John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

“Harry and Meghan believe they are being ‘driven out’ by Buckingham Palace, says friend

“Buckingham Palace denies couple were told they had no part in ‘slimmed-down monarchy’”

 

Well, talk about a tempest in a teapot.

It does seem the only forces at work here are the egos of Harry and Meghan.

A slimmed-down Royal Family is appropriate.

And it just follows that the focus should be on those near the top of the succession. After all that is what royalty is about, succession to ruling.

Fewer Royals clomping around and smiling for photos might serve to reduce the empty celebrity status that has so clung to the institution since the time of Diana.

I said “egos,” but I think “ego” might be closer to the truth.

Meghan, by all accounts, has a large one. She has caused a lot of friction within the family during her comparatively brief time.

Now, she’s off to Canada alone to sulk while Harry has been publicizing what the Queen had asked him to keep quiet.

Poor Harry, not a particularly able or sensible man to start with, is left half torn from both extended family and wife.

Regrettably, the matter of Meghan’s mixed racial heritage keeps being injected into press coverage, but I don’t see that plays any part here.

The idea of trimming back the Royals has been around for decades.

Now that they’re busy having so many kids, maybe it is time to do it.

Most European states who retain monarchies treat them in an entirely different way, less exalted, more like family, and not riding around in heavy gold-gilt coaches.

Family tensions caused by Meghan’s rather high-strung personality have undoubtedly played a part in getting the changes started.

Even with all the Royal Family’s ability to control much of the news about itself, enough has gotten out to give people a pretty vivid picture. Meghan has frequently made life seriously difficult for the future King and Queen, William and Kate. Kate has been reported being reduced to tears.

Why not just trim it all back, once good sturdy, dependable Elizabeth is gone, and join the 21^st century?

__________________

Response to a comment on the many stories about Meghan in the Daily Mail:

Not to defend the Daily Mail, a pretty sleazy operation, but Meghan yearned for fame and attention, and she’s got it.

She perhaps only wanted the good part of the attention, but you can’t pick and choose.

If she believes she’s abused, she’s very naive.

Which wouldn’t surprise me at all. Her entire raging ambition to become a Royal does say something of the same thing.

It’s one heck of a meaningless job being a Duchess, and she had to marry Harry to get it. That’s quite a price, as we know from years of exposure to his unbalanced behavior, tantrums, and banal conversation.

Meghan also rates lots of attention because she is so strikingly beautiful. Beauty like that always attracts lots of press. 

John Chuckman

EXPANSION OF A COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

Sorry, David, but I do think Jeremy Corbyn likely understands exactly what ISIS represents.

It really is you, David, who pretends not to understand.

After all, you support American policy in the region, don’t you, David, even though, if I may be permitted to say, you do so with just a trifle too much groveling?

American policy is about using filth like ISIS and al Qaeda to destroy the beautiful land of Syria. America helped round up this collection of human trash from many places, including Benghazi, and along with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, it armed, trained, and supported them in their murderous rampage.

Of course, the Americans do not say that openly, David, but anyone who does just a little thinking can see the pattern. Those who do not see it, choose not to see it.

The U.S. drops bombs in the desert and on Syrian infrastructure, pretending to attack ISIS. The bombing of so-called terrorists you want to do, David, is clearly of the “Me too, Mr. Obama, Sir!” kind.

You really are so transparent, David, quite an ineffective puff-ball of a Prime Minister trying to sound stern and heroic. But then you have no one to answer to, do you, with a “majority” government representing 35% of British voters? Not your fault, is it, that Britain’s election system has such a built-in democratic deficit?

By all accounts, that horrible tyrant Assad is somehow strangely supported by a substantial majority of Syrians owing to his policies of secularism and protection of religious minorities. Then there’s the fact that he accepted at least a million refugees fleeing the American-British invasion of Iraq which killed about a million people, but he’s not fooling you, is he, David? He’s a heartless tyrant who must go. After all, he didn’t listen to you about getting out of town.

I’m just waiting to see how you’ll wiggle your little trotters and oink (sorry for the reference, David, but I couldn’t resist) after Putin’s air force has sent the American-organized cutthroats running for home. There are already reports of some fleeing. Maybe you’ll take them in, David? But I understand you’re not that fond of refugees.

Putin just proves what amazing things can happen when you actually aim for the enemy you claim you are aiming at. In their first 60 sorties, Putin’s boys did more damage to ISIS than America’s claimed 6,000 or so. But then that could be because Americans spend so much effort bombing things like hospitals, or don’t you agree, David?

David, there is one thing I wish you’d clear up for all us lowly, ordinary citizens. What do Rebekah and Rupert think about ISIS? Surely, you discuss the subject on your country weekends?