Megxit
January 12, 2020
AMERICAN-style feminism has met a serious foe in the patriotism of the British.
Social media and newspapers comments sections continue to show stinging condemnation of Meghan Markle for the decision by her and Prince Harry to set off on their own. “Megxit” is an insult to the queen and taxpayers who support the monarchy, many say. Buckingham Palace is reportedly in crisis mode. A meeting is scheduled between the Queen and her grandson tomorrow.
Many believe Meghan is responsible. “Meghan is blamed for the couple’s bombshell move, with just 4 per cent saying it was Harry.” (The Daily Mail)
It’s ironic that a beautiful woman and feminist should be at odds with an institution that has produced some of the most powerful women in the world. Here’s the 93-year-old, indestructible queen driving her Land Rover on the grounds of Sandringham House yesterday.
Women’s rights are Meghan’s burning cause. The new foundation she and Harry have created emphasizes that mission. She is reported to have been deeply unhappy in her role as royal emissary and wanting to put her own stamp on her future — even though she hasn’t been with Harry, pseudo-marriage that it is, for two years [yet].
Feminism has been a sort of religion for Meghan since she was a young girl — and who can blame her since she was surrounded by it at an impressionable age? Even at 11, she was swept up into the cult. Her efforts to get Palmolive to stop associating its dishwashing liquid with women show a truly touching idealism. Unfortunately, Markle today appears to have more genuine sentiment for a multicultural, globalist vision of women’s freedom than for her eight-month-old son and his innocence. It’s not surprising if she has had a hard time adjusting to motherhood. Most feminists do. In fact, most non-feminists do.
Patriotism and feminism are naturally opposed. Love of nation and national preservation require self-sacrifice, and unpaid drudgery by women to transmit a culture. Meghan belongs to the world of celebrities, high fashion and vanity humanitarianism.
To a lesser degree, Harry has been condemned too. From The Daily Mail:
The owner of the world’s largest collection of Royal memorabilia has slammed Prince Harry as an ‘absolute fool’ for for shunning his frontline duties.
Anita Atkinson runs a royal museum from her farm in Crook, County Durham.
She has branded the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to step down from the roles as senior royals as a ‘disgrace’.
The 63-year-old grandmother also drew parallels between Prince Harry and King Edward VIII, who abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson, also an American divorcee.
Atkinson also said:
‘I can’t believe it. I’ve not heard anything like it in my life.
‘I’m sorry Prince Harry was born into the Royal family and does not like it but he better crack on with it.
‘If everything we’re hearing is right and he didn’t consult the Queen that is an absolute utter disgrace.
‘His grandmother has dedicated her whole life to the country and the Commonwealth.
‘To have her grandson behave in this way is really very offensive to the whole nation. It’s a disgrace.
‘What on earth does he think he’s doing? He is the son of the Prince of Wales and he can’t just step down.
Thousands of similar comments appear in the media.
Only a miracle could keep Harry and Meghan together for the long haul. The best thing Meghan could do at this point would be to appear before the British public and apologize, canceling all plans for a new life and asking for guidance. She could blame her commoner background and her difficulty adjusting. It is a hard life in many ways. A woman steely enough to send her engagement ring back to the jeweler for more diamonds, the Duchess of Sussex is also capable of charm and sweetness. She could use her acting skills now.
That is unlikely. She has been nurtured on feminist pride. The backlash only proves how unenlightened and woman-hating the world is, and how in need of reform.
Here’s a revealing look at the relationship of Meghan and Harry, at minute 1:05.
— Comments —
Susan-Anne White writes:
I wish to comment on your three recent posts about Meghan Markle. In “Royal racism” you use the title “Ms” Afua Hirsch. May I ask why you use “Ms” when it is a concession to feminism. The late Phyllis Schlafly once said “Don’t call me Ms it means misery. Meghan Markle is obviously playing the “race” card to elicit public sympathy. She attributes any criticism of her to “racism” which term is one of the “isms” of Marxism along with “sexism” and “ageism” and the “phobias” such as “homophobia” and “Islamaphobia” etc ad nauseum. Meghan Markle has lived like a queen at British taxpayers’ expense. Her marriage to the playboy Prince looks more like a marriage of convenience with the goal of promoting Harry and Meghan’s decadent left-wing agenda.
It is interesting to read in your post that she has not been with Harry for about two years. This would not surprise me but do you have proof to back up what you write? This makes their “parenthood” even more strange. Their Christmas photo with Archie prominently in the foreground looked creepy and (to use a modern term) photoshopped. The christening photo looked likewise strange and photoshopped. You state that “the British people welcomed her with open arms.” Not so! I am a British citizen living in Northern Ireland and we are part of the UK and I did not welcome her and I am not alone. She was a divorcee and a feminist. Harry is no angel either and neither are the Cambridges yet they are praised for their dignity and royal bearing. Yet Kate Middleton was photographed topless sometime after her wedding to William. No dignity in that! I support the monarchy as a concept but it doesn’t follow that I respect the individuals in the Royal family. The Queen herself has given her approval to immoral laws in the UK such as sodomite “marriage”. Finally you describe Meghan as “a beautiful woman and a feminist ideologue.” I beg to differ. Feminist ideologue she is but beautiful she is not. Mildly attractive sums her up.
Laura writes:
I have used Ms. on rare occasions when I don’t know whether someone is married and cannot find out. I think it is a fine innovation for those instances, but also understand the abhorrence for it you express. In this case, I could have found out that Hirsch was married, but didn’t bother. She so fits the feminist mold that “Ms.” seemed appropriate. In any event, I don’t believe in the indiscriminate use of Ms., as feminists do.
“It is interesting to read in your post that she has not been with Harry for about two years.”
They haven’t been “married” for two years.
“You state that ‘the British people welcomed her with open arms.’ Not so! I am a British citizen living in Northern Ireland and we are part of the UK and I did not welcome her and I am not alone.”
I made a generalization, and I stand by it. Obviously many people did not welcome her, for various reasons. If there had been widespread and intense resistance, perhaps because she was already married, the wedding would never have taken place.
“She was a divorcee and a feminist. Harry is no angel either and neither are the Cambridges yet they are praised for their dignity and royal bearing. Yet Kate Middleton was photographed topless sometime after her wedding to William. No dignity in that! I support the monarchy as a concept but it doesn’t follow that I respect the individuals in the Royal family.”
I am in complete agreement. The British Royal Family is riddled with openly scandalous behavior — one of the fruits of its apostasy from the true faith. But the popular affection for the institution of monarchy itself is not wrong.
“The Queen herself has given her approval to immoral laws in the UK such as sodomite ‘marriage’.”
The Queen is ultimately to blame for the current problems of Harry. She should never have approved this “marriage” because Meghan was married already and had made at least one porn video (something I never knew until today).
Update, Jan. 13 2020:
Laura writes:
The Queen embraced Harry and Megan’s exit today. From The Daily Mail:
My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family.
‘Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
‘Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.
‘It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.
‘These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.’
[…]
In a hint Harry and Meghan will completely sever ties with the Family, Her Majesty, 93, broke with protocol to refer to the couple by their first names rather than the ‘Duke and Duchess of Sussex’, suggesting they are poised to be stripped of their HRH titles.
Also:
The Queen’s statement also acknowledged Harry and Meghan’s ambition to become financially independent, which appears to give them licence to strike commercial deals as part of their Sussex brand, which experts predict could be worth £400million.
It’s a commercialization of the monarchy. But then what else would you expect from this queen?
According to the Mail, the couple will eventually settle in L.A. — but “only after Trump is no longer president.” A year in Hollywood (after Trump, of course) and they will be divorced.
Mrs. White writes in response:
I have obviously misunderstood your comment “even though she hasn’t been with Harry, pseudo-marriage that it is, for two years.” At first reading, I thought you meant that they were living separately after their marriage although I knew they had not been married two years to date. I think you were stressing the fact that the recent developments concerning them have taken place even though they have not yet been married two years. Am I understanding you correctly? I totally disagree with your assertion that the Royal family’s behaviour is “one of the fruits of its apostasy from the true faith.” I assume by “true faith” you mean Roman Catholicism. I am an Evangelical Christian so I do not believe that Roman Catholicism is the true faith. The Royal family have abandoned the Bible and its teachings especially the Ten Commandments. They neither fear God nor keep His commandments. This is the explanation of their conduct.
Laura writes:
I meant, they had not been yet married for two years. I will clarify in brackets. It was confusingly worded.
The Bible came from the Catholic Church. It would not exist without the authority of the Church. Christianity would never have existed in England or the rest of Great Britain if it weren’t for missionaries sent by the Catholic Church.
Hurricane Betsy writes:
I wonder if you have considered the foolishness of The Two Sillies with their desire to be part-time royals. There is no such thing as part-time royal. It’s a 100% thing where you behave accordingly – or you reject it and you are just folks for the rest of your life.
I am just dying to know how they intend to support themselves. Maybe Meghan can go back to her soft-porn acting career …
Jan. 15, 2020
Laura writes:
Meghan has taken far too much blame for this. In focusing on her, I have been reporting on the general public reaction. But ultimately, this is Harry’s decision.
Sarah Vine, a writer for The Daily Mail, gives a good theory for why Harry was so attracted to Meghan. (I’ve posted enough links to the Mail here and every single article is surrounded by porn-like images. But you can find the piece online.) Harry wanted out of the whole royal show and Meghan came from an entirely different world. He liked her independent streak and knew she would not just go along.
Unfortunately, I think he will find Hollywood and New York to be just as confining, if not more.
