Royal Crisis – Meghan & Harry… Personal Happiness Vs Duty?
Comment:
The unhappiness of the Duchess of Sussex seems to be behind this decision of Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals. But does duty always have to be the enemy of happiness? Is there not a level of happiness that springs from being dutiful?
Please keep all comments respectful; whether you are a royalist or a republican or somewhere in between, feel free to express your views in a forthright manner, but always without any personal abuse – be respectful, please and thank you.
And please address the topic which is about whether there is, necessarily, any conflict between duty and happiness.
Comments (49)
This is an extract from the Sky News website
“Harry has grown up with the media… he would know better than anybody how to handle it.
“Meghan was an actress. Actors and people in theatre, they thrive on publicity.
“I think this is a case of what Meghan wants, Meghan gets.
https://news.sky.com/story/what-meghan-wants-meghan-gets-royal-experts-on-the-sussexes-decision-to-quit-roles-11904174
That was my immediate thought when this news broke – what Meghan wants, Meghan gets. I remember being stunned when I read about some petulance over her wedding, which I can’t remember the details of, but you’d think that given all she had then and was looking forward to, she could have been a bit more easy going about the wedding details.
If they go through with this and move to America or Canada, I think they should give up their titles or have them taken from them. We keep hearing how the royals bring in the tourists, and so they earn their keep, but they’ll be drawing the tourists overseas!
As for the question – no, IMHO, duty and happiness are not mutually exclusive. Ask any parent who has to look after their children if they think the sacrifices involved make them unhappy. I don’t think so. It’s the opposite. It’s in giving to others that we find fulfilment and true happiness.
Margaret Mary,
I definitely agree about the titles – they should have them removed and see how easy it will be for them to become “financially independent” then.
Personal happiness cannot be achieved in this life, at least not for long, without the grace fo God in the soul, a fact that is evidenced by many examples of rich and successful people who have taken their own lives. A true sense of duty is likewise dependent upon God, his wisdom and grace. Sadly, Megan has already demonstrated her contempt for the constraints of duty by abandoning her first husband.
The question here is one of selfishness versus selflessness. The pair in question, sad to say, appear more prone to the former than to the latter. My personal conclusion is that Megan has had a very negative influence on Harry who seems to be moving further and further away from family, friends. It’s a marriage I have always said will not last.
Athanasius,
I agree about the selfishness. I remember reading somewhere that Megan actually ended her first marriage by sending her husband her wedding ring through the post. That’s how he found out. She really does seem to be a very selfish woman, determined to get her own way. I think this is a feature of the feminist movement types and she has been one of them since her childhood, big into women’s rights.
I also don’t think this marriage will last. She’s already gone off to Canada today without Harry to be with their son – I wonder who’s looking after the baby in Canada? The whole situation is dreadful, and so soon after the Andrew scandal. No matter what anyone’s views on royalty are, you have to feel sorry for the Queen as a mother and grandmother. It’s not a nice way for her children to behave as she is nearing the end of her life.
I agree with you, Athanasius, this marriage is badly tied…
It’s not a marriage…
PH should never have “married” her in the first place. That ceremony was a big waste of the UK taxpayers’ money. (For the record: I love royalty.)
Pray for Prince Philip too. He’s ill and hopefully the grace of God will touch his heart so he can make an act of perfect contrition before he dies so he can go to Purgatory if not Heaven.
I’m really not sure why CT is covering this topic, given the media saturation elsewhere . . . but my firm belief is that this couple should be starved of the oxygen of publicity they so clearly crave (particularly her) in spite of their supposed desire for privacy. In my opinion, whatever they do / don’t do, isn’t going to have any major impact on life in the UK one way or the other, I just don’t think the situation warrants all this attention.
WF,
We’re covering the topic because it is evidence, yet again, of the diabolical disorientation in the world, as in the Church.
The topic for discussion here isn’t really about Meghan and Harry – it’s deeper than their selfishness, but their selfishness should focus our attention on the fact that the emphasis in our society is on “me, me, me” – whatever the individual wants to do, that must be done. Duty is discounted if it conflicts with personal desire, and we see that in all sorts of way.
I was very surprised when, right after my mother’s death, a well meaning neighbour expressed her condolences but added that “now, you have a life yourself…”
On reflecting about this sentiment, I realised that she had assumed that I wasn’t really happy because I was caring for my sick mother when the opposite was true. I was no Florence Nightingale, that’s for sure, but the idea that I could have been happy if I’d abandoned my duty to care for my mother when she needed some attention (she was extremely UN-demanding) just amazes me. The Meghan & Harry situation should give us all pause for thought because the human condition means that we are all prone to selfishness.
Anyway, the royal commentator in this short interview on an Australian TV show, touches on this topic.
Westminster Fly,
Maybe CT is covering this topic to give us a rest from the shenanigans of Pope Francis, LOL!
You are right about the saturation media coverage of this unconscionable pair, but nobody is covering the deeper questions about self-sacrifice and duty etc, These kinds of things are mentioned in passing, usually just by pointing out how dutiful the Queen has been, so it’s good to use this to have a record online that some of us see this (what I think of as a betrayal) with some more insight than the MSM is showing.
I tend to think that we can derive happiness from doing our duty / fulfilling our obligations. I do not think there is a natural conflict between the two things.
Surely it is a mistake for someone in the Royal family to marry someone who is a celebrity, whose on fame and public recognition might eclipse that of the Royal spouse.
‘Effective’ Royals are those who give large amounts of time to go and champion people and causes which will often be un-glamorous or “small beer”. And who do this without always receiving lots of personal publicity over it.
I had always struggled to see how someone who was an actress, a hollywood celebrity, would fit into that role. Celebrities are more used to personal fame and riches – building up their own brand – than giving time for the benefit of others.
While I am not a big fan of the Royals myself, they are an important institution and i do fear this move may cheapen what they represent which would be a shame. I read elsewhere of the possibility of seeing (for example) “HRH Sussex” bed-sheets on sale in north American Department stores, or of “HRH Meghan” starring in soap operas.
I do not begrudge the couple seeking happiness, but I do think they should now lose the “HRH titles” and the British taxpayer should not be funding any aspect of their lifestyle.
The move does tend to fit into the modern notion that the Royal Family should become a very much slimmed down outfit.
I also think it should lose its autonomy regarding public duty and roles, (their modern lives are something of a soap opera) and become more of Government Department (like the ‘Church’ of England).
PS- Bring back the Stuarts of Scotland! 😛
Gabriel Syme,
Long live the House of Stuart.
The House of Windsor is descended from the Stuarts. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of Charles I.
Elizabeth I, as she is in Scotland, may be descended from the Stuarts, as are some 20% of Scots, but that doesn’t mean they are all the rightful monarchs.
Don’t you consider her to be the rightful Monarch then?
CC,
Are you sure? I would be very surprised if that was the case, the Windsors being from a German background. I am no expert, right enough!
I know (think) that British Monarchs always refer to previous Monarchs as “my ancestor” to give the impression of continuity, even if they are not actually related.
I am very sure that Elizabeth I and II is a Stuart descendant. The daughter of Charles I was Elizabeth Stuart and she was the consort of Frederick V, Elector of Palatine and King of Bohemia. She was the mother of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, who was in turn the mother of George I, the seven times great grandfather of Elizabeth I and II.
CC,
Many thanks for that interesting information!
Vianney,
I will raise a glass to that!
Wha wadnae fecht fur Charlie?
I think part of Meghan’s problem is watching too many soppy Hollywood films. Over the Christmas period there were three such films where an American girl meets a European prince, they fall in love and live happily ever after in a fairy tale castle. She probably thought that her days would be spent doing nothing and being waited on hand and foot, but while Princess Margaret may have gotten away with getting up and the crack of noon, then having a three hour lunch and spending the rest of the day as she pleased, the public will no longer put up with that sort of thing.
Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands ascended the throne when she was 10. While being presented to the crowds from the palace balcony she turned to her mother, Queen Emma, and asked “do all those people belong to me?” to which her mother replied “no! YOU belong to them.” And that is the reality of monarchy, you belong to the people and you are there to serve them. Meghan realised, too late, that she was expected to work and that her life was no longer her own. Also, I’m sure that Prince Charles’ intentions to slim down the Royal family, in keeping with other European monarchies, hasn’t gone down too well as it would mean she and Harry losing their privileged position.
She moans about being criticised, but as an actress she must surely have been used to that, especially as, apparently, she wasn’t a very good actress. When Harry said, “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets” the Queen put her foot down, (she should have aimed it at Meghan’s bahookie) and said “oh no she doesn’t.” I think when Meghan realised she wasn’t going to have her way she set about trying to drive a wedge between Harry and his family and she has deprived them of seeing Archie’s first Christmas. Not only that, but she left the bairn in Canada which is a really nasty thing to do to the family, especially Archie’s grandparents and great grandparents, and shows how devious she is. Unfortunately, Harry is besotted with her and can see no wrong in her.
I know the Windsors are out of touch compared to other royal houses, but, laying my Jacobite loyalties aside, I can’t see that they have done anything wrong, and have been nothing but welcoming to Meghan. Also at her age, the Queen doesn’t need or deserve this behaviour.
Editor’s lead question made me realize that I didn’t know the Catholic definition of happiness, aside from the sobering statement of Our Lady of Lourdes to St. Bernadette: “I do not promise you happiness in this life, only in the next.”
So herewith a few excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on happiness:
1. Plato: the harmonious functioning of the parts of man’s soul as shall preserve the subordination of the lower to the higher, of the non-rational to the rational.
2. Aristotle: happiness is the highest good proper to man in contrast with other animals. It is virtuous intellectual action, with the highest happiness corresponding to the highest virtue.
3. St. Thomas: St. Thomas teaches that beatitudo, perfect happiness, is the true supreme, subjective end of man, and is, therefore, open to all men, but is not attainable in this life. It consists in the best exercise of the noblest human faculty, the intellect, on the one object of infinite worth. It is, in fact, the outcome of the immediate possession of God by intellectual contemplation.
4. St. Augustine: “Our heart is ill at ease till it find rest in Thee.” “The possession of God is happiness essential.” “To know God is life everlasting.”
As to whether we can experience happiness from being dutiful, I would first suggest that “being dutiful” means to carry our cross in imitation of Our Lord – in our case, to fulfill our duties of state to the best of our ability. Fulfill them, that is, with resignation at a minimum, but with joy and gratitude at a maximum. Presumably, the more joy and gratitude with which we carry our cross, the more happiness, within certain limits, we will experience.
I don’t know anything about these royals, other than they apparently believe that having children is bad for the environment, so I can’t comment on how they fulfill their duties of state. But since having children is the primary end of marriage, I suppose one could argue that they intend to abdicate said duties after having two children…if the marriage lasts that long…
I’m also reminded of a Little Golden Book my mother read to me when I was little, and which I also read to my boys: Scuffy the Tugboat. For those not familiar with this insightful story about both happiness and humility (i.e. knowing one’s place), Scuffy is a toy tugboat who is purchased by a little boy, brought home, and placed in a bathtub in which to sail. Scuffy, however, has bigger ideas. He rebels and says “A bathtub is not the place for me – I was meant for bigger things!” When the boy and his father take Scuffy outside and place him in a little brook, Scuffy immediately sails downstream and escapes to look for those “bigger things.” After many adventures in the ever-broadening river, he finds himself in a huge city harbor, completely lost and overwhelmed in all the hubbub, and about to sail out into the endless ocean, a prospect which frightens him. However, just as he sails past the last piece of land before the ocean, the boy and his father pluck him out of the water, bring him home, and put him back into his bathtub. Scuffy is now happy with his lot, and says “This is the place for a red-painted tugboat, and this is the life for me.”
RCA Victor,
Those definitions of happiness deserve a dedicated thread – thanks for that. I’ll need to re-read your post over the weekend, as there seems to be a lot to take in, and I’m easily taken in, but it takes time, if you get my drift… 😀
I used to be a royalist but now I’m drifting towards the Republican side. What right do they have to rule over us? I don’t believe they derive their authority from God. They didn’t pay tax until 1992 and the Queen and Prince of Wales have the Royal Veto so they can block legislation pertaining to their private estates. Hence, they are not subject to the same employment laws and the Duchy of Cornwall is tax exempt. Harry will not be financially independent. He won’t get the Sovereign Grant (which cover 5% of his expenses) but he will be funded from the Duchy (95% of his income). So he’s still sponging off daddy. They are also keeping the Frogmore Cottage, renovated at the taxpayer’s expense. The Royals get over £84m. All of this at a time when the poor are being afflicted with the bedroom tax, universal credit, food banks, zero hours etc. The Royals leech off the welfare system, so why isn’t the Sovereign Grant being reduced by 14% per spare room?
Meghan has ruined Harry. As one blogger said she is selfish and devious madam. She is used to having her own way, and Harry is a weak man who is ruled by his woman. No time for it. I’m glad I’m a bachelor.
They should be stripped of their titles, all monies from the SG and the Duchy and all grace and favour residences and security.
Catholicconvert1
Republics still have the poor struggling with all the problems you mention so abolishing the monarchy wouldn’t change that.
Historically Scots didn’t believe in the Divine Right of Kings and the monarch got his authority from the people by who’s will he reigned. The people had the right to depose him if he failed to do his duties, and replace him with another member of the Royal House. There was no bowing or curtsying as the monarch was regarded as the first among equals on a par with the people.
This was centuries ahead of other countries and it could be said that the !Scandinavian style monarchy” actually began in Scotland. In many monarchies only the monarch receives a salary and any member of the Royal Family carrying out engagements receive expenses from the monarch. I believe that this is the type of monarchy that Prince Charles favours.
I agree with you that Harry and Meghan should be stripped of their titles. Harry is certainly not short of money as he is said to be worth £30 million, He inherited almost £10 million from his mother. At 25 he started receiving £450,000 a year from a trust fund set up by the Queen Mother for her great grandchildren. and he will receive another £8 million when he turns 40. He also earned over £50,000 a year as a helicopter pilot. Meghan is said to be worth around £3.5 million.
Vianney,
Thank you for that interesting and enlightening post. Please can you explain how the Monarch would be deposed and replaced? I presume it would be Parliament? Am I correct in thinking that the Monarch of Scotland was referred to as ‘Your Majesty’, whereas the English Monarch was ‘Your Grace’. Can you recommend any reading on the Scottish Monarchy?
Catholicconvert1
I’m not sure if any monarch was actually deposed but the right to do so existed and is enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath. It would probably be through the Lords at Court that the monarch was deposed. Many of them were clan chiefs who would have been “petitioned” by their clansmen.
Most monarchs throughout Europe were actually styled ‘Your Grace’ or sometimes ‘Your Highness’ although in England it tended to be ‘My Lord’ although Highness and Grace were occasionally used. The first European monarch to use the style Majesty was Charles V when he became Holy Roman Emperor in 1519 as he believed he should have a higher title than Highness. He was followed by Francis I of France and by Henry VIII of England, although many in England continued to use Highness and Grace.
In Scotland James VI was the first monarch to use Majesty as previous monarchs believed the style Majesty belonged to God. After the union the style became ‘Gracious Majesty’ which was a merger of Grace and Majesty and is still the official style of address of British monarchs.
Regarding Majesty belonging to God, the Dutch also believed this and while the monarch is styled Majesty, one of the verses of the Dutch national anthem mentions God’s majesty.
Unto the Lord His power
I do confession make
That ne’er at any hour
Ill of the King I’ll speak.
But unto God, the greatest
of Majesties I owe
Obedience first and latest,
For Justice wills it so.
Vianney,
That’s a beautiful verse from the Dutch national anthem (which I’ve never heard!)
It’s ironic, that reference to God’s majesty, since the Church in Holland was the first to go modernist, if my memory is right.
One cannot improvise as a princess.
This requires a whole education to fulfill this role.
What is happening was predictable.
The Queen must be very concerned!
It is not for nothing that our ancestors ensured that their children married a person of the same rank!…
Lionel,
You make perfectly valid points – I have to say that your concluding remark chimes with my own thoughts on this, which I see as comparable to the Church’s traditional disapproval of mixed marriages. This was not out of any hatred of non-Catholics, or bigotry of any kind; simply to safeguard the children who might be born of that marriage, to ensure that they received the Faith passed on in its entirety by parents who were convinced of its truth. It’s in the same vein that I read your comment about royalty “marrying a person of the same rank.” That and the old saying (which originated in Scotland, as it happens) that “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.” In other words, someone – a commoner – marrying into the royal family and having to observe rules, regulations etc. – is bound to struggle with it. And a modern feminist / actress was always unlikely to stay the course.
I’m afraid it is increasingly obvious in our self-centred society that the idea of putting duty ahead of personal desires when the two conflict, is for the birds.
I disagree with your statement about commoners ‘marrying up’. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has integrated very well into the Royal Family. The Royals have no other choice but to marry commoners as the other European houses have declined in a similar way.
CatholicConvert 1,
Kate Middleton is the exception to the rule. One swallow doesn’t make a summer, as the saying goes. So far, the majority of commoners to the royal family have been dismal failures, who have caused more bother than anything else to the royal family. I do think that Meghan is the worst, so far., but others have shown the same selfishness, wanting to have their cake and eat it.
I don’t think that commoners marrying royalty causes problems, at least where most royal families are concerned. The King’s of Sweden, Norway, Belgium the Netherland’s and Spain have all married commoners with no problems. The Queen of Denmark and former Queen of the Netherlands both married commoners, again with no problems, and the same goes for the Grand Duke of Luxembourg.
Vianney,
I don’t know anything about foreign royal families – I was referring to ours. The track record of the commoners who have married into the British royal family is not good, IMHO. Do you think they’ve all been success stories?
Lily, the other royals I mentioned have all certainly seemed to have had happy and successful marriages.
As for the British royals, the Countess of Wessex, The Duchess of Gloucester and Mr Angus Ogilvie are/were commoners so I wouldn’t say they have all got a bad track record.
Now for a piece of useless information. Did you know that the late Queen Mother was a commoner? Anyone who is not a member of the royal family is a commoner, even if their family has a title. Apparently, Prince David, (later Edward VIII) took a shine to her, but as he was going to be King she was not considered “queen material” as she was a commoner. So any relationship was nipped in the bud and she pushed in the direction of Prince Albert as he would not become King. Of course, nobody could know that the Meghan Markle of her time, Wallis Simpson, would come along and change all that.
Although I think Princess Kate seems to have embraced that education for herself and her children in order to support Prince William in his role. Perhaps that is where some of the tension has arisen between the brothers and their wives? In the end however its just more speculation. No one truly knows what tensions have arisen within the family and why.
It is as well to count the cost, before beginning the duty that being a member of the royal family entails. Self-indulgence and abandonment to comfort – to a certain extent – must be given up. Is this too heavy a price to pay? Pleasure on the one hand and happiness on the other. It seems as though the Duchess had not given sufficient thought to this before her second “marriage”.
Our Editor has informed me that she is again having broadband problems with her computer, which may take a few days to be remedied. She apologises for this, and, that she had not put up another thread on the blog. But, if anyone wishes to discuss something other than what is already on the blog, she suggests using the General Discussion thread.
Well, about that financial independence – mystery solved. I found this on MSN –
Meghan Markle’s Disney role revealed as royal returns to Hollywood after shock announcement
“The Duchess of Sussex has signed a voiceover deal with Disney in return for a donation to a wildlife charity. Meghan will provide her voice to the mass media and entertainment conglomerate in exchange for a donation to Elephants Without Borders, an organisation that helps to track and protect the animals from poaching, The Times reports.”
How sad. I agree with Marc – she has not given sufficient thought to the fact that being a member of the royal family entails a certain amount of sacrifice.
I think it is very true to say that people today do know understand the difference between “happiness” and “pleasure”. That’s why the whole idea of self-sacrifice is thought of as being oppressive, it’s why the feminist movement campaigned that unless women were in the workplace, they couldn’t be truly happy or fulfilled, just looking after children and being a home-maker.
Father John Hardon’s talk on the Beatitudes covers this. I thought I’d post it here – somehow I don’t see Harry and Meghan agreeing with him, LOL!
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Martyrs/Martyrs_004.htm
Lily,
That’s a really good talk by Fr Hardon, and I want to read it carefully again, because there is so much to learn from it, but I copied this one sentence which really impacted me:
“The last thing we do (rationally speaking) is associate joy with poverty, want, sorrow and persecution. Yet (and what a “yet” this is!) this is the heart of Christianity.”
It’s very obvious that the Duke & Duchess of Sussex have no clue about the meaning of true happiness. I read somewhere that they have a “brand name” and it is “Sussex Royal”, so expect T-shirts and HRH towels etc. once they have moved to Canada.
One last thing. There is plenty of commentary that they have been driven out of the UK because of racism towards Meghan, but this nonsense was highlighted for what it is by a blogger who said that, well, if she thinks the UK is racist, why does she want to move to Canada where the Prime Minister regularly blacks up for fun?
I couldn’t agree more.
Regarding the discussion above about Royals marrying ‘commoners’ – for one thing, I think they are almost forced to these days, in order to avoid a very limited gene pool and the attendant problems.
I get so fed up listening to commenters saying Meghan has been forced out because of racism. I don’t know why she thinks Canadians are any less “racist” since so many of them come from the UK including Scotland. Piers Morgan presses one of these commentators who believes Meghan has been the victim of racism, and he doesn’t miss and hit the wall, as the saying goes!
MM,
Thank you for that video clip.
One commentator answering the “UK is racist and drove Meghan out” allegation on YouTube wrote: “we’re so racist, that people are risking their lives to come here”
Game, set and match!
Way to pick ’em, Harry:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/meghan_markle_wont_move_back_to_the_states_until_trump_is_gone.html
RCA Victor,
That is one insightful article – I copied the first paragraph to put here because it is bang on the button:
“Hollywood celebrity is tough to shuck, at least for Meghan Markle, last seen in a starring role as duchess of Sussex.
Instead of marveling at her fairy-tale ending with her marriage to Prince Harry in the U.K., she’s made it clear she wants to go back to the Hollywood celebrity circuit, that B-list group that makes loud left-wing noises to get attention — and movie roles. Harry can come along for the ride if he wants, but he’s probably going to get chewed up and spat out in the long run. She’ll dump him when he gets inconvenient. It’s pretty clear by the latest stunt she pulled that she’s not loyal to him, and to heck with his family, too. So instead of living as a royal, which means abjuring politics in the name of representing a nation, she’s going to accept Hollywood roles; sell trinkets on the Kardashian model; and, best of all, spread her political wings. To her, former president Obama and his wife Michelle are the real royalty, so off she goes in pursuit of being the next Michelle Obama, wearing fashion and spouting left-wing politics. The British royal family hasn’t even figured out what to do after that blindsiding letter they got from the Sussexes, but on politics, she’s already started.
According to the Daily Mail:
Harry and Meghan may settle in the US eventually — but not while President Donald Trump is in charge.
Friends have told the Daily Mail that while the couple plan to live in Canada at first — although probably not on Vancouver Island — their ultimate aim is to have a home and business in Los Angeles.
Meghan grew up in the city and her mother, Doria Ragland, still lives there. Miss Ragland, 63, was seen walking her two dogs near her home last week after the royal couple’s bombshell news.
However, staunch Democrat Meghan, who has openly been critical of Mr Trump and missed the President’s state visit to the UK last year, has said that she will not move to the US while he is in charge.
See, she can’t stand being in a country where ordinary people might vote for Trump. It’s too, too dreadful. She can’t bear to be in a room with us, or share some country space. The U.S. simply isn’t big enough for all of us.
It goes to show what a poisonous influence she is to the British royal family, which has bent over backward to be kind to her and accommodate her. They know she’s no royal, so they’ve given her allowances and space to adjust, lots of vacays and breaks and stuff. She got excused from meeting President Trump when he came to visit on the grounds that she had just had a baby, though she showed up fine to another event the next day. She doesn’t bother much with credibility with the public, see.
The royals nevertheless indulged her on the grounds that if she could make Prince Harry happy, then they’d treat her like family despite everything.
But she pretty well threw that gift away as some cheap trinket and forced Harry into signing on to her live-in-Canada plan, selling royal merchandise, trading off the family name, which in Britain (or anywhere, really) is abhorrent. Imagine someone in your family wanting to leave the family “firm,” which largely consisted of smiling, looking nice, being kind to strangers, and representing the best of the nation, dumping that job onto other members instead, and selling t-shirts of their doings instead.
She hasn’t made Harry happy, either, which rather ends the reason for their embrace of her, too.
As Mark Steyn noted on Fox News a few days ago, she seems to be loyal only to herself. Steyn noted that she first cut her own family dead to achieve fame she never had in Hollywood with the royals, and now she’s betraying the royals, again in favor of the red carpet. The only thing that still matters to her is Hollywood celebrity life. Charity work is for the birds, and being kind to strangers…well, we know she’s not kind to the royal family who bent their own rules to take her in, so you can bet she’s not about to be kind to strangers.
She not only wants the red carpet, but wants to be woke, too, spouting off about politics, same as Rosie O’Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, that toilet-mouthed woman who sells cookware at Target, Chrissie Teigen, Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, Taylor Swift, and other low-class morons — the full celebrity cavalcade of people the public can’t stand.
She jets around to lecture on global warming, and then she refuses to share a space with Americans on account of the half of us who voted for Trump. In that creepy resignation note signed with Prince Harry, which she was no doubt behind, she spoke of launching a ‘new progressive role’ instead. According to NBC News:
On closer inspection, the “new progressive role” they want to pursue would appear to have them benefit from millions of dollars bankrolled by the British public — while walking away from many obligations traditionally tied to that life.
She better get used to Canada life, of course, with that blackface progressive prime minister of theirs, because people like her are among the reasons why Trump is going to get handily re-elected come November.”
IMHO, she is playing Harry for a fool, and the idea that she has the slightest clue that there is a connection between happiness and self-sacrifice, or true love and self-sacrifice, is so far removed from reality that it doesn’t bear thinking about.
That is why, again IMHO, she will throw Harry out in the end, as well. She has her baby – the Prince is now disposable like Archie’s nappies.
Sorry, I copied the whole article by mistake, LOL!
Well, looks like she’s going to be flitting between Old Blighty and Canada eh because Donald Trump will win this year, that is if the Republicans don’t drop him.
One of our local cartoonist’s commentary:
http://secureservercdn.net/45.40.145.151/712.743.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/image003-11.jpg
RCA Victor,
That cartoon is, sadly, likely to be as true as it is entertaining. Thank you for that light relief – we can always use a bit of fun…
Seems, though, that the Canadians don’t want H & M to settle in Canada. They must surely all be racists…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7895325/Nearly-three-quarters-Canadians-dont-want-pay-Harry-Meghan-living-country.html
Comments are closed.