The never-ending Meghan media meat grinder

 

Some “celebrities” are bulletproof. Take for instance Taylor Swift who supposedly made $4 billion during her Eras tour, and that was enough to make her TIME’s “Person of the Year,” although admittedly against a “finalist” group that was pretty weak, perhaps by intent. To be honest, this “award” doesn’t have the same impact it did when TIME actually meant something, but with its failure to adjust to the Internet age, its slimmed-down content and sinking circulation, being the “Person of the Year” means about as much as another photo op on the cover of People.

OK, so you “honor” this person who is nothing without her Aryan-Nordic façade who can't sing, can't dance, can't "perform" and her tuneless songs are "Taylor-made" for the "MeToo" generation. I mean, it already has the aroma of pandering to those mindless teenage fans at her concerts whose “connection” to her is strictly vicarious; her “songs” are just peripheral. I'm not a big Madonna fan, but Swift doesn't come close to having the same talent as she does. I wonder where Swift will be ten years from now when all she has left are songs people can't even remember.

But being a female celebrity does not guarantee being bulletproof from criticism. I find it fascinating that although they may deserve it, a black woman like Jada Pinkett and a (half) Hispanic woman like Rachael Ziegler have been the dartboard material for many online commentators. But none have seen more toxic skullduggery than Meghan Markle, currently still the Duchess of Sussex. Whether she deserves it or not, she has few friends these days on social media (and certainly none in right-wing media), and daily bombing runs from detractors, some of whom can be accused of blatant ignorance and hypocrisy.

I count Andy Signore of Popcorned Planet among those; after the Johnny Depp story died down, he was off seeking new news, and his near daily trashing of Markle, calling her a “racist”—the way he acts makes you think he has sore feelings from someone calling him a “racist” in the past (he has already told us he is a "survivor" of a sexual abuse accusation)...

 

 

...and a “liar” simply because “The Firm” denies they ever made any racially “insensitive” comments or did anything to put Meghan in her “place.” I mean are you really stupid enough to believe that no one was “concerned” about muddying the “racial purity” of this originally Germanic family? Prince William did “advise” Harry to wait before deciding to marry her without even knowing her, and why?

I now see Signore’s content as nothing more than click-bait for the haters, so I just (S)ignore him now, not that I might have a little “fun” wading through the comments and adding a reply, because for me it is like a turkey shoot not just of ignorance, but especially of the juvenile-level hypocrisy. Everyone has “skeletons” in their closet, like the grade-Z film The Janitor, which I’m sure Signore hopes nobody remembers; back in the day when DVD distributors were releasing anything under the sun regardless of “value” I picked it up in a video store, because anything on DVD was “cool.” I’m not sure I still have it in my vast disc collection, but I wanted just for the “fun” of it post a screenshot of Andy in it doing something to a couple of unfortunate characters, but after cursory search failed to turn it up, I lost interest in that project.

Anyways, I’ve talked about this Meghan thing since back in 2020, so this isn’t exactly new, but it does indicate that people have absent memories or like a lot of people get all their news from social and right-wing media hacks. The Meghan-haters might not be entirely wrong, but they are not entirely right either, and even the faintest whiff of hypocrisy is enough to send me off on a “turkey” hunting expedition.

First for some “ancient history” which should instruct people about just why “The Firm” and its UK media stooges have come down like gangsters on Meghan, when all of this could have been diffused long ago if they had bothered to learn the right “lesson” on how it handled—or rather, didn’t handle—the Princess Diana situation; in trying to defuse negative information about itself, The Firm was a player in the eventual tragedy.

In 1995, then BBC reporter Martin Bashir was accused by The Firm of “tricking” Princess Diana into giving a controversial interview by playing on her paranoia about the Firm being out to “get” her, which she already believed anyways. Bashir was accused of conjuring a forged bank statement that appeared to show that royal staffers were being paid to spy on Diana and leak negative information about her to the press; given the fact that Diana had few friends in the “Firm,” there is no reason to believe this was not true. Of course later Prince William claimed Bashir put things in her head that were “not true,” making her “paranoid” and indirectly causing her death. We should take his statement for what it is: a desperate attempt to rewrite history and throw another pail of water on a fire that won’t be put out.

Meghan’s complaints about living within The Firm in fact closely resembles that of Diana, who claimed that its members were jealous of her being the “center of attention” of the media, and it fed stories to the media that she was “unstable” and “mentally unbalanced.” As it turned out, as Andrew Morton noted in his biography of Diana, she was responsible (through “intermediaries”) for the book’s content, and she had not been “coached” by Bashir. Thus the “shock” was that people were actually seeing her make those claims in person. The Firm wasn’t just appalled by the sympathy she received and how bad it made them look, but by what they felt was the “false” image the media had of her, at odds with the “emotionally unbalanced” princess they “knew”—and had refused to help if that was the case. This is exactly what people should be taking in from all these pathetic, hypocritical attacks on Meghan and Harry.

The royal family bases its entire reason for being these days on past history and is tradition hidebound. Many people question its “legitimacy” in the modern world, and bad PR must be avoided at all costs, especially if it is seen as not “adapting” to the modern world, which the “adoption” of Meghan into the family would have “suggested.” But even before the marriage, the UK tabloid media was doing its level best to cause controversy, including looking for stories that were not there, and then creating those stories through its irresponsible behavior.

Take for instance the tabloid The Daily Mail  which was engaged in an ongoing campaign to write embarrassing stories about Meghan and her father, Thomas Markle, causing a rift between them. Contrary to the anti-Meghan propaganda you hear today, Thomas Markle had been expected to walk his daughter down the aisle for her wedding, but he repeatedly made excuses not to do so, claiming he didn’t feel “welcome,” despite repeated attempts by both Prince Harry and Meghan to get him to show up. The last text to him from Harry before the wedding was "Speaking to the press WILL backfire, trust me Tom. Only we can help you, as we have been trying from day one." 

Unfortunately, Thomas Markle didn’t listen. Mikhaila Friel wrote afterwards in the Insider that Meghan had a “good” relationship with her father until the British tabloid media began giving him unwanted attention, taking paparazzi shots of him in Mexico, and asking him leading questions to feed negative gossip. He was then embarrassed with staged fake photos of him “preparing” for a wedding he never attended, claiming heart trouble. Naturally, Thomas Markle—shamed and feeling sorry for himself—allowed himself to be played by British tabloids like the Mail in order to put his daughter in the worst possible light.

And that was just the beginning. People think that Princess Kate is such a calm, collected person who holds herself with “dignity,” but to me behind the façade lurked an envious and evil spirit who delighted in seeing Meghan creamed by the press and undefended by The Firm; as a “woman” you might have expected her to say something to criticize the UK media's unfair attacks on Meghan, but she never did. Why should she complain when the tabloids was doing her dirty work for her?

 

What was the response to all of this from The Firm leading up to Megxit? Deathly silence. Meghan was not permitted to respond to these unfair and degrading headlines, and people were “surprised” when she did talk about how she felt about these experiences, the lack of support she felt, and the probable reasons why? She was being treated worse than this guy…

 

 …and this one…

 

…hell, worse than that “who can that be” girl in the middle there practicing how to do a proper Nazi salute:

 

 

Of course the House of Windsor used to be known by its German name of origin, the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha until 1917. 

In the broadcast media, right-wing provocateur Piers Morgan led the charge against Meghan.  He was accused of being "vindictive" because Meghan wasn't returning his phone calls. According to a 2021 story in The Guardian,

Piers Morgan stormed off the set of Good Morning Britain on Tuesday after his co-presenter Alex Beresford criticised the way he “continues to trash” the Duchess of Sussex. His co-host, Susanna Reid, was forced to send the ITV show to an early break after the row boiled over and Morgan walked off live on air. Beresford called his behaviour “pathetic” and “diabolical.”

In the exchange on Tuesday morning, Beresford noted the “overwhelming” amount of negative press Harry and Meghan have been subject to since they got engaged and the impact it has had on the couple’s mental health. Speaking to Oprah, Meghan detailed how her mental health deteriorated while she was pregnant amid the barrage of negative press and lack of support from “the firm”, which had repeatedly turned down her appeals for help and discouraged her from leaving the house for months.

She disclosed that she had suicidal thoughts during that time and was afraid to be left alone. “It was all happening just because I was breathing,” Meghan said. “I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought.” 

The self-serving Morgan did his part, of course:

Beresford said:“I understand that you don’t like Meghan Markle, you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this programme, and I understand you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle and she cut you off. She’s entitled to cut you off if she wants to. Has she said anything about you since she cut you off? I don’t think she has but yet you continue to trash her." Morgan, 55, then stormed out of the studio, saying: “OK, I’m done with this, sorry, no, can’t do this.”

 

 

 

Of course, like any vindictive, bullying coward, Morgan found a far-right network that allows him to spew his bile unfettered. We should also remember that Internet content providers typically are solo-viewed, either for or against, allowing no one to contradict their views. Mostly against, naturally, because hate is a stronger emotion than "love." 

Apparently there is a new book out by a "royal watcher" who is accused being a "front" for "lies" being told about The Firm by the Sussexes. Signore, for example has been throwing around every invective he can conjure up, but accusing Meghan of racism was the last straw for me, for calling people who call out racism "racists" is as I have suggested, is usually resorted to by people with something to hide. 

I mean, really, you honestly think that there was never any "suggestion" of racial insensitivity in a previously pure-white clan which no doubt had a few Mrs. Danvers in the household? Are people that stupid? After all, Prince William did "advise" Harry to "think things over" before allowing Meghan into the Klan.

As I noted before, The Firm didn't learn the right "lessons" from the Princess Diana affair. She felt alienated and friendless, and she was simply shown the highway. When she finally spoke out about this in the 1995 interview, instead of admitting that they could have handled things better, The Firm fumbled and stumbled, finally deciding to deny all and "suggest" that Diana's "mental state" was the problem. 

The press and public were still trying to get a grip on the accusations Diana made when she was killed in that car crash. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the members of The Firm played along with the grief felt by many around the world (her death coincided with that of Mother Theresa, and many observed the unbalanced nature of this "grief"). 

If Meghan's claims about The Firm's support, or lack thereof, in the face of the irresponsible and false attacks made on her by the tabloid media are true (and why not believe them?), it obviously didn't learn the right lessons. Did they actually think that Meghan would passively allow this to happen to her and not speak out about it? And when she did, the Firm along with its media stooges reacted not by acknowledging "misunderstandings" but by engaging in a full frontal attack on Meghan. 

As pointed out, The Firm has a motive from trying to keep negative attention away from itself, and its answer to it is implausible deniability (what, who said what?), issuing self-serving statements and using its right-wing media hacks to carry its water. Naturally, most of vindictiveness we see in social media is motivated by the idea that Meghan's position is "bought" and she is thus a "fake" royal because, well, she is (half) black American. I mean, at least the rest married  fellow white Brits, so at least they have some "credibility."