prince to “bring it on!” not just because he believed Meghan to be superbly well suited to Harry and “perfect princess material”, but also because the country needed “a royal wedding to take the edge off these tumultuous times.”

Meghan Markle’s key moments

First few months as a married couple...

First few months as a married couple…

Pregnancy announced - but what's happening to her staff?

Pregnancy announced – but what’s happening to her staff?

Baby Sussex arrives!

Baby Sussex arrives!

A summer of controversy....

A summer of controversy….

2017

  • Following Harry and Meghan’s engagement in November 2017, Morgan wrote he was “delighted” to hear of the news, joking the prince had “finally made a sensible decision when it comes to his personal life.”
  • In December 2017, Piers dubbed Meghan a ‘hero’ in his annual summary of the year that was. He wrote: “She’s a lovely lady; smart, warm, funny and more than a match for Prince Harry. Their engagement gave us all some much-needed cheer.”

2018

  • In May of 2018, in the lead up to Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding, Morgan wrote of him sympathy towards for Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, who would not be invited to the royal wedding amid the family drama that had ensued.
  • Morgan also claimed the upcoming nuptials were a “massive PR bonanza for the royal family” which they had been “milking like ravenous fairy farmers.” But he continued to sing praise for Meghan, writing: “I feel incredibly sorry for her that her family are betraying her so badly.”
  • Following the royal wedding, Morgan penned a warning to the now-Duchess: “If you thought being a royal girlfriend was difficult, just wait until you see how hard it is being a royal wife,” and suggested she should think long and hard about her “fight for feminism” now that she was a royal. The royal family doesn’t do politics, he wrote.
  • In July 2018, Morgan criticised the Duchess of being hypocritical, claiming she could not encourage others to partake in humanitarian work when she had turned her back on her sick father.He wrote: “She prides herself on charity work, yet seems to have forgotten that old truism: charity begins at home.”
  • By December 2018, Piers’ analysis of the Duchess was scathing. He wrote: “Meghan Markle is a ruthless social climbing actress who has landed the role of her life and is determined to milk it for all she can – and that’s why the Palace is beginning to turn on her.”
  • A week later, he criticised the Duchess for not speaking with her father in over 8 months, cutting him out of her life before the royal wedding took place.

2019

  • In February 2019, the Duke and Duchess travelled to the city of Bristol in the West of England, to visit a small charity, One25, that helps support hundreds of street workers, donating clothes, food and providing a safe place for the workers. Morgan criticised Meghan for the visit, in which she handed out bananas inscribed with empowering messages. He wrote: “Giving prostitutes an ‘empowering’ banana after they’ve spent the night subjecting their bodies to often vile, sexually depraved men… what were they supposed to do with these signed bananas exactly?”
  • In March 2019, Morgan wrote that his frustration with the ‘woke’ Duke and Duchess stemmed from their inability to “practice what they preach”. He claimed it was hypocritical for the Duke to speak of the need to protect wildlife when Prince Harry was previously a notorious trophy-hunter, and that his speech on climate change was made irrelevant, as the pair took private jets and helicopter rides rather than travelling by train.
  • In April 2019, Morgan wrote an enraged piece, questioning “Why should the taxpayer fork out millions to make Harry and Meghan the King and Queen of Africa just to keep them away from Wills and Kate?” He went on to argue Meghan was wasting taxpayer dollars at an astounding rate: “Since marrying into the British Royal Family, she’s already shown a gleeful propensity for spending money in a manner so extravagant she’s been dubbed ‘Meghan Antoinette’ in honour of the infamously over-the-top 18th Century French Queen.”
  • Morgan also slammed Meghan’s lavish, five-day $500,000 baby shower at a five-star hotel in New York, attended by celebrities Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.
  • In May 2019, following the birth of the Duke and Duchess’ first child Archie, Morgan tweeted: “Trying, but currently failing, to muster up a semblance of enthusiasm for this royal baby.”He went on to criticise the new parents for being overly secretive, even with palace staff, over their newborn. “But this exclusionary treatment of the media is ultimately self-defeating: without media attention, interest in the royals would quickly die. They shun us at their peril.”
  • In June 2019, Morgan was scathing on discovery that British taxpayers paid £2.4 million to refurbish the Duke and Duchess’ new home, Frogmore Cottage.
  • In July 2019, Piers presented a 10-point guide on how Meghan could become a popular princess, the first note calling out the Sussex’s request for privacy – arguing they are public figures, and should behave as public people.
  • Later that month, Piers slammed the Duchess’ guest-editing of the September edition of Vogue magazine rather than attend royal duties. He wrote that if Meghan “was reportedly ‘too busy caring for her baby’ to meet the President of her own country on his state visit to the UK” she shouldn’t have taken on the editing project.
  • In October 2019, Piers responded to the Duke’s statement against reporting of his wife in British tabloid media, writing “Stop playing the victim Harry – you and Meghan brought the negative press on yourselves, and just when you turn things around, you ruin it all.”

Prince Harry Key Moments

It all started 35 years ago...

It all started 35 years ago…

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy...

Prince Harry is no stranger to controversy…

Military and volunteer work

Military and volunteer work

When Meghan met Harry...

When Meghan met Harry…

2020

  •  In January 2020, as news broke of the Duke and Duchess’ plan to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family, Piers Morgan was fast to condemn the pair.He wrote: “I’ve seen some disrespectful royal antics in my time, but for pure arrogance, entitlement, freed and wilful disrespect, nothing has ever quite matched the behaviour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
  • He later called for the Queen to fire the Duke and Duchess, accusing Meghan Markle again of being a “selfish social climber.”

SEE ALSO NOTE 28 ABOUT PIER MORGAN’S OBSESSION WITH MEGHAN MARKLE

[45]

THE DAILY MAILHARRY AND MEGHAN HAVE BULLIED THE QUEEN INTO GETTING THEIR WAY: PIERS MORGAN WADES INTO ROW AFTER PALACE STATEMENT13 JANUARY 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7882959/Harry-Meghan-BULLIED-Queen-getting-way-Piers-Morgan-wades-in.html

TEXT

  • Piers Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it’
  • He was referring to Her Majesty’s message following crisis talks at Sandringham
  • It confirmed the couple would step down but referred to ‘period of transition’
  • Mr Morgan said Harry and Meghan were holding the Queen to ransom 
  • Said the pair wanted to have their cake and ‘eat it will all of the royal trimmings’ 

Piers Morgan has claimed that Harry and Meghan have ‘bullied’ the Queen into getting their way after crisis talks today at Sandringham over the Sussexes’ future.

Wading into the row following the Queen’s historic confirmation that the pair would step down, Mr Morgan tweeted: ‘Harry/Meghan have successfully bullied the Queen into letting them have their cake & eat it.’ 

He also claimed that the couple were ‘having their cake and eating it with all the royal trimmings’. 

The Queen said Meghan and Harry would step back as senior royals and split their time between Canada and the UK, but clouded how they would achieve their notion of financial independence.

The statement came after a summit at Sandringham between the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry.

Mr Morgan’s suggestion that the couple ‘bullied’ the Queen follows claims published on Monday that it was in fact the elder brother William who had bullied Harry and Meghan. 

Mr Morgan, who has made plain his views on the Duchess of Sussex in recent days, did not mince his words this evening, accusing Meghan and Harry of bullying the monarch

The Times claimed that Meghan told Harry she must step away from the Royal Family just 20 months after marrying into it, partly blaming William’s ‘bullying attitude’ and told her husband over Christmas: ‘It’s not working for me’. 

But hitting back before the Sandringham talks Harry and William slammed the ‘false story’, adding: ‘For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful’. 

Mr Morgan made plain his views on the Sussexes this morning on ITV, saying: ‘The Queen’s just had to fire her middle son, her 98-year-old husband is very sick and these two little spoiled brats are holding her to ransom at the worst moment.

‘If they want to leave after 18 months then that’s fine,’ he said before speaking directly to Meghan: ‘I always thought you’d do this anyway. You quit your friends, you quit your dad, and you quit your jobs.’

He added: ‘She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead. She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother.’ 

Speaking on Australian TV, he added that Meghan was ‘pretty ruthless’, as he highlighted her ‘ghosting him’.

‘It really cemented in me a feeling that Meghan Markle is not quite what she seems,’ he told the show on Tuesday morning.

[46]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

[47]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” 

[47]QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY, MEGHAN/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTYASTRID ESSED14 JANUARY 2020
https://www.astridessed.nl/queen-supportive-of-harry-and-meghans-new-life-well-done-your-majesty/

[48]

THE NEW YORK TIMESRABLOID HACK ATTACK ROYALS AND BEYOND
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s  biggest tabloids, News of the World.

The stories were banal enough (Prince William pulled a tendon in his knee, one revealed). But the royal aides were puzzled as to how News of the World had gotten the information, which was known among only a small, discreet circle. They began to suspect that someone was eavesdropping on their private conversations.

By early January 2006, Scotland Yard had confirmed their suspicions. An unambiguous trail led to Clive Goodman, the News of the World reporter who covered the royal family, and to a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who also worked for the paper. The two men had somehow obtained the PIN codes needed to access

Scotland Yard told the aides to continue operating as usual while it pursued the investigation, which included surveillance of the suspects’ phones. A few months later, the inquiry took a remarkable turn as the reporter and the private investigator chased a story about Prince William’s younger brother, Harry, visiting a strip club. Another tabloid, The Sun, had trumpeted its scoop on the episode with the immortal: “Harry Buried Face in Margo’s Mega-Boobs. Stripper Jiggled . . . Prince Giggled.” 

As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.

The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne. The eavesdropping could not have gone higher inside the royal family, since Prince Charles and the queen were hardly regular mobile-phone users. But it seemingly went everywhere else in British society. Scotland Yard collected evidence indicating that reporters at News of the World might have hacked the phone messages of hundreds of celebrities, government officials, soccer stars — anyone whose personal secrets could be tabloid fodder. Only now, more than four years later, are most of them beginning to find out.

  • You have 3 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

AS OF THIS SUMMER, five people have filed lawsuits accusing News Group Newspapers, a division of Rupert Murdoch’s publishing empire that includes News of the World, of breaking into their voice mail. Additional cases are being prepared, including one seeking a judicial review of Scotland Yard’s handling of the investigation. The litigation is beginning to expose just how far the hacking went, something that Scotland Yard did not do. In fact, an examination based on police records, court documents and interviews with investigators and reporters shows that Britain’s revered police agency failed to pursue leads suggesting that one of the country’s most powerful newspapers was routinely listening in on its citizens.

The police had seized files from Mulcaire’s home in 2006 that contained several thousand mobile phone numbers of potential hacking victims and 91 mobile phone PIN codes. Scotland Yard even had a recording of Mulcaire walking one journalist — who may have worked at yet another tabloid — step by step through the hacking of a soccer official’s voice mail, according to a copy of the tape. But Scotland Yard focused almost exclusively on the royals case, which culminated with the imprisonment of Mulcaire and Goodman. When police officials presented evidence to prosecutors, they didn’t discuss crucial clues that the two men may not have been alone in hacking the voice mail messages of story targets.

“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World. Police officials have defended their investigation, noting that their duties did not extend to monitoring the media. In a statement, the police said they followed the lines of inquiry “likely to produce the best evidence” and that the charges that were brought “appropriately represented the criminality uncovered.” The statement added, “This was a complex inquiry and led to one of the first prosecutions of its kind.” Officials also have noted that the department had more pressing priorities at the time, including several terrorism cases.[49]
”According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. ”
ROYALFOIBLES.COMKATE’S DILEMMA
https://www.royalfoibles.com/kates-dilemma/

TEXT


By now the world has long since heard the news that Britain’s most famously grumpy infant won’t be hogging the spotlight much longer as his parents will soon be welcoming a new edition to their family. The author is of course referring to the announcement made earlier this week that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant with her second child. The irony of this announcement is that it was made under the same circumstances as news of Her Royal Highness’ first pregnancy was divulged to the general public: i.e. because the Duchess was overcome by such a severe case of Hyperemesis Gravidarum, more commonly known as morning sickness, that she was forced to cancel several public engagements while being treated by doctors at Kensington Palace. Kate’s ill health also forced the Palace to announce her pregnancy sooner than the expectant mother, her husband, in-laws and their retainers would’ve liked. Far be it from the author to cast a shadow on this otherwise happy event, but he can’t help but wonder if the Duchess’ latest bout of severe, briefly debilitating morning sickness is but the latest sign of the long held rumor that HRH, like her late mother-in-law, suffers from at least one on going, and increasingly severe, eating disorder. After all, many a medical expert interviewed on American television at the time of Kate’s first pregnancy announcement stated categorically that one of the leading causes of Hyperemesis Gravidarum is dehydration resulting from the expectant mother being under weight. Reoccurring bouts of Bulimia, and certainly Anorexia Nervosa, can lead to an expectant mother being dangerously thin. Before the author continues, he would like to make it clear to his online community, as he always does concerning posts of this nature, that he’s engaging in nothing more than idle speculation. After all, libel is an all too real legal concept that has a funny way of seeking out and striking even the most deliberately anonymous of Internet bloggers. With that caveat stated, the author can’t help but notice certain cracks that are continually forming in the Duchess of Cambridge’s painstakingly well crafted public facade.

No one can under estimate the kind of pressure that Her Royal Highness has been subjected to from the moment she officially became a member of the Royal Family. Even during her engagement it was noticed by the more discerning of royal commentators that her weight perceptibly dropped in the weeks leading up to her wedding. By the time her father walked her down the aisle at Westminster Abbey she’d morphed into a literal stick figure and, despite the handful of pounds she gained during her first pregnancy, she’s remained one ever since. Photos of the Duchess of Cambridge in her current manifestation are particularly striking when compared to those taken of her at the time her relationship with Prince William began while they were undergraduates at Scotland’s University of St. Andrew’s. While certainly a young woman whose frame could be described as naturally thin, Kate Middleton’s appearance possessed a genuine healthiness back then that all but disappeared as her royal courtship progressed.

There’s no shortage of rumors concerning why Kate’s physical transformation came to pass. One aspect of these stories that many of them have in common is that Kate’s weight decreased in direct proportion to her increasing desperation to marry Britain’s heir presumptive. While no one doubts that Prince William fell madly in love with Kate while they were both in college, by the the time he was studying to become a pilot at Sandhurst his feelings are alleged to have noticeably cooled, while his roving eye led him to the first of several dalliances with other women that occurred during his prolonged courtship. In fact, there are many who believe that one of the reasons why his relationship with Ms. Middleton was so prolonged was because he relished his bachelor status, and the freedom to date other women that came with it, too much to settle into marriage. While never the serial philanderer that both his father and grandfather have undoubtedly been, it’s long been whispered that His Royal Highness was no stranger to other women throughout the greater part of his courtship with Ms. Middleton. These same whisperers have also made it clear, however, that William always returned to Kate’s patiently waiting arms after every brief affair, and the two of them would continue on as if nothing had happened. The author has been given two explanations for this.

The first is that His Royal Highness, as an enabled, pampered young man who prefers security and routine over risk and adventure, preferred to have a long term, official girlfriend whom he could parade before the tabloid press, would love and trust above all other women, and eventually marry; but none the less would sow his wild oats behind her back while she stoically awaited his inevitable marriage proposal. While there were other contenders for the role of William’s conjugal nanny/long suffering girlfriend/eventual wife and consort, none had the endurance or palace backing of Kate Middleton.

This leads one to the second alleged reason why William always reunited with the girlfriend the tabloid press eventually dubbed “Waity Katy.” It’s never been a secret among royal insiders that from the moment the late Diana, Princess of Wales perished in a car crash, her ex-husband’s courtiers were desperate for William’s future bride to be his mother’s more level headed, more Royal Court compliant and more humbly born replacement. After all, who better to succeed the so called “People’s Princess” than a glamorous, well educated, and naturally graceful young woman who was a genuine commoner born of the people, or at least more of the people than the former Lady Diana Spencer had ever been? It’s said the Prince of Wales’ advisors at Clarence House specifically became sold on the idea of Kate Middleton one day becoming Prince William’s bride, or at the very least Prince William’s future bride being a young lady as similar to Kate Middleton as possible, when they became aware that she almost single handedly talked him out of dropping out of college, and could more than likely be relied upon to convince the British throne’s heir presumptive to abandon his long term plan to eventually abdicate his succession rights.

Many a royal watcher, journalist, and courtier is aware that His Royal Highness, unlike his father, has never relished his destiny as Britain’s future king. While it’s rumored that he’s resigned himself to his fate more and more as the years have passed, he’s still said to find his royal duties more a burden than anything else, and the main reason why he’s been allowed to return to his career as a search and rescue/ambulance pilot is because of the abject misery he’s expressed behind palace walls at the prospect of whiling away his youth at public engagements that bore him to tears. Although the Queen’s court at Buckingham Palace initially rejected the idea of Kate Middleton becoming William’s spouse because of her lack of aristocratic birth, they were always in agreement with Prince Charles’ Clarence House staff that a loving and supportive spouse, who was on their side, was the key to Prince William accepting his destiny. They eventually realized that if Kate Middleton was the only woman who seemed able to fulfill that task, then so be it.

In the meantime, as the combined pressures of maintaining a relationship with her privately mercurial boyfriend increased with the prospect of her becoming Diana 2.0, Kate appears to have developed a case of body dysmorphia that haunts her to this day. One of the many ironies of the Duchess of Cambridge being the designated torch bearer of Diana’s legacy is that she appears to have taken on at least one of her late mother-in-law’s coping mechanisms to deal with the predicament of being married to Britain’s future king.

One may wonder, as many have, what lies beneath Kate’s seemingly plastered on smile and her outwardly friendly public demeanor. According to more than one source, not much. “Dull as paint” is an expression that’s been used to describe Her Royal Highness by one of her acquaintances that’s been friendly with her since college. Several among their social friends have also stated that the Duke and Duchess compliment each other precisely because their tastes are somewhat juvenile and neither of them are intellectuals. All in all, Kate gives the impression of being a modestly intelligent, genuinely selfless and utterly devoted young woman whose more than willing to sacrifice her needs for the happiness of those she loves most, chief among them obviously being her husband. While someone with a stronger disposition might be able to take this predicament in their stride, Her Royal Highness’ latest bout of ill health at the outset of her latest pregnancy indicates otherwise.

While many have presumed since the ordeal of Charles and Diana’s divorce and Diana’s tragic, early death that the Palace has modernized some of its more ossified practices vis a vis how the courtiers and Royal Family deal with their newly arrived in-laws, the seemingly blasé manner in which the Palace has handled the Duchess’ latest health crisis, coupled with the seemingly unconcerned manner in which her husband and his family have cheerfully gone about their public engagements since the announcement that Kate’s expecting leads one to deduce that little has changed regarding the Palace’s internal practices. The author more than concedes that royal engagements are what they are, and the traveling Windsor show must go on regardless of what’s going on within its members’ private lives, but one doubts anyone would’ve begrudged Prince William’s absence from the opening ceremonies of the Invictus Games, least of all Prince Harry, who organized them, so that he could spend as much time as possible next to his especially delicate wife. Through his smilingly unbothered demeanor in public, Prince William is giving the message that his wife vomiting herself into near delirium every time she gets knocked up is nothing to get concerned about. He’s not worried, so no one else should be. As far as the Buckingham Palace press office is concerned, that’s probably the point.

There are, however, several silver linings to this latest chapter in Kate’s life, chief among them being that, with William being allowed to resume his military career, he and his wife have been given the all clear to make their country estate, Anmer Hall, their primary residence. As the author predicted in his first post concerning the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate definitely didn’t take to the stultifying and Victorian atmosphere of Princess Margaret’s former apartment at Kensington Palace, where she was observed and scrutinized almost as much behind palace walls as she was in public. According to a recent article about her in the Daily Telegraph, which reported on her “baby making plans” shortly before it was publicly divulged that she’s pregnant and seems lately to be surpassing the Daily Mail as the Palace’s preferred organ for press leaks, it’s Kate’s genuine wish to have a third child before she’s 35. Her move to a new primary residence, according to the article, is central to her plans. Perhaps while ensconced in the country, Kate will be able too seek treatment away from prying eyes for what is becoming an increasingly obvious health problem. Otherwise, there may never be a third Cambridge child.

EXPRESS

KATE MIDDLETON BODY LANGUAGE: HOW ”WAITY KATY” TRANSFORMED INTO ”DRIVEN” DUCHESS

5 NOVEMBER 2019

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1199874/kate-middleton-body-language-transformation-prince-william-royal-family-news

TEXT

KATE, DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE is an established member of the British Royal Family but she hasn’t always been the confident figure she is today. Here’s how the popular royal went from “waity-Katie” to the driven Duchess she is now.

Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, 37 married Prince William, 37, in 2011 and has become a much-loved member of the British Royal Family. Kate and William met at university and were officially an item by the time they graduated in 2005. Once a shy student Kate has transformed into a driven and charismatic future Queen consort. 

One royal source claimed it has taken Kate several years to become comfortable in her royal role but now there is no stopping the diligent Duchess.Before Prince William and Kate tied the knot she was branded work shy by critics who claimed after graduating she seemed to be waiting around for William to propose instead of pursuing her own career.

However, since then Kate has proven her critics wrong and is among the most industrious members of the younger royals.

A royal source has claimed Kate has grown into herself and matured into her role.

They told Fabulous Magazine: “Like the finest of wines, she has taken years to mature to perfection, but the woman you see today has no peers on the global stage.”“What people are seeing now is a confident, driven woman with a purpose.

For the first time in her life, Kate knows where she is going and has the self-belief to get there under her own steam.”

Nearly two decades since he and William first met, Kate’s body language has dramatically changed.

The source said: “Back then she was full of self-doubt, despite all her assets.“These days she’s a force to be reckoned with.”

Kate has always been admired for her incredible figure and famously caught William’s eye on the catwalk at a university fashion show.

But it has taken the mum-of-three years to feel at home in her body.

Following the Cambridges recent tour of Pakistan, the Duchess has been praised for the ease with which she handles royal engagements.Vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and political author, Sir Anthony Seldon told the Sun: “Kate has that rare ability, possessed by very few people, of being able to talk and relate to those of different ages, backgrounds and ethnicities.”

He added: “It’s a magical talent that is infinitely precious and you either have it in life or you don’t.

“Most people don’t, but Kate does.”

According to Palace insiders, Kate is as popular within The Firm as she is with the general public and her no-fuss approach to royal duty is a hit with her grandmother-in-law, the Queen.

Kate’s ability to juggle motherhood with a packed schedule of royal engagements puts her in good stead as future Queen Consort.

The insider added: “The Queen is not one for platitudes, so when she gives a compliment you know she means it.

“She has been extremely impressed by the Duchess of Cambridge’s ability to keep several balls in the air at once.

“Never before has a royal of the Duchess’ standing taken such a hands-on role in raising a future king – and don’t forget that is George’s destiny. It has traditionally been left to nannies and governesses.“Catherine seems to thrive on the workload.”

[50]

”If she does anything remotely normal, she besmirches the majesty of her office; if she looks at all grand, she’s got ideas above her station. The norms of the lowest-grade analysis – know thy place, woman, keep your eyes down – have permeated the rubric. Respectable news outlets find themselves wondering what the devil she thinks she’s doing, meeting her friends in an upscale hotel. People who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an expensive handbag.

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.”THE GUARDIANWHATEVER MEGHAN DOES, SHE IS DAMNED.LET US NOT REPEAT HISTORYZOE WILLIAMS
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-damned-hate-figure

[51]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DOASTRID ESSED2 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-sue-tabloid-prince-harry-defending-his-wife-the-only-honourable-thing-to-do/

[52]
THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS 
https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Smear campaign against Meghan Markle with racist undertones/Some dirty examples

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Queen supportive of Harry and Meghan’s new life/Well done, Your Majesty!

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

QUEEN SUPPORTIVE OF HARRY AND MEGHAN’S NEW LIFE/WELL DONE, YOUR MAJESTY!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51099102

WHAT WENT BEFORE
What I more or less predicted, has happened  now.The smearcampaign against Meghan Markle, orchestrated by the British tabloids, or parts of it, has reached unbearable heights.For I am convinced that it is that, what drove the young royal couple I cheered on from the beginning [1], Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex, partially out of England. [2]More about that soon.

SMEAR CAMPAIGN
From the moment, it was made known, that Prince Harry was seriously interested in Meghan Markle, a repulsive smear campaign started, on which Prince Harry reacted as any honourable man would do, declaring:”Yes, I am with Meghan and I want to protect her!I admired him for this.
He reacted so strongly, because that smear campaign was there from the beginning.Now I admit, that royal people and people, who are married/engaged with them, are mostly subject to smear and gossip, but this smear campaign had and still has a racist underton.And that’s NOT mere speculation from my sideI quote from the official statement of Prince Harry, in 2016, when they were newly engaged:Read with me:”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces; and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments. Some of it has been hidden from the public – the nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of papers; [3]

The couple married [4] and it was a great social happening, people, including my person [5] cheered them on, they were popular with the people, a beautiful son was born to them [6], but the hatint tabloid press continued.The more painful for Prince Harry, since he lost his mother, Princess Diana, whom I valued for her struggle against landmines [7], by the work of the paparazzi [8], and later Prince Harry would refer to this fear, now in connection with his wife. [9]

SMEAR CAMPAIGN CONTINUEDNO RACIST ELEMENTS?/NONSENSE!
There has been claimed at several occasions, also by the Home Secretary Priti Patel, that Meghan Markle did not face any racist press coverage. [10]I dare to doubt about that, friendly said.
Because: If there are no racist elements, how does it explain, that a BBC reporter was fired, calling newborn baby Lord Archie a ”chimpanzee?” [11]Is that racist or not!And then of course Prince Harry’s statement [mentioned above] about the racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle! [12]
The view, that Meghan Markle was subject to racist press coverage was also shared by some prominent black  Britons. [13]
ENOUGH IS ENOUGHDUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX SUED TABLOID!

They were warned already by Prince Harry [14], but went on merrily with their smearcampaign!Untill enough was enough!
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle finally saw no other options than to sue the Mail on Sunday for publishing a handwritten letter Meghan Markle had sent to her estranged father [estranged is the word chosen by newspaper the Guardian, not by me] [15]I suppose that was the limit!
Prince Harry was clearly furious and and compared the treatment of Meghan tothe press  coverage of his mother, Princess Diana.Furtherly he said his “deepest fear was history repeating itself”, referring to the tragedy of his mother, Princess Diana [16]
I think it a very good point, defending his wife like that.The only honourable thing a true husband should do.
Then also my modest person had enough of it and wrote some posts and an article to the defense of Prince Harry and especially Meghan Markle! [17]

PETITION TO STRIP THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX FROM THEIR ROYAL TITLES/BUT THE HATERS DIDNOT WIN!
Two months later, in december 2019, I felt myself obliged to defend the Duke and Duchess of Sussex again, now about a petition, which had been started by a Brighton citizen, Charles Ross, to strip Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from their royal titles ”’Duke and Duchess of Sussex” 
This was the text of the petition
””We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” [18]
Although it seemed that the nature of the petition was of republicans or/and social radicals, yet I had and have the suspicion that in reality the real motives were racist, given the whole smearcampaign against Meghan Markle.Then, according to me, this petition didn’t come out of the blue and was NO coincidence!
And therefore, because I thought it was that racist smearcampaign against Meghan Markle again, I wrote a letter to the Council of Brighton, which debated the petition, to prevent them from possibly stripping the titles.
See my letter under note 19
And guess what Readers?
I got a nice mail back from the Council of Brighton, in which they explained, that they had no power to remove royal titles and voted to simply ”note” the petition
See for the mail of the Council under note 20

AND NOW:PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS
To the surprise of many -among them my modest person- Prince Harry and his wife Meghan made a statement, they would step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independentIn a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.  [21]
In their Instagram statement  is to be read:
””After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”” [22]

QUEEN’S REACTION ON THE PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN STATEMENT:

It became obvious the Queen was not consulted about this and soon the first reaction of Buckingham Palace came:

“Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage.”We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.” [23]
I feel it must have been an unpleasant shock to the Queen.Sensational as it may seem to the public, it concerns her grandson and his wife and yet apart from a changed role within the Royal Family, living abroad also means, that she will seeless of  her greatgrandson she was so delighted to welcome [24]
However:To me, modest person, it was a dismay.The first thing I thought was:
NOThose haters have won anyway, although they don’t, as the story will tell.
Otherwise said:I am nearly convinced, that the racist attitude of most of the tabloid press is the reason Prince Harry and Meghan Markle took these step and that is a horrific thought.Not fair!
The Guardian/Observer thinks they stepped out because of the burden of monarchy [25] and that may be one of the reasons, but I agree with some prominent black Britons, who spoke out, I am of the opinion, that racism played. alas, the main part. [26]
WHAT A SHAME!IN 2020!
Hugh problem with many racist press attacks is, that it not always shows itself as classical racism [ape, nigger, etc], but it are the continuin, covered ”undertone”, as Prince Harry rightly pointed out. [27]
Definitely there is a smear campaign against Meghan Markle [28], since every step she sets is followed in a negative sense, there is lot of gossip, often nonsense, to my view, because nothing can be proven, but the fact remains:Why watching every step of Meghan, when there are more royals to gossip about?Why denying racism, when her and Prince Harry’s son was compared with a chimpanzee by some now fired BBC reporter? [29]Why the nonsense referring to the former ”dreadlocks” of Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland, when there is no racism?
THE QUEEN’S SUPPORT
But:The haters did NOT win!
After announcing their Megxit [HAHAHA], their stepping out of royal duties, the Queen launched a family crisis meetingto discuss the new situation:Present were:The Queen of courseHer husband Prince PhilipThe Prince and Princess of Wales [Heir to the throne Prince Charles, father of Prince William and Harry and their stephmother Camilla]The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge [Prince Harry’s brother Prince William and his wife Kate Middleton]
AND last, but not least,:Prince Harry of course [Meghan Markle left earlier for Canada with their son and would join the meeting per telephone] [30]

AND GUESS WHAT!The Queen gave her support to the step Prince Harry and his wife Meghan are taking
In an announcement she declared:

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.” [31]

WOW!That’s great news after all turmoil!
For them, haters or not, who had hoped to watch a big Family Row, it must be a great disappointment.
For me however and other wellwishers, it is a Great Story.
A Victory of a Family, that faces crisis challenges and grow stronger from it.
That’s good

EPILOGUE
So the haters did NOT win.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain a valued part of the family, as the Queen declared.
And perhaps it is better like this.Tabloid’s pressure is lesser, since the couple is staying partly abroad, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have more freedom to go their own way and raise their son without too much ceremonial pressure, while he keeps in line with his royal heritage and family.
And the good relationship with the Family remains.
I only can wish them, from this place, all the Happiness and Success.
And perhaps, in the future, I defend them again, when necessary

Astrid Essed

NOTES

[1]
PRINCE HARRY AND HIS BRIDE MEGHAN MARKLE/CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEXASTRID ESSED23 MAY 2018
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/

A ROYAL BABY FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX/LORD ARCHIE, WELCOME TO THE WORLD!ASTRID ESSED9 MAY 2019

[2]

BBCPRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS8 JANUARY 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

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.”

They said they plan to balance their time between the UK and North America while “continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages”.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”

‘Major rift’

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the fact palace officials said they were “disappointed” is “pretty strong”.

“I think it indicates a real strength of feeling in the palace tonight – maybe not so much about what has been done but about how it has been done – and the lack of consultation I think will sting.”This is clearly a major rift between Harry and Meghan on one part, and the rest of the Royal Family on the other.”

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said discussions with the duke and duchess on their decision to step back were “at an early stage”, adding: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

Over Christmas, the couple took a six-week break from royal duties to spend some time in Canada with their son, Archie, who was born in May.After returning to the UK on Tuesday, Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, visited Canada’s High Commission in London to thank the country for hosting them and said the warmth and hospitality they received was “unbelievable”.

During the visit, Meghan said it was an “incredible time” to enjoy the “beauty of Canada”.

“To see Archie go ‘ah’ when you walk by, and just see how stunning it is – so it meant a lot to us.”Former actress Meghan lived and worked in Toronto during her time starring in the popular US drama Suits, and she has several Canadian friends.

Close up, it was painfully clear that there were great chunks of the job they simply could not stand.

Both of them appeared to come alive with the crowds. But Harry hated the cameras and was visibly bored by the ceremonial.

And though Meghan was often the consummate professional, at times her impatience with the everyday slog of the role sometimes broke through.

She said she didn’t want to become a voiceless figurehead; but when she raised her voice, she found criticism waiting for her.

They both made their feelings known in the 2019 interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby.

But beyond the detail, what was so shocking was how unhappy they both seemed. The sun-drenched wedding of the year before seemed like a dream; here were two people visibly struggling with their lives and positions.

There are far more questions than answers; what will their new role be? Where will they live, and who will pay for it? What relationship will they have with the rest of the Royal Family?

And there’s the institutional question. What does this mean for the Royal Family?

It comes just a few months after Prince Andrew stepped back from his duties. Some might see this as the slimmed-down monarchy that the 21st century needs.

But Harry and Meghan reached people that other royals didn’t.They were part of the reinvention and refreshing of the institution. This was not the way anyone would have planned its future.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter suggested the decision showed Prince Harry’s “heart ruling his head”.

He told the BBC the “massive press onslaught” when their son Archie was born may have played a part in the decision.

And he compared the move to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 in order to marry twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson.”That is the only other precedent, but there’s been nothing like this in modern times,” Mr Arbiter said.

Asked how being a “part-time” member of the Royal Family might work, Mr Arbiter said he did not know.

“If they’re going to be based in the UK, it means they are going to be doing a lot of flying [with] a big carbon footprint,” he said, adding that this may “raise eyebrows”.

He also questioned how the couple would become financially independent.

“I mean, Harry is not a poor man, but to settle yourself in two different continents, to raise a family, to continue to do your work – how’s the work going to be funded?

“How is their security going to be funded?

“Because they’re still going to have to have security – who’s going to have to pay for this? Where’s the security coming from? Is the Metropolitan Police going to be providing it and if so whether there’s going to be any contribution in covering the security cost?”Mr Arbiter also suggested questions would be raised over why £2.4m of taxpayer’s money was spent on renovating the couple’s home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, if they will now be living elsewhere for some of the year.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said the couple have “considerable savings”, including Harry’s inheritance from Princess Diana’s estate and the money Meghan earned as an actress.

But, asked about whether they might get jobs, he added: “There is a problem for members of the Royal Family – relatively senior ones, even if they say they’re no longer senior – getting jobs, because they are seen to monetise their brand and you run into a whole host of questions about conflict of interest”.

He added that we are now in “wait and see mode” as to whether this new model of being a royal can work – “or if this is really a staging post for them to leave the Royal Family”.

The Prince of Wales pays for the public duties of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate and some of their private costs, out of his Duchy of Cornwall income, which was £21.6m last year.

Accounts from Clarence House show this funding – in the year Meghan officially joined the Royal Family – stood at just over £5m, up 1.8% on 2017-18.

Royal author Penny Junor said she “can’t quite see how it’s going to work”, adding: “I don’t think it’s been properly thought through.””I think it’s extraordinary but also I think it’s rather sad,” she said. “They may not feel they are particularly loved but actually they are very much loved.”

In an ITV documentary last year, Meghan admitted motherhood was a “struggle” due to intense interest from newspapers.

Prince Harry also responded to reports of a rift between him and his brother William, the Duke of Cambridge, by saying they were on “different paths”.

In October, the duchess began legal action against the Mail on Sunday over a claim that it unlawfully published one of her private letters.And the duke also began legal action against the owners of the Sun, the defunct News of the World, and the Daily Mirror, in relation to alleged phone-hacking.

Prince Harry also released a statement, saying: “I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

The duke and duchess moved out of Kensington Palace, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge live, in 2018 to set up their family home in Windsor.

Then last summer, they split from the charity they shared with Prince William and Kate to set up their own charitable projects.The couple’s announcement on Wednesday comes two months after the Duke of York withdrew from public life after a BBC interview about his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in August.

[3]

A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

TEXT

The British Monarchy

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.

[4]

WIKIPEDIAWEDDING OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle

[5]

PRINCE HARRY AND HIS BRIDE MEGHAN MARKLE/CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEXASTRID ESSED23 MAY 2018
https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/

[6]

A ROYAL BABY FOR THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX/LORD ARCHIE, WELCOME TO THE WORLD!ASTRID ESSED9 MAY 2019


YOUTUBE.COM
PRINCE HARRY AFTER MEGHAN GIVES BIRTH TO BOY:”ABSOLUTELY OVER THE MOON”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQHCXzg7v3QTRANSCRIPTION”I am very excited to announce, that Meghan and myself had a baby boy, early this morning, a very healthy boy.Mother and baby are doing incredibly well.It’s been the most amazing experience I can ever possiblyimagine.How any woman does what they do is beyond comprehension,but we are both absolutely thrilled and I am so grateful toall the love and support from everybody out there…it’s absolutely amazing,so this we want to share with everybody…..[INTERVIEWER ASKS ABOUT NAMES FOR THE BABY][PRINCE HARRY]Still thinking about names, yes, the baby is a littleoverdue so we had a little time tothink about it,  butyes, that’s the next step, but for us…seeing you guysin probably two days in time as planned….as a family to have toshow it to you guys …..so one can see the baby.[AT QUESTION OF THE INTERVIEWER]”I haven’t been at many births…this is definitely myfirst birth.It’s amazing, absolutely incredible and as I said,I am so incredibly proudof my wife.And as every father and parent will ever say, your baby is absolutelyamazing, but this little thing is absolutely to die for.So I am just over the moon.Thank you very much guys”END OF THE TOUCHING YOUTUBE FILM

[7]

TOWNANDCOUNTRYMAG.COMWHY PRINCESS DIANA’S FIGHT AGAINST LANDMINES WAS SO REMARKABLE

18 AUGUST 2017

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a12021518/princess-diana-landmines/

BBCDIANA’S SUPPORT WAS ”TURNING POINT” IN LANDMINE BAN EFFORT31 AUGUST 2017

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-41111012

TEXT

The founder of an anti-landmine campaign group says Princess Diana’s support provided a “turning point” in the global effort to ban the devices.

Lou McGrath launched Mines Advisory Group (MAG) with his brother Rae in 1989, from Cockermouth, in Cumbria.

The princess made global headlines in January 1997 when she called for a ban on anti-personnel devices.

She then worked with MAG in the months before her death, on August 31 of that year in a Paris car crash.

Keen to support a global ban, the princess’s representatives had contacted MAG, which led to a meeting at Kensington Palace.

Subsequently, she was in regular contact with the group and acted as a keynote speaker at a London event in June 1997.

Just over three months after her death, 122 governments signed up to the Ottawa Treaty, which aimed to eliminate the production and use of mines.

‘Humanitarian issue’

Speaking on the 20th anniversary of her death, Mr McGrath said: “It was tremendously important [to have her on board]. It was a turning point.

“The voice we had in the campaign brought forward the British government’s resolve in signing up to the treaty and also international governments.

“We’d tried to push forward a ban on the use, production and export [of mines] and it was only when Diana decided to come on board that the British government declared a moratorium.

“We were then able to sign the mine ban treaty, although sadly that was after her death.”

MAG was part of the lobbying coalition International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

The princess’s call for an international ban had seen her attacked by politicians who claimed she was interfering with government policy.

Mr McGrath, though, defended her actions.

He said: “She’d been heavily criticised by MPs for being political, but actually governments of the world had agreed it was a humanitarian issue.

“Without her we couldn’t have brought forward what was the fastest arms control treaty in the world.”

[8]

”On 31 August 1997, Diana died in a car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris while the driver was fleeing the paparazzi.[236] The crash also resulted in the deaths of her companion Dodi Fayed and the driver, Henri Paul, who was the acting security manager of the Hôtel Ritz Paris. Diana’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, survived the crash. The televised funeral, on 6 September, was watched by a British television audience that peaked at 32.10 million, which was one of the United Kingdom’s highest viewing figures ever. Millions more watched the event around the world

WIKIPEDIA

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES/DEATH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Death

ORIGINAL SOURCE

WIKIPEDIA

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

[9]

”Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

THE GUARDIAN

PUT SIMPLY, IT IS BULLYING: ”PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.

Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.

It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.

For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.

This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.

There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.

We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it. 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media  

[10]

DAILY MAIL

HOME SECRETARY PRITI PATEL DISSMISSES CLAIMS THAT MEGHAN MARKLE HAS FACED RACIST PRESS COVERAGE AND SAYS PEOPLE OF ANY BACKGROUND CAN ”GET ON IN LIFE” IN BRITAIN

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7881127/Priti-Patel-dismisses-claims-Meghan-faced-racist-press-coverage.html

TEXT

Priti Patel has rubbished claims that Meghan Markle has faced racist press coverage and insisted people of any background can ‘get on in life’ in Britain. 

The Home Secretary today rejected suggestions that racism has driven negative media reports about the Duchess of Sussex saying she had not seen ‘things of that nature.’

Ms Patel’s comments come as senior royals race to thrash out plans for Prince Harry and Meghan’s future following the couple’s bombshell announcement that they plan to ‘step back’ as senior royals. 

The Cabinet minister has been drawn into the row as she will need to be involved in the decision on the future of their taxpayer funded security – said to be between £600,000 to £1million a year – if they take part in fewer royal events.

In November 2016, Harry lashed out at the ‘wave of abuse and harassment’ the US actress had faced from the media – citing the ‘racial undertones of comment pieces’ among his concerns.

Ms Patel, speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, said: ‘I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all. 

‘I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.’

Asked if the media had been in any way racist, she replied: ‘I don’t think so, no… I certainly haven’t seen that through any debates or commentary or things of that nature.’

Slashing the Royal security arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be part of the negotiations at today’s crunch ‘Sandringham Summit’, 

Sources told the Mail On Sunday that Security Minister Brandon Lewis and Ms Patel have stressed the importance of continued – if reduced – protection for the pair. 

Yet the couple may have their security downgraded with protection squad officers armed only with tasers instead of guns.

The ‘range of possibilities’ have been drawn up by royal courtiers and government officials for the QueenWilliamCharles and Harry to review, according to The Sunday Times.

One Whitehall insider said: ‘Look at the terror threat, look at the rise of Right-wing extremists and look at who has been jailed already for what threats. 

‘There is no way the UK will turn their back on Harry and Meghan, but things will certainly have to be reviewed.’

Ms Patel refused to comment on security arrangements, adding: ‘I’m not going to provide any detailed information on the security arrangements for either them or any members of the royal family or for any protected individuals – that’s thoroughly inappropriate for me to do so.

‘At this moment in time, right now, the royal family themselves need some time and space for them to work through the current issues that they’re dealing with.’   

Earlier today Piers Morgan became embroiled in a row on Good Morning Britain over whether the couple’s treatment in the media has been fair.

Former Labour advisor Ayesha Hazarika said she believed Meghan had been the victim of racism, adding: ‘As a very successful white man you will not have experienced what other people will have experienced in their life. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.’   

Piers hit back demanding examples of actual racism, insisting that Meghan had in fact been protected from the worst of the press unlike Princess Diana or Camilla.

Ms Hazarika suggested Piers held a grudge against Meghan after the Duchess appeared to cut off any contact with him a day after meeting Prince Harry – something that ‘clouded his judgement’.

Ms Hazarika said: ‘I get rejection is hard but what has Meghan done to you.’

Piers replied: ‘I believe when people show you who they are believe them. She disowned her entire family apart from her mother. Harry’s never met his father-in-law, she’s ditched her old friends who got cut dead.

‘She’s split up those boys, Harry from his brother. Where is the racism? You can’t just say it’s racism.’

At the beginning of the show, Piers launched into an excoriating rant accusing the pair of ‘holding the Queen to ransom” and ‘literally breaking up the Royal family’ ahead of a crisis summit at Sandringham today.

The Good Morning Britain host launched into the ten-minute tirade calling the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ‘spoiled brats’ and who ‘want to be global superstars’ instead of fulfilling their ‘taxpayer funded royal duties’.    

[11]

”The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

TEXT

The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

The BBC 5 Live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess’s racial heritage.

Baker claimed it was a “stupid gag”.

The 61-year-old presented a Saturday morning show on the network.

The corporation said Baker’s tweet “goes against the values we as a station aim to embody”.

It added: “Danny’s a brilliant broadcaster but will no longer be presenting a weekly show with us.”

His comment about red sauce references the Sausage Sandwich Game from his 5 Live show, in which listeners choose what type of sauce a celebrity would choose to eat.

After tweeting an apology, in which he called the tweet a “stupid unthinking gag pic”, Baker said the BBC’s decision “was a masterclass of pompous faux-gravity”.

“[It] took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah,” he added. “Literally threw me under the bus. Could hear the suits’ knees knocking.”

Harry and Meghan, whose mother Doria Ragland is African American, revealed on Wednesday their new son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

After the initial backlash on social media on Wednesday, Baker said: “Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

‘Enormous mistake’

“Soon as those good enough to point out its possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that’s it.”

In a later tweet, he added: “Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own. It’s a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque.

“Anyway, here’s to ya Archie, Sorry mate.”Speaking to reporters outside his home, he said of the tweet: “Ill advised, ill thought-out and stupid, but racist? No, I’m aware how delicate that imagery is.”

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: “I think somebody told him, ‘What you’ve tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.’

“Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn’t really an apology. I don’t think it’s right and I think subsequently what’s happened is correct.”

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was “genuinely gobsmacked” by the tweet.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

“You can’t just say sorry and then carry on like it’s business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out.”

Prompt action

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: “A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff,” she told Radio 4.

His tweet was “foolish”, she said, adding: “Never mind that it’s royalty.”The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I’m glad that prompt action has been taken, and let’s hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this.”

Baker’s Saturday Morning show on BBC Radio 5 Live won him a Sony Gold award for Speech Radio Personality of the Year in 2011, 2012 and 2014 and a Gold Award for entertainment show of the year in 2013.

His irrepressible style made him one of the most popular radio presenters of his generation and saw him described by one writer as the “ultimate geezer”.

Baker was also a successful magazine journalist, scriptwriter and TV documentary maker.

He wrote a number of TV shows including Pets Win Prizes and Win, Lose or Draw and, in 1990, The Game, a series about an amateur soccer team in east London.

A stint at BBC London station GLR in the late ’80s saw him strike up an enduring friendship with fellow broadcaster Chris Evans, and Baker would later write scripts for the Channel 4 show TFI Friday, which Evans hosted.

Controversial comments

It’s the second time Baker has been axed by 5 Live and is the third time he has left the BBC.

In 1997, he was fired for encouraging football fans to make a referee’s life hell after the official had awarded a controversial penalty in an FA Cup tie.

He later claimed he had never incited fans to attack the referee, only that he would have understood if they had.

In 2012, two weeks before he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, he was was back in the news after an on-air rant in which he resigned and branded his bosses at BBC London “pinheaded weasels“. The outburst came after Baker had been asked to move from a weekday programme to a weekend.In 2016, Baker took part on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here but was the first person to be voted off in the series.

[12]A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

TEXT

The British Monarchy

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.

[13]

”Black comedian Gina Yashere said ‘every black person knew this was coming’ because Meghan had faced ‘constant racist vitriolic abuse disguised as criticism’.

DAILY MAIL

RACISM DROVE MEGHAN MARKLE OUT OF BRTAIN,SAY  PROMINENT BLACK BRITONS, INCLUDING LABOUR LEADERSHIP CONTENDER CLIVE LEWIS

10 JANUARY 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7874815/Racism-drove-Meghan-Markle-Britain-say-prominent-black-Britons.html

THE HUFFINGTON POST

WHY BLACK PEOPLE THINK RACISM DROVE MEGHAN AND HARRY TO QUIT THE ROYAL FAMILY

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/racism-meghan-harry-stand-down_uk_5e17138dc5b6b32c72bdeba2

[14] 

SEE NOTES 3 AND 12

[15]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”

THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

[16]

SEE ABOUT PRINCE HARRY’S ”DEEPEST FEAR”, THE TRAGEDY OF HIS MOTHER, NOTE 8

”Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”

PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA

PUT SIMPLY, IT IS BULLYING: ”PRINCE HARRY’S FULL STATEMENT ON THE MEDIA

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media

TEXT

As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting. We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more.

Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son.

There is a human cost to this relentless propaganda, specifically when it is knowingly false and malicious, and though we have continued to put on a brave face – as so many of you can relate to – I cannot begin to describe how painful it has been. Because in today’s digital age, press fabrications are repurposed as truth across the globe. One day’s coverage is no longer tomorrow’s chip-paper.

Up to now, we have been unable to correct the continual misrepresentations – something that these select media outlets have been aware of and have therefore exploited on a daily and sometimes hourly basis.

It is for this reason we are taking legal action, a process that has been many months in the making. The positive coverage of the past week from these same publications exposes the double standards of this specific press pack that has vilified her almost daily for the past nine months; they have been able to create lie after lie at her expense simply because she has not been visible while on maternity leave. She is the same woman she was a year ago on our wedding day, just as she is the same woman you’ve seen on this Africa tour.

For these select media this is a game, and one that we have been unwilling to play from the start. I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.

This particular legal action hinges on one incident in a long and disturbing pattern of behaviour by British tabloid media. The contents of a private letter were published unlawfully in an intentionally destructive manner to manipulate you, the reader, and further the divisive agenda of the media group in question. In addition to their unlawful publication of this private document, they purposely misled you by strategically omitting select paragraphs, specific sentences, and even singular words to mask the lies they had perpetuated for over a year.

There comes a point when the only thing to do is to stand up to this behaviour, because it destroys people and destroys lives. Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people. We all know this isn’t acceptable, at any level. We won’t and can’t believe in a world where there is no accountability for this.

Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person. I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.

We thank you, the public, for your continued support. It is hugely appreciated. Although it may not seem like it, we really need it.

[17]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[18]

SEE HERE THE CONTENT OF THE PETITION/PRINTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING LINK

DAILY MAIL.COM

BRIGHTON COUNCILLORS WILL DISCUSS HARRY AND MEGHAN USING SUSSEX TITLE TODAY AFTER THOUSANDS SIGNED PETITION BRANDING THE HONOURS ”MORALLY WRONG AND DISRESPECTFUL”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

UNDER THE TEXT THE CONTENT OF THE PETITION 

TEXT

Brighton councillors will debate stripping Harry and Meghan of their Sussex titles after thousands signed a petition branding them ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’. 

The petition claims Sussex residents should not have to refer to the royal couple as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the titles are ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. 

Campaigner Charles Ross has accumulated more than 3,800 signatures, which means Brighton and Hove City councillors will have to discuss the motion on Thursday.  

But the council cannot strip the couple of their titles, which are given by the Queen, so the petition calls on officials to stop calling them the Sussexes in council documents. 

The petition reads: ‘We the undersigned petition Brighton & Hove Council to reject the usage of the titles ‘Duke of Sussex’ and ‘Duchess of Sussex’ by the individuals Henry (‘Harry’) Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.

As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.

‘Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain these individuals nor afford them any hospitality or courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.’

The couple were well received on a visit to Sussex last October as they were greeted by huge crowds of well-wishers, with Hove MP Peter Kyle praising them at the time for reflecting Brighton’s diversity and calling them ‘a great example’. 

The petition has been rubbished by royal commentator Robert Jobson, who told the Express: ‘It’s a bit unfair on them – they were there recently and massive crowds turned out.

How the Queen gifted the Sussex titles to Harry and Meghan on their wedding day

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle became the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when they married last year. 

The royal groom’s dukedom is the highest rank in the British peerage and marked his marriage to the actress.

Meghan became the first ever Duchess of Sussex as her new husband was made the first Duke of the county in 175 years and the second in history. 

Harry also received Scottish and Northern Irish titles, becoming the Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel, making Meghan the Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel.

All royal titles are given by the Queen and it was up to the monarch to choose which one to bestow on her grandson and his wife in May 2018. 

Harry’s thoughts on the title would have been taken into account by the Queen in a private discussion between the Prince and his grandmother.

Tradition dictates that royal men receive a title on their wedding.

Prince Augustus Frederick was the first Duke of Sussex. He married twice, but both took place without the consent of the monarch, so neither of his wives could become a ‘Duchess of Sussex’. 

‘The Cambridges don’t live in Cambridge, Prince Charles doesn’t live in Wales…

‘The titles are just ancient titles that are dished out by the Queen at marriage.’

Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, slammed the campaigners’ views, telling the Mirror: ‘We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.

‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.

‘Such a petition shows utter disdain and contempt for The Crown, not to mention copious amounts of disrespect to, and for, the Royal family.’ 

When Mr Ross’s petition campaign launched in September, some residents were not entirely convinced.

Hove resident Liv Seabrook called the petition ‘a waste of council time’ and said it was ‘patently absurd’ to suggest the council could remove royal titles.

Ms Seabrook said: ‘Our city has serious social problems and the council is going to waste time on the sentiment of a disgruntled citizen with nothing better to do than come up with a useless petition.

‘There are financial aspects of the monarchy that can usefully be discussed. I for one can confidently say I have never felt the slightest bit oppressed by the fact that we now have as part of our Royal Family, a Duke and Duchess of Sussex.’

Brighton and Hove City Council said it would not comment until the matter has been discussed by councillors.  

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

Campaigner Charles Ross has accumulated more than 3,800 signatures for his petition (pictured), which means Brighton and Hove City councillors will have to discuss the motion on Thursday

[19]

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCILASTRID ESSED

MY ORIGINAL MAIL TO THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL


Astrid Essed 
To:customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.ukDec 20 at 4:43 AMTO THE COUNCILLORS OF BRIGHTON CITYSubject: Debate about stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their royal titles
Dear Councillors,
Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;
I quote the petition, then give my opinion, why I am fiercely against it:

”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”   [2]

MY OPINION AND REQUEST TO YOU:
When I read this petition thouroughly I see passages that it is ”morally wrong” and ”disrespectful to the County of Sussex”, that Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle use the titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Then I see the following sentence
”As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.”
Then my last sentence quote:
”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”  
Those sentences suggest that those who undersigned the petition and the petition campaigner Charles Ross, are either Republicans or perhaps radical socialists, who want to end unequality in this world and in this case, in England, to begin with the Royal Elite.
That the petitioners are republicans, is confirmed by Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, who remarks [I quote the Daily Mail]”’We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.

‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.” [3]

AS I SEE IT/MY OPINION

Now it may well be, that those petitioners are republicans, who, of course, have a right to their opinion.

After all, the monarchy is a remnant from old times, especially the Middle Ages, when, in the feudal society, the king, with his liegemen, the nobility, had this function of ruling the country and protecting the country against foreign invaders, which functioned well, in this case in England, untill members of the royal branch started to kill each other [4] and other groups like merchants [also called the third class] demanded their position, which, in France, led to the French Revolution, centuries later. [5]

So for a part the monarchy is no more than Folklore, but in my view, most British people still value it and it has a binding function too.

And as far as the petitioners are radical socialists, I agree with them about social injustice, but why taking this on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?

When you want to fight social injustice, take the big multinationals first, which are the heart and bones of capitalism.

ENOUGH ABOUT HISTORY AND SOCIAL STRUGGLE [hahaha]

MEGHAN MARKLE

Because I have a grisly suspicion, that the petition against Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle is NOT about the legitimacy of the monarchy or social injustice, but based on racial issues.

And I don’t say this out of the blue!

Firstly:

Why now?

Why this petition is coming now, since the Queen already granted her grandson and his wife their titles on the occasion of their wedding, nearly two years ago? [6]

That is strange.

And secondly:

You are of course aware of the fact, dear Councillors, that from the beginning, from certain sides [especially parts of the press] there has been a smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which, according to me and many others, is closely connected with the fact, that she is black.

There were some remarks in that direction [7] and at a certain point the smear campaign went that high, that Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, sued the paper Mail on Sunday and Prince Harry launched an attack on the tabloid press. [8]

As I commented then, I admired Prince Harry’s stance, calling it ”the only honourable thing to do. [9]

And now this nonsense again.

It seems like a nasty pattern to me.

EPILOGUE

Councillors, you have just read the reason, why I am very upset by this petition, trying to strip the royal rights from Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle and although it seems that it is only republican or social warrior like motivated, yet I have serious doubts and concerns about it.

I can’t prove it, of course, but seen in the light of the inferior smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which has even resulted in repulsive remarks about her and Prince Harry’s son [10], I fear that this petition is, again a token of racism, direct or indirect, against ms Meghan Markle and that is what I can’t and will not accept!

Therefore I implore you to seriously consider NOT to grant the petitioners and remain loyal to the decision of the Queen to grant her grandson and his wife the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And if you don’t believe me, or disagree with my point of view:

Please ask yourself this question:

Do you think there would have been a similar petition, when it concerned Prince William and his wife ms Kate Middleton?

Do the right thing and don’t grant the petitioners

Kind greetings

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam

The Netherlands

[20]

ANSWER OF THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL ON MY LETTEROn Friday, December 20, 2019, 04:05:50 PM GMT+1, CustomerFeedback <customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Astrid Essed,

Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.

Best regards,

Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council

1st Floor, Hove Town Hall, Norton Road, BN3 3BQ

T  | richard.watson@brighton-hove.gov.uk

We want to improve your customer experience when you contact a council service. Please share your views by completing this survey. It should not take longer than ten minutes to complete. 

Our customer promise to you

We will make it clear how you can contact or access our services |  We will understand and get things done |  We will be clear and treat you with respect  

SEE ALSO

NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!

ASTRID ESSED

21 DECEMBER 2019

[21]

BBC

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN TO STEP BACK AS SENIOR ROYALS

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51040751

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent.

In a statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America.

The BBC understands no other royal – including the Queen or Prince William – was consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.

Senior royals are understood to be “hurt” by the announcement.

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.” 

[22]

STATEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE ON INSTAGRAM ABOUT STEP OUTINSTAGRAMSUSSEXROYAL

https://www.instagram.com/sussexroyal/?utm_source=ig_embed

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.””

SEE ALSO

BBC

IN FULL: THE SUSSEXES STATEMENT AND THE BUCKINGHAM PALACE RESPONSE

8 JANUARY 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51041947

TEXT

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have released a statement saying they intend to step back as senior members of the Royal Family. Here’s that statement in full:

A personal message from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex:

“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.

“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.

“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.

“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.

“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.

“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”

Buckingham Palace responded with a statement saying:

“Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage.

“We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

[23]

OFFICIAL REACTION OF BUCKINGHAM PALACE

https://www.royal.uk/statement-discussions-duke-and-duchess-sussex

The British Monarchy

  

Statement on discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

Published 8 January 2020Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.


[24]
” Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family. ”


YOUTUBE.COM
THE QUEEN’S CHRISTMAS BROADCAST 2019

FULL TEXT OF THE QUEEN’S CHRISTMAS MESSAGE 2019

“As a child, I never imagined that one day a man would walk on the moon. Yet this year we marked the 50th anniversary of the famous Apollo 11 mission.

“As those historic pictures were beamed back to Earth, millions of us sat transfixed to our television screens, as we watched Neil Armstrong taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind – and, indeed, for womankind. It’s a reminder for us all that giant leaps often start with small steps.

“This year we marked another important anniversary: D-Day. On 6th June 1944, some 156,000 British, Canadian and American forces landed in northern France. It was the largest ever seabourne invasion and was delayed due to bad weather.

“I well remember the look of concern on my father’s face. He knew the secret D-Day plans but could of course share that burden with no one.

For the 75th anniversary of that decisive battle, in a true spirit of reconciliation, those who had formally been sworn enemies came together in friendly commemorations either side of the Channel, putting past differences behind them.

“Such reconciliation seldom happens overnight. It takes patience and time to rebuild trust, and progress often comes through small steps.

“Since the end of the Second World War, many charities, groups and organisations have worked to promote peace and unity around the world, bringing together those who have been on opposing sides.

By being willing to put past differences behind us and move forward together, we honour the freedom and democracy once won for us at so great a cost.

“The challenges many people face today may be different to those once faced by my generation, but I have been struck by how new generations have brought a similar sense of purpose to issues such as protecting our environment and our climate.

My family and I are also inspired by the men and women of our emergency services and armed forces; and at Christmas we remember all those on duty at home and abroad, who are helping those in need and keeping us and our families safe and secure.

“Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family.

“Of course, at the heart of the Christmas story lies the birth of a child: a seemingly small and insignificant step overlooked by many in Bethlehem.

“But in time, through his teaching and by his example, Jesus Christ would show the world how small steps taken in faith and in hope can overcome long-held differences and deep-seated divisions to bring harmony and understanding.

“Many of us already try to follow in his footsteps. The path, of course, is not always smooth, and may at times this year have felt quite bumpy, but small steps can make a world of difference.

As Christmas dawned, church congregations around the world joined in singing It Came Upon The Midnight Clear. Like many timeless carols, it speaks not just of the coming of Jesus Christ into a divided world, many years ago, but also of the relevance, even today, of the angel’s message of peace and goodwill.

“It’s a timely reminder of what positive things can be achieved when people set aside past differences and come together in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation. And, as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it’s worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change.

“And so, I wish you all a very happy Christmas.”

SEE ALSO THE LINK

BIRMINGHAM LIVE

THE QUEEN’S 2019 CHRISTMAS SPEECH-FULL TRANSCRIPT AFTER ”BUMPY” YEAR

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/queens-2019-christmas-speech-full-17473756

[25]

THE GUARDIAN

THE OBSERVER VIEW ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN’S DECISION TO STEP BACK FROM ROYAL DUTIES

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/12/observer-editorial-view-on-harry-and-meghan-decision-to-step-back-from-royal-duties

TEXT

The couple’s decision highlights how outdated is the institution they are desperate to escape

‘Is there anyone in the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so…” Prince Harry’s musings in an interview two years ago highlight the bizarre and anachronistic birthright principle that determines the British head of state. As the heir’s spare, Harry does not even have that responsibility to look forward to and now he and his wife, Meghan, have controversially announced that they are taking a step back from their roles as “senior royals”.

The surprise came in the manner and timing of the announcement, not its content. Harry has made little secret about his mixed feelings about being a royal and in recent months the signals have intensified as the excruciating treatment of Meghan by the tabloid press has grown. In the first official announcement that they were a couple in 2016, Harry took the unprecedented step of calling out the racism and sexism prevalent in the press speculation about their relationship. Since their marriage, the media vilification of Meghan has worsened and she is now suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing a private letter to her father. This was always going to fuel more vicious attacks, but with Harry’s memories of his mother’s vile treatment by the press at the front of his mind, who could blame them?

The announcement has clearly caused a rift with Buckingham Palace, but the irony is that their decision is consistent with Prince Charles’s vision of the monarchy. That the heir to the throne sees a slimmed-down royal family as key to its survival is testament to the fact there is no case for carrying on with the monarchy as is. This episode illustrates the tensions inherent in this ludicrously outdated institution that propels people into an important constitutional role purely by accident of birth. The Queen has been an excellent monarch for almost 70 years, but that is down to luck. Like most families, the royals are made up of the good, the bad and the ugly – look no further than the Queen’s middle son, accused of having sex with a teenager. Prince Charles may be no Prince Andrew, but neither is he the Queen: over the years, he has lobbied government ministers over quack causes such as homeopathy, hardly befitting of a future constitutional monarch. It is preposterous that as part of this charade, the British taxpayer ends up subsidising the lifestyles of “working” minor royals.

The Queen’s stature and popularity mean abolition remains a distant prospect. But Harry and Meghan’s announcement should act as the catalyst for the scaling back of this unwieldy institution. Some of its supporters undoubtedly hoped that a mixed-race woman marrying in was the sign of an institution modernising to survive. That it so clearly has not worked instead serves to show that its long-term survival remains in doubt.

The justified criticism of the couple is that they have not gone far enough. They say they want to take a step back and “work towards” financial independence, but they appear to want to keep their substantial income from the Duchy of Cornwall, their rent-free residence, their HRH titles and the perks that come with being royal patrons. This, despite having significant independent wealth, huge earning potential and wanting – understandably – to spend a significant amount of time in North America. It’s a strange halfway house that cannot work: they cannot and should not trade on their status as official royals to generate an income. They must quickly move to break free of the institution altogether, both for their own welfare and to smooth the transition to a monarchy where minor royals are not subsidised by the taxpayer in exchange for cutting ribbons.

The royal family’s survival is contingent on maintaining distance from its subjects. The more they become like us, the weaker the myth that protects them. The more the barriers between public and private break down, the more royals are treated like any other celebrity, the less the institution can sustain itself. King Charles may feel like an inevitability, King William and King George less so.

[26]

DAILY MAIL

RACISM DROVE MEGHAN MARKLE OUT OF BRTAIN,SAY  PROMINENT BLACK BRITONS, INCLUDING LABOUR LEADERSHIP CONTENDER CLIVE LEWIS

10 JANUARY 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7874815/Racism-drove-Meghan-Markle-Britain-say-prominent-black-Britons.html

TEXT

Prominent black Britons and other critics claim the Duchess of Sussex has been driven out of Britain by racism.

Prince Harry has raged about ‘racist’ social media attacks on Meghan, who has a black mother and white father, and said the media published articles with ‘racial undertones’.

Black comedian Gina Yashere said ‘every black person knew this was coming’ because Meghan had faced ‘constant racist vitriolic abuse disguised as criticism’. The New York Times ran a comment piece headlined: ‘Black Britons know why Meghan Markle wants out: It’s the racism.’

Yesterday, Labour leadership contender Clive Lewis – who is mixed race – said: ‘If you look at the racism Meghan Markle has experienced in the British media, then I understand why… it can’t be easy being a royal.’

Speaking on Newsnight, the singer Jamelia said: ‘Every single word used against Meghan Markle is steeped in racism.’

Novelist Sir Philip Pullman described Britain as a ‘foul country’, and tweeted: ‘Of course Meghan Markle is attacked by the British press because she’s black.’

The Huffington Post published an article headlined ‘Why Black People Think Racism Drove Meghan And Harry To Quit The Royal Family’, while in The New York Times, Afua Hirsch, an author on race, said Meghan’s treatment showed that however successful you are in Britain ‘racism will follow you’.

But Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was ‘nonsense’ to suggest the couple were leaving ‘because of racism’. England rugby star Courtney Lawes, who is mixed race, said: ‘Just because she’s black doesn’t mean she was targeted for that reason.’

THE HUFFINGTON POST

WHY BLACK PEOPLE THINK RACISM DROVE MEGHAN AND HARRY TO QUIT THE ROYAL FAMILY

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/racism-meghan-harry-stand-down_uk_5e17138dc5b6b32c72bdeba2

TEXT

“I left the UK because I was so tired of the racism. I can relate to Meghan – North America holds promise for the Duchess like it did for me.”

Mutale Nkonde, a fellow of Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, told HuffPost UK she could relate to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s decision step back from “senior royal” duties in favour of splitting their time between Britain and the US.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex revealed these plans in a bombshell statement on Wednesday night.

The news came after the couple had endured years of relentless scrutiny from parts of the mainstream media – and frequent racist abuse from the public, especially online.

Nkonde, a race and tech expert, continued: “The UK expect members of the establishment to be complicit with British racism and sexism and as a Black woman she faced both.

“Why stay there when Oprah and Gayle are in your circle?”

Anti-racism campaigner Patrick Vernon OBE said he is not surprised that the royal couple decided to step back and also believes the media played a part in that decision.

“I think the media is a key factor,” he said. “You just have to look at the recent treatment of Stomzy – which again raised concerns about racism, despite the fact that he was misquoted.

“The media and other mainstream institutions still have an issue of our visibility and success. When you call racism out you are punished with little support.”

Vernon, who has co-authored a book called 100 Great Black Britons to be published later this year, added: “The impact of racism on our mental wellbeing is still not acknowledged and I guess Meghan and Harry are developing their own solutions: self-care and charitable venture.

“The experience of Meghan clearly reminds us we are millions of lights years from a post-racial Britain.”

In November 2016, Harry took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement about the harassment being experienced by the duchess – his girlfriend at the time – and her relatives.  

Calling for privacy, the statement condemned the “wave of abuse and harassment” aimed at Markle, calling out “the racial undertones of comment pieces and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments”.

Since their wedding, the hounding of the couple by some media outlets has intensified. It recently culminated in the couple launching legal action against The Sun and the Daily Mail.

Reacting to news of the couple’s decision on Wednesday, Marcus Ryder, a media executive producer and diversity champion, tweeted: “My Twitter time-line (full of black journalists) talks about the importance of race in this story. The BBC’s main online story currently does not mention race once.”

He added: “I cannot think of any major UK broadcaster or newspaper who has a royal correspondent who is a person of colour or any who report to a person of colour. (I may be wrong & happy to be corrected). This fact alone influences how this story is reported”

Richard Palmer, royal correspondent at the Daily Express, swiftly replied: “Because it’s not about race and never was. You’re wrong about the ethnic background of journalists certainly in the wider royal press pack. The UK’s black population is 3.3 per cent of the total and, although we could always do better, there is a fairly diverse group.”

But the wider consensus is that this is about race.

Author Bernardine Evaristo echoed the notion that the couple’s decision was fuelled by racist treatment by parts of the British press, writing: “Dear Meghan, my sister, you go and do your thing with your family and get away from the race hate you’ve been subjected to in my country.”

 Evaristo, who last year became the first Black woman to win the prestigious Booker Prize for Fiction, added: “Your cover for September’s #VOGUE shows us who you are and what we stand for.”

Many hailed the couple’s wedding as seminal moment for diversity in Britain – a white prince had married a mixed-raced woman.

But that status presented challenges for the duke and duchess.

In July 2019, at the European premiere of The Lion King, US recording artist Pharrell Williams told Harry and Meghan that their union as a high-profile mixed race couple was “significant for many of us” in “today’s climate”.

The duke and duchess reportedly nodded at Williams’ warm comments.

“Thank you so much. That’s so nice of you to say. […] They don’t make it easy,” Markle replied. Harry echoed her words in the September issue of Vogue magazine.

Andrea Bruce was never optimistic about Meghan and Harry’s marriage changing the establishment’s stance on race. 

“If you value assimilation then their marriage was an important moment for diversity,” she said. “But I don’t feel that an institution that was built literally on the backs of colonised people should be expected to be truly diverse or to care about being diverse.

“What went wrong was that some people maybe expected her entry in to signal a shift in the UK’s historic racism and that just didn’t happen. Instead, she exposed what was already there – racism and bias.”

The 35-year-old account director feels the couple’s decision had a lot to do with racism and hostility from the press and public.

“I think that the monarchy should pay back everything they stole from commonwealth countries and they should provide reparations,” she said. “We can’t look to them to lead diversity or anti-racism.

“Harry has defended his wife and that’s nice to see but the overall premise of the royal family is built on violence and oppression against non-white people.”

Meghan’s experience of racism is only being discussed because of her status as a duchess, added Bruce. “If she was a random woman living in the country, her experience wouldn’t be discussed – but all experiences are worth discussing.”

Yvonne Witter was full of praise for the couple, describing Harry particularly as progressive.

“He has set his priorities above materialism, pomp and ceremony and is creating a future for his family which will circumvent his mum’s fate,” she told HuffPost UK.

The international business consultant and writer said the UK’s political climate has helped legitimise bigotry to the point where racism is “no longer in the closet”.

“I find that people struggle to articulate to me their reasons for hating Meghan. They regurgitate press reports – and when interrogated further about a personal experience, of course, there is no knowledge of who Meghan actually is.

“Political leadership has made it OK to be openly racist – in addition to rhetoric from Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, the Brexit campaign and press reporting on immigration.

“The public get their information from the press. None of us know [Meghan and Harry] personally but the press has shaped opinions. They have been relentless in their reporting which has had racist undertones throughout. Danny Baker felt emboldened to liken the baby to a monkey.”

[27]
”But the past week has seen a line crossed. His girlfriend, Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment. Some of this has been very public – the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces;”

A STATEMENT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY TO PRINCE HARRY
https://www.royal.uk/statement-communications-secretary-prince-harry

[28]
INSIDE EDITIONIS MEGHAN MARKLE THE VICTIM OF A SMEAR CAMPAIGN?3 DECEMBER 2018
https://www.insideedition.com/meghan-markle-victim-smear-campaign-48902

TEXT

A recent surplus of negative stories about Meghan Markle have some wondering whether she is the victim of a smear campaign. 

The Duchess of Sussex reportedly feels like members of the British press are targeting her unfairly, according to Vanity Fair.

Among the string of unflattering stories are reports of a feud between Meghan and her sister-in-law, Kate Middleton. The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, recently reported that Kate was left in tears at a dress fitting for Princess Charlotte before Meghan’s May wedding to Prince Harry. And now, there are claims that Kate reprimanded Meghan after the American actress allegedly snapped at members of Kate’s staff. 

It’s also being reported that Meghan attracted the royals’ ire when she asked for air fresheners to be sprayed in the ancient chapel where she tied the knot with Harry. 

The rumors are so bad that Buckingham Palace took the rare step of issuing a statement about regarding the reported reprimand from Kate, saying succinctly: “This never happened.”

Royal expert Victoria Arbiter told Inside Edition that the sheer number of negative reports is concerning, particularly given Meghan is pregnant with her first child. 

“Given how popular Meghan was, I am surprised that the press have become so negative so quickly,” Arbiter said, casting doubts on the veracity of the reports. “Meghan is not throwing temper tantrums, she’s just an easy target because she’s new and she’s popular.”

She added: “I think it is tricky that this negative press has come at a time when Meghan is probably feeling quite sensitive and vulnerable.”

Former first lady Michelle Obama is offering her own advice to Meghan for dealing with the increased scrutiny.

“Like me, Meghan probably never dreamt that she’d have a life like this, and the pressure you feel — from yourself and from others — can sometimes feel like a lot,” she told the January 2019 issue of Good Housekeeping.”So my biggest piece of advice would be to take some time and don’t be in a hurry to do anything.”
[29]

”The BBC has sacked Danny Baker, saying he showed a “serious error of judgement” over his tweet about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby.

The tweet, which he later deleted but which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: “Royal Baby leaves hospital”.

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET

9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

[30]

QUEEN CALLS MEETING WITH SENIOR ROYALS TO HASH OUT MEGXIT
https://pagesix.com/2020/01/11/queen-calls-meeting-with-senior-royals-to-hash-out-megxit/

TEXT

An official Megxit plan is set to be hashed out on Monday.

Queen ElizabethPrince CharlesPrince William and Prince Harry will meet in person at the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, England, according to Roya Nikkhah, royal correspondent for The Sunday Times.

Meghan Markle plans to join the family affair via phone from Vancouver, Canada, where she and baby Archie are temporarily living after the bombshell announcement that she and Harry will become part-time royals.

“Royal sources say it is hoped the ‘next steps,’ will be agreed tomorrow and a firmer plan is expected to be announced within days, in keeping with the Queen’s wish to find a resolution ‘at pace,’” Nikkhah wrote on Twitter Saturday afternoon.

The Queen gave the fleeing couple a 72-hour deadline on Friday to iron out the details of their reduced role in the monarchy. The British and Canadian governments have since been in talks to carve out a new role for the royals in both countries before the Tuesday deadline, following a marathon of meetings and calls.

Prince Charles is allegedly fighting for a good deal for his youngest son, despite initial reports he was threatening to cut Harry off from the family money. The Queen also has open arms for her grandson and wants to cut a “generous” agreement with him.

“They, like everyone, are hopeful this can all be worked out, sooner rather than later. It is in everyone’s interest for this to be figured out, and figured out quickly, but not at the expense of the outcome,” a source told The Guardian.

The clock to get a plan sorted out is ticking as Thursday quickly approaches, when Harry is set to make his first public appearance since he and Meghan dropped their 

[31]

THE QUEEN’S STATEMENT ON PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE IN FULL:WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM TO REMAIN FULL TIME ROYALS

https://inews.co.uk/news/queen-statement-prince-harry-meghan-markle-full-royal-family-buckingham-palace-sandringham-summit-1363885

“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

“It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

“These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Queen supportive of Harry and Meghan’s new life/Well done, Your Majesty!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

No stripping of Sussex titles of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle/The haters did not win!

NO STRIPPING OF SUSSEX TITLES OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE/THE HATERS DID NOT WIN!

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

WHAT WENT BEFORE:

Dear Readers,
Recently I wrote an indignant letter to the Brighton Council about a petition, which was launched by a man named Charles Ross, with the aim to strip Prince Harry and hsi wife ms Meghan Markle from their titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by the Queen on the occasion of their marriage

SEE THE LETTER
https://www.astridessed.nl/council-will-debate-stripping-meghan-markle-prince-harry-of-sussex-titles-smear-campaign-against-meghan-markle-continued-letter-to-brighton-city-council/
The reasons for the petitions were [I quote]
”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” 
Further there was written
”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.” [1]
So it seems just an uttering of republicanism or cry for social equality, which is the full right of the petitioners, of course. 
But I have the grisly suspicion that those were not the reasons for the petition, but the real reasons were on racial issues, with other words:Because the wife of Prince Harry, ms Meghan Markle, is black.
Of course my assumtion is not out of the blue, but based on a nasty smear campaign against Meghan Markle by parts of the press!
See 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

Not only that:
A repuslive racist remark has been made against ms Meghan Markle and  Prince Harry’s son, Lord Archibald Harrison!

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

LETTER TO THE COUNCIL OF BRIGHTON AND ANSWER 
So I wrote the Council of Brighton about this matter of the petition, since I had learntthat the Councillors would debate the question of stripping the royal titles from Meghan Markle and Prince Harry and I did them the request NOT to grant those petitioners!

To my delight I received an answer of the Council within a short time with the announcement that it was not in their power to decide about the matter and that they voted to simply ”note” the petition
See their answer here
”Dear Astrid Essed,

Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.

Best regards,

Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council

I was, of course, delighted about their reaction and wrote them back to mention that. 

Since I want to share that with you, readers, below [under note 1], fiirstly the reaction of the Council [in email], then my answer and below my initianal mail to the Council

ENJOY READING

Astrid Essed

[1]
BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL

REJECTION OF THE USAGE OF THE TERMS ”DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX”
https://phantom.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=639

Rejection Of The Usage of the terms ‘Duke and Duchess of Sussex”

We the undersigned petition Brighton & Hove Council to reject the usage of the titles “Duke of Sussex” and “Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry (“Harry”) Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex. As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite. Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain these individuals nor afford them any hospitality or courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.

The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.

Started by: Charles Ross

This ePetition ran from 01/07/2019 to 18/12/2019 and has now finished.

3881 people signed this ePetition.

Council response

The petition is due to be presented to the full Council meeting on the 19th December 2019.

A

MY LETTER TO THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL

ASTRID ESSED

B

ANSWER OF THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL ON MY LETTEROn Friday, December 20, 2019, 04:05:50 PM GMT+1, CustomerFeedback <customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Astrid Essed,

Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.

Best regards,

Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council

1st Floor, Hove Town Hall, Norton Road, BN3 3BQ

T  | richard.watson@brighton-hove.gov.uk

We want to improve your customer experience when you contact a council service. Please share your views by completing this survey. It should not take longer than ten minutes to complete. 

Our customer promise to you

We will make it clear how you can contact or access our services |  We will understand and get things done |  We will be clear and treat you with respect  

C

MY REACTION ON THE ANSWER OF THE COUNCIL OF BRIGHTON

Astrid Essed
To:CustomerFeedback,richard.watson@brighton-hove.gov.ukDec 21 at 6:22 PM
THE COUNCIL OF BRIGHTON CITY  
TO MR RICHARD WATSON

Dear Mr Watson,

Thank you  for your quick reaction on my letter, which I appreciate very much.Thanks to you I better understand the procedure about debating petitions with more than 1250 signatures by the local authorities.
And I am glad to hear, that stripping The Duke and Duchess of Sussex [Prince Harry and his wife ms Markle] of their royal  titles  is only a question to be decided by the Crown and I think in advance to know, what the outcome will be, since it was [of course] the Queen herself, who granted her grandson Prince Harry the title of Duke of Sussex [and after his wedding, his wife Meghan Markle also]  [1]
I am very glad to learn, that the anti Duke and Duchess of Sussex petitioners will not have their way!
And let’s hope this is a serious blow to the anti Meghan Markle smear campaigners!

Thank you again
Kind greetings
Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands
[1]

PRINCE HARRY AND MS MEGHAN MARKLE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF TITLES
Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle: Announcement of Titles
Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle: Announcement of TitlesThe Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Sussex…

Published 19 May 2018

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales.  His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

D

MY ORIGINAL MAIL TO THE BRIGHTON COUNCIL


Astrid Essed 
To:customerfeedback@brighton-hove.gov.ukDec 20 at 4:43 AMTO THE COUNCILLORS OF BRIGHTON CITYSubject: Debate about stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their royal titles
Dear Councillors,
Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;
I quote the petition, then give my opinion, why I am fiercely against it:

”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”   [2]

MY OPINION AND REQUEST TO YOU:
When I read this petition thouroughly I see passages that it is ”morally wrong” and ”disrespectful to the County of Sussex”, that Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle use the titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Then I see the following sentence
”As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.”
Then my last sentence quote:
”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”  
Those sentences suggest that those who undersigned the petition and the petition campaigner Charles Ross, are either Republicans or perhaps radical socialists, who want to end unequality in this world and in this case, in England, to begin with the Royal Elite.
That the petitioners are republicans, is confirmed by Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, who remarks [I quote the Daily Mail]”’We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.

‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.” [3]

AS I SEE IT/MY OPINION

Now it may well be, that those petitioners are republicans, who, of course, have a right to their opinion.

After all, the monarchy is a remnant from old times, especially the Middle Ages, when, in the feudal society, the king, with his liegemen, the nobility, had this function of ruling the country and protecting the country against foreign invaders, which functioned well, in this case in England, untill members of the royal branch started to kill each other [4] and other groups like merchants [also called the third class] demanded their position, which, in France, led to the French Revolution, centuries later. [5]

So for a part the monarchy is no more than Folklore, but in my view, most British people still value it and it has a binding function too.

And as far as the petitioners are radical socialists, I agree with them about social injustice, but why taking this on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?

When you want to fight social injustice, take the big multinationals first, which are the heart and bones of capitalism.

ENOUGH ABOUT HISTORY AND SOCIAL STRUGGLE [hahaha]

MEGHAN MARKLE

Because I have a grisly suspicion, that the petition against Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle is NOT about the legitimacy of the monarchy or social injustice, but based on racial issues.

And I don’t say this out of the blue!

Firstly:

Why now?

Why this petition is coming now, since the Queen already granted her grandson and his wife their titles on the occasion of their wedding, nearly two years ago? [6]

That is strange.

And secondly:

You are of course aware of the fact, dear Councillors, that from the beginning, from certain sides [especially parts of the press] there has been a smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which, according to me and many others, is closely connected with the fact, that she is black.

There were some remarks in that direction [7] and at a certain point the smear campaign went that high, that Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, sued the paper Mail on Sunday and Prince Harry launched an attack on the tabloid press. [8]

As I commented then, I admired Prince Harry’s stance, calling it ”the only honourable thing to do. [9]

And now this nonsense again.

It seems like a nasty pattern to me.

EPILOGUE

Councillors, you have just read the reason, why I am very upset by this petition, trying to strip the royal rights from Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle and although it seems that it is only republican or social warrior like motivated, yet I have serious doubts and concerns about it.

I can’t prove it, of course, but seen in the light of the inferior smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which has even resulted in repulsive remarks about her and Prince Harry’s son [10], I fear that this petition is, again a token of racism, direct or indirect, against ms Meghan Markle and that is what I can’t and will not accept!

Therefore I implore you to seriously consider NOT to grant the petitioners and remain loyal to the decision of the Queen to grant her grandson and his wife the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And if you don’t believe me, or disagree with my point of view:

Please ask yourself this question:

Do you think there would have been a similar petition, when it concerned Prince William and his wife ms Kate Middleton?

Do the right thing and don’t grant the petitioners

Kind greetings

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam

The Netherlands

NOTES

[1]

PRINCE HARRY AND MS MEGHAN MARKLE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF TITLES
https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles

Published 19 May 2018

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales.  His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

[2]

””We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” 

THE DAILY MAIL

BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

[3]

”Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, slammed the campaigners’ views, telling the Mirror: ‘We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.

‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.”

THE DAILY MAIL

BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

[4]

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL TO THE PAST

ASTRID ESSED

3 FEBRUARI 2015

[5]

WIKIPEDIA

FRENCH REVOLUTION

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[6]
PRINCE HARRY AND MS MEGHAN MARKLE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF TITLES
https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles

Published 19 May 2018

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales.  His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

[7]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

[8]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”

THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

[9]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[10]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET9 MAY 2019

Baker fired over royal baby chimp tweet 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor No stripping of Sussex titles of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle/The haters did not win!

Opgeslagen onder Divers

Council will debate stripping Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, of Sussex titles/Smear campaign against Meghan Markle continued/Letter to Brighton City Council

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

768 × 384Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

644 × 452Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

1055 × 1222Images may be subject to copyright

Related image

480 × 240Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

600 × 390Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

1500 × 1200Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

618 × 412Images may be subject to copyright

Image result for prince harry/meghan/wedding/images

992 × 744Images may be subject to copyright

https://www.samaa.tv/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/harry-640x400-524x360.jpeg
Image result for Prince Harry unveils his bride/Images
https://www.royal.uk/royal-wedding-2018https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/19/royal-wedding-2018-live-meghan-markle-prince-harry-marry-windsor/https://news.sky.com/story/six-moments-of-the-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-wedding-you-didnt-hear-11378629https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/05/world/royal-wedding-cnnphotos/
Image result for royal wedding prince harry and meghan/images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan pose with their newborn son during a photocall in St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle on May 8, 2019 .https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2019/05/08/royal-baby-photos-meghan-markle-prince-harry-pose-newborn/1120765001/

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Related image

GREATGRANDMOTHER QUEEN ELISABETH WITH HEREIGHTH GREATGRANDSONhttps://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48201625

Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images
Image result for royal baby/prince harry and Meghan Markle/Images

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex wave to the crowds in Brighton on a visit on October 3, 2018

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, VISITING BRIGHTON ON OCTOBER 2018
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

Image result for Cheddar man/Images

THE ENGLISH ROYAL HOUSE BECOMING BLACK!HAHAHAHAHA!!!!, THE REVENGE OF CHEDDAR MANhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

COUNCIL WILL DEBATE STRIPPING MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY, OF SUSSEX TITLES/SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE CONTINUED/LETTER TO BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL
SEE ALSO

TO THE COUNCILLORS OF BRIGHTON CITYSubject: Debate about stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their royal titles
Dear Councillors,
Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;
I quote the petition, then give my opinion, why I am fiercely against it:

”We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”   [2]

MY OPINION AND REQUEST TO YOU:
When I read this petition thouroughly I see passages that it is ”morally wrong” and ”disrespectful to the County of Sussex”, that Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle use the titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Then I see the following sentence
”As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.”
Then my last sentence quote:
”“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.”  
Those sentences suggest that those who undersigned the petition and the petition campaigner Charles Ross, are either Republicans or perhaps radical socialists, who want to end unequality in this world and in this case, in England, to begin with the Royal Elite.
That the petitioners are republicans, is confirmed by Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, who remarks [I quote the Daily Mail]”’We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.

‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.” [3]

AS I SEE IT/MY OPINION

Now it may well be, that those petitioners are republicans, who, of course, have a right to their opinion.

After all, the monarchy is a remnant from old times, especially the Middle Ages, when, in the feudal society, the king, with his liegemen, the nobility, had this function of ruling the country and protecting the country against foreign invaders, which functioned well, in this case in England, untill members of the royal branch started to kill each other [4] and other groups like merchants [also called the third class] demanded their position, which, in France, led to the French Revolution, centuries later. [5]

So for a part the monarchy is no more than Folklore, but in my view, most British people still value it and it has a binding function too.

And as far as the petitioners are radical socialists, I agree with them about social injustice, but why taking this on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?

When you want to fight social injustice, take the big multinationals first, which are the heart and bones of capitalism.

ENOUGH ABOUT HISTORY AND SOCIAL STRUGGLE [hahaha]

MEGHAN MARKLE

Because I have a grisly suspicion, that the petition against Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle is NOT about the legitimacy of the monarchy or social injustice, but based on racial issues.

And I don’t say this out of the blue!

Firstly:

Why now?

Why this petition is coming now, since the Queen already granted her grandson and his wife their titles on the occasion of their wedding, nearly two years ago? [6]

That is strange.

And secondly:

You are of course aware of the fact, dear Councillors, that from the beginning, from certain sides [especially parts of the press] there has been a smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which, according to me and many others, is closely connected with the fact, that she is black.

There were some remarks in that direction [7] and at a certain point the smear campaign went that high, that Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, sued the paper Mail on Sunday and Prince Harry launched an attack on the tabloid press. [8]

As I commented then, I admired Prince Harry’s stance, calling it ”the only honourable thing to do. [9]

And now this nonsense again.

It seems like a nasty pattern to me.

EPILOGUE

Councillors, you have just read the reason, why I am very upset by this petition, trying to strip the royal rights from Prince Harry and ms Meghan Markle and although it seems that it is only republican or social warrior like motivated, yet I have serious doubts and concerns about it.

I can’t prove it, of course, but seen in the light of the inferior smear campaign against Meghan Markle, which has even resulted in repulsive remarks about her and Prince Harry’s son [10], I fear that this petition is, again a token of racism, direct or indirect, against ms Meghan Markle and that is what I can’t and will not accept!

Therefore I implore you to seriously consider NOT to grant the petitioners and remain loyal to the decision of the Queen to grant her grandson and his wife the title of Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And if you don’t believe me, or disagree with my point of view:

Please ask yourself this question:

Do you think there would have been a similar petition, when it concerned Prince William and his wife ms Kate Middleton?

Do the right thing and don’t grant the petitioners

Kind greetings

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam

The Netherlands

NOTES

[1]

PRINCE HARRY AND MS MEGHAN MARKLE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF TITLES
https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles

Published 19 May 2018

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales.  His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

[2]

””We, the undersigned petition to reject the usage of the title ”Duke of Sussex”and ”Duchess of Sussex” by the individuals Henry [”Harry”] Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle as morally wrong and disrespectful to the county of East Sussex.As residents of Brighton and Hove we call on Brighton and Hove Council to not refer to these individuals by such titles which we believe to be entirely non democratic and symbolic of the oppression of the general public by the wealthy elite.Neither will Brighton Council invite or entertain those individuals nor afford them any hospitality or the courtesies above and beyond that of an ordinary member of the public.
“The petition aims to establish a precedent that Brighton and Hove Council will no longer afford official hospitality to those with Royal or aristocratic titles nor make usage of those titles in official documents as these titles are arbitrarily and unfairly acquired.” 

THE DAILY MAIL

BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

[3]

”Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, founder of the British Monarchists Society, slammed the campaigners’ views, telling the Mirror: ‘We are utterly dismayed that said petition has been signed by so many.

‘This certainly highlights that Brighton and Hove is a hotbed of Republican dissidents and is now proven to be so.”

THE DAILY MAIL

BRIGHTON HOVE CITY COUNCIL DEBATE STRIPPING HARRY AND MEGHAN OF SUSSEX TITLES

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7806619/Brighton-Hove-City-Council-debate-stripping-Meghan-Harry-Sussex-titles.html

[4]

THE WARS OF THE ROSES/CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSES/A TRAVEL TO THE PAST

ASTRID ESSED

3 FEBRUARI 2015

[5]

WIKIPEDIA

FRENCH REVOLUTION

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

[6]
PRINCE HARRY AND MS MEGHAN MARKLE: ANNOUNCEMENT OF TITLES
https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles

Published 19 May 2018

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales.  His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

[7]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET9 MAY 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

[8]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has taken the unusual decision to sue the publisher of the Mail on Sunday after the newspaper published a handwritten letter she had sent to her estranged father.”

THE GUARDIANMEGHAN SUES MAIL ON SUNDAY AS PRINCE HARRY LAUNCHES ATTACK ON TABLOID PRESS

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/01/meghan-sues-mail-on-sunday-for-publishing-letter-to-her-father

[9]

PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE SUE TABLOID/PRINCE HARRY DEFENDING HIS WIFE/THE ONLY HONOURABLE THING TO DO

ASTRID ESSED

2 OCTOBER 2019

[10]

BBC

DANNY BAKER FIRED BY BBC OVER ROYAL BABY CHIMP TWEET9 MAY 2019

Baker fired over royal baby chimp tweet 

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Council will debate stripping Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, of Sussex titles/Smear campaign against Meghan Markle continued/Letter to Brighton City Council

Opgeslagen onder Divers