The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJonathan Cook Archive
Like the Diana Story, Meghan’s Fight with the Royals Will Ensure Nothing Really Changes
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan and Harry is a perfect case study of how an important political debate about the corrupting role of the monarchy on British life gets shunted aside yet again, not just by the endless Royal soap opera but by supposedly progressive identity politics.

As so often, a focus on identity risks not only blunting our capacity for critical thinking but can be all too readily weaponised: in this case, as the media’s main take-away from the Oprah interview illustrates, by providing an implicit defence of class privilege.

The racism directed at Markle – sorry, the Duchess of Sussex – and baby Archie is ugly, it goes without saying (but maybe more to the point, must be stated to avoid being accused of ignoring or trivialising racism).

The concern expressed by a senior royal during Markle’s pregnancy about Archie’s likely darker skin colour does indeed reveal how deeply ingrained racism is in the British establishment and how much it trickles down to the rest of British society, not least through the billionaire-owned media.

Princely ‘birthright’

But more significant is how the racism demonstrated towards Markle and Archie has played out in the media coverage of the interview and the resulting “national conversation” on social media – nowadays, the only real barometer we have for judging such conversations.

The problem is that, via Oprah, the Sussexes get to frame the significance of the House of Windsor’s racism: both in the threat that, when Charles ascends to the throne, grandson Archie will be deprived of his princely “birthright” because he is of mixed race; and in the fact that Harry and Meghan have been hounded from Palace life into celebrity-style exile in the US.

In the process, an important, democratic conversation has yet again been supplanted about why Britain still maintains and reveres these expensive relics of a medieval system of unaccountable rule based on a superior (if no longer divine) blood line.

Instead, the conversation initiated by Oprah is a much more politically muddled one about whether it is right that a “commoner” woman of colour and her mixed-race son are obstructed from fully participating in this medieval system of privilege.

Image makeover

A real political debate about privilege – one that demands greater equality and an end to racist presumptions about blood lines – has been obscured and trivialised once again by a row of the kind preferred by the corporate media: whether most of the Royal Family are too racist to realise that a woman of colour like Meghan could help them with a twenty-first-century image makeover.

As a result, we are presented with a false binary choice. Either we cheer on the Royal Family and implicitly condone their racism; or we cheer on Meghan and implicitly support her battle to better veil the feudal ugliness of the British monarchy.

It ought to be possible to want Archie to live a life equal to “white” babies in the UK without also wanting him to live a life of pomp and circumstance, designed to ensure that other babies – white, black and brown – grow up to be denied the privileges he enjoys by virtue of royal birth.

Divisive and enervating

What the Oprah interview does – is designed to do – is derail the intersection of class and race in politically damaging ways.

A meaningful democratic struggle prioritises class unity as the battering ram against establishment power that long ago learnt to protect itself by dividing us through our competing identities. Class struggle does not ignore race; it embraces it and all other socially constructed identities used by power to rationalise oppression. Class subsumes them into a collective struggle strengthened by numbers.

Struggle based on identity, by contrast, is inherently divisive and politically enervating, as the Meghan Markle case illuminates. Her challenge to Royal “tradition” alienates those most invested in ideas of monarchy, “Britishness” or white identity. And it does so while offering no more than a sop to those invested in breaking glass ceilings, even of the kind that aren’t worth smashing in the first place.

Meghan’s fight for the first mixed-race British prince is no more politically progressive than the celebration by the media two years ago of the news that for the first time women were in charge of the military-industrial complex – the one that rains down death and destruction on “Third World” men, women and children.

Value for money

Strange as it is to recall now – in an age of social media, when anyone can comment on anything, and the “mainstream” media’s billionaire gatekeepers have supposedly been sidelined – ordinary Britons discussed abolishing the monarchy far more in the 1970s, when I was a child, than they do nowadays.

Getting rid of the Royal Family – like getting rid of nuclear weapons, another topic no one talks about seriously any more – was mainstream enough then that Royalists were often forced on to the defensive. As the mood soured among a vocal section of the population, the Queen’s defenders were forced hurriedly to switch from arguments rooted in deference and tradition to more utilitarian claims that the Royals offered “value for money”, supposedly boosting commerce and tourism.

Prince Charles’ engagement in 1981 to a beautiful, demure teenage “English rose”, Princess Diana, looked to many, even at the time, suspiciously like a move to reinvigorate a tired, increasingly unpopular brand.

The media spectacle of a fairytale romance and wedding, followed by years of controversy, disillusionment and betrayal, culminating in divorce and finally Diana’s death / murder, very effectively distracted the British public for the next 16 years from the question of what purpose a Royal Family served. It became only too clear what role they played: they kept us engrossed in a real-life, better-than-TV drama.

Champions of identity

Diana’s supposed struggle to grow from adolescence to womanhood in the glare of media intrusion and under the strictures of “The Firm” created the prototype for a new type of apolitical, Mills and Boon-style identity politics.

ORDER IT NOW

Following Diana’s escapades – from the secular saint who cleared landmines to the raunchy princess who had illicit sex with her riding instructor, an army major no less – was far more thrilling than the campaign to end the monarchy and the regressive landed class it still represents.

Diana’s life story helped pave the way to the reinvention of the left through the 1990s – under Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US – as champions of a new social issues-obsessed non-politics.

Both were ushered into power after reassuring the newly triumphant corporate elite that they would harness and divert popular energy away from dangerous struggles for political change towards safe struggles for superficial social change.

In the UK, that was achieved most obviously in Blair’s assiduous courtship of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Importantly, Blair persuaded Murdoch that, as prime minister, he would not only preserve the economic legacy of the Thatcher years but head further down the path of deregulation.

Murdoch – himself no fan of a British monarchy that had always looked down on him as a vulgar Australian – also understood that the inevitable soap opera quality of exceptional individuals battling the UK’s rigid hierarchy of privilege, spurred on by Blair’s New Labour, would prove great for sales of his newspapers. Just as Oprah knows that the only tangible consequence of the Harry and Meghan interview is that it will rake in many more millions for her own media empire.

Sticking It to the Man

In the new era of identity-saturated non-politics, demands for equality mean removing obstacles so that more women, people of colour and the LGBT community can participate in institutions that represent power and privilege.

These battles are not about overthrowing those systems of privilege, as earlier identity-based struggles such as the Black Panthers’ were. Success serves simply to placate identity-focused groups by helping those of most “merit” elbow their way into the preserves of established power.

Those achievements started with the most visible, least significant areas of the economy, such as sport and celebrity, and led over time to greater access to the professions.

The current excitement among some on the left at Meghan’s “Sticking It to the Man” appears to derive from the disruptive threat she poses to the House of Windsor – not to its economic, social and political power, but to its status as the last hold-out against Blair’s identity-fuelled “revolution”.

Narrative twist

Diana’s emancipation story helped distract us for nearly two decades from confronting central questions about the nature and role of the British establishment in preserving and veiling power.

Now Meghan Markle is expanding the identity story in a new direction, one that once again embraces the story of a young, “headstrong” woman scorned by the Royal Family for snubbing tradition. But this time there is an alluring contemporary twist to the narrative: the Family’s resistance to diversity and its refusal to own its racist past.

Unlike Diana who stood alone and seemingly fragile, Meghan and Harry offer a more relevant, modern picture of a confident, professional young couple standing and fighting together for what is fair, for what should be theirs by right.

This feels important, bold and empowering. But it is the precise opposite. It is more Mills and Boons, but this time with diversity thrown in to generate more appeal on one side and more hostility on the other.

Meghan’s story will continue to work its magic: fascinating, infuriating and pacifying us in equal measure as we focus on what is private, unknowable and can be endlessly contested rather than what is universal, visible and impossible to refute.

Meanwhile, the Royal Family, the perpetuation of privilege and the erosion of democracy will march on as before, in the same long and glorious British tradition.

(Republished from Jonathan Cook by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The racism directed at Markle – sorry, the Duchess of Sussex – and baby Archie is ugly, it goes without saying ….

    You mean the alleged racism.

    Ms. Markle’s allegations remind of the old legal saw of how a man can properly answer the prosecuror’s question in open court, “so, how long have you been beating your wife?” without appearing to to the jury to be guilty.

    If any of the senior royals had an objection, the wedding would never have happened, and at best Ms. Markle would have been nothing more than Harry’s girl on the side. Everything leading up to the wedding suggests the Royal Family and the broader British public bent over backwards to welcome her despite a number glaring strikes.

    1) Commoner
    2) American
    3) Actress
    4) Divorceé

    Maybe race was an issue, maybe not. The Royals are notorious virtue signallers, so one may reasonably question the story as told.

    I would imagine everyone in the palace felt they were walking on eggshells around Ms. Markle, which is why they came away with manifestations of PTSD and their own accompanying allegations of bullying, which had been leaking out from day one. The Queen’s official response suggest that may even moreso be the case now.

    The broader insult is to the British public as a whole. Sure, there are racists to be found, but not behind every tree, and its is they, those who enthusiastically welcomed her and cheered her wedding who have been most betrayed by Ms. Markle and her husband.

    Her Majesty should strip them of the Sussex title and stick the Duke and Duchess of Windsor moniker on them, just to make the point that they have left the realm and the benefits that accrue from it, but not the family.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @GomezAdddams
  2. The racism directed at Markle – sorry, the Duchess of Sussex – and baby Archie is ugly, it goes without saying

    That cow is a multimillionaire. Her baby will grow up with every possible benefit that her unearned wealth will provide. So piss on her feelings.

    Is it racist to notice that most US blacks are dumb as a stump and violent? I don’t think so. It’s a stereotype that they earned by repeated episodes that reinforce that stereotype.

    This whole racism thing came about because the idiotic civil rights laws. It wasn’t enough to treat blacks and white the same under the law, no, the laws had to be written in such a way as to hurt whites that in some demented other universe somehow helped blacks.

    After decades of these stupid laws being on the books, where is the society? The US and the entire world is now race conscious to the detriment of all races by claiming all are equal when clearly they are not.

    The average person needs to state categorically that the races are different in temperament and intelligence and no amount of law finagling is going to change that.

    • Agree: Realist, anonymousperson
    • Thanks: WhiteWinger
    • Replies: @Angharad
  3. My favorite part of the Oprah interview was where she paused so dramatically in mock surprise (and of course indignation) that the whitest, WASPiest family on the planet might be dismayed at having a little dark baby in its august midst. You could almost hear her thinking, Ka ching! Milking this is going to earn me millions.

    In a royal Letters Patent dated Dec. 31, 2012 (Google it), QEII declared that all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children will have the title of Royal Highness and be styled Princes and Princesses. Maybe it’s since been revoked, or maybe it means something other than what it seems, or maybe the princess of hurt feelings was not being wholly truthful.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  4. anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Re no one talks about “getting rid of nuclear weapons:” the TPNW entered into force 6 weeks ago. You didn’t hear that from the bullshit US Mockingbird media, Did you? Course not, they’ve got you talking about an obese crone and two petulant misfits of a parasitic caste. But on the other side of the Langley bloc’s iron curtain, the outside world is not just talking about nuclear disarmament – they’re not just talking seriously about it – they’re doing it, leaving a hamstrung CIA regime to flounder in its missile gap.

    https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

    Craig Murray, whom you quoted, has made ND a pillar of Scottish independence. The Scottish people don’t want bullseyes painted on them.

    Solidarity is good because developed countries can uplift the downtrodden masses of underdeveloped countries. Now that YOU are the downtrodden masses, you could really do with some solidarity. They can help you knock over your kleptocratic US police state and be free.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  5. Oh My Gawd!

    Are we going to be plagued by these two miscegenistic drama queens for the rest of our lives?

    Looks like the Kardashians now have competition for the title of Most Vacuous Entitled Leeches On Society Ever.

    At least we have one thing going for us. This brouhaha has pushed Covid and Fauci to the back burner. But for how long?

    No doubt we’ll be forced into new lockdowns and be required to wear four masks with all these new Covid variants being let into the country by Dementia Joe across the Southern border.

  6. Angharad says:
    @RoatanBill

    ALL “stereotypes” are true – because stereotypes are based on pattern recognition. Race is real, and racial differences are profound. I don’t understand why my White Race is so very willing to do everything to destroy ourselves, for the benefit of those that hate us and want us dead.

    • Agree: RoatanBill, Realist
  7. Angharad says:

    Jonathan CUCK – I am an American – but I am of Welsh descent. I care deeply about the indigenous People of my ancestral island. I regard the (((Royals))) as illegitimate Pretenders, and grifter of the most malicious and abusive order. I’d be THRILLED if the entire lot were pulled from their palaces and chucked in an oven. The (((Queen))) is Anti White, and has done everything possible to destroy the GENUINE English. The removal of the Tribe of Pretenders would be an absolute blessing.

    Alas – to millions they represent the Ne Plus Ultra in White People. Which they are NOT. Markle is a low-down, grasping, social climbing spiteful mutant narcissist mongrel. She and millions of Negroes and sei-Negroes ONLY care about acquiring goods, and stoking their pathetic childish egos 24/7. Harry is an absolute fool, and a pathetic eunuch, who is obviously ruled my his ridiculous mulattress owner. Her own family tried to warn Harry to not marry her. (((The Queen))) could have ko’d the marriage – put a dead stop to it – but she and her (((handlers))) wanted to use Markle as a symbol to the growing hordes of dark alien invaders, brought into Albion to replace the White population.

    Markle, as soon as she had that ring on her fingers, simply reverted to her innate genetic mandates, and began doing what thousands of other Orc arrivistees have done, and pulled out the Race Card, when some “White” refused to accede to her outrageous demands and repulsive chimpouts. I don’t know why ANY White tolerates the sullen, violent, predatory swarthy untermenschen. I certainly DON’T.

    I think the Markle Trash and the (((Royal Pretenders))) deserve each other – but White people don’t. DO NOT defend the Orc invaders. They do not belong in Albion, and MUST be thrown OUT en masse. Every. Last. ONE.

  8. Angharad says:

    I read your idiotic commentary on your blog, Jonathan Cuck. You are correct about the (((media))) stage managing social engineering – but you are fundamentally WRONG about “taking sides”. THERE ARE SIDES. Race is REAL. Racial differences are PROFOUND. Negroes instinctively take their own side, and use any tool they can grab to gain power and Gibs from Whitey. THERE ARE SIDES. You are WRONG in your fundamental world view. YOU are the core problem.

    • Agree: WhiteWinger
  9. Prince Charles’ engagement in 1981 to a beautiful, demure teenage “English rose”, Princess Diana, looked to many, even at the time, suspiciously like a move to reinvigorate a tired, increasingly unpopular brand.

    Wasn’t she part American like Churchill through her mother who once called her a “whore” for dating Muslim men?

    The vain creature and entire spectacle are useful to wacko lefties and (((Britain is an immigrant nation))) propagandists.

    The latter group is probably still bitter over the Royal Family’s alleged National Socialist sympathies prior to WWII, “based” Princess Michael of Kent whose father fought in the German army during the war and Harry’s Afrika Korps uniform.

    In 2000 Lady Gavron who served on the anti-White (((Runnymede Trust))) commission of the same year reportedly said Prince Charles should have married a sub-Saharan African or mixed race woman. Her then husband was one of Tony Blair’s Jewish donors.

  10. @anonymous

    the TPNW entered into force 6 weeks ago

    So?

    This is a UN sponsored initiative. The UN hasn’t been relevant for decades since the US controls it. You don’t seriously think the US, China, Russia and others are going to give up their weapons because the UN said so, do you? Do you think Israel will give up their nukes that they don’t even acknowledge exist? Israel isn’t even an NPT signatory.

    Huffing and puffing about some UN resolution is even less interesting that hearing about these royal degenerates.

  11. Jiminy says:

    With the vast majority of citizens of the commonwealth being non-white, the whites being the minority, are the royal family really racist bigots? I don’t think they are. I’m sure it’s just that they live such an insular, guarded life, that they simply don’t understand their subjects. They’re ignorant.
    I think the further away from a position of importance that a lesser royal is, then the more irrelevant they do become. So certainly they should be weened from the public teat.
    Maybe more to the point it’s the media who could be at fault. What with the 24 hour news cycle, the motto has become, if there is no news then make some news. What annoys me the more I see of it though, are people who clearly seem whiter than black coming out and declaring themselves black. There’s always an ulterior motive for that sort of thinking I believe. By the time Archie’s got kids of his own, he’s going to be rather white. Will he be made to call himself the black prince, a la Monty Python.
    If I were a blind negro whose parents never married, should I be offended if people accused me of being a four-eyed black bastard? Should my world cave in if people enquired of the colour of my newborn?
    If I had red hair with pasty-white skin then maybe I should be.

  12. IF the Royals want to keep their bloodlines as WHITE as they have always been….WHAT OF IT???? ( That is:If they’ve always been White, and no secret jewish blood – all too possible )

  13. anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    RoatanBill, here is how we know that you are talking out your ass and spouting slogans. UN UN UN UN, pure state propaganda. Hit your knee with the rubber UN hammer and your lifelong brainwashing takes over. The TPNW is a treaty. It has states party. Do you know what those are? Do you know what the treaty provisions are? Do you know the parties’ acceptance of competence of the treaty body? You are proudly ignorant of that.

    The UN is a depository. The UN can go away and the treaty remains. The UN can be replaced by an organization with veto restrictions, or no veto at all. The members are working on it, Did you know that? And the longer it takes before it happens, the more US military capacity will have depreciated, degenerated and been exceeded by the SCO and observers.

    Your indoctrinated statist realism is decades out of date because the US cannot use its nukes. The SCO has imposed control over US escalation. The US is limited to internationally wrongful acts that obscure attribution.

    You don’t even know what I’m talking about. All you can do is fixate on UN UN UN UN. It’s the 21st century but the Birchers still got you brainwashed.

  14. Anonymous[942] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    Ms. Markle’s allegations remind of the old legal saw of how a man can properly answer the prosecuror’s question in open court, “so, how long have you been beating your wife?” without appearing to to the jury to be guilty.

    You bollocksed up the line. It’s “When did you stop beating your wife?”
    Either version is weak tea; all the man has to say is “I never beat my wife” or in the case of your version “Zero minutes.”

    @Observator:

    In a royal Letters Patent dated Dec. 31, 2012 (Google it), QEII declared that all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children will have the title of Royal Highness and be styled Princes and Princesses.

    So What? The Duke of Cambridge is the other one, the bald one.

  15. I enjoyed reading this, but I wonder if this situation is more about the fact that their marriage brought too much unwanted attention on the monarchy.

  16. TG says:

    The bottom line is that this doesn’t matter. It’s all about class war, tittles about ‘racism’ are divide and conquer propaganda.

    Meghan who? Why should I care?

    Seriously. The best response any decent and intelligent person can make about all this rubbish, is “Meghan who?”

  17. @Observator

    The impression I got was that Markle merely said that someone (in the R-Family) wondered how light or dark the kid would be. Is such speculation actually racism?
    Brown eyes or blue? RACIST!!…. er, hang on…?

    • Replies: @anonymousperson
  18. anon[179] • Disclaimer says:

    Would the nasty racists who are happy to despise Meghan have done the same with the equally woke – but very white – Emma Watson, if she had married Prince Harry, as dreamed of by the sensationalist media?

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/are-emma-watson-and-prince-harry-dating-111571369598.html

    • Replies: @Angharad
  19. Angharad says:
    @anon

    No one cares about either of those trashy mutants.

    • Replies: @Anon
  20. Anon[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Angharad

    Oh they do care Orcah Whitefree made 7 million bucks interviewing those ‘Mutants’ and the company which fired Pierce Morgan who pimpslapped that she mutant wife of ‘Harry the half wit Prince,’ lost 200 million pounds today in the collapse of share prices, so people care about this shit.

    • Replies: @Angharad
  21. bayviking says:

    What Meghan and Harry have done is publicize the tedious and the personal. They have become publicity harlots, modern royals with a link to their own celebrity creating machine. In the aftermath of the showing, the couple’s efforts yielded much nauseating fruit. The whole exercise shows that Meghan is merely continuing the shallowness of showbiz by other means. During his military career Harry mocked colleagues of Paki and Arab descent. Harry has become a tag along, an essentially useless royal who had already expressed dissatisfaction with the institution before meeting his wife. The lack of utility for the royals was already in evidence before the couple decided to step back from their duties. Leave that orbit, and you are a vacuous spec masquerading as relevance.
    From Binoy Kampmark

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/03/11/boring-revelations-and-fanciful-victimhood-the-harry-meghan-oprah-show/

  22. Angharad says:
    @Anon

    I was referring to Woke Hermione and Harry the Eunuch. Not the Boon Beasts.

  23. @animalogic

    I agree. The comment could have been just wondering out loud, ‘will the baby be blond’? etc. Just speculating on what a child will look like hardly smacks of ‘racism” to me.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  24. Personally I think Harry is a clown who is clearly wrapped around her finger.

  25. @The Alarmist

    A pair of dingbats –millionaire dingbats. Bet money she will ditch Harry in a couple of months and team up with Kanye—called the pursuit of happiness.

  26. Astraea says:

    Have you never heard that Hell hat no fury like a woman scorned? Well, this is Diana’s revenge -that is all.

    Charles should have known better.

    It is no more complicated than that, and why anyone would pay any attention to this nasty woman I do not know. She is just disgusting – and Harry is just pathetic.

    Actually, she makes me feel like staying with an among my own kind in future. I am sick to Death of this accusation about White people. I LIKE being White. Too bad if you do not like it. I like it!
    Pity there are no men around these days. Actually, Black people are doing themselves no good at all with their idiotic, undignified complaining. It just shows their envy –

    Actually, I suggest that these fools and bullies go and listen to Jesse Lee Petersen asap – will find him on Youtube.

  27. The whole Meghan and Harry circus is pure magicianship. Gotta divert the eyeballs and tough questions about Prince “Lolita Express” Andrew and his sex with underage girls. Now THAT could really hurt the Queen and THE FIRM.

    It’s probably more than likely that the entire courtship and marriage of Harry and his Quadroon was arranged FROM THE BEGINNING as a diversion away from Prince Andrew. Harry knows exactly what he’s doing for his grandmother. He’s running interference. And I’m sure he’s rewarded handsomely.

    Don’t forget that many of those “vicious” British tabloids are owned by the QUEEN herself. Her own staff of writers publish all the vitriol. “Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain….”

    The sleight of hand is impressive, I’ll admit.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  28. @anonymousperson

    Not only that, but it is extremely common for BLACK people to talk about what color skin their children will have or do have, and what kind of hair. Perhaps this is unheard of in the US, but in the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean it is common.

    In any case, English people love to talk about things like which parent their child resembles the most, and this has nothing to do with racism or any kind of sinister connotation like cutting the child out of the will or the family business if they are too dark.

  29. Art Deco says:
    @aleksander

    There aren’t any ‘tough questions’. There is one question: did Andrew have three sexual trysts with Virginia Roberts Giuffre and did he have any of them at a time and place which would have incurred criminal liability?

    Taking Roberts at face value, the answer to the second question is ‘no’. The three encounters in her account took place in London, New York, and New Mexico with the 1st in March 2001. She was past her 17th birthday on all three occasions, so you cannot charge him with statutory rape in any of those jurisdictions. You might in Florida or the Virgin Islands, but she doesn’t claim they occurred there. She never contended he drugged her or forced himself on her.

    As for the 1st question, it’s a reasonable wager that the surviving travel diaries, office diaries, and security service documentation don’t buttress a defense against her claims, or we’d have seen them and he wouldn’t have come up with nonsense stories, e.g. claiming he knew precisely what he was doing on the evening of 10 March 2001 or claiming he did not sweat or claiming he was allergic to horse hair. He made an ass out of himself in that television interview in November 2019 and has been put out to pasture by the palace. (Giuffre wasn’t a credible accuser but that she had this photograph; he managed to make her more credible). There’s no need for any more diversions. He’s done.

    No clue how you got the idea that Harry’s going to sacrifice himself to generate a temporary diversion from attention to a seven year old scandal involving his uncle.

    • Agree: David In TN
  30. Mike Tre says:

    Diana was a filthy (as well as ugly) whore as well.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jonathan Cook Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?