Meghan Markle: sex, a ginger Royal line gets crossed and Prince Harry’s moan
Prince Harry is dating American actress Meghan Markle. And he’s unhappy with the media. The celebrity Royal doesn’t much like journalists behaving like, well, journalists. Kensington Palace say the Press have subjected Markle to a “wave of abuse and harassment”. It says “the past week has seen a line crossed”.
The BBC notes: “In recent days a number of newspapers have carried front page stories about the 35-year-old actress, best known for playing Rachel Zane in the TV drama Suits.”
Tsk! Those pesky tabloids, eh. Nothing like the BBC, which punctuates that news with a link to “Who is Meghan Markle?” The Times has more with “Everything you (secretly) wanted to know about Prince Harry’s ‘friend’”.
The Beeb’s bio tells us Megan has really good handwriting, was married and is now divorced, and is mixed race.
The Daily Telegraph wonders, “Could Harry marry a divorcee (when Margaret couldn’t)?”.
In the Times Hilary Rose reviews Markle’s acting role in Suits (something the Sun likens to porn – see picture below): “The show seems mainly to consist of pretty people saying inane things with the utmost gravity which, when you think about it, is pretty much what the royal family do.”
Yes, but with more guns.
The prince’s communications secretary warns (and is that very much like a celebrity to talk through ‘my people’):
“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.”
The Guardian fingers the Sun:
Sun’s ‘smear’ about actor’s links to adult website prompts statement in which royal attacks reports’ ‘racial undertones’
Nothing like the Guardian, then, which reported:
Who she? She’s an actor, very beautiful, 35 years old. You might know her as Rachel Zane from the legal drama Suits.
I don’t. Never mind. She’s also … how can I put this?
As long as she’s not a divorced American. The royal family has had enough of them after that Wallis Simpson business. Actually, that’s exactly what she is. But I was thinking of something else.
Harry’s not going to be king, so maybe it will be OK as long as she behaves herself and offers up her body as a vessel for the royal bloodline. That’s the thing. Markle is dual-heritage. Her father is white and her mother is African American.
So? Look, most of the 20th century was a mistake and we want racial superiority back. We had a referendum about it, remember?
After the Guardian has looked down on the tabloids and smeared pro-Brexit voters as bigots (plus ca change), we hear more from Harry’s “cry from the heart” (BBC):
“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.”
The Guardian then fingers the Mail:
One comment piece in last weekend’s Mail on Sunday, by Rachel Johnson, said: “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.”
That’s racist? No. Of course it isn’t. Unless you think it nasty to mention Harry’s watery blood and accuse Johnson of gingerism?
The Guardian is in an absurd position. It wants to protect royal Harry from those awful tabloids, but has told its readers “Forelock-tugging is all the rage thanks to Harry and Kate” and that Princess Kate is trapped in a “cliched gilded cage”.
that;s the problem, isn’t it: Harry doesn’t behave like a Royal. He, Kate and Wills behave like celebrities. They don’t patronise; they endorse.
Harry and his PR team continue:
“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.”
A red line? Or is it a ginger line that’s being crossed?
Posted: 8th, November 2016 | In: Celebrities, Reviews, Royal Family Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
