Squabbles

I made three observations about the Harry and Meghan story yesterday, but I think it's worth repeating them before adding to them.

Just an observation on the Harry and Meghan story; while not all people who bandy about the words; "Playing the race card," are necessarily racists, racists, however, use them all the time. It's also an observation that those who feel most compelled to look up to a certain class of people also feel to need to look down on another class of people in order to feel their position in the hierarchy of the class system is secure. Another, final observation; Harry and Meghan are holding up a mirror to the Royal Family, the press and the nation - the more you see the nastier side of yourself, the angrier you will be.

The gutter press narrative is that they are seeking privacy which, given their actions in courting attention, is hypocritical. However, the issue is not privacy, but consent. There's a huge difference between controlling press access to you and press intrusion. There's nothing at all hypocritical about them being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey at their invitation, especially as they didn't ask for or receive a fee. That said, they're probably on a hiding to nothing and the gutter press will hound them to their dying days.

The interview was Harry's No.6 moment, as I call it. The moment where Patrick McGoohan's character from the 1960s TV series, The Prisoner, shouts; "I am not a number, I am a free man." All the rest of the inhabitants of The Village maintain the pretence of their existence and abide by the rules of the game within an artificial environment where they are not allowed to express themselves freely. Imagine not being able to have an opinion; it must be a hideous existence for which no amount of privilege can compensate.

That's not to say there isn't a valid reason why those in the line of succession can't have an opinion. In days past, monarchs and princes had a lot of opinions, but it was in the days when the monarch chose the government of his or her liking and the franchise was restricted. A head of state who cannot be removed by democratic means becomes dangerous when he or she express an opinion that's contrary to that of the elected government - you don't vote for kings. But that, in and of itself, makes a mockery of an unelected head of state - it's a purely ceremonial position.

Harry and Meghan were appealing to the reasonable, rational and nuanced elements of society, which are sadly becoming fewer, with an emotional honesty that the Royal Family is not allowed to exhibit and the result of which bit them in the bum when Diana died. They are living in a system that's an anachronism.

Then there's the American Effect. Americans are not used to bowing and scraping before people who hold their positions by an accident of birth - they treat people on the basis of what they have achieved. A class system based on birth is alien to them and curtseying to your grandmother-in-law, even in private, must seem humiliating.

Meghan was such an asset to the Royal Family in bringing it into the 21st century and rekindling its relevance. I am no royalist, having republican leanings, but an opportunity was sorely missed for the Royal Family to jointly say; "Proud to be woke."

As for that arsehole Piers Morgan - he sullied what reputation he had with the phone hacking scandal, for which he never paid the price, which should have been jail, rather than simply losing his job. Why he's allowed anywhere near a TV studio with his faux, populist, intentionally inflammatory, pantomime comedy villain remarks, which are both racist and misogynist, is beyond me. Good riddance to him. The likes of him give licence to the undesirables in a civilized society and is the type of person the Sussexes were complaining about, and rightly so.