Tag Archives: In English

Racism, coronavirus and an Italian conservatory/Letter to the director

RACISM, CORONAVIRUS AND AN ITALIAN CONSERVATORY/LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR

Pedestrians wear face masks as they walk in downtown Toronto Monday.

 Pedestrians wear face masks as they walk in downtown Toronto Monday. Photograph: Canadian Press/REX/Shutterstock
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/canada-chinese-community-battles-racist-backlash-amid-coronavirus-outbreak

Image result for ouderwetse vulpen/Foto's
Image result for middeleeuws zwaard

FIGHT RACISM WITH THE PEN AND THE SWORD!

TOTHE DIRECTOR OF THE ACADEMIA NAZIONALE DI SANTA CECILIAMR R. GIULIANI 
Subject:Your barring out from class of students from East Asia, over coronavirus concerns

Dear Mr Giuliani,
From different reliable newspapers I’ve learnt, that you recently have singled out students from East Asia, barring them from class because of your concerns about the coronavirus. [1]This was the mail you sent to all 160 teachers, adding that students concerned would also receive a mandatory doctor’s visit.[2]I quote:”“Dear colleagues, because of the well-known events relating to the Chinese epidemic, the lessons of oriental students (Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc.) are suspended, as well as others who have come from the countries concerned.

“The conservatoire’s doctor will visit them all on Wednesday 5 February at 2pm. Only those who pass the visit will be readmitted. In the meantime, absence will be considered absence due to illness. Please let them all know, make sure they’re free on 5 February at 2pm, and remind them to bring the booklet. Best regards.” [3]

In Italian [I quote source]

Care Colleghe e cari Colleghi, a causa delle ben note vicende legate all’epidemia cinese, sono sospese le lezioni degli studenti orientali (cinesi, coreani, giapponesi ecc.), nonché di altri che provenissero dai Paesi interessati. Mercoledì 5 febbraio alle ore 14 il medico del Conservatorio provvederà a visitarli tutti. Solo quelli che passeranno la visita potranno essere riammessi alla frequenza. Nel frattempo l’assenza sarà considerata assenza per malattia. Siete pregati di avvisarli tutti, di convocarli per il 5 febbraio alle ore 14, e di ricordargli di portare il libretto. Cordiali saluti”. Firmata dal direttore, Roberto Giuliani.” [4]

If this is not right, I challenge you to send me denying evidence, vut I think evidence is overwhelming, that this actually happened.

The reason why I wrote ” If this is not right”, is that, to my view, it is hardly to believe, that now, in the 21st century, a director of such a prestigious music institute as the Academia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia,

has sent a message like this!

It is like travelling through history, and well landing in one of the most backward periods. at  the nineteen century, the time of racist superiority theories, which included all sort of sick prejudices against people of Asian descent.

You, mr Giuliani, should be ashamed of yourself!

However I am pleased to learn, that you has been criticised by colleagues after your racist email regarding the ”oriental” [your word for among else Chinese, Korean, Japanese students] students. [5]

YES, RACIST, MR GIULIANI!

You should be ashamed of yourself!!

ADDITION

It is unbelievable, that I have to explain, why your mail is not only racist and dangerous, but also, excuse me for the word: stupid.

The Coronavirus is (official name COVID-19] broke out in 2019 in Wuhan, a Chinese city. [6] So people, who live in Wuhan or have recently visited Wuhan, are risk factors.

This has NOTHING to do with ethnicity or descent!

When you and I were visiting Wuhan, or living there,  we both  being not Chinese, was the risk that we were infected or could infect other people a reality.

That applies to everyone who lives there or visited the regio, Chinese or not!

Chinese, Japanese and Korean students, living in Italy have no more chance to infect other people that you and I.

However, Europeans, who lived in Wuhan or recently visited the city, are a real danger.

So it has nothing whatsoever to do with ethnicity, being Asian or not, but with the recent presence in Wuhan.

From a director of a prestigious conservatory might be expected, that he understands this

That is the stupid side of your mail.

But since I can’t believe that a conservatory director is ”stupid”, your

mail is especially racist, singling out Chinese, Japanese and Korean students, because in their country of origin [or that of their parents or grandparents] there was a dangerous virus outbreak!

Not to speak about  Japanese and Korean students, since they have no connection whatsoever with China or Chinese cities!

Especially your language use ”oriental students” [7] convinces to me of your racism.

Again, you should be ashamed of yourself!

DANGEROUS!

Yes, I am not done with you yet!

Because apart from racist, your mail is dangerous, especially seen in the light of recent outbreaks of racism and xenophobia in Italy! [8]

Because since you are an educated and respected director of a prestigious conservatory, people look up to you and find in hateful, racist mails like yours a confirmation for their xenophobia and an encouragement to go on with racism.

EPILOGUE

As a director of a high profile conservatory you have a special and moral responsibility to advance civilization and culture.

One of the aspects is to cherish and promote the ideals of Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite [9], for especially music is a cultural Road to unite people.

What you did is to divide people and that is a destructive Path.

So I hope you have learnt something of the just criticism on your

racist mail and never do it again.

Eventually racism leads to chaos, destruction and Evil.

Think of that.

Kind greetings

Astrid Essed

Amsterdam 

The Netherlands

NOTES

[1]

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATIONCORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19] OUTBREAK
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

THE WASHINGTON POSTA TOP EUROPEAN MUSIC SCHOOL SUSPENDED STUDENTS FROM EAST ASIA OVER CORONAVIRUS CONCERNS, AMID RISING DISCRIMINATION31 JANUARY 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/31/top-european-music-school-suspended-students-east-asia-over-coronavirus-concerns-amid-rising-discrimination/

TEXT

ROME — The prestigious Santa Cecilia music school in Rome on Wednesday singled out students from East Asia, barring them from class over coronavirus concerns.

The students learned of the move in a message from the conservatory’s director, Roberto Giuliani, sent to faculty members, who forwarded it by email and WhatsApp to those affected.

The message — which used the term Oriental, an adjective considered derogatory when used to describe people —asked East Asian students not to show up for at least a week “due to the well-known events related to the Chinese epidemic” and to undergo medical examinations before readmittance.

The announcement caught many students by surprise. Authorities had yet to confirm a single case of the virus in Italy.

For 25-year-old South Korean voice student Yoonseo Kim, the only possible explanation for the suspensions was racism.

“My friends don’t want to leave their homes because they’re afraid — of racism, of stares, of bad words,” she added. “It’s normal now.”

Shortly after the announcement, discriminatory comments appeared online, according to social media posts reviewed by The Washington Post.

The school asked affected students to leave classes shortly after the announcement went out, and staffers later stopped them in the lobby to bar them from entering the building, said one student, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Several students described being mocked as they left the building by non-Asian students, who covered their faces in imitation of face masks and laughed.

“I was frozen. I couldn’t talk,” said 23-year-old South Korean student Sumin Hwang.

Giuliani said in an interview Friday that he never meant to discriminate and that students found to have used racially motivated insults would be punished. The school, he said, was inherently international and dedicated to students from abroad. He had in hand a message from a Chinese student who appeared to support the suspension order.

The required medical checkup, which the school would provide, he said, was supposed to help those without full access to the public health system.

Despite the controversy, the suspensions have not been lifted.

The episode underlined concerns East Asian communities around the world have expressed in recent weeks as misinformation about the new coronavirus spreads, fueling stereotypes and discrimination. In one instance, widely circulated footage of a woman drinking bat soup provided supposed evidence that Chinese eating habits had allowed the virus to spread. The video — which was not even filmed in China — has since been debunked by fact-checking groups.

In Malaysia, an online petition that appeared to blame the spread of the virus on China’s supposed “unhygienic lifestyle” and called for a ban on Chinese visitors garnered more than 400,000 supporters within days.

In France, those facing discrimination took to social media — using the hashtag #JeNeSuisPasUnVirus, “I’m not a virus” — to push back against stereotypes.

“Institutionalized racism can easily be triggered by narratives of crisis,” said Aleksandra Lewicki, a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Sussex in Britain.

Discrimination tied to the coronavirus is “reminiscent of the way Muslims have often had to explain themselves after terrorist attacks,” she said.

Some experts have also drawn parallels to the 2003 SARS outbreak that spread from China to countries including Canada and the United States, along with an attendant rise in discrimination against Asian minority communities.

At the time, Canadian lawyer Avvy Go represented Asian Canadians whose landlords were trying to evict them because of the virus, or whose employers were seeking to reduce their working hours.

“We are [once again] seeing a lot of stigmatization and misinformation about the source of the virus,” she said, citing messages on WhatsApp and other platforms “telling people not to go to some of the local Chinese supermarkets,” along with “outright racist, hostile comments online.”

In recent days, nearly 10,000 Canadians signed a petition to temporarily ban some Chinese Canadian students from classrooms.

But much more so than in 2003, officials and members of the public are pushing back. A local school board swiftly rejected the petition.

Chinese diplomats have urged the international community to fight stigmatization. After Italy declared a state of emergency on Friday in the wake of its first two confirmed cases of the coronavirus, the Chinese Embassy in Rome asked the government to focus on the prevention of “episodes of intolerance” and to “protect the legitimate rights of Chinese citizens and communities in Italy.”

“We are [once again] seeing a lot of stigmatization and misinformation about the source of the virus,” she said, citing messages on WhatsApp and other platforms “telling people not to go to some of the local Chinese supermarkets,” along with “outright racist, hostile comments online.”

In recent days, nearly 10,000 Canadians signed a petition to temporarily ban some Chinese Canadian students from classrooms.

But much more so than in 2003, officials and members of the public are pushing back. A local school board swiftly rejected the petition.

Chinese diplomats have urged the international community to fight stigmatization. After Italy declared a state of emergency on Friday in the wake of its first two confirmed cases of the coronavirus, the Chinese Embassy in Rome asked the government to focus on the prevention of “episodes of intolerance” and to “protect the legitimate rights of Chinese citizens and communities in Italy.”

In Milan, Italian media outlets reported that groups of mothers were pushing for their children to be separated from Chinese students at school.

In Venice, Chinese tourists reported being spat upon.

At the Santa Cecilia music school, some Italian students said they were considering a strike in support of their classmates from abroad.

“We want to show solidarity with colleagues who were arbitrarily denied the very important right to study,” said Francesco Campora, 26, a student at the school.

For some of the suspended students, that might not be enough.

“I used to love Rome,” said Sumin Hwang, one of the students told to stay home. “For two days now, I’ve been thinking of moving.”“I cannot stay in a place that hates us,” she said.

THE GUARDIANOUTBREAKS OF XENOPHOBIA IN WEST AS CORONAVIRUS SPREADS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/spate-of-anti-chinese-incidents-in-italy-amid-coronavirus-panic

Chinese people in western countries where there have been cases of the Wuhan coronavirus have said they have been the target of racist abuse as paranoia mounts over the outbreak.

In Italy, the European country with the highest annual number of Chinese tourists, the confirmation of two confirmed cases – a couple who arrived in Milan from Wuhan on 23 January on a lunar new year holiday – coincided with incidents of xenophobia and calls to avoid Chinese restaurants and shops.

Roberto Giuliani, the director of the Santa Cecilia Conservatory in Rome, one of the oldest music institutes in the world, was criticised by colleagues on Wednesday after telling students from China, Japan and South Korea not to come to class until after a doctor had visited their homes to ensure they have not contracted the virus.

La Repubblica published a photograph on its website showing a cafe near the Trevi fountain in Rome with a sign outside saying “all people coming from China” were barred from entering.More than 300,000 Chinese people live in Italy and 5 million visited in 2018.

“Unfortunately, one of the inevitable impacts of this illness is xenophobia,” Marco Wong, a local councillor in the Tuscan town of Prato, home to a large Chinese population, told the Guardian.“Parents aren’t sending their children to school if there are Chinese classmates and people are writing on the internet not to go to Chinese shops and restaurants. There is also a lot of fake news spreading – for example, an audio of an Italian guy claiming that he is in Wuhan and that he knows of a secret laboratory where this virus was created.”

Fears over the coronavirus have affected Chinese populations in other countries, too. On Wednesday, the mayor of Toronto condemned racism against Chinese-Canadians, and there have also been reports of anti-Asian racism in the UK.In France, Chinese residents have been sharing their experiences using the hashtag #JeNeSuisPasUnVirus (I am not a virus). One young woman calling herself Forky wrote on Twitter: “Not all Asians are Chinese. Not all Chinese were born in China and not all have been there. An Asian who coughs doesn’t have the #coronavirus. Insulting an Asian because of the virus is like insulting a Muslim because of the bombings.”

There has been particular criticism of a front-page headline on the Courrier Picard, a local newspaper: “Alerte Jaune” (Yellow alert).

One man told France TV he had been approached while buying vegetables in a supermarket in Strasbourg by a woman who demanded what nationality he was and “if I had the virus”. He added: “I wouldn’t say what happened was racist, but it was a strong prejudice.”

Sacha-Lin Jung, a representative of the Association of Chinese Residents in France, told BFMTV: “People are refusing to be served by Asian people in shops … a woman was thrown off a train because she was Asian and so it was obvious she was carrying the virus. This adds to the racism and stereotypes about the Chinese that already exist.”

On Friday, Italy declared a state of emergency that will be in place for six months. It will spend an initial €5m on trying to prevent the spread of the virus.

Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s far-right League, seized on the panic to plug his anti-immigration message and attack rivals in government. “Every day dozens of flights arrive in Italy from China: we need checks, checks and more checks,” he said.

Other episodes reported in Italian media include two Chinese tourists being spat at by a group of children in Venice, and three Chinese tourists being insulted in a restaurant in Turin.

One tourist was reportedly prevented from entering Pompeii’s archaeological park, another was insulted on a train, and a Chinese boy playing in a football match near Milan was told by an opponent: “I hope you get the virus too.”There have been long queues in chemists across the country to purchase face masks. Roberta Siliquini, a former president of Italy’s higher health council, told the Guardian the paranoia was unsurprising even if it went “beyond logical sense”.

“In Italy, we have a strange relationship with immigration but also with health aspects – it’s a country in which people don’t want to be vaccinated against measles but they are scared of a Chinese person standing 50 metres away,” she said. “And while it is very possible that we could import cases of this virus, we have one of the most efficient control systems in the world.”

Tests carried out on two Chinese tourists onboard a cruise ship in the port city of Civitavecchia were negative, the cruise company, Costa Crociere, said in a statement.• This article was amended on 31 January 2020 because an earlier version understated the number of Chinese people living in Italy. That figure is more than 300,000, not more than 30,000 as an earlier version said.

[2]

OUTRAGE AS ITALIAN CONSERVATOIRE BANS ALL ”ORIENTAL” STUDENTS OVER CORONAVIRUS FEARS31 JANUARY 2020
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/santa-cecilia-bans-oriental-students-coronavirus/

TEXT

Rome’s prestigious music conservatoire is facing criticism for its decision to suspend all “oriental” students, as Italy’s first two cases of coronavirus are confirmed.One of the oldest music institutes in the world has suspended all “oriental students” over concerns surrounding coronavirus, in a move that has been heavily criticised by teachers – notably for its choice of language.

An email was sent to all 160 teachers at Rome’s Santa Cecilia Conservatory, adding that students concerned would also receive a mandatory doctor’s visit.

The message (translated from Italian), signed by director Roberto Giuliani, reads: “Dear colleagues, because of the well-known events relating to the Chinese epidemic, the lessons of oriental students (Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc.) are suspended, as well as others who have come from the countries concerned.

“The conservatoire’s doctor will visit them all on Wednesday 5 February at 2pm. Only those who pass the visit will be readmitted. In the meantime, absence will be considered absence due to illness. Please let them all know, make sure they’re free on 5 February at 2pm, and remind them to bring the booklet. Best regards.”The move comes as two cases of coronavirus are now confirmed in Italy – the first in the country since the outbreak in Wuhan, China.

[3] 

”The message (translated from Italian), signed by director Roberto Giuliani, reads: “Dear colleagues, because of the well-known events relating to the Chinese epidemic, the lessons of oriental students (Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc.) are suspended, as well as others who have come from the countries concerned.

“The conservatoire’s doctor will visit them all on Wednesday 5 February at 2pm. Only those who pass the visit will be readmitted. In the meantime, absence will be considered absence due to illness. Please let them all know, make sure they’re free on 5 February at 2pm, and remind them to bring the booklet. Best regards.”OUTRAGE AS ITALIAN CONSERVATOIRE BANS ALL ”ORIENTAL” STUDENTS OVER CORONAVIRUS FEARS31 JANUARY 2020
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/santa-cecilia-bans-oriental-students-coronavirus/

[4]

Care Colleghe e cari Colleghi, a causa delle ben note vicende legate all’epidemia cinese, sono sospese le lezioni degli studenti orientali (cinesi, coreani, giapponesi ecc.), nonché di altri che provenissero dai Paesi interessati. Mercoledì 5 febbraio alle ore 14 il medico del Conservatorio provvederà a visitarli tutti. Solo quelli che passeranno la visita potranno essere riammessi alla frequenza. Nel frattempo l’assenza sarà considerata assenza per malattia. Siete pregati di avvisarli tutti, di convocarli per il 5 febbraio alle ore 14, e di ricordargli di portare il libretto. Cordiali saluti”. Firmata dal direttore, Roberto Giuliani.”AMID VIRUS FEARS, SANTA CECILIA SHUTS OUT ASIAN STUDENTS31 JANUARY 2920https://slippedisc.com/2020/01/amid-plague-fears-santa-cecilia-shuts-out-its-asian-students/ TEXT

The following message has been sent to 160 teachers at Rome’s Santa Cecilia Conservatory:

Dear colleagues and dear colleagues, because of the well-known events related to the Chinese epidemic, the lessons of the Oriental students (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc.) are suspended as well as others who have come from the countries concerned. The conservatory doctor will visit them all on Wednesday 5 February at 2.00 pm. Only those who pass the visit can be readmitted to attendance. In the meantime, absence will be considered absence due to illness. Please advise them all to convene on February 5 at 2 pm, and remind them to bring the booklet. Best regards. Signed by the director, Roberto Giuliani.

Care Colleghe e cari Colleghi, a causa delle ben note vicende legate all’epidemia cinese, sono sospese le lezioni degli studenti orientali (cinesi, coreani, giapponesi ecc.), nonché di altri che provenissero dai Paesi interessati. Mercoledì 5 febbraio alle ore 14 il medico del Conservatorio provvederà a visitarli tutti. Solo quelli che passeranno la visita potranno essere riammessi alla frequenza. Nel frattempo l’assenza sarà considerata assenza per malattia. Siete pregati di avvisarli tutti, di convocarli per il 5 febbraio alle ore 14, e di ricordargli di portare il libretto. Cordiali saluti”. Firmata dal direttore, Roberto Giuliani.Just like medieval times. Or even German occupation.

We hear that many teachers are appalled, both at the exclusion and at the language of the message.The Korean students feel particularly aggrieved as their country has barely been affected by the coronavirus.

[5]

Roberto Giuliani, the director of the Santa Cecilia Conservatory in Rome, one of the oldest music institutes in the world, was criticised by colleagues on Wednesday after telling students from China, Japan and South Korea not to come to class until after a doctor had visited their homes to ensure they have not contracted the virus.”

THE GUARDIANOUTBREAKS OF XENOPHOBIA IN WEST AS CORONAVIRUS SPREADS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/spate-of-anti-chinese-incidents-in-italy-amid-coronavirus-panic

[6]

WIKIPEDIACORONAVIRUS/OVERVIEW OF OUTBREAKS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus#Overview_of_outbreaks
ORIGINAL SOURCE

WIKIPEDIACORONAVIRUS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus

[7]

”The message (translated from Italian), signed by director Roberto Giuliani, reads: “Dear colleagues, because of the well-known events relating to the Chinese epidemic, the lessons of oriental students (Chinese, Korean, Japanese etc.) are suspended, as well as others who have come from the countries concerned.”

OUTRAGE AS ITALIAN CONSERVATOIRE BANS ALL ”ORIENTAL” STUDENTS OVER CORONAVIRUS FEARS31 JANUARY 2020
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/santa-cecilia-bans-oriental-students-coronavirus/

[8]
”In Italy, the European country with the highest annual number of Chinese tourists, the confirmation of two confirmed cases – a couple who arrived in Milan from Wuhan on 23 January on a lunar new year holiday – coincided with incidents of xenophobia and calls to avoid Chinese restaurants and shops.”………”La Repubblica published a photograph on its website showing a cafe near the Trevi fountain in Rome with a sign outside saying “all people coming from China” were barred from entering.”……..“Parents aren’t sending their children to school if there are Chinese classmates and people are writing on the internet not to go to Chinese shops and restaurants. There is also a lot of fake news spreading – for example, an audio of an Italian guy claiming that he is in Wuhan and that he knows of a secret laboratory where this virus was created.” ………..

Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s far-right League, seized on the panic to plug his anti-immigration message and attack rivals in government. “Every day dozens of flights arrive in Italy from China: we need checks, checks and more checks,” he said.

Other episodes reported in Italian media include two Chinese tourists being spat at by a group of children in Venice, and three Chinese tourists being insulted in a restaurant in Turin.One tourist was reportedly prevented from entering Pompeii’s archaeological park, another was insulted on a train, and a Chinese boy playing in a football match near Milan was told by an opponent: “I hope you get the virus too. 

THE GUARDIANOUTBREAKS OF XENOPHOBIA IN WEST AS CORONAVIRUS SPREADS
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/spate-of-anti-chinese-incidents-in-italy-amid-coronavirus-panic
THIS IS THE ARTICLE AND PHOTOGRAPH ON THE WEBSITE OF LA REPUBBLICA
LA REPUBBLICA

Coronavirus, “Non entrate”: il cartello in cinese in bar a Fontana di Trevi. Palumbo: “Ignobile”

https://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/01/31/news/coronavirus_spunta_cartello_in_cinese_a_fontana_di_trevi_non_entrate_-247246234/?refresh_ce

ITALIAN TEXT
Un cartello scritto in cinese e in inglese per invitare chi arriva dalla Cina a non entrare è stato affisso questa mattina davanti a un bar davanti a Fontana di Trevi, in via del Lavatore, accanto ad un hotel. “A causa delle disposizioni internazionali di sicurezza, a tutte le persone provenienti dalla Cina non è permesso di entrare in questo posto. Ci scusiamo per il problema”, dice il cartello che poco dopo è stato rimosso.

“Ignobile il cartello affisso e poi rimosso dalla vetrina di un bar  a Fontana di Trevi nella giornata di oggi” commenta Marco Palumbo, consigliere del Pd capitolino. “La situazione già seria, diventa davvero grave. Comprensibile la paura del contagio, inaccettabile però pensare ad una discriminazione razziale in un momento così delicato e dove le persone  dovrebbero essere semmai rassicurati e aiutate. Alimentare il panico affiggendo cartelli di divieto appellandosi a ‘disposizioni di sicurezza’ fai da te e non dichiarate ufficialmente da nessun organo di governo è gravissimo e rammenta quei funesti cartelli affissi sulle vetrine delle botteghe negli anni più bui del Novecento” conlude 

Sul caso interviene anche Raggi. “Stop psicosi e allarmismi. Ascoltiamo solo indicazioni e pareri delle autorità sanitarie.
#Coronavirus”. Lo scrive su Twitter la sindaca di Roma.

Mentre gli altri negozianti della zona prendono le distanze dall’iniziativa.  “Ci dissociamo da quanto accaduto. E’ un cartello forte che è una pessima pubblicità per il nostro quartiere di Trevi” sottolinea la proprietaria del negozio di pelletteria di fronte al bar accanto all’osteria Trevi.

“Ci dissociamo da quanto accaduto. E un cartello forte che è una pessima pubblicità per il nostro quartiere di Trevi”. Lo ha detto la proprietaria del negozio di pelletteria, che fa parte dell’associazione commercianti Trevi, di fronte al bar su cui era affisso il cartello che vietava l’ingresso a persone di nazionalità cinese.

“I commercianti – ha sottolineato il presidente dell’associazione, Fabrizio Patrizi – prende le distanze dal cartello e dal suo contenuto ma siamo oggettivamente preoccupati della situazione. Il turismo cinese è abbondantemente presente a Trevi e non abbiamo ricevuto alcuna informativa dalle autorità su come comportarci e cosa fare. Al 90 per cento i due turisti cinesi, positivi al coronavirus, sono passati da Trevi. Non chiediamo rassicurazioni ma informazioni, tipo ‘utilizzate le mascherine’. Il rischio di psicosi è facile. Noi stiamo navigando a vista. Il pericolo che c’è nel rione Trevi è maggiore che a Tor Tre Teste”.

Preoccupata anche la proprietaria di un ristorante della zona. “Certo non facciamo bella figura, ma come dobbiamo fare? – ha affermato – Non si sa che giri abbiano fatto queste due persone, non mi sento di dissociarmi completamente da quel cartello. Ci sono persone che possono entrare da me e stare due o tre ore. Io un po’ di paura ne ho”.  

END OF ITALIAN TEXT 

[9]

YOUTUBE.COMLUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN: ODE AN DIE FREUDE

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Racism, coronavirus and an Italian conservatory/Letter to the director

Filed under 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

Filed under 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

Filed under 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!

Filed under Divers

US airstrike kills top Iran general, Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport/US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani is state terrorism

DAUGHTER OF LIQUIDATED GENERAL SOLEIMANI

US AIRSTRIKE KILLS TOP IRAN GENERAL, QASSEM SOLEIMANI AT BAGHDAD AIRPORT/US LIQUIDATION OF IRAN’S GENERAL SOLEIMANI IS STATE TERRORISM
INTRODUCTION:
Again, dear readers, wishing you a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year!
https://www.astridessed.nl/happy-new-year-6/

Unfortunately however, the New Year did not start peacefully, with the US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani [1], being an extrajudicial execution and adding to the many crimes of Superpower USA. 
Besides:What is there to be expected from rogue president Trump, who makes is as a sport to violate International Law? [2]Also it is an utter scandal, that the Dutch government, which is bound to promote the International Legal Order [article 90, Dutch Constitution] [3], has declared, in the words of the Dutch minister of Defense, mrs Bijleveld, to ”understand” the liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani! [4]I will write them about that, but that’s another story.
Back to USA/Trump:
Your Avenger of injustice would not have been your Avenger of injustice, if she would not have taken action:
This time by a Letter to the Editor, which I have sent to a number of American, British and other international papers.I did the same with a Dutch Letter to the Editor, sending it to Dutch and Belgian newspapers.
Since I, of course, don’t know, whether it is published at all, hereby I share the Letter with you.
See firstly the Letter,Then, below, the notes, belonging to this Introduction piece.
ENJOY READING!

Astrid EssedAmsterdam

A

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, SENT TO AMERICAN, BRITISH AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL NEWSPAPERS:

US LIQUIDATION OF IRAN’S GENERAL SOLEIMANI IS STATE TERRORISM
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Unfortunately, this New Year has begun far from peaceful with ”thanks” to the US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani on the orders of president Trump.This liquidation is an act of war against Iran and will have dangerous consequences with very probably as main victims Iranian and Iraqi civilians, but also it endangers the chances of terrorist attacks, as in the USA as in countrieswhich agree with this insane Trump adventurism. But there is more:This liquidation of general Soleimani with six other victims like  a high profile Iraqi military is a serious violation of International Law.To say it like it is:The USA is not at war with Iran [in which case Soleimani, as a combatant, would have been a ”legitimate” target], neither Soleimani launched an attack on American territory.And since there was no proof whatsoever of an ”imminent threat” [apart from not proven allegations of Trump] this is an assassination maffia style.Because rocket attacks on political enemies, also called ”extrajudicial executions” are a flagrant violations of the right to life, as the right to a fair and independent trial.And I am not alone in this:Recently Agnes Callamard, UN Special Reporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has criticized the liquidation as illegal and contrary with International Law.Now I certainly am no adherent of the Iran regime, because of its systematic violations of human rights, neither of the role of mr Soleimani [being a strong supporter of the Syrian dictator Assad], but human rights are human rights, regardless, and the liquidation of human being without any trial is illegal.Therefore it is a shame, that the Dutch government has declared to ”understand” the Soleimani liquidation and it only shows, how little respect this Rutte III Dutch government has for the International Law that she is obliged to advance, according to article 90, Dutch Constitution.

Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands

B

NOTES, BELONGING TO ”INTRODUCTION”

[1]
NBC NEWSUS AIRSTRIKE KILLS TOP IRAN GENERAL, QASSEM SOLEIMANI AT BAGHDAD AIRPORT  
4 JANUARY 2020
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/airstrike-kills-top-iran-general-qassim-suleimani-baghdad-airport-iraqi-n1109821

[2]

TWO EXAMPLES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW

FIRST EXAMPLE
A
BBCJERUSALEM IS ISRAEL’S CAPITAL, SAYS DONALD TRUMP6 DECEMBER 2017
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42259443

THIS TRUMP STRAPATZ IS IN  VIOLATION WITH UN SECURITY RESOLUTION 478

WIKIPEDIA

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 478

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

FULL TEXT RESOLUTION

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),

Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

Deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,

Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,

1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:

(a) All Member States to accept this decision;

(b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478#Full_text_of_Resolution_478

SEE ALSO

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/IP%20SRES%20478.pdf

SECOND EXAMPLE

B

BBC

US SAYS ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ARE NO LONGER ILLEGAL

18 NOVEMBER 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50468025

THIS SECOND TRUMP STRAPATZ IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, DECLARING ALL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES ILLEGAL 

THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS

THIS IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW SAYS

”The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49).

The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.”

BTSELEM.ORG

SETTLEMENTS

https://www.btselem.org/ settlements

”Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

ARTICLE 49, FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=77068F12B8857C4DC12563CD0051BDB0

SEE ALSO

FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION:

CONVENTION (IV)  RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF

CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR, GENEVA, 12 AUGUST 1949

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C&action=openDocument

THE HAGUE CONVENTION 1907

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000001-0631.pdf

[3]

DUTCH CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 90

The Government shall promote the development of the international legal order

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Constitution-NL.pdf  [4]

DUTCH REVIEWDUTCH GOVERNMENT ”UNDERSTANDS” US ASSISSINATION OF SOLEIMANI, BUT WANTS FURTHER EXPLANATION

On the TV program Op1, Dutch Defense Minister, Bijleveld, says she understands why the US killed Soleimani and nodded to the awful atrocities Iran is responsible for, NOS reports. Nonetheless, the Netherlands, as a member of NATO, is focussed on de-escalation. 

“A real crook”

Bijleveld described Soleimani as “a real crook” and discussed his involvement in the war in Syria as commander of the Quds Force.But she went on to acknowledge that the assassination of the leader created “a very fragile situation” and emphasised that NATO members are well aware of the potential retaliation from Iran.

Must focus on de-escalation

However, the minister said the Dutch government are focussed on de-escalation. Bijleveld referred to statements made by Stoltenberg, the secretary of NATO, who also stressed the drone strike was a decision made solely by the US and is not endorsed by NATO.

The Netherlands wants explanation from United States Government

Bijleveld believes the Netherlands and other countries should have been informed of the attack before it happened.

The Netherlands wants the United States to provide a “legal basis” for such a major decision. The US claim the attack on the Iranian general was “self-defense”.

In a letter sent to the House of Representatives, the cabinet says the Netherlands “will underline Iran’s negative influence on regional stability and point out the importance of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” during the upcoming meeting between EU foreign leaders scheduled for Friday.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor US airstrike kills top Iran general, Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport/US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani is state terrorism

Filed under Divers

Happy New Year!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Image result for Vuurwerk/Foto's

HAPPY NEW YEAR !

I wish to all my readers a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous 2020!Hoping to write a lot English articles for you this year!
See my recent protests against the smearing campaign against the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, wife of Prince Harry and  mother of Lord Archie!


https://www.astridessed.nl/no-stripping-of-sussex-titles-of-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-haters-did-not-win/


AND


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/

HISTORICAL ARTICLES: 

Although writing about injustice in politics and the world, you may expect from mehistorical articles too:
I don”t know whether you read my article about Thomas of Lancaster,first cousin of the Medieval English king Edward II, who fought hisking for ten years [was initially on good terms with him], ending in hisexecution, but venerated as a Saint for 250 years.It was fascinating to write it, but read it as a book, for it’sextended.


https://www.astridessed.nl/thomas-of-lancaster-rebel-cousin-of-king-edward-iifrom-warlord-to-saint/


And also, I wrote, exactly 700 years after it was closed, my articleabout the Treaty of Leake, a peace treaty between king Edward II and his cousin,Thomas of Lancaster, but, alas, a fake reconciliation, as it showed,,,,

,https://www.astridessed.nl/the-treaty-of-leake-700-years-anniversary-of-the-fake-reconciliation-of-two-royal-enemies-edward-ii-and-his-cousin-thomas-of-lancaster/
This year I will rejoice you with more historical articles, for exampleabout one of my favourite Medieval persons, Thomas of Lancaster’syounger brother Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster!
When you read that, you will know why he is favourite to me!See also some of my articles and comments  about major players in the Wars of the Roses:

https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the-wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to-the-past/

https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosesrichard-duke-of-yorkthe-claims-to-the-throne-of-lancaster-and-york/

AND


https://www.astridessed.nl/english-historythe-wars-of-the-rosesmargaret-of-anjou-and-richard-duke-of-york-two-major-players/

And…….you can also  expect [very soon……] one or more articles about the Crusades, as another Medieval favourite of mine, whom I will not reveal yet…….
Just wait and see!
In the meantime:


ENJOY THIS YEAR AND TAKE CAREAND….VISIT MY WEBSITE!Kind greetings/Astrid Essed

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Happy New Year!

Filed under 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!

Filed under 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

Filed under Divers

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/SYRIA: DIRE CONDITIONS FOR ISIS SUSPECTS’ FAMILIES


A girl stands in the annex of al-Hol camp in northeast Syria, where more than 11,000 women and children from nearly 50 nationalities are confined as family members of Islamic State (also known as ISIS) suspects. The Kurdish-led coalition controlling north

EXPAND

A girl stands in the annex of al-Hol camp in northeast Syria, where more than 11,000 women and children from nearly 50 nationalities are confined as family members of Islamic State (also known as ISIS) suspects. The Kurdish-led coalition controlling northern Syria wants home countries to take the women and children back. But most governments have only repatriated small numbers of their citizens. © 2019 Sam Tarling

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

SYRIA: DIRE CONDITIONS FOR ISIS SUSPECTS’ FAMILIES

23 JULY 2019

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/23/syria-dire-conditions-isis-suspects-families

(Al-Hol, Northeast Syria) – The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration for northeast Syria is holding more than 11,000 foreign women and children related to Islamic State (also known as ISIS) suspects in appalling and sometimes deadly conditions in a locked desert camp in northeast Syria, Human Rights Watch said today. At least 7,000 of the children are under 12.

During three visits to the section of al-Hol camp holding foreign women and children in June 2019, Human Rights Watch found overflowing latrines, sewage trickling into tattered tents, and residents drinking wash water from tanks containing worms. Young children with skin rashes, emaciated limbs, and swollen bellies sifted through mounds of stinking garbage under a scorching sun or lay limp on tent floors, their bodies dusted with dirt and flies. Children are dying from acute diarrhea and flu-like infections, aid groups and camp managers said.

“Foreign women and children are indefinitely locked in a dustbowl inferno in northeast Syria while their home countries look the other way,” said Letta Tayler, senior terrorism and counterterrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Governments should be doing what they can to protect their citizens, not abandon them to disease and death in a foreign desert.”

At least 240 children have died en route or upon arrival to al-Hol, according to the United Nations. Authorities from the camp, which is overseen by the Autonomous Administration, do not appear to consistently record deaths, international aid group members said. The groups did not want to be identified for fear of losing access to al-Hol.

Al-Hol guards do not allow the women and children to leave the camp except when escorted out for emergencies such as surgery not available in camp hospitals.

Officials from the Autonomous Administration told Human Rights Watch they do not intend to prosecute the women and children. Asked about the legal status of the women and children, they said only in a brief written statement that when the women and children left ISIS-held areas, they were “transferred to al-Hol to work on delivering them to their countries given that they are from different nationalities.” The Autonomous Administration has repeatedly called on home countries to take back all foreigners in their custody. “We are overwhelmed,” a camp manager said.

Countries should immediately assist efforts of their citizens held in al-Hol camp to come home if they choose to do so. The Autonomous Administration, as well as home countries, should ensure that detention is only imposed according to law, on an individual basis, and with all basic rights of detainees under international law including judicial review of detention.

Donor governments, the United Nations, and humanitarian agencies should also immediately increase aid to all camp inhabitants, more than 7,000 of them children.

From June 21 to 23, Human Rights Watch interviewed 26 foreign women confined in al-Hol annex from countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and Trinidad. The women included mothers who begged camp guards for news of husbands or sons whom US-backed, Kurdish-led troops, called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), had separated from them when they fled ISIS-held areas over the past several months.

“Please, tell me, where are my sons? Please, let me visit them,” pleaded “Aisha,” a pregnant woman from Trinidad. The SDF took her two sons, ages 14 and 15, and their father when the family fled ISIS-held Abu Badran in January, she said.

“First they said they would bring my boys to me in a month. Then they said two more weeks. Then they said they were sick in the hospital,” Aisha said of camp officials. Like other women interviewed, Aisha did not want her real name used. “Then for the past two months, nothing.”

Conditions are dire throughout al-Hol, which holds 62,000 Syrians and Iraqis in the main camp sections, most of them also wives and children of men accused of ISIS membership. However, the worst conditions are in the annex holding the 11,000 non-Iraqi foreigners. The annex receives less aid from donors and annex inhabitants must wait for armed escorts to bring them to the camp market, hospitals, and food distribution center, which Syrian and Iraqi women and children can reach freely, aid workers said.

All but one of the foreign women interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they wanted to go home. One, from Uzbekistan, said she wanted to go to a third country because she feared persecution if repatriated. All said they are not allowed to leave the locked camp. None said she had been taken before a judge to review whether she should be detained or been contacted by a representative of her government.

“We were prisoners under al-Dawla [ISIS] and now we’re prisoners of our liberators,” said “Layla,” a 29-year-old Frenchwoman. “I’ll go to prison again back home if I have to but please, just get me out of here.”

International law allows imposing punishment for crimes only on people responsible for the crimes, after a fair trial to determine individual guilt. Imposing collective punishment on families by preventing them from leaving the camps violates the laws of war.

Unless they are lawful places of detention such as prisons, camps for displaced people should respect the free movement right to leave the camps and return. Movement restrictions are only permissible if they are provided by law and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Any restrictions must be nondiscriminatory, proportionate, and necessary to achieve legitimate aims.

Anyone detained, including civilians initially detained in wartime as security threats, should be detained on a clear legal basis, and have the right to challenge the necessity and legality of their captivity before a court. No one should be detained in inhuman or degrading conditions. International law obligates all countries to ensure justice through fair trials for the gravest crimes, such as those by ISIS.

International law also grants everyone the right to return to their home country and obligates countries to fulfill a child’s right to acquire a nationality. This duty has been interpreted to extend to children born abroad to a country’s citizens who would otherwise be stateless.

“The conditions in al-Hol annex are untenable and unconscionable,” Tayler said. “Abandoning citizens to indefinite confinement without charge will only make the problem worse.”

More than 7,000 foreign children and 3,000 foreign women from about 50 countries are held in the al-Hol annex according to officials from the Autonomous Administration, which is led by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD). Several hundred more foreigners are held in two other camps in northeast Syria, Ain Issa, and Roj. In addition to Westerners, the foreigners include Algerians, Indonesians, Malaysians, Moroccans, Russians, Tunisians, Turks, and Uzbeks, among others. About two-thirds of the foreign children are under age 12 – with most under age 5 – and hundreds are orphans, their parents missing or dead, aid workers said. While most women and children are recent arrivals, some said they had been held at Al-Hol for over a year.

Reluctant Donors, Insufficient Access

Autonomous Administration authorities blamed the conditions in al-Hol annex on insufficient aid from foreign donors. “We feel abandoned by the international community,” Abdulkarim Omar, the administration’s co-chair for foreign affairs, told Human Rights Watch. “Taking care of these foreigners is a big, big problem for us. Countries should take back their people and rehabilitate them.”

The Autonomous Administration and SDF have already made significant sacrifices as part of the international coalition fighting ISIS, Omar said. About 12,000 SDF troops were killed and another 20,000 were injured fighting ISIS, he said, in part “so that people in Europe can sleep calmly at night.”

About three dozen aid agencies including the UN Refugee Agency and UNICEF work in al-Hol. But many donor countries are wary of supporting a camp population that may include ISIS members or sympathizers, Autonomous Administration authorities and humanitarian workers said, even though the majority of people in the camp are young children who had no choice but to live with their parents under ISIS.

“We are seeing the stigmatization of a vast section of the camp population that is perceived as affiliated with the Islamic State group,” said Fabrizio Carboni, who heads Near and Middle East operations for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Carboni warned against a “good victim-bad victim” double standard. International standards prohibit denying essential aid, including if the denial is based on ideological or religious affiliation.

Some organizations are also concerned that their assistance could enable indefinite detention of women and children without charge. “It is one thing to assist a refugee camp and another to assist a prison,” one aid worker said.

The three field hospitals in the main camp areas are understaffed and under-resourced, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported in July. Doctors Without Borders runs a health clinic inside the annex and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) runs a mobile clinic there, but their hours are limited due to staff shortages and security concerns.

Two-fold access problems also hinder delivery of services, aid groups said. Humanitarian agencies with agreements to work in Syria must obtain permission to access al-Hol through Damascus because the Autonomous Administration controlling the northern third of Syria, including al-Hol camp, is not an internationally recognized government. Negotiations with the Syrian government on humanitarian access are often difficult, as Human Rights Watch documented in a June report.

But even agencies that receive Syrian government permission, or that work under the radar in al-Hol without it, sometimes face delays in obtaining the Autonomous Administration authorities’ permission to deliver assistance inside the annex, aid workers said. In its July report, OCHA said that humanitarian access to the annex “remains restricted” in ways that “continue to impact and prevent delivery of services.”

Dire Health Conditions

One reason for poor conditions at al-Hol is that the camp population soared from 10,000 people in December 2018 to more than 73,000 by April, camp managers and aid groups said. During that period, a US-led military coalition routed ISIS from its last stand in Baghouz, a town in eastern Deir al-Zour governate. Many new arrivals from Deir al-Zour were severely injured, traumatized, and malnourished. Yet while conditions are dire throughout al-Hol, they are worse in the annex than in the main areas where Syrians and Iraqis are confined, camp officials and aid workers said.

During Human Rights Watch visits, al-Hol annex was filled with the sounds of children wailing and women and children coughing. A funnel-shaped dust whirl blew hot dust and debris into tents.

Many women and children had visible skin sores from leishmaniasis, a sand fly-borne parasite. Some inhabitants have been diagnosed with tuberculosis, camp managers said. Drinking water is insufficiently chlorinated and remains in short supply, aid workers said. Human Rights Watch saw children drink water from a wash-water tank that had worms coming out of the spout.

In July, OCHA reported a “sharp increase” in acute diarrhea and a “slight increase” in acute malnutrition throughout al-Hol.

Some women, including those with risky pregnancies and pre-natal complications such as anemia or high blood pressure, are giving birth in their tents without a doctor or midwife, aid workers said. One reason is that Asayish – Autonomous Administration security agents who guard the camp –sometimes delay or refuse their requests to go to a hospital, or they arrive at a hospital only to be turned away because the facility is full, they said. In an added disadvantage, women who give birth in a hospital automatically receive post-natal care and essentials such as diapers whereas women who give birth in tents must request such assistance, they said.

Three women said that a young girl had died from kidney failure in the annex the previous week.

Human Rights Watch saw several wounded children in the annex. One was a bone-thin, 12-year-old Russian boy wearing a patch over his left eye. “Shrapnel in Baghouz,” he said, adding that he had lost vision in that eye.

Another boy, a 4-year-old from Uzbekistan, sat with a blank stare as his mother pushed him across the rubble in a stroller, his right leg missing up to his mid-thigh. The boy’s leg was blown off during a US-led coalition strike in the Syrian town of Sousa in late 2018, his mother said, adding: “I have been trying to get him crutches and a prosthetic leg for four months.”

Worse Conditions for Foreigners

In addition to problems accessing essential services in the main camp areas, nearly all the women interviewed in the annex said they had scant if any means to buy fresh food for their children to supplement their rations of lentils, grains, oil, and sugar, or extra diapers. SDF troops and Asayish agents have confiscated women’s cash and other valuables and barred them from selling any possessions that they may have been able to hold onto, camp inhabitants and aid workers said.

Camp administrators allow Syrian and Iraqi women in the main camp areas to make purchases through the Hawala alternative money transfer system but the foreigners cannot, aid workers said.

Autonomous Administration authorities also bar women in the annex from using cell phones for fear they may contact ISIS members, although cell phones are allowed in sections holding Syrians and Iraqis, aid workers said. The ICRC has begun helping women send letters to family members, but many have not yet made contact and communications have been irregular for those who have.

On all three visits Human Rights Watch saw dozens of women pounding on the chain-link fence that cordons off the annex, clamoring for escorts to reach supplies or health services. Human Rights Watch saw some of the women waiting for hours, with no shade, in 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) heat. The temperature at al-Hol has soared as high as 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) this summer.

“I am going into labor,” shouted a visibly pregnant woman. “What about our human rights?” demanded another. By the time they reach the food distribution point, the rations are sometimes gone and they have to return the next day, the women said.

Living in Fear

Tensions run high in al-Hol, and many women said they were terrified for their safety and that of their children. Women in the camp who adhere to ISIS’ extremist ideology have threatened and set fire to tents of women and children who they consider infidels. Twice, in separate attacks in June and July, a woman stabbed a guard with a knife hidden in her abaya, camp managers and aid workers said.

Guards raid tents at night and frequently shoot in the air to keep order. On July 3, guards shot and wounded two boys, ages 12 and 10, who they said were throwing rocks at them, aid workers said. Twice while at the camp in June, Human Rights Watch heard gunshots fired.

Interviewees also consistently said they feared the Asayish security agents who frequently search tents and take away families in the middle of the night. Camp managers said that the night raids were necessary to remove women or children who were security threats, or to relocate families who feared for their safety to other areas of al-Hol or other camps.

Many women said they also feared tent fires caused by women cooking inside tents; at least one child died in a cooking fire. Others spoke of insects and snakes that crawl onto their sleeping pallets at night.

Piecemeal Repatriations

Repatriations of ISIS suspects and family members from northeast Syria, as well as from neighboring Iraq, have been piecemeal. KazakhstanUzbekistanTajikistanRussiaKosovo, and Turkey have organized the return home of more than 1,250 nationals held in northeast Syria and Iraq, most of them children.

But most countries have ignored the Autonomous Administration’s calls for them to repatriate citizens or have taken back only small numbers, primarily orphans, calling them a security threat and citing complications in verifying citizenship of children lacking documents or born in areas under ISIS control.

Norway in June repatriated 5 orphans from northeast Syria. France in March and June flew home 18 children – 17 from northeast Syria and 1 from Iraq. In June, Sweden brought home 7 children and the Netherlands brought home 2 children from Syria. Germany has flown home fewer than 10 from Iraq. Australia in June brought home 8 children from Syria. The US, which has criticized Western allies for refusing to repatriate all its nationals, has brought home 16 adult suspects and children since July 2018. Italy in June took back one suspected ISIS fighter.

France has allowed 11 citizens to be prosecuted in Iraq although the defendants were sentenced to death in rushed proceedings tainted by allegations of torture. The UK has stripped citizenship from nationals including Shamima Begum, who joined ISIS abroad, and Denmark in March proposed stripping children of ISIS members of citizenship. Australia in July introduced draconian revisions to Australian law that would ban returns of citizens as young as 14 for two years if they are suspected of being foreign fighters abroad.

Expressions of Regret

All the women interviewed said they realized soon after arriving in Syria that they had made a mistake. They all insisted that during their life under ISIS their roles had been solely those of housewives and mothers. Human Rights Watch is not in a position to judge the veracity of these claims and it is clear that some women in the camp support – and seek to enforce – ISIS ideology. Women who have committed international crimes should be charged and those who do not face criminal charges should be freed. But children brought to or born in ISIS-controlled areas should not be punished for their parents’ poor judgment or crimes.

“My children did not choose this life,” said “Fatima,” a 27-year-old Belgian widow held in al-Hol with her four young children. Fatima said her 7-year-old daughter did not even learn to read and write under ISIS. Her 6-year-old daughter has a viral infection; unable to obtain medical care in the annex, she scrounged funds to buy rehydrating fluids and inserted an intravenous drip in her daughter’s arm with a friend.

“My children don’t even have a working toilet,” Fatima said. “When there is shooting, they cry and remember the fighting. They deserve a second chance.”

Additional Recommendations

As part of measures to assist repatriation efforts, countries should immediately take all possible steps to ensure that their citizens trapped in any areas of al-Hol or in other camps or prisons in northeast Syria have a way to request repatriation and expedite efforts to verify citizenship, particularly of children. Countries that can guarantee fair trials and humane conditions should investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute returnees responsible for international crimes such as war crimes and torture.

Children should be treated first and foremost as victims, including those recruited by ISIS, and decisions about their future should be made based on their best interests. Parents should be brought home with children unless separation is in the child’s best interest. Children should face prosecution only in exceptional circumstances.

In the meantime, Autonomous Administration camp administrators, humanitarian organizations and donor governments, including those with nationals confined to camps in northeast Syria, should improve sanitary conditions, access to food and clean water, shelter, and medical and psychosocial services for all camp inhabitants. The Autonomous Administration should increase annex inhabitants’ access to essential services in other camp areas.

The Autonomous Administration and US-led coalition fighting ISIS should facilitate contact between camp inhabitants and their families including relatives held in separate prisons or camps.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres should press and assist UN agencies including the UN Refugees Agency and member states to coordinate a swift global response that upholds international human rights protections and includes repatriations and resettlements.

Statements from Women Confined in al-Hol annex

This is a nightmare I cannot wake up from. As Muslims we wanted to experience the Islamic State like Christians want to visit Jerusalem. It was so easy to get to Syria through Turkey. But then we found there was no way out. Bombs were falling everywhere and we could not afford a smuggler. In the end they [ISIS] even hid food from us. The only people they fed were their fighters. We are so broken. We are not threats to anyone. We just want our children to go to school and to stop stressing about where is the next meal coming from.

  • “Ayisha,” 37 weeks pregnant, from Trinidad. Mother of five children including two boys, ages 14 and 15, who were taken with her husband when the family surrendered to SDF forces in January.

From the first day I got to Syria I wanted to go home. They [ISIS] treated us like garbage. There was so much injustice. But my husband kept saying, “Forget going back. If they know we want to leave they will put us in prison or kill us.” Then my husband died two years ago. He just never came home. Since then I have been trying to find a way home. The Prophet…says the Sham [Levant] is a blessed place. But I never saw a blessing.

  • “Maria” from Belgium, widow, mother of two children born in Syria.

One day my husband said, “I am going, you are coming with me.” I was thinking, “Why? We are comfortable.” But as a Muslim woman you follow your husband. I just want to go back to Australia. My family says they will take me and the children back. People think we are monsters. Please tell them we are humans, just like them.

  • “Radhia” from Australia, widow, mother of three children born in Syria.

I thought, “Now I’ll be able to practice my religion and cover my face without being harassed the way I am at home.” I heard there was bombing and stuff but I didn’t think I’d be living under it. But then I got here [to Syria] and realized how dangerous it was. My husband became disillusioned, too. A year ago, we found a smuggler to take us out. We wanted to start over. But then Kurdish [SDF] forces took us.

  • “Miriam” from Canada, mother of two children born in Syria, husband in SDF-controlled prison.

I came to Syria because I was having problems at work and at home. It sounds so cliché. I was 20 when I left. I got the idea while I was conversing online with sisters [ISIS members]. I married two weeks after I arrived. They gave me a paper with three men’s names, ages, and hometowns. I chose the man from my hometown. We met and we liked each other. Then he was killed by a bullet in the head. If I have to go to prison I will. I just want to come home. 

“Hanneke” from the Netherlands, widow.

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/SYRIA: DIRE CONDITIONS FOR ISIS SUSPECTS’ FAMILIES

Filed under Divers

Woman shot and killed by police officer in her own home/Police violence in the USA/Another innocent victim

WOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME/POLICE VIOLENCE IN THE USA!/ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM 

A makeshift memorial outside the home of Atatiana Jefferson on Monday. Jefferson was fatally shot by a Fort Worth police officer early Saturday morning. (Jake Bleiberg/AP)

A makeshift memorial outside the home of Atatiana Jefferson on Monday. Jefferson was fatally shot by a Fort Worth police officer early Saturday morning. (Jake Bleiberg/AP)

View image on Twitter

ATATIANA JEFFERSONONE OF THE COUNTLESS VICTIMS OF US POLICE BRUTALITYATATIANA JEFFERSON, REST IN PEACE

Aaron Y. Dean

Aaron Y. DeanCreditTarrant County Sheriff’s Office

AARON Y DEAN, THE POLICE OFFICER, WHO SHOT AND KILLED ATATIANA JEFFERSON

” Oscar’s killing is personal because his death offends the fundamental principles of justice, every notion of dignity and the idea that through those threads, all of our lives are connected.  As human beings, we are responsible for each other.  His death means that we must work for his justice. ”
ABOUT OSCAR GRANT, ANOTHER BLACK VICTIM OF US POLICE BRUTALITY
https://www.amnestyusa.org/another-year-another-unarmed-black-man-killed-by-police/

Police violence in the USA [1] is very depressing and not only shows an amount of deep structural racism [most victims are black men and sometimes blach women too], but also the insane trigger happiness of many policemen.As I say, not only black people are being deadly shot, white people too [2]But the problem is that reading the percentage of victims, black people are over representated.According to Amnesty International five times more than white people! [3]And almost in the most cases the same story:Police officers are confronted with black men, who are deadly shot, because the police officer tought they were wearing a gun, while in reality it was something innocent like a  mobile phone…………[4]This can happen once, or two times, but when it happens each time again [while the police officer is heavily armed and can easily defend himself] it is no ”incident” anymore, but a form of racism, whether it is conscious or subconscious.It happens too many times!Besides:Investigations show, that there is a disproportionate fear to see criminality in black people, especially tall black men and black men in general [5]There are so many examples of police violence against black people!See under note 6Depressing and good, that movements like”Black lives matter” [7] is protesting continually.

STUDIES ABOUT POLICE BRUTA;ITY AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE
Police brutality against black people is widely acknowledged:Firstly by the facts we see in the news.But the amount of police brutality against black people is shocking in this time, this century, this period:
Amnesty International speaks for black Americans as five times likely to be shot as unarmed whote Americans
I quote Amnesty International USA
and unarmed black Americans are five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.” [8]
By the way, about USA police trigger happiness:Amnesty International USA also writes:
Hundreds of people are killed by police every year in the United States.’ [9]
According to the Washington Post, in 2016, 962 people were killed by the police [10], in 2019, 717 people so far [11]
That’s a lot of people.
ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE:

A recent study reveals, that about 1 in 1,000 black men and boys in America can expect to die at the hands of police [12]That makes them 2.5 times more likely than white men and boys to die during an encounter with cops…..[13]
The analysis also showed that Latino men and boys, black women and girls and Native American men, women and children are also killed by police at higher rates than their white peers. But the vulnerability of black males was particularly striking. [14]
THE BLACK WOMAN, WHO WAS SHOT AND KILLED IN HER OWN HOME
The reason I wrote this piece in particular is the following shocking incident:
In the early morning on saturday 12 october 2019 an 28 year old black woman,Atatiana Jefferson, was shot and killed in her own home by a white Fort Worth police officer [in Texas] [15]In her own home.As newssources say:In her own bedroom! [16]Police arrived at her home after a neighbor called a non-emergency number, stating that Jefferson’s front door was open.[2] Police body camera footage showed that when she came to her window to observe police outside her home, Officer Aaron Dean shot through it and killed her. [17]And now the most shocking point:The policeman didn’t identify himself as a policeman [18], just shouted orders and shot immediately, not giving the woman even the chance to respond to his orders.Youtube films give evidence to that.You hear a shouting order, then a shot……[19]WELL, readers, here was no supposed black criminal, no alleged gun, that was pulled, only an unarmed woman in her home, who was shot…….Because I don’t believe the cop’s story, that she had a gun, that she pointed out on the officer, based allegedly on the statement of her nephew, a child of 8 years old! [20]Besides this statement of an 8 years old had been debunked!I quote the New York Times:”A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window. When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.

But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home.” [21]And even IF she had a gun in her home, what seemed to be the case [22] since when that is a problem?According to the second amendment of the USA constitution [23] any American inhabitant has the right to bear a weapon!Besides, even the police chief, Kraus, had defended her right to have a gun on her home! [24]
Is it not shocking, readers, that a person is not safe in his or her own house?
With right the NAACP [25] gave the following statement:
”UNACCEPTABLE! The acts of yet another “trained” police officer have resulted in the death of #AtatianaJefferson. Gun downed in her own home. If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers. We demand justice.” [26]

CHARGED WITH MURDER
End now, the good news is, that Aaron Y Deal, the white police officer, who shot Atatiana Jefferson in her own home, is being charged for murder. [27]
I personally wonder whether the cop really is going to be convicted, but if he is, I don’t hope it is such a mockery of justice, like in a similar case, shortly ago, in which a white female police officer shot a black man, Botham Jean, in his own home, pretending [I don’t believe her] that she believed it was her own apartment and that Jean was a burglar [as if it is justified to shoot and kill any burglar, who comes in your home, but that’s apart from this] [28]She was merely convicted to ten years prison. [29]
A mockery of justice, according to me and many others.
But in the Netherlands it is not at all different:
In 2013 a Dutch police officer, who shot the 17 years old Rishi Chadrikasing [from Surinamese-Indian descent], who was running away [the officer wrongly stated that Rishi was a ”treath” to him, despite the fact, that he was running away!], was acquitted for fatlly shooting Chadrikasing.I called the sentence ”license to kill” [30]

EPILOGUE
The police killing of the innocent Atatiana Jefferson, in her own home, shows another day in hell for black people in the USA.Because they are not safe!Black men bear the greatest risks-being seen as dangerous, even when they only show their ID, it mysteriously changes in a gun-but also black women are not safe, even not in their own home.And the fact that a female police officer kills a black man in his own home, telling a nonsense story, that she thought it was her own home and is only convicted to ten years prison [31], just shows how sick the American society still is!

Reason for me to write this piece [see also my comment on ABC News below].And in memory to Atatiana Jefferson and all black and other people, who were victims of police killings.
But we are determined to fight on.Untill Justice is done!
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

Astrid EssedAmsterdam

MY COMMENT ON ABC NEWS

ABC NEWSTEXAS COP NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS POLICE BEFORE FATALLY SHOOTING ATATIANA JEFFERSON IN HER OWN HOME: OFFICIAL13 OCTOBER 2019

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-bodycam-shooting-killing-woman-home/story?id=66237208

Astrid Essed • a few seconds agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by ABC News.

HORRIBLE!
Though I don’t know the facts yet, it seems to me like an extrajudicial ezxecution!
Not only clearly the policeman did not identify himself as police, or shouting ”police” [he has to show his card too], even if he did, and it was a situation which required shooting, he still had the obligation to shoot in the air first [if there was no imminent threath and then on a less vulnerable part of her body!
Police violence against black people in the US is shocking.
Mostly is the excuse, that the person ”bearec arms” and to see later it was just a mobile or identity card he wanted to show!
But also white people are subject to police violence.
So in general:
Not only racism, but also trigger happy behaviour is the root of many police deaths.
THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED!/RIGHT NOW!/https://www.astridessed.nl/…
Astrid Essed

NOTES

[1]

WIKIPEDIAPOLICE BRUTALITY IN THE UNITED STATES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality_in_the_United_States

BRITANNICA.COMPOLICE BRUTALITY IN THE UNITED STATES
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Police-Brutality-in-the-United-States-2064580
BRITANNICA.COM
AFRICAN AMERICANS AND POLICE BRUTALITY
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Police-Brutality-in-the-United-States-2064580#ref334676

ORIGINAL SOURCE
BRITANNICA.COMPOLICE BRUTALITY IN THE UNITED STATES
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Police-Brutality-in-the-United-States-2064580

[2]
”In the U.S., African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. For black women, the rate is 1.4 times more likely.”
CITYLAB.COMWHAT NEW RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT RACE AND POLICE SHOOTINGS6 AUGUST 2019
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/08/police-officer-shootings-gun-violence-racial-bias-crime-data/595528/

[3]

Hundreds of people are killed by police every year in the United States. According to The Washington Post, 963 people were killed by police in 2016 alone, and unarmed black Americans are five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.”

AMNESTY INTERNATIONALDEADLY FORCE AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/deadly-force-police-accountability/

We all have the human right to live and to be safe, secure, and treated equally.These fundamental human rights are violated when police can kill people without justification or accountability – and that’s why Amnesty International is working to enact standards and safeguards to protect everyone.THE PROBLEMPOLICE USE OF LETHAL FORCEHundreds of people are killed by police every year in the United States. According to The Washington Post, 963 people were killed by police in 2016 alone, and unarmed black Americans are five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.Nobody really knows how many people are shot and killed by police officers because the federal government does not collect this data.LACK OF STANDARDSSeveral fundamental human rights are involved when police use lethal force: the rights to life, security of the person, freedom from discrimination, and equal protection under the law. The United States has a legal obligation to protect these rights, and has entered international agreements promising to protect them. International law only allows police officers to use lethal force as a last resort to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury.In 2015, Amnesty International issued a groundbreaking report that found that all 50 states and the District of Columbia failed to comply with international law and standards on the use of lethal force by police. There are not adequate laws on the books to prevent unlawful use of lethal force or to hold police accountable for using it.


END OF THE AMNESTY ARTICLE

In the U.S., African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. For black women, the rate is 1.4 times more likely.”CITYLAB.COMWHAT NEW RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT RACE AND POLICE SHOOTINGS6 AUGUST 2019
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/08/police-officer-shootings-gun-violence-racial-bias-crime-data/595528/

Two new studies have revived the long-running debate over how police respond to white criminal suspects versus African Americans.

In the U.S., African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. For black women, the rate is 1.4 times more likely.

That’s according to a new study conducted by Frank Edwards, of Rutgers University’s School of Criminal Justice, Hedwig Lee, of Washington University in St. Louis’s Department of Sociology, and Michael Esposito, of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The researchers used verified data on police killings from 2013 to 2018 compiled by the website Fatal Encounters, created by Nevada-based journalist D. Brian Burghart. Under their models, they found that roughly 1-in-1,000 black boys and men will be killed by police in their lifetime. For white boys and men, the rate is 39 out of 100,000.

In fact, people of color in general were found more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts. 

The study was published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS, a journal that recently drew controversy for publishing another study on police killing disparities. That study, led by Michigan State University psychology professor Joseph Cesario, published on July 22, found that violent crime rates and the racial demographics of a given location are better indicators for determining a police killing victim’s race.

As Cesario explained in a press release:

Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot.

The two studies are just the latest salvos in a long-running debate over whether police violence towards African Americans is better explained because of racial prejudice or because black people are really violent enough to justify extra police force. The Cesario study, with its focus on crime rates, seems to fall in the latter camp. Both rely on media-generated police shootings data—Cesario’s uses databases produced by The Washington Post and The Guardian.

Several academics have challenged Cesario’s methodology, namely his decision to “sidestep the benchmark” of using population to calculate racial disparity. It has been questioned whether using population is an appropriate benchmark in these kinds of analyses: Critics of this technique believe that population-benchmarking is flawed because it assumes black and white people have an equal likelihood of encountering police. (An example of population-benchmarking is, as Cesario’s study explains, stating: “26% of civilians killed by police shootings in 2015 were Black even though Black civilians comprise only 12% of the U.S. population. According to this 12% benchmark, more Black civilians are fatally shot than we would expect, indicating disparity.”)

The study was published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS, a journal that recently drew controversy for publishing another study on police killing disparities. That study, led by Michigan State University psychology professor Joseph Cesario, published on July 22, found that violent crime rates and the racial demographics of a given location are better indicators for determining a police killing victim’s race.

As Cesario explained in a press release:

Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot.

The two studies are just the latest salvos in a long-running debate over whether police violence towards African Americans is better explained because of racial prejudice or because black people are really violent enough to justify extra police force. The Cesario study, with its focus on crime rates, seems to fall in the latter camp. Both rely on media-generated police shootings data—Cesario’s uses databases produced by The Washington Post and The Guardian.

Several academics have challenged Cesario’s methodology, namely his decision to “sidestep the benchmark” of using population to calculate racial disparity. It has been questioned whether using population is an appropriate benchmark in these kinds of analyses: Critics of this technique believe that population-benchmarking is flawed because it assumes black and white people have an equal likelihood of encountering police. (An example of population-benchmarking is, as Cesario’s study explains, stating: “26% of civilians killed by police shootings in 2015 were Black even though Black civilians comprise only 12% of the U.S. population. According to this 12% benchmark, more Black civilians are fatally shot than we would expect, indicating disparity.”)Instead of using population, Cesario analyzed variables such as the race of the police officers, crime rates, and the racial demographics of locations where police shootings happened in 2015. From that, he derived that black and Latino victims of police killings were more likely to have been shot by black and Latino cops, and that ”might not be due to bias on the part of Black or Hispanic officers, but instead to simple overlap between officer and county demographics.” The problem with this, as Princeton professor Jonathan Mummolo, explained on Twitter, is that it still rests on the assumption that black and white officers encounter black civilians in equal numbers, or in even temperaments—which they don’t.

The problem with this, as Princeton professor Jonathan Mummolo, explained on Twitter, is that it still rests on the assumption that black and white officers encounter black civilians in equal numbers, or in even temperaments—which they don’t

What do the recent mass shootings tell us, if anything, about this?

There’s also something to be said for what the victims were doing when the cops shot them. Cesario points out that, “The vast majority—between 90 percent and 95 percent—of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot”—and that there were more white civilians who were committing such attacks when police killed them than were African Americans. In fact, white people were more likely to be armed when police killed them, as Cesario’s study acknowledges—“if anything, [we] found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime,” reads the study.

The three most recent mass shootings—in Gilroy, California; Dayton, Ohio; and El Paso, Texas—represent extreme examples of armed white men on the attack, but looking at them through the lens of Cesario’s findings is still revealing. Police shot two of the perpetrators, killing one of them. Connor Betts, the shooter who killed nine people and injured 27 more on August 4 in Dayton, was stopped by police bullets less than a minute after his attack began. Police fired at the Gilroy shooter, Santino Legan, but he ultimately succumbed to self-inflicted wounds. Patrick Crusius was arrested “without incident” after killing 22 people and injuring dozens more in El Paso.

In only one of these cases did police actually shoot and kill an armed white suspect who was on the attack: Betts in Dayton. Even that case is murky, though. Betts wore a mask, hearing protection, and body armor—his race was likely not apparent from a distance, and the entire melee happened very quickly. But even if one interprets the fact that police shot at two of those three shooters as evidence of the “anti-White disparity” Cesario mentions, one could also argue that it takes whites committing large-scale acts of terror with automatic weapons for police to respond in the same way that police have responded to, say, a teenager walking away-from-police-while-black.  

The limitations of the data

Another way to determine whether racial bias is a factor is by examining police behavior when their target is unarmed and not on the attack. This is what University of Nebraska at Omaha criminology professor Justin Nix examined in his 2017 study on police killings. Nix’s research, which Cesario cites often in his own study, also focuses on police shooting-killings in 2015, when police killed nearly twice as many white people that year (495) than they did black people (258). But 15 percent of the black people police killed that year were unarmed, compared with just 6 percent of white people who were unarmed when killed by police. The study also found that 24 percent of African Americans and 32 percent of other non-white racial groups were not attacking police officers when they were killed, compared to 17 percent of white people. This was interpreted as “preliminary evidence of an implicit bias effect,” against African Americans and people of color.

What do the recent mass shootings tell us, if anything, about this?

There’s also something to be said for what the victims were doing when the cops shot them. Cesario points out that, “The vast majority—between 90 percent and 95 percent—of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot”—and that there were more white civilians who were committing such attacks when police killed them than were African Americans. In fact, white people were more likely to be armed when police killed them, as Cesario’s study acknowledges—“if anything, [we] found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime,” reads the study.

The three most recent mass shootings—in Gilroy, California; Dayton, Ohio; and El Paso, Texas—represent extreme examples of armed white men on the attack, but looking at them through the lens of Cesario’s findings is still revealing. Police shot two of the perpetrators, killing one of them. Connor Betts, the shooter who killed nine people and injured 27 more on August 4 in Dayton, was stopped by police bullets less than a minute after his attack began. Police fired at the Gilroy shooter, Santino Legan, but he ultimately succumbed to self-inflicted wounds. Patrick Crusius was arrested “without incident” after killing 22 people and injuring dozens more in El Paso.

In only one of these cases did police actually shoot and kill an armed white suspect who was on the attack: Betts in Dayton. Even that case is murky, though. Betts wore a mask, hearing protection, and body armor—his race was likely not apparent from a distance, and the entire melee happened very quickly. But even if one interprets the fact that police shot at two of those three shooters as evidence of the “anti-White disparity” Cesario mentions, one could also argue that it takes whites committing large-scale acts of terror with automatic weapons for police to respond in the same way that police have responded to, say, a teenager walking away-from-police-while-black.  

The limitations of the data

Another way to determine whether racial bias is a factor is by examining police behavior when their target is unarmed and not on the attack. This is what University of Nebraska at Omaha criminology professor Justin Nix examined in his 2017 study on police killings. Nix’s research, which Cesario cites often in his own study, also focuses on police shooting-killings in 2015, when police killed nearly twice as many white people that year (495) than they did black people (258). But 15 percent of the black people police killed that year were unarmed, compared with just 6 percent of white people who were unarmed when killed by police. The study also found that 24 percent of African Americans and 32 percent of other non-white racial groups were not attacking police officers when they were killed, compared to 17 percent of white people. This was interpreted as “preliminary evidence of an implicit bias effect,” against African Americans and people of color.

Nix, however, is cautious about deriving any firm conclusions from his own findings or Cesario’s because the data on police shootings in general is too limited. The FBI finally launched its database on police-involved shootings just this year, which is why researchers rely on databases created by journalists. And even the subset of data that academics have been working with—police shooting fatalities—have their own range of limitations.

Cesario declares in his press release that “violent crime rates are the driving force behind fatal [police] shootings,” but Nix says that is “pretty strong language in light of the limitations,” especially if looking at when police deploy lethal force at the local level.

“I don’t think the conclusions are warranted based on their analysis,” said Nix. “You can’t restrict the data to just fatal shootings. Another problem is that when doing these bird’s-eye views, you lose nuance from city to city. Policing is a local thing and there’s no reason to believe that everything is the same across the board.”

For example, Nix would want numbers not only on how many times a police officer shoots their weapon, but every time they draw their gun. “You need a benchmark that says how often they were in certain circumstances where they could have shot but did not. That gets us closer to the likelihood of racial bias.”

Nix recently updated his analysis on police shootings using fatal and non-fatal shootings from the 47 largest metros from 2010 to 2016, using a dataset produced by VICE. That analysis found wide variation between the cities—in St. Louis, 16.8 percent of police shootings were fatal; in Phoenix, 51.9 percent were; and, in Tampa, all three of its police shootings were fatal.  

What the studies don’t tell us

Cesario’s study centers the characteristics of the police officer over the victim, concluding essentially that since black and Hispanic police are as likely or more likely to kill people of color as white officers, that the race of the police officer doesn’t matter. But it’s not clear whether that matters in determining whether police bias exists at all. As Philip Atiba Goff, president and cofounder of the Center for Policing Equity, told NPR, “Racism is not a thing that white people can have and black people can’t. And nobody’s research would suggest that it does.”Looking at individual police characteristics doesn’t tell the public anything about the links between structural racism—both within a police department and throughout society—and police violence. Boston University School of Public Health scholar Michael Siegel found that connection in his study last year, which analyzed data on police killings between 2013 and 2017. States that have higher rates of racial segregation, incarceration, educational attainment, economic disparity, and unemployment also tend to have higher levels of police violence against African Americans, Siegel found. Nor does looking at the racial characteristics of individual police shooters tell the public anything about why American law enforcement as a system finds unarmed nonwhite civilians threatening enough to shoot and kill more often than unarmed whites. They don’t explain why police choked Eric Garner, who had no weapon and posed no threat, or why police shot and killed Philando Castile while he was restrained by a seatbelt in a parked car. Meanwhile, Patrick Crusius committed one of the largest terrorist attacks on Latino Americans in U.S history and was apprehended “without incident” while still at the scene of the crime. The point is not that police should have also killed Crusius, but that Garner and Castille should still be alive. 

[4]
”On the video, one of the officers is heard yelling, “Gun, gun, gun”. Police officials initially told local media that Clark was found with a “tool bar” on him, but later clarified that he was only holding a phone.”

THE GUARDIANPROTESTS IN CALIFORNIA AFTER POLICE KILL BLACK MAN CARRYING ONLY HIS PHONE
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/23/stephon-clark-police-shooting-sacramento-protests-california

[5]

”Young Black men are stereotyped as threatening, which can have grave consequences for interactions with police. We show that these threat stereotypes are even greater for tall Black men, who face greater discrimination from police officers and elicit stronger judgments of threat.”

PNAS.ORGFOR BLACK MEN, BEING TALL INCREASES THREAT, STEREOTYPING AND POLICE STOPS13 MARCH 2018
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/11/2711

TEXT

Edited by Jennifer A. Richeson, Yale University, New Haven, CT, and approved January 24, 2018 (received for review August 22, 2017) 

Significance

Young Black men are stereotyped as threatening, which can have grave consequences for interactions with police. We show that these threat stereotypes are even greater for tall Black men, who face greater discrimination from police officers and elicit stronger judgments of threat. We challenge the assumption that height is intrinsically good for men. White men may benefit from height, but Black men may not. More broadly, we demonstrate how demographic factors (e.g., race) can influence how people interpret physical traits (e.g., height). This difference in interpretation is a matter not of magnitude but of meaning: The same trait is positive for some groups of people but negative for others.

Abstract

Height seems beneficial for men in terms of salaries and success; however, past research on height examines only White men. For Black men, height may be more costly than beneficial, primarily signaling threat rather than competence. Three studies reveal the downsides of height in Black men. Study 1 analyzes over 1 million New York Police Department stop-and-frisk encounters and finds that tall Black men are especially likely to receive unjustified attention from police. Then, studies 2 and 3 experimentally demonstrate a causal link between perceptions of height and perceptions of threat for Black men, particularly for perceivers who endorse stereotypes that Black people are more threatening than White people. Together, these data reveal that height is sometimes a liability for Black men, particularly in contexts in which threat is salient.

“When you deal with the police, you must be careful. You are big and they will automatically see you as a threat.” — Charles Coleman, Jr. (6′4″ Black attorney/writer), quoting his mother

Charles Coleman, Jr. evoked his mother’s warning when he wrote about Eric Garner, an unarmed man choked to death by police. Garner was both Black and 6′3″ tall. Coleman highlights the perils of “occupying a Black body that is inherently threatening,” arguing that tall Black men receive disproportionate attention from police officers (1). This argument evokes the “black brute” archetype, which portrays Black men as apelike savages who use their imposing physical frame to threaten others (23). Although Black men face stereotypes of aggression and threat (46), tall Black men may find themselves perceived as especially threatening.

The idea that height has negative consequences contrasts with previous psychological research on height in men, which argues that taller is better. Research finds that tall men seem healthier, more intelligent, more successful, and more physically attractive (79). Tall men also stand a greater chance of being hired (10), making more money (1112), gaining promotions (1314), and winning leadership positions (715).

However, this research almost exclusively explores perceptions of White men (Table S1), who are already positively stereotyped as competent and intelligent (1617). On the other hand, Black men are negatively stereotyped; they are seen as hostile, aggressive, and threatening (e.g., refs. 1720) and are associated with guns (45). For Black men, height may be more often interpreted as a sign of threat instead of competence.

Thus, being tall may not be inherently good or bad for men. Instead, the accessibility of other traits, such as competence and threat, may influence how people interpret height. Classic work in social psychology demonstrates similar effects: Whether a target is initially described as “warm” or “cold” changes how people interpret the target’s other traits (e.g., intelligent, industrious) (21). Considerable research demonstrates that Black men are specifically stereotyped as physically threatening and imposing (2223). For this reason, height may impact judgments of threat more strongly for Black men than for White men.

The Present Research

In three studies, we test whether taller Black men are judged as more threatening than shorter Black men and than both taller and shorter White men. We first examined whether New York City police officers disproportionately stopped and frisked tall Black men from 2006 to 2013 (study 1). We then investigated whether height increases threat judgments more for Black men than for White men by manipulating height both visually (study 2) and descriptively (study 3).

Cultural Stereotypes Pilot

Before conducting these three studies, we first conducted a pilot examining participants’ knowledge of cultural stereotypes, testing whether participants endorse knowledge of stereotypes that tall Black men are seen as especially threatening and tall White men are seen as especially competent. Results showed that cultural stereotypes of threat are increased by tallness more for Black targets than for White targets and, conversely, that cultural stereotypes of competence are increased by tallness more for White targets than for Black targets. Full reporting for this pilot is provided in Pilot Study: Cultural Stereotypes About Height and Race; a graph summarizing the results is shown in Fig. S1.

Results

Study 1: New York Police Department Stop-and-Frisk.

In 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Federal District Court in New York ruled that the New York Police Department’s (NYPD’s) stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional because of its clear history of racial discrimination (24). Black and Hispanic people faced disproportionate odds of being stopped by police officers, despite the fact that this “racial profiling” was ineffective. In study 1 we tested whether tall Black men were especially likely to be stopped by NYPD officers.

Before analysis, we cleaned the dataset and made three restrictions. (i) We only used data for non-Hispanic Black and White males, avoiding issues with different distributions of height in the population (i.e., Hispanics are shorter than non-Hispanics; women are shorter than men). (ii) We restricted our data to include only people between 5′4″ and 6′4″. This range in height includes over 98% of Black and White males and prevents outliers (particularly those created by clerical errors) from influencing our results. (iii) We restricted our data to include only people of weights between 100 and 400 lb to prevent outliers created by clerical errors.

Recent work demonstrates that young Black men are perceived as taller and more threatening than young White men, controlling for actual height (22). To account for the alternate explanation that police officers simply perceived Black men as taller than White men (25), we analyzed only cases in which suspects provided photographic identification, which almost always lists height alongside other information that cannot be guessed or estimated, such as date of birth (thus making it highly probable that officers record the listed value for height, rather than estimating it) (26). These restrictions left us with 1,073,536 valid targets for analysis.

The stop-and-frisk dataset is large and includes numerous potential dependent variables. For our analysis, we focus on police officers’ decisions to stop individuals, as this decision is made before any interactions with police, making it more reliant on person perception (27). We recognize the potential issue of flexible analyses and partly address this issue by estimating standardized effect sizes for many variables, which allows comparison of the relative magnitude of effects (especially given that the sample size is large enough to allow accurate estimation of effect size).

We accounted for target weight and the interaction of height and weight to isolate height as a predictor (12). Furthermore, to address an ecological explanation for race effects (28), we nested our data within precinct (to account for variability in geographical factors such as crime rate and land value), included precinct-level felony rates (from 2005–2013), and also included a variable in which officers report whether the stop was made in a high-crime area. Finally, because some research suggests that only young Black men are stereotyped as threatening (29), we include age and the interaction between height and age in our model.

Ratio of Black to White stops.

Under stop-and-frisk rules, police officers had the authority to stop anyone they deemed suspicious or threatening. If tall Black men seem especially threatening, then the ratio of Black to White stops (i.e., how many Black men are stopped per White man) should increase with height.

Accounting for precinct-level felonies, weight, age, and perceived local crime, height still showed a meaningful main effect, B = 0.079, t(1,073,526) = 23.98, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.070, 0.085]. At 5′4″, police stopped 4.5 Black men for every White man; at 5′10″, police stopped 5.3 Black men for every White man; and at 6′4″, police stopped 6.2 Black men for every White man. These results suggest that taller Black men face a greater risk of being stopped than shorter Black men.

Notably, the ratio of Black to White stops was also greater for heavier men, B = 0.041, t(1,073,526) = 11.80, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.035, 0.048]. At 115 lb, police stopped 4.5 Black men for every White man; at 175 lb (the average weight in the dataset), police stopped 5.2 Black men for every White man; and at 235 lb, police stopped 5.7 Black men for every White man. Finally, height and weight interacted, B = 0.047, t(1,073,526) = 15.71, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.041, 0.053], such that each 1-SD increase in weight increases the standardized effect of height by 0.047. Because weight estimates were not provided on photograph IDs (hereafter, “photo IDs”), we interpret these results with caution.

We also found effects for other variables in the model. Unsurprisingly, areas with more crime, as reported by police and captured in precinct-level data, exhibit higher ratios of Black to White stops. The ratio of Black to White stops was also larger for younger men. Interestingly, height and age interacted, such that height’s effect on the ratio of Black to White stops was larger for older Black men. See Table S2 for the full coefficients and a replication of results with both photo and verbal IDs included.

Discussion.

Study 1 demonstrates that tall Black men receive disproportionate attention from police officers. During 8 y of NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program, tall Black men were particularly likely to face unjustified stops by police officers, and these patterns were not explained by biased height estimates (since officers received photo IDs).

In the next two studies, we test whether these results might be explained by an interaction between race and height, such that tallness primarily increases perceptions of threat for Black men and primarily increases perceptions of competence for White men.

Study 2: Manipulating Height with Perspective.

We experimentally manipulated height and race to test whether they interact to influence judgments of threat and competence. To manipulate height, we took photographs of 16 young men—eight Black and eight White—from two perspectives: above the target and below the target. These different perspectives naturalistically manipulated the experience of encountering someone who is tall or short. A manipulation check indicated that perspective significantly influenced participants’ free response estimates of target height, b = 1.78, F(1, 427) = 16.42, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.91, 2.65], such that targets that were looking down were perceived as taller [mean (M) = 71.6 in.] than targets that were looking up (M = 69.8 in.). See Method for a more detailed description of the perspective manipulation.

Participants rated 16 photographs for adjectives describing both threat and competence. Then, because we expected judgments to depend on participants’ individual beliefs about Black and White people, we assessed participants’ beliefs that Black people are more threatening than White people. We predicted that stronger beliefs about Black threat (BaBT) would increase participants’ tendency to identify tall Black men as especially threatening. We also tested the complementary hypothesis that stronger BaBT might make tall White men seem especially competent. We preregistered these predictions at https://aspredicted.org/465w9.pdf. We also previously conducted another study with a nearly identical design; the results of this study are detailed in Previous Iteration of Study 2.

Race, height, and racial stereotypes.

To test whether those with higher BaBT would judge tall Black men as especially threatening, we fit a three-way multilevel model predicting threat with race, height, and BaBT. This analysis yielded an expected two-way interaction between target race and BaBT, b = 0.19, F(1, 437) = 61.40, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.14, 0.23], such that those higher in BaBT rated Black men as more threatening relative to White men. Importantly, this analysis also yielded the key three-way interaction, b = 0.15, F(1, 2,081) = 10.97, P = 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.24]. No moderating effect of participant gender emerged (Fig. 1).

For Black targets, the two-way interaction between height and BaBT was significant, b = 0.12, t(833) = 3.67, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.19]: Those higher in BaBT saw tall black men as especially threatening. For White targets, this two-way interaction was not significant, b = −0.03, t(834) = −0.83, P = 0.41, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.04]. These results suggest that the predictive utility of BaBT is moderated by height for stereotype-relevant targets (Black men) but not for stereotype-irrelevant targets (White men). See Additional Analyses for Study 2 for BaBT main effects by race and height.

Although BaBT captures the endorsement of stereotypes about threat and not competence, we nevertheless tested for a three-way interaction with competence ratings. We found an expected two-way interaction between target race and BaBT, b = 0.16, F(1, 459) = 70.27, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.20], such that those higher in BaBT rated White men as more competent relative to Black men. We also found a three-way interaction, b = 0.12, F(1, 1,097) = 7.52, P = 0.006, 95% CI [0.03, 0.20], such that BaBT predicted competence especially strongly for tall White men. Participant gender did not moderate effects. This interaction is further broken down statistically (Additional Analyses for Study 2) and graphically (Fig. S2).

Suppressed height effects.

Height did not increase threat for White men, nor did it increase competence for Black men. However, our pilot study revealed main effects of height on stereotypes of both competence and threat. One possible explanation for this null finding is that, for judgments of tall White men, perceived competence suppressed gains in threat, and, for judgments of tall Black men, perceived threat suppressed gains in competence. Because we found significant race by height interactions for both threat and competence at mean levels of BaBT, we were able to conduct Sobel mediations using the entire sample to test these hypotheses.

For White targets, we found a negative indirect effect of height on threat, ab = −0.04, z = −4.30, P < 0.001; being taller makes targets seem more competent and thus less threatening. Once this indirect effect was accounted for, height no longer decreased threat for White men, b = −0.05, t(1,406) = −1.40, P = 0.16. Conversely, for Black targets, we found a negative indirect effect of height on competence, ab = −0.09, z = −6.07, P < 0.001; being taller makes targets more threatening and thus less competent. Notably, once this indirect effect was accounted for, height increased perceived competence for Black targets, b = 0.09, t(1,406) = 2.75, P = 0.006, suggesting that height may be beneficial for Black men in contexts that sufficiently nullify concerns about threat (e.g., the corporate boardroom).

Discussion.

Study 2 experimentally demonstrates that height amplifies threat for Black men and competence for White men, particularly for perceivers who endorse beliefs that Black people are more threatening than White people. Study 2 also found indirect negative effects of height on competence for Black men and threat for White men.

Study 3: Manipulating Height with Descriptions.

Although the photographs from study 2 have naturalistic validity, they may also confound height with intimidation (30). We address this concern by manipulating height with text vignettes (e.g., “As you approach each other, you can see that he is very short/quite tall”) and manipulating race with standardized photographs. See Textual Descriptions of Height Used in Study 3 for text descriptions of height.

Participants rated 16 targets on the same threat and competence adjectives used in study 2. They then completed the BaBT scale. As in the previous experiment, we predicted that those higher in BaBT would make especially strong threat judgments for tall Black men and especially strong competence judgments for tall White men. We preregistered these predictions at https://aspredicted.org/sp3aj.pdf.

Race, height, and racial stereotypes.

We again fit a multilevel model predicting threat with race, height, and BaBT. We replicated the key findings of study 2; those higher in BaBT rated Black men as more threatening relative to White men, b = 0.15, F(1, 374) = 30.83, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.20], and this effect was especially large for tall Black men, b = 0.16, F(1, 1,548) = 9.04, P = 0.003, 95% CI [0.06, 0.27]. Participant gender did not moderate effects (Fig. 2).

We also replicated the competence results of study 2: Those higher in BaBT rated White men as more competent relative to Black men, b = 0.11, F(1, 320) = 20.36, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.05, 0.17], and this effect was especially large for tall White men, b = 0.10, F(1, 1,518) = 3.78, P = 0.052, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.20]. No moderating effect of participant gender emerged. See Additional Analyses for Study 3 for the breakdown of both the threat and competence interactions.

Discussion.

Study 3 addressed stimuli concerns from study 2 and again demonstrated that, for those higher in BaBT, tall Black men seem especially threatening compared with short Black men and both short and tall White men.

General Discussion

In three studies, we showed that taller is not always better; although tall White men may benefit from increased perceptions of competence, tall Black men are burdened with increased perceptions of threat. We first revealed that NYPD police officers stopped tall Black men at a disproportionately high rate (study 1). We then demonstrated that, for perceivers who endorse stereotypes that Black people are more threatening than White people, tall Black men seem especially threatening (studies 2 and 3).

Previous research has amply demonstrated that people may interpret traits and behaviors as positive or negative depending on the accessibility of other concepts. For example, a classic study revealed that a target’s ambiguous actions are negatively evaluated when participants are first primed with hostility-related traits (versus kindness-related traits) (31). Racial stereotypes alter the accessibility of traits during person perception, which influences how people interpret other traits—in this case, height. For people who already perceive Black men as threatening, height confers extra threat.

Our findings have important implications when considered alongside recent research demonstrating that young Black men are perceived as taller and more muscular than young White men of equivalent size, which causes them to also seem more threatening to non-Black participants (22). The present findings suggest that the negative consequences of these biased height perceptions (i.e., increased threat perceptions) hinge on how strongly the perceiver believes that Black people are threatening (thus interpreting height as a sign of threat).

Height may also interact with more subtle cues of race, such as Afrocentric features (3233), and the effect of height may be determined by contextual cues. Once we controlled for perceived threat in study 2, taller Black men were actually perceived as more competent than shorter Black men. When competence is clearly more relevant than threat, Black men may also benefit from height. Alternately, Black men may also benefit from height if they possess other traits that reduce threat, such as babyfacedness (34).

More broadly, these results highlight the importance of intersections between social categories and physical traits. Just as social categories such as race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status intersect in important ways with each other (3536), so too do they influence the impact of physical factors such as height (37), weight (38), babyfacedness (34), and facial attractiveness (39).

We recognize that our findings do not necessarily generalize to perceptions of women. We limited our targets to men because police profiling and threatening stereotypes both target Black males. However, future research should investigate whether the same race–height interactions apply for women. Previous work indicates that White women enjoy at least some of the same benefits of height as White men (7), but no work to date has investigated the effects of height for perceptions of Black women.

We also recognize the potential role of weight in perceptions of threat. Consistent with others’ previous work (2225), our stop-and-frisk analyses suggest that weight also plays a key role in judgments of suspicion. Because of accuracy concerns about the weight estimates, which may have been biased (22), and the relatively large effect size of height, we chose to focus on height; however, future work should further investigate how height and weight combine with categories such as race and gender to influence judgments.

Being tall is often discussed as a wholly good trait, so much so that Randy Newman wrote a satirical song that lists reasons why “short people got no reason to live.” However, height means something different for Black men: Height amplifies already problematic perceptions of threat, which can lead to harassment and even injury. When Charles Coleman, Jr.’s mother told him that he “was big and they would automatically see [him] as a threat,” she eloquently summarized what we empirically showed—for Black men, being tall may be less a boon and more a burden.

Method

The University of North Carolina Institutitional Review Board (IRB) approved studies 2 and 3 as well as the pilot study. Participants in these studies indicated consent electronically and received debriefing at the end of the studies. Study 1 did not use human subjects and required no IRB approval.

Study 1 data are available at www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/stopfrisk.page. Data for the pilot study, study 2, and study 3 are available in Supporting Information.

Study 1.

We combined 8 y of publicly available data (2006–2013) documenting the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program. These data include information about every person stopped as part of the program, including race, age, gender, height, weight, and whether the person was frisked, searched, arrested, or issued a summons. Notably, we only analyzed stops in which officers received photo ID, ensuring the relative accuracy of the reported height and age (26).

We cleaned the data by filtering cases with clear errors (i.e., a large number of people had ages of 99 y or higher, or birth years of 1900). We also restricted the dataset to non-Hispanic Black and White males. By focusing on non-Hispanic Black and White males, we minimized problems of distribution: Adult Black and White males have nearly identical means and distributions of height (40).

Study 2.

Participants and design.

Two hundred participants (73% White, 6% Black, 42% women, Mage = 36 y) completed a 2 × 2 [Target Race: Black, White by Target Perspective: Looking Down (Tall), Looking Up (Short)] within-subjects study. With n = 200 at level 2 and n = 16 at level 1 and a subject slope variance of 0.39, we had ∼88% power to detect a small cross-level interaction (41).

Materials.

Creating stimuli to manipulate height and race.

To create stimuli, we photographed 16 male students from the University of North Carolina. Eight students were White, and eight were Black. We photographed each student from two perspectives: looking up and looking down. We intended to manipulate perceived height: If someone is looking down on you, they are likely taller, but if they are looking up at you, they are likely shorter. This perspective manipulation allowed us to manipulate height in a within-subjects design, addressing both power and stimulus sampling issues (42). In particular, our attention to stimulus sampling reduces the likelihood that our effects were driven by the traits of a particular photograph and minimizes the possibility that small variations in luminance or target size explain our effects (42). See Fig. 3 for examples of stimuli.

To check whether our manipulation of height actually worked, we predicted the estimated height of each target by target perspective. The analysis revealed a main effect of target perspective on estimated height, b = 1.78, F(1, 427) = 16.42, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.91, 2.65], such that targets who were looking down were perceived as taller (M = 71.6 in.) than targets who were looking up (M = 69.8 in.). We found no main effect of race, b = −0.39, F(1, 427) = 0.80, P = 0.37, 95% CI [−1.26, 0.48], although we did find a race by perspective interaction, b = 1.77, F(1, 2,322) = 4.12, P = 0.043, 95% CI [0.06, 3.48], such that perspective had a larger effect for Black targets. Simple main effects show that Black looking-up targets were perceived as 1.3 in. shorter than White looking-up targets, b = −1.27, t(899) = 2.05, P = 0.041, 95% CI [−2.49, −0.05]. The difference between Black and White looking-down targets was not significant, b = 0.49, t(3,018) = 0.80, P = 0.42, 95% CI [−0.72, 1.72].

BaBT.

Participants answered questions adapted from the General Social Survey (gss.norc.org/). We used these questions because they are less confounded with political beliefs than other scales (43) and directly target stereotypes of Black threat. Participants provided their attitudes toward Black, Hispanic, and White people on seven-point bipolar scales for “nonviolent/violent,” “nonthreatening/threatening,” “nonaggressive/aggressive,” and “not dangerous/dangerous.” Questions about Hispanic targets were included to decrease the focus on Black and White targets and reduce the effect of social desirability on responses.

To create an index variable representing participants’ BaBT, we subtracted participants’ attitudes about White targets from their attitudes about Black targets to capture the relative difference in participants’ attitudes (believing Blacks are more violent than Whites) rather than their overall attitudes (believing people are generally violent regardless of race). Then, we averaged the four difference scores together.

Procedure.

Participants rated 16 photographs of college-aged males on five traits: competent, likable, attractive, threatening, and aggressive. These photographs were counterbalanced, such that each target was seen by half of the participants as looking up and by the other half as looking down. The first item captured competence, and the last two items captured threat. We initially included “likable” and “attractive” as competence items but removed them as suggested by reviewers and the editor; this change did not influence our results. Participants also estimated the height of each target, in inches. After completing these ratings, participants completed the BaBT scale.

Analytic strategy.

We again accounted for between-participant variance by using hierarchical linear modeling, with responses nested within participants. We allowed slopes to vary for both race and perspective manipulations to provide a more precise model and allow cross-level interaction with BaBT.

Study 3.

Participants and design.

Two hundred eight participants (75% White, 10% Black, 61% women, Mage = 38 y) completed a 2 × 2 (Target Race: Black, White by Described Height: Tall, Short) within-subjects study. This study sought to replicate the three-way interaction of study 2 with stimuli that more specifically manipulate height. With n = 208 at level 2 and n = 8 at level 1 and a subject slope variance of 0.28, we had ∼90% power to detect a small cross-level interaction (41).

Materials and procedure.

To manipulate race, we used 20 Black male and 20 White male faces from the Chicago Face Database (44). These faces were chosen based on age; all targets were between 21 and 29 y old. To manipulate height, we described an encounter with each target in which the target was either taller or shorter than the participant. Participants rated eight targets using the same competence and threat items as in study 2. Participants then completed the BaBT scale. The analytic strategy was identical to that of study 2.

Preregistration Details.

We note a few points of discrepancy between our preregistrations and the presented results. (i) The study 2 preregistration did not include the specific hypothesis that people higher in BaBT would judge tall White men as especially competent. (ii) The study 3 preregistration notes the inclusion of BaBT as a potential moderator but does not explicitly state the specific hypotheses. (iii) The specific traits used in the “competence” and “threat” composites were not listed in the preregistrations.
END OF ARTICLE

[6]

VOX.COMBLACK PEOPLE ARE STILL SUFFERING FROM POLICE VIOLENCE. IS AMERICA STILL LISTENING?24 MAY 2019
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/5/24/18636305/police-violence-eric-garner-sandra-bland-black-lives-matter

Five years after the rise of Black Lives Matter, activists are still protesting. But national attention to police misconduct has waned.  

It’s been nearly five years since several high-profile incidents of police violence spurred racial justice protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and chants of “black lives matter!” began to echo across the country.

The deaths of several black men and women, including Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling, and Philando Castile, drew national attention to issues of race and policing and spurred on demands for police reform.

But recent developments in two high-profile cases raise questions about whether police violence is still a flashpoint issue — or if national attention to the problem has faded.

In early May, a previously unreleased video recorded by Sandra Bland, the black woman whose 2015 death in a Texas jail cell sparked protests, emerged. The video showed Bland’s perspective of the traffic stop that led to her arrest, and it contradicted police claims that she posed a threat to the officer who pulled her over. Bland’s family and others have since demanded that the investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death be reopened.

About a week later, the disciplinary hearing for Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer accused of recklessly using a department-prohibited chokehold on Eric Garner, kicked off in New York City. Garner, an unarmed black man, died in 2014 shortly after being restrained by Pantaleo, and officers failed to immediately render first aid. Video of his arrest, and his gasps of “I can’t breathe,” became a rallying cry for activists.

Pantaleo, who is still employed by the NYPD, was not indicted by a grand jury in 2014, but he’s now facing a department trial that could result in him losing his job as an officer. Several new details about the case have been revealed to the public, including the fact that a police lieutenant texted a different NYPD officer that Garner’s death was “not a big deal,” and that another officer inflated charges against Garner when filling out an arrest form after the man died.

The new revelations in both the Bland and Garner cases are striking — yet they arrive at a time where national anger over police violence doesn’t seem to be as strong as it was when their deaths occurred.

More recent police shootings and incidents of police brutality still draw local attention and activist outrage, but they often fail to attract the same level of public attention they did from 2014 to 2016. At the federal level, the Trump administration has halted efforts to enact police accountability measures. And years into racial justice activists’ fight for structural reform, many of the systems that shield officers from accountability remain in place. In short, it appears that public interest in these problems is waning, along with the momentum to push for police reform — even as the need for these changes remain.

Black and brown Americans still suffer from police violence

The Washington Post has been tracking fatal police encounters since 2015, and for the past four years, the database has found that roughly 1,000 people have died in police shootings each year. So far, 363 people have been killed by police in 2019 alone, according to the Post database.

Even now, these shootings continue to disproportionately affect black Americans. A 2018 article in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health found that while roughly half of police shooting victims are white, young black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately likely to be killed in a police shooting.

And as Vox’s Dara Lind and German Lopez have previously reported, significant racial disparities have also been seen in federal data and other media-compiled databases of shootings, like the Guardian’s Counted project, which ran from 2015 to 2016.

Black people are also more likely than whites to be exposed to arrests and traffic stops that could potentially escalate into violent encounters.

But recent police violence incidents and shootings haven’t dominated headlines or spurred calls for federal investigations and demands for national police reform efforts in the same way they did three or four years ago. And while some stories that center on the deaths of unarmed black men — such as the fatal 2018 shooting of 22-year old Stephon Clark in his family’s Sacramento, California, backyard — continue to go viral, they tend to fade from public view more quickly, even as activists on the ground continue their protests.

“Police violence — beatings, Taserings, killings — and criminal justice reform more broadly were arguably the leading domestic news storyline during the final two years of the Obama administration,” Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery wrote last year. In 2018, he added, “the issue has all but vanished from the national political conversation.”

That trend has been noticed by other writers, like the Week’s Bonnie Kristian, who recently wrote that part of the problem may be that public opinion of police has improved among some groups:

Indignation about police misconduct and calls for reform were fading among the white majority by early 2016, as I wrote here at The Week at the time. Polling in late 2015 showed white Americans found police more trustworthy after 18 months of notorious police custody deaths and resultant protests. Already it was becoming evident that cases which once would (and should) have provoked national controversy were increasingly met with desensitization and indifference outside of local protests.

In 2017, a Gallup poll showed that public confidence in police was back to its historical average, with 57 percent of those polled saying they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in police compared to 52 percent in 2015. This was largely driven by shifts among white Americans, with more people expressing confidence in police in the 2015-17 period than from 2012 to 2014 (61 percent to 58 percent). During that same time confidence in police fell among black Americans, going from 35 precent in 2012-14 to 30 percent in 2015-17.

Black Americans are also significantly less likely to view police “warmly” when compared to white Americans.

There could be several reasons for the change in the national discussion of policing, but one factor stands out in particular: the election of President Donald Trump. Trump’s election and presidency has consumed a significant amount of media attention and public discussion, leaving little space for discussions of policy issues like police reform.

The Trump administration has also effectively halted federal momentum on policing reform. Under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration announced it would review old police reform agreements between the federal government and police departments and also stop entering into new ones.

In cities like Baltimore and Chicago, the Justice Department went so far as to attempt to intervene in ongoing reform efforts, arguing that reform agreements would hamper effectiveness and morale of police officers.

Lack of police accountability is still very much a problem

In recent years, several of the most high-profile cases of police violence have ended with officers not facing charges or not being convicted. This is largely due to longstanding legal standards giving officers wide latitude to use force.

It is possible the continued dismissal of police misconduct cases by police departments or the legal system — especially in incidents caught on video — has created a sense of futility, or discouragement, among some people who were first exposed to police violence incidents back in 2014.

While some officers involved in police violence are never indicted, in other cases, like the case of Michael Rosfeld, a former East Pittsburgh officer who fatally shot 17-year-old Antwon Rose in 2018, officers faced trial but were not convicted. Convictions remain very rare in police shooting cases, and officers who are given prison time for their involvement in shootings is rarer still.

In fact, the only acknowledgement of wrongdoing often comes in the form of settlements given to the families of police-shooting victims. But these settlements, which usually arrive after lawsuits (and in some cases aren’t given), are far from the systemic reform that activists and families of victims have demanded.

And because these protections largely hinge on if an officer had a “reasonable” belief that he or others were in danger rather than if a threat was actually expressed, the result is that some police misconduct or excessive force is shielded from prosecution. Efforts to change that standard have emerged in states like California, but no laws have yet to be passed.

There are other longstanding practices within police departments that make accountability for police misconduct, abuse, and fatal shootings a challenge. A 2016 New York Times report and 2017 Washington Post investigation found that officers who were fired from departments for misconduct or criminal behavior often go on to be hired by other departments or are rehired by the same agency that dismissed them. And tracking officer misconduct, or viewing body camera footage of a police shooting, remains difficult for the public.

Public attention has waned, but activists continue to push for reform

Though police violence and lack of accountability remains a very real problem, Americans in general simply seem less interested in hearing about it — which makes it more difficult for activists and politicians to push through tangible reforms.

However, that doesn’t mean people have given up. Instead, groups seem to be putting more of an emphasis on pushing for structural change from within.

The police reform-oriented Campaign Zero and the Movement for Black Lives have outlined detailed policy plans aimed at policing, but they have also demanded changes to education systems and the economy and joined a larger set of groups making up the anti-Trump “resistance.”

Other groups are seeking to boost black political engagement in the upcoming election and things like the 2020 census in an effort to force politicians to address black voters’ concerns about racism and police accountability.Activists say their fight for justice is as urgent now as it was five years ago, and that while systemic policy change may still be a work in progress, their movement has had an impact. “Since we started using the hashtag #blacklivesmatter, since the jump start of this current iteration of the Black Liberation movement, I know the world has transformed,” Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Network, wrote in a 2018 HuffPost op-ed. “I know the world is changing.” 
END OF ARTICLE
NEW REPORT IACHR:

IACHR [Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]NEW IACHR REPORT ADDRESSES POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK AMERICANS25 MARCH 2019
https://ijrcenter.org/2019/03/25/new-iachr-report-addresses-police-violence-against-black-americans/

IACHR REPORT:POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST AFRO DESCENDANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/PoliceUseOfForceAfrosUSA.pdf

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USAANOTHER YEAR, AN OTHER UNARMED BLACK MAN KILLED BY THE POLICE
https://www.amnestyusa.org/another-year-another-unarmed-black-man-killed-by-police/

[7]

BLACK LIVES MATTER/WEBSITE
https://blacklivesmatter.com

YOUTUBE.COMWOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME

[8]
and unarmed black Americans are five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.’

AMNESTY INTERNATIONALDEADLY FORCE AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/deadly-force-police-accountability/

[9]

AMNESTY INTERNATIONALDEADLY FORCE AND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/deadly-force-police-accountability/

[10]
THE WASHINGTON POSTPOLICE SHOOTINGS 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/

Fatal Force

962people have been shot and killed by police in 2016. This database is based on news reports, public records, social media and other sources.
Read about our methodologyDownload the data.
See the 201920182017 and 2015 databases.

[11]
THE WASHINGTON POSTPOLICE SHOOTINGS 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

Fatal Force

717people have been shot and killed by police in 2019Read about our methodologyDownload the data. See the 201820172016 and 2015 databases. Submit a tip

Updated Oct. 17 at 8:24 p.m. [12] 

”About 1 in 1,000 black men and boys in America can expect to die at the hands of police, according to a new analysis of deaths involving law enforcement officers.”
LA TIMESGETTING KILLED BY POLICE IS A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR BLACK MEN IN AMERICA
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men

[13]
” That makes them 2.5 times more likely than white men and boys to die during an encounter with cops.

LA TIMESGETTING KILLED BY POLICE IS A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR BLACK MEN IN AMERICA
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men

[14]
The analysis also showed that Latino men and boys, black women and girls and Native American men, women and children are also killed by police at higher rates than their white peers. But the vulnerability of black males was particularly striking.

LA TIMESGETTING KILLED BY POLICE IS A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR BLACK MEN IN AMERICA
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men

[15]
[WARNING ABOUT WIKIPEDIAWIKIPEDIA MAY NOT BE THAT ACCURATE AND SINCE THIS TRAGIC NEWS HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY, MAYBE NOT ALL THE WRITTEN FACTS ARE THAT ACCURATE/RELY MORE ON YOUTUBE, ABC NEWS AND OTHER NEWSSOURCES I MENTION HERE]
WIKIPEDIAKILLING OF ATATIANA JEFFERSON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Atatiana_Jefferson

ABC NEWSTEXAS COP NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS POLICE BEFORE FATALLY SHOOTING ATATIANA JEFFERSON IN HER OWN HOME: OFFICIAL13 OCTOBER 2019

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-bodycam-shooting-killing-woman-home/story?id=66237208

A white police officer responding to a call early Saturday for a welfare check at a home in Fort Worth, Texas, fired a shot into a bedroom window, striking and killing a 28-year-old black woman who a neighbor said was not a threat

Relatives of the woman who was fatally shot identified her as Atatiana Jefferson, and said she worked as a human resources officer for a Fort Worth company and that she lived in the home with an 8-year-old nephew, Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA reported.(MORE: 4 people killed in ‘mass casualty shooting’ at illegal gambling club in Brooklyn: Police)

During a news conference on Sunday afternoon, Fort Worth Police Lt. Brandon O’Neil said the officer who opened fire on Jefferson never identified himself as a police officer.

“What the officer observed and why he did not announce ‘police’ will be addressed as the investigation continues,” O’Neil said.

The NAACP released a statement on Twitter calling the fatal shooting of Jefferson “UNACCEPTABLE!”

“The acts of yet another ‘trained’ police officer have resulted in the death of #AtatianaJefferson Gun downed in her own home,” the NAACP wrote. “If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers. We demand justice.”

James Smith, a neighbor, said the shooting unfolded after he called the non-emergency police number to report seeing the lights on and the front door open at Jefferson’s home. He said police arrived at the home around 2:30 a.m. without activating their lights and sirens.

“I called my police department for a welfare check,” Smith told WFAA. “No domestic violence, no arguing, nothing that they should have been concerned about as far as them coming with guns drawn to my neighbor’s house.”

Hearing the gunshot shocked him, he said.

“I don’t know what went on in that house, but I know she wasn’t a threat,” Smith said. “I’m still kind of broken and shocked. They tell me I shouldn’t feel bad. But I feel bad cause had I not called the police department, she would probably still be alive today.” 

Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt said Jefferson’s “understandably heartbroken” relatives told him that Jefferson and her nephew were playing video games when they heard noises outside.

“She went to investigate at the window. An officer was on the other side who shouted commands and before she had a moment to respond, he shot her to death,” said Merritt, who also represents the family of Botham Jean, a 26-year-old black man shot to death in September 2018 by white former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who mistook Jean’s apartment for her own and wrongly suspected he was an intruder.

The Fort Worth Police Department did not release the name of the officer.

O’Neil said police received a call at 2:25 a.m. to respond to the home on East Allen Avenue. He said two officers arrived at the house at 2:29 am. and parked near Jefferson’s home, but not in front of the residence. He said the officers walked around the back of the house, and that one of the officers observed a person through the rear window of the home and opened fire.

Body-camera footage released by the department shows the officer approaching a rear window of the home with his gun drawn. The officer sees the woman through the window, shouts, “Put your hands up, show me your hands,” and fires one shot.

The video seems to confirm the officer never identified himself as police before he opened fire.

The front door appears open in the body-camera footage, but a screen door looks to be closed in front of it. The officer doesn’t appear to knock.

“Perceiving a threat, the officer drew his duty weapon and fired one shot striking the person inside the residence,” a statement from the police department reads.(MORE: Cop never ID’d himself as police before killing woman in her own home: Official)

Responding officers entered the home, located the shooting victim and began providing emergency care.

Jefferson died at the scene.

“An 8-year-old male, Ms. Jefferson’s nephew, was inside the room during this time,” O’Neil said.

O’Neil declined to answer questions from reporters, saying Police Chief Ed Kraus is scheduled to hold a news conference about the shooting on Monday.

He said the officer who shot Jefferson is scheduled to be interviewed on Monday by the department’s Major Case Unit investigators.

A firearm was recovered from the woman’s home, but police did not say where the gun was found in the house. The investigation is ongoing.

The officer, who’s been with the department since April 2018, has been placed on administrative leave.

Merritt set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for Jefferson’s funeral. As of Sunday afternoon, more than $81,000 had been raised.

 Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price released a statement saying the Police Chief Ed Kraus and his command staff “are acting with immediacy and transparency to conduct a complete and thorough investigation.”

She said the case will be turned over to the Tarrant County District Attorney Law Enforcement Incident Team to investigate the incident further.

“Writing a statement like this is tragic and something that should never be necessary,” Price said in her statement. “A young woman has lost her life, leaving her family in unbelievable grief. All of Fort Worth must surround Atatiana Jefferson’s family with prayers, love and support.”
END OF THE ARTICLE OF ABC NEWS

THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/aaron-dean-atatiana-jefferson.html

Aaron Dean, the officer who shot Ms. Jefferson in her own home, resigned hours before he was charged with murder.  

Days after a woman was fatally shot by the Fort Worth police, the officer who fired one bullet through her bedroom window when responding to a call from a concerned neighbor was arrested and charged with murder.

Although the circumstances have varied, it was yet another example of a white officer killing a black civilian, raising nationwide questions about policing practices and racial profiling. The shock of Saturday’s shooting further strained the relationship between residents and the Fort Worth Police Department.

The woman who was killed, Atatiana Jefferson, had been up late playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew, according to the family’s lawyer. She was shot by an officer, Aaron Y. Dean, who was standing in her backyard with a flashlight and a gun. He resigned on Monday, hours before the police chief had planned to fire him.

Here is what we know about the shooting and its aftermath:

Mr. Dean, who had been placed on administrative leave before he resigned, has not answered questions from investigators, said Ed Kraus, the interim police chief.

He was arrested without incident in his lawyer’s office on Monday and released from the Tarrant County jail later that night after posting a $200,000 bond. His lawyer has not responded to calls seeking comment, but he told the local NBC television station that Mr. Dean is sorry and that his family was in shock.

Mr. Dean joined the department in April 2018, one month after completing his classes at the police academy, and the only notable entry in his personnel file was for a traffic accident, Chief Kraus said.

Officer Manny Ramirez, the president of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association, said Mr. Dean had never been the subject of an investigation and was “very shaken up” by the shooting.

Chief Kraus grew emotional this week as he described how the killing would undoubtedly erode the trust that he said officers had worked to build with the people they serve.

“I likened it to a bunch of ants building an ant hill, and somebody comes with a hose and washes it away,” he said. “They just have to start from scratch.”

Chief Kraus said he had spoken to scores of officers who all said they supported the quick move to arrest Mr. Dean and charge him with murder.

Officer Ramirez said he and other officers had been dumbfounded as to why Mr. Dean pulled the trigger. Mr. Ramirez added that there was “no way to explain” his actions.

Ms. Jefferson, 28, sold medical pharmaceutical equipment from home while studying to apply to medical school. She had earned a degree in biology from Xavier University of Louisiana in 2014.

Ms. Jefferson was a loving aunt who would play basketball and video games with her nephews, her sister Amber Carr said. She had recently moved in with her mother, who had health problems — and learned about her daughter’s shooting while in a hospital.

One of Ms. Jefferson’s neighbors, James Smith, had called a nonemergency line at 2:23 a.m. on Saturday to express concern that the doors of Ms. Jefferson’s house had been open for several hours.

“I haven’t seen anybody moving around,” he told the dispatcher in a calm voice. “It’s not normal for them to have the doors open this time of night.”

Mr. Smith’s niece later said that he was upset with how the police responded, and that he had never suggested a burglary was taking place.

Chief Kraus said the call was relayed to the two officers who responded as a call for an “open structure,” a vague classification that could mean anything from an abandoned house to a burglary in progress. It was not a welfare check, in which case officers would often knock on the house’s doors or call inside.

A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window. When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.

But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home.

“It makes sense that she would have a gun if she felt that she was being threatened or that there was someone in the back yard,” he said at a news conference on Tuesday.
YOUTUBE.COMCOP SEEN SHOOTING, KILLING WOMAN IN HER OWN HOME/ABC NEWS

YOUTUBE.COMWOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME

YOUTUBE.COMPROTESTS IN FORT WORTH AFTER ATATIANA JEFFERSON IN HER OWN HOME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clUG0hxQlW0

[16]
SEE NOTE 15

[17]
WIKIPEDIAKILLING OF ATATIANA JEFFERSON

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

[18]

”During a news conference on Sunday afternoon, Fort Worth Police Lt. Brandon O’Neil said the officer who opened fire on Jefferson never identified himself as a police officer.

“What the officer observed and why he did not announce ‘police’ will be addressed as the investigation continues,” O’Neil said.”
ABC NEWSTEXAS COP NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS POLICE BEFORE FATALLY SHOOTING ATATIANA JEFFERSON IN HER OWN HOME: OFFICIAL13 OCTOBER 2019

https://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-bodycam-shooting-killing-woman-home/story?id=66237208

[19]

YOUTUBE.COMWOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME

[20]

”When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.”

THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON15 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/aaron-dean-atatiana-jefferson.html

WIKIPEDIAKILLING OF ATATIANA JEFFERSON/NEPHEW’S ACCOUNT

Nephew’s account[edit]

Jefferson’s nephew told the authorities that while playing video games they heard noises outside the window. Jefferson took her gun from her purse and pointed it at the window, before she was shot. The nephew’s account was used as the basis for the arrest warrant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Atatiana_Jefferson#Nephew’s_account

ORIGINAL SOURCE
WIKIPEDIAKILLING OF ATATIANA JEFFERSON
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Atatiana_Jefferson
[21]

”A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window. When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.

But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home.”
THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON15 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/aaron-dean-atatiana-jefferson.html

[22]
”A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window.

THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON15 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/aaron-dean-atatiana-jefferson.html

[23]
”The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.[1][2][a] It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

WIKIPEDIASECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 

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

 WIKIPEDIA
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States

Article [II] (Amendment 2 – Bearing Arms)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

https://constitutionus.com

[24]

But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home. 
THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON15 OCTOBER 2019

 [25]

NAACP/WEBSITE

[26]

NAACP ON TWITTERSTATEMENT

NAACP✔@NAACP

UNACCEPTABLE! The acts of yet another “trained” police officer have resulted in the death of #AtatianaJefferson. Gun downed in her own home. If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers. We demand justice.

View image on Twitter

22.6K5:44 AM – Oct 13, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy12.6K people are talking about this[27]

VOX.COMFORT WORTH OFFICER CHARGED WITH MURDER IN  KILLING OF BLACK WOMAN IN HER OWN HOME15 OCTOBER 2019
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/13/20912212/atatiana-jefferson-fort-worth-police-shooting-texas-aaron-dean-murder

Aaron Dean, the officer who shot Atatiana Jefferson, resigned on Monday, hours before he was booked on murder charges.

In the days since a black woman was fatally shot in her Fort Worth, Texas, home by a white police officer performing a welfare check, calls for police accountability have been nonstop in a community whose trust in law enforcement has already been shaken by other police shootings and the death of Botham Jean in nearby Dallas.

Local authorities have moved quickly in their response, saying that they have every intention of taking action against the officer who fired through a home window, killing 28-year-old Atatiana Koquice Jefferson on October 12 as she stood in her bedroom with her 8-year-old nephew, who she had been playing video games with.

A neighbor had called a non-emergency police line minutes before saying that he wanted someone to make sure that Jefferson and her nephew were okay after seeing their open door so late in the evening. When police arrived, they walked around the outside of the home instead of announcing themselves at the front door, and one officer fired his weapon at a window shortly after entering the home’s backyard, striking and killing Jefferson in the process.

On Monday, the Fort Worth Police Department announced that Aaron Dean, the officer who shot Jefferson, had resigned from the department hours before he would have been terminated. That same evening, Dean was booked into the Tarrant County Correction Center on murder charges. He was later released on a $200,000 bond.

The police department has attempted to show residents that it is taking Jefferson’s case seriously and that it understands the fury her death, as yet another example of a black person being killed by law enforcement, has ignited in Fort Worth and nationally.

“To the citizens and residents of our city, we feel and understand your anger and your disappointment and we stand by you as we work together to make Fort Worth a better place for us all,” Fort Worth Police Sgt. Chris Daniel said during an evening press conference on October 14.

Dean, who was hired in August 2017 and became an officer nearly a year later in April 2018, is currently not cooperating with the investigation into the shooting and has not answered questions from investigators, interim Fort Worth Police Chief Ed Kraus told reporters earlier on Monday.

Kraus also said he has asked the FBI to look into the shooting for possible civil rights violations, adding that Dean would have been fired by the police department on Monday for failing to follow its policies on use of force and deescalation, and for unprofessional conduct. Police previously said that they plan to submit the camera footage and other evidence to the Tarrant County District Attorney at the end of the investigation.

The department says that despite Dean’s resignation, it will continue its internal investigation as if he were still an officer. Dean’s record will also show that he was dishonorably discharged from the department.

“None of this information can ease the pain of Atatiana’s family, but I hope it shows the community that we take these incidents seriously,” Kraus told reporters.Jefferson’s family, meanwhile, has criticized the fact that Dean was allowed to resign and has maintained calls for an independent investigation into the shooting, saying that they want justice through an “independent, thorough, and transparent process.”

“Fort Worth has a culture that has allowed this to happen,” Lee Merritt, a lawyer representing Jefferson’s family, said over the weekend. “There still needs to be a reckoning.”

The shooting of Jefferson in her own home has drawn national attention

At around 2 am local time on October 12, a neighbor of Jefferson’s called a non-emergency hotline, saying he was concerned about an open door at the woman’s residence and wanted to make sure she was okay. According to a statement released by the Fort Worth Police Department on Saturday, officers arrived at the home at around 2:25 am to respond to an “open structure call” and, after seeing the open door, walked around the perimeter of the residence.

The department said that while doing so, officers saw a person inside standing near a window. “Perceiving a threat the officer drew his duty weapon and fired one shot striking the person inside the residence,” police said.

That person was Jefferson, who was shot while standing in a bedroom. After firing, officers entered the home and began providing emergency aid, but the woman was pronounced dead at the scene.

The department also released body camera footage of the shooting, showing what happened outside of Jefferson’s home as well as the residence itself, which had a door open and the lights on inside. The video shows two officers walking around the outside of Jefferson’s home, looking into screen doors before walking into the backyard. Moving toward a closed window on the first floor, one of the officers, who has since been identified as Dean, quickly points a flashlight at it before drawing his weapon.

Dean then yells, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” before firing a shot less than a second later, seemingly while in the middle of repeating his commands. At no point in the released video do the men clearly identify themselves as police officers.

In addition to the statement and the body camera video, the police department also released edited footage of a firearm officers said they found at the residence, but it did not offer any additional information about where Jefferson was in relation to it or if the weapon was ever visible to the officers. Texas is an open-carry state and state residents are allowed to possess and carry firearms with few restrictions.

The initial release of the image immediately drew criticism, with observers arguing that the department was attempting to suggest that Jefferson’s weapon was relevant to her death. The police department later said that this was not its intention.

“Nobody looked at that video and said there was any doubt that this officer acted inappropriately,” Kraus later told reporters. “I get it. We’re trying to train our officers better.”

The shooting has left Fort Worth’s black residents devastated

Jefferson’s shooting, which is the seventh local police shooting involving a civilian since June 1 according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, has left the area’s black residents angered and confused. Community members say the shooting proves they cannot call the police for assistance.

“The Fort Worth police murdered this woman. They murdered this woman in her own house,” said Rev. Michael Bell, a local pastor who joined a group of community leaders for a Saturday press conference. “And now, African Americans, we have no recourse. If we call the police, they will come and kill us. And we know that.”

A similar fear was echoed by James Smith, the neighbor of Jefferson’s who called police after noticing the open door and lights at her home, saying he was concerned about Jefferson and her 8-year-old nephew. “I’m shaken. I’m mad. I’m upset. And I feel it’s partly my fault,” he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on October 12. “If I had never dialed the police department, she’d still be alive.”

In audio of Smith’s call released by the police department on Sunday, the man can be heard telling a police operator that the doors of the home had been open since 10 pm Friday and that he was concerned because he did not see any movement in the house.“I don’t know what went on in the house, but I know that she wasn’t a threat,” Smith later told reporters.

The shooting of Jefferson, who was born in Dallas and graduated from Louisiana’s Xavier University in 2014 with a biology degree, has quickly drawn comparisons to the 2018 shooting of Botham Jean, a 26-year-old black man fatally shot by former off-duty Dallas officer Amber Guyger as he ate ice cream in his apartment.

Lee Merritt, a local civil rights attorney who represents Jean’s family, is also working with Jefferson’s relatives. He said the weekend shooting is yet another example of black people being unable to live safely in their own homes.

“You didn’t hear the officer say ‘gun, gun, gun,’ you didn’t hear him — he didn’t have time to perceive a threat,” Merritt told reporters on Saturday. “That’s murder.”

“We expect a thorough and expedient investigation,” he added. A GoFundMe created by Merritt on behalf of Jefferson’s family was posted on October 13 and had collected more than $210,000 by Tuesday morning.

Before the shooting, Merritt says that Jefferson, who was called “Tay” by her loved ones, was playing video games with her nephew. The boy was in the bedroom with her when the shooting occurred, and stayed at the homes as Jefferson, who worked in pharmaceutical equipment sales and was saving money for medical school, was helping take care of the home for her sick mother, who was in the hospital at the time of the shooting.

Merritt says that when she went to the bedroom window on Saturday morning, Jefferson was concerned after hearing noise outside, adding that she was likely worried about the possibility of a prowler or burglar being near the home.

“Law enforcement has not said that she wielded a weapon,” Merritt told the New York Times on Sunday. “Also, it wouldn’t matter because that’s her home.”

Speaking to CNN that same day, Merritt said that while Jefferson’s family has spoken to local police, they want an independent agency to take over the investigation into the shooting. “We don’t think that Fort Worth police should be investigating it on their own,” he said.

The police department and city officials are working to show that they take Jefferson’s death seriously

On Sunday, the Fort Worth Police Department held a brief press conference to discuss the shooting but offered little new information about what transpired in the early morning hours of October 12.

The agency largely stuck to a prepared statement, saying that it shared the “very real and valid concerns” raised by local residents and Jefferson’s family.

“The tragic loss of life has major ramifications for all involved, especially the family of Ms. Atatiana Jefferson. We have communicated with the family and have shared our serious and heartfelt concern for this unspeakable loss,” Fort Worth Police Lt. Brandon O’Neill said.

The department did not answer questions about why it released information about a gun in Jefferson’s home and also declined to answer questions about the exact nature of the “threat” perceived by the officer.

However, the department did confirm some previous statements already made by Merritt and Smith, noting that Jefferson’s nephew was in the room with her when the shooting took place and that the officer who shot the woman did not identify himself as law enforcement before firing.

“What the officer observed, and why he did not announce ‘police,’ will be addressed as the investigation continues,” O’Neil told reporters.

On Monday, however, the department gave several additional updates, likely in an effort to mitigate concerns that the agency would protect Dean from punishment. Along with announcing Dean’s resignation, Police Chief Kraus said he regretted that the department shared images of the firearm in Jefferson’s home, saying she had every right to possess it.

“We’re homeowners in the state of Texas,” he said. “I can’t imagine most of us — if we thought we had somebody outside our house that shouldn’t be and we had access to a firearm — that we wouldn’t act very similarly to how she acted.”

Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price has also issued several statements, including an open letter on Monday where she said that the city was “heartbroken” at Jefferson’s death. Price also denounced the initial images of a weapon in Jefferson’s home, and apologized to Jefferson’s family and to James Smith, saying that his call about his neighbor should have never culminated in her death.

In the wake of the shooting, Price says she has asked the city’s manager to hire a “third-party panel of national experts to review the police department. Everything from top to bottom.”

“Justice is critical here — but it will not bring back the life of a young woman who was taken too soon,” Price added in the letter. “This is a pivotal moment in our city, and we will act swiftly with transparency.”

Jefferson’s death has been compared to the 2018 murder of Botham Jean

News of Jefferson’s death, which comes less than two weeks after Amber Guyger was convicted of murdering Jean and sentenced to 10 years in prison, adds to already intense attention to policing in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

In recent months, Dallas residents have voiced several concerns about the Dallas Police Department, concerns that were only intensified by evidence revealed during Guyger’s trial and by the October 4 death of Joshua Brown, a black man who testified against Guyger last month. The Dallas Police Department has condemned speculation that its officers were somehow connected to Brown’s death, saying that the man was killed in a drug deal gone bad.

According to the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, Jefferson is one of at least 709 people who have been killed by police since the start of 2019. The database notes that 32 women have been killed by police officers this year; five of those women were black.

Speaking to reporters on Saturday, members of Jefferson’s family said that it was “inconceivable and confusing” that the woman was shot by police in her home. “It’s another one of those situations where the people that are supposed to protect us are actually not here to protect us,” Amber Carr, Jefferson’s older sister, told NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, adding that she was concerned about the training given to officers.

More concerns about the shooting were raised on Sunday evening as hundreds of people gathered for a rally and vigil on the same street as Jefferson’s home. “Systemic oppression has created risks for black people to be killed,” one attendee, Michelle Anderson, told local reporters. “We talk about state-sanctioned violence — it has always been a culture for black people. So no, it’s not about the training issue.”

Similar concerns have also been raised by national politicians, including several Democratic presidential candidates who shared Jefferson’s story on social media over the weekend.

“Being Black in your own home shouldn’t be a death sentence,” Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted on October 13. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the shooting showed the urgent need for police reform and “federal standards for the use of force.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, called for a federal investigation into the shooting. Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke also weighed in on the latest high-profile police shooting in his home state, saying that people “must demand accountability and promise to fight until no family has to face a tragedy like this again.”

Jefferson’s family and community say they intend to do just that and will push to hold the department accountable for the shooting as the Fort Worth Police Department’s investigation continues.But the family also acknowledged that accountability will not erase the pain and trauma that the shooting has caused. “You want to see justice, but justice don’t bring my sister back,” Carr told reporters on Saturday before breaking down into tears. 

[28]

”On September 6, 2018, off-duty Dallas Police Departmentpatrol officer Amber Guyger entered the Dallas, Texas, apartment of Botham Jean and fatally shot him. Guyger said that she had entered the apartment believing it was her own and that she shot Jean believing he was a burglar.[1][2] The fact that Guyger, a white police officer, shot and killed Jean, an unarmed black man, and was initially only charged with manslaughter resulted in protests and accusations of racial bias.[3][4][5] On October 1, 2019, Guyger was found guilty of murder.[6] The next day, she received a sentence of ten years in prison”
WIKIPEDIAMURDER OF BOTHAM JEAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Botham_Jean
[29]

CNNAMBER GUYGER GETS TEN-YEAR MURDER SENTENCE FOR FATALLY SHOOTING BOTHAM JEAN3 OCTOBER 2019

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/amber-guyger-trial-sentencing/index.html

[30]

DUTCH POLICE OFFICER, WHO SHOT RISHI CHANDRIKASING, ACQUITTED/COURT GIVES POLICE LICENCE TO KILLASTRID ESSED10 JANUARY 2014
https://www.astridessed.nl/dutch-police-officer-who-shot-rishi-chandrikasing-acquittedcourt-gives-police-licence-to-kill/

[31]

CNNAMBER GUYGER GETS TEN-YEAR MURDER SENTENCE FOR FATALLY SHOOTING BOTHAM JEAN3 OCTOBER 2019

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/amber-guyger-trial-sentencing/index.html

Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Woman shot and killed by police officer in her own home/Police violence in the USA/Another innocent victim

Filed under Divers