The Slimline Royal Family Diet

Despite her 50 year reign I pretty much had never heard of Margrethe II of Denmark until she came down with COVID-19 following Queen Elizabeth II's funeral a couple of weeks ago. Sorry. But I was today years old when I decided I don't like her. Not sorry.

CONTEXT:

Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid was born in 1940 making her 82 years old. In 1967 she married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known as Henrik, who died in 2018 aged 83.
The couple had two children, both born before her reign began - Crown Prince Frederik, who is 54 and Prince Joachim, 53.

So the story is that to slim-down and modernise the Danish Royal Family she is stripping Joachim's children(^) of their titles, effective from the New Year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/denmarks-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles

Crown Prince Frederik married Mary Donaldson in 2004. They have four children:

• Prince Christian, who is nearly 17
• Princess Isabella, 15
• Twins, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine, who are 11

Prince Joachim first married Alexandra Manley in 1995. They had two children before divorcing in 2005.

• Prince Nikolai, 23^
• Prince Felix, 20^

Prince Joachim remarried in 2008 to Marie Cavallier and they had two children together:

• Prince Henrik, 13^
• Princess Athena, 10^

Just think about that for a moment. The cardinal rule of parenting is to treat your children equally. Of course, life doesn't work like that: one son will be King, the other will not. But this just smacks of favouritism. The golden child, the heir, gets everything; the spare not only gets nothing but his children get stripped THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OR THEIR OWN what they have had since birth.

I've already seen from social media responses that there's a loud contingent of 'aw diddums, poor little rich kids' but that's REALLY NOT THE POINT. It's about the inherent unfairness of treating one group of grandchildren differently because they were not born to the favoured child. The wrong of taking back a gift. 
So I make no apology for the overuse of the word 'imagine' in the following rant. Whether or not you approve of royalty is irrelevant; put yourself in the shoes of a young man in his early 20s or a girl of 10 and imagine your granny doing something this unkind.

"The official reason was to allow the four children of her youngest son, Prince Joachim, to live more normal lives"

I've argued this before with Britain's (or America's) Harry and Meghan - stepping back from Royal Duties and / or renouncing titles does not a commoner make. Especially regards the security concessions (amounting to the team he is paying for being given any relevant information) Harry has asked for - opting out does not reduce or negate the RISK OF ASSASSINATION. Harry, Meghan, Archie & Lilibet will always be potential targets whatever their titles or roles, as will Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. This in no way affects who they are, for all it cuts at their personal sense of identity.

"With her decision, her Majesty the Queen wants to create a framework, for the four grandchildren, to a much greater degree, to be able to shape their existence without being limited by the special considerations and obligations that a formal affiliation with the Royal House as an institution implies."

Do you know what affiliation means? It means 'adopted as a son'. These are actual sons (and daughter) who are not adopted (which presumes that adoption is any less than biology), by unaffiliating them from the Royal House literally means rejecting them as family. How can that be anything other than cruel?

It is barking mad that Queen Margrethe thinks switching out 'Prince' and 'Princess' for 'Count' and 'Countess' would give them any more freedom over their personal destinies. There is nothing you can do as a count that you can't as a prince. It makes zero sense to me.

"They can't understand why their identity is being taken from them." 

This quote refers to the older two children as it was made by their mother but I imagine this will be just as hard on the younger two. Most little girls go through a phase of wanting to be a princess... poor little Athena *is* a Princess and is having it snatched away. I can't imagine any of them being disposed kindly toward their grandmother for this. Even at Nikolai's twenty-three I can't see this as being 'understandable'.

I've seen people comment that it's just a title, not their identity. Ye gods... Imagine you are a doctor... you get to keep your qualification but you are no longer allowed to use the title. Would you be hurt and angry about that? Maybe because that's something a Dr worked hard for you think it is different to a hereditary title... so imagine instead you have your SURNAME stripped. Your grandma has decided you're surplus to requirements so you no longer get to use the name you have had since birth. 
Maybe your title (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) is irrelevant to you but it is literally still part of your name whether you use it or not. Also, if you *choose* to change your name (by deed poll, by marriage, whatever then that's a CHOICE) but imagine someone suddenly deciding you're no longer allowed to use the one you have. Your parents may be cruel, may reject you, but I know of no culture where they have the right or ability to take your familial identity away.

My parents didn't see fit to give me either of their names. Perhaps you will think that means, never having experienced that sense of belonging, that I don't know what I am talking about. Naturally, I believe the reverse is true - that I am fully cognisant of the sense of fundamental rejection that comes with being denied what is normally considered your birthright. It makes you feel neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. Bad enough from birth, I can't imagine the pain of being rejected anew at an age enough to understand.

I can understand, to an extent, the logic for sliming down the Royal Houses of Europe but there are far better ways of doing such things. For starters, how about offering the kids a CHOICE when they come of age? Rather than expecting Frederik's children to become working royals ASK THEM. It'd be quite something if Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine were to reject the job, huh? If I were one of those siblings that'd be what I'd suggest - that we all ganged up against the system in solidarity with our cousins. Strike action!
Another idea would be to decide that, apart from the direct heir, no one's spouse would receive a title on marriage and no one's children would have a title either. It'd just be a matter of time until it slimmed down naturally. Far less hurtful too.

"Only the future king, Prince Christian, will receive an appenage, a decision taken in 2016"

An appenage is described as 'a grant of land or revenue' gifted when the royal child comes of age. Note the timing of this change - just as Nikolai was approaching his coming-of-age. The average family equivalent might be throwing a granddaughter a Quinceanera and then changing your mind when your eldest granddaughter hits fourteen... while promising to do one for just one of their (younger) cousins. Although a party is obviously not directly comparable to a gift that sets a kid up for life it's still going to be a bitter disappointment; expecting a celebration and being denied. Sure, that's a very privileged gift to receive but imagine being led to expect such a thing your whole life only to be told it's not happening practically on the eve? Not kind. And to keep that gift in place for the one kid who very specifically doesn't need it (because they stand to inherit everything)? Weird.

That was bad enough as it was a gift not yet given but taking back a gift, whether it's a child's Lego set or royal titles, is a big no-no. 

All I know is that if I treat my grandkids as shoddily as Queen Margrethe is doing I'd be disowned. And they'd be damned right too.

The Queen's Cousins

Fell down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and find myself needing to put in my tuppence-worth, quelle surprise.

I remember watching The Queen's Secret Cousins (2011) and it annoyed me as misrepresentation at the time. I was reminded of that irritation during the recent coverage of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II where the tale got wheeled out again.

So last night, set off by a vague reference, I found myself looking to see if there was any further information and I found this rather lovely review from The Guardian (source: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/nov/17/tv-review-the-queens-hidden-cousins) which all the quotes in bold are from.

"The voiceover whispered of "dark secrets". Only none were forthcoming in The Queen's Hidden Cousins (Channel 4); unless by secrets you include a story that was all over the tabloids in 1987." 

There's almost a quarter of a century between 1987 and 2011; it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of viewers in 2011 had never seen or heard of the scandal. I was 9 years old in 1987 and disinclined to read tabloids. Nowadays a lot of the tabloid reading adults in the UK weren't even born in '87! Certainly it's been no secret for many, many years but it's still getting trotted out intermittently as a 'shameful scandal' against the Royal Family although none of the people involved are in any way Royal - the late Queen Mother (1900-2002) was Royal by marriage, not by birth, and this is her family.

I would like to take a look at the idea that The Queen Mother was in any way culpable for her nieces treatment. Sure, she was a patron of Mencap (a charity for people with learning disabilities) but at a familial level was it really anything to do with her?

Let's start with the Bowes-Lyon family tree (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngRK08NpoNo): Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later The Queen Mother, was the ninth of ten children; from them she had 23 nieces and nephews. The eldest of that generation was only 10 years her junior.

The cousins in question were Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (1919-1986) and her sister Katherine (1926-2014), the children of her brother John (1886-1930). Not only was this brother fourteen years her senior but there were four other siblings between John and Elizabeth. 

Obviously all families have different dynamics but from everything I've seen over the years siblings usually have closer relationships to same sex siblings who are also close in age. It's not particularly remarkable that Elizabeth may not have been especially close to John. Siblings don't always stay in close contact anyway. 

My mother has a brother and sister - she had a fairly good relationship with her sister but no contact with her brother for years now. My father has three brothers - all close in age - and he has nothing to do with any of them.

There were certainly a large number of other family members who could have but did not interest themselves in Nerissa and Katherine but no one's mentioning them, I assume because they're not Royalty.

"Maybe the Royal Family's apathy towards Katherine and Nerissa was catching"

If anything it would have been the other way about - if the Bowes-Lyon clan had interested themselves more maybe the Royals would have also. Families can be estranged for any number of reasons and <<<UNPOPULAR OPINION>>> perhaps it's more toxic to expect people to be close just because they're related.

Aside: So much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex cutting her attention seeking toxic father Thomas Markle out of her life but people (and MSM) choose to ignore that Thomas has never met Ashleigh and Chris Hale, his grandchildren by Meghan's half-sister Samantha (Ashleigh is approximately 37 while Chris is about 35) and estranged from her other daughter, Noelle Rasmussen. But the narrative is all poor Thomas, cut out of Archie & Lilibet's life. I'm certainly not disputing the poor Nerissa, poor Katherine narrative but they had Bowes-Lyon and Trefusis relatives before the House of Windsor and there might well have been other factors at play. Just using this as an example that interpersonal relationships are frequently complicated and the media doesn't always present a balanced perspective.

This is WITHOUT factoring in that the Queen Mother was a wife with young children herself (the late Queen Elizabeth II and her cousin Katherine were the same age), her husband's family and her Royal duties. To my way of thinking the idea she should have known Nerissa and Katherine's fates is a bit of a stretch, especially as families often tried to hide how disabled their children were.

The Royal Family proper (i.e. the lines directly related to the monarchy) are not insubstantial in themselves. The Queen Mother had in-laws, and the late Queen Elizabeth II had another seven cousins on her father's side (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6F5JC9Ut3I). There are also more distant cousins such as those via Edward VII or Queen Victoria who may well have taken precedence over their Bowes-Lyon relations with the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose.

All things considered I don't find it at all remarkable that The Queen Mum (allegedly) didn't know what became of two relatives out of so many. She had plenty else going on in her life.

"Surely someone must have noticed that the women had disappeared"

WHY?! Neither Nerissa or Katherine would have lived at all publicly. They would not have gone to school, or have been debutantes, or simply attend family events. Who exactly would have missed two young women who had probably not been seen since early childhood?!

John's widow Fenella (nee Trefusis - this is relevant later) is described as having been 'a leading guest' at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth & Philip Mountbatten in1947 (17 years after John's death; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowes-Lyon) but it does not necessarily follow that the family were close. A lot of people include close relations in their wedding parties... and never speak to them for decades. 

As an aside to my own familial experiences I have far less cousins but even in these days of social media I have little idea where they are, what they're up to, if they've put any kids in institutions... How much do YOU know about YOUR extended family?

"Katherine and Nerissa Bowes-Lyon, then aged 15 and 22 respectively, had been secretly placed at Earlswood mental hospital in 1941 by their parents"

Well, that's blatantly untrue, isn't it?! Their father John had been dead for 11 years, all that time Fenella was raising her four surviving children alone; she never remarried. Also, define 'secretly'? They didn't make it public, it was later reported (quietly) that they had died... but there's a subtle difference between secrecy and privacy. Secrecy makes it sound underhanded, and perhaps it was. But it could just have been a private family matter no one felt like sharing.

"If the family had stayed together for that long, what was the breaking point? It must have been something quite dramatic."

Also nonsense in my humble opinion. Any parent of a severely special needs child (let alone a lone parent, let alone two special needs children, let alone trying to balance the needs of their other kids) can reach breaking point over nothing at all. Eventually an awful lot of carers burn out.

It is also worth noting that in 1941 Nerissa and Katherine's sister Anne, then 24, was recently married and had her first child that year (Lady Elizabeth Shakerley 1941-2020). Is it possible that the sisters were hospitalised so that Fenella could be an active grandmother, or perhaps their disabilities made them a risk to the new baby. Just because someone is mentally disabled it does not follow that they are passive or inactive, physically incapable of doing harm; indeed, some mentally disabled people can be dreadfully violent.

Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis was 52 in 1941. She was likely getting to old to physically care for them any more. She may well have felt that they would be happier and more settled in an institution. Perhaps she had health issues of her own (as many carers do) and was concerned that her daughters ought to transition to a hospital before her own death.

Second guessing the strains which Fenella was under is vague at best but remember that the 1940s were not only a different age culturally speaking but also technologically - there were no communication devices for the non-verbal, wheelchairs and other aids were primitive at best, even basic care needs like laundry would have been quite burdensome without modern appliances. Certainly Fenella was better placed than most but that does not infer that she had it at all easy.

"None of this would have mattered so much if there had been any attempt to discover why the two women were placed in care in 1941, as this was the one part of the story that was genuinely still a mystery"

They were placed in care because they were non-verbal and estimated to have a 'mental age' of six years - isn't that enough of a reason? I assume the author, John Crace, means what medical condition(s) led to this unhappy situation... But between their medical records being justifiably private and the lack of genetic diagnostics when they were young it's very unlikely a definitive answer could ever be provided.

A different Anne, Anne Tennant, Baroness Glenconner had her engagement (to the future father of Diana, Princess of Wales) broken off after "his father objected to the match on the grounds of "mad blood", as one of her grandmothers was a Trefusis" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon)

This is no mere paranoia about heredity, but based in fact. I mentioned earlier that Nerissa & Katherine's mother was a Trefusis, I have shown an example of another Trefusis descendant having her engagement called off due to the family's reputation... Fenella had five children - two disabled, two healthy, one who died in infancy. Her only sister's story followed the same pattern: Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis (1887-1958) married, in 1910, Major Henry Nevile Fane and had seven children (source: http://www.thepeerage.com/p1246.htm#i12451): three disabled, three healthy, one who died in infancy. There was quite plainly something wrong in that family and potential suitors were understandably alarmed.

The three disabled children of Harriet were also, eventually, life patients at Earlswood - Idonea (1912-2002), Rosemary (1914-1972) and Etheldreda (1922-1996) (source: https://www.tatler.com/article/real-story-nerissa-and-katherine-bowes-lyon-the-queens-cousins-the-crown-season-4). It is perfectly possible that Harriet and Fenella having between them five daughters with similar, if not identical disabilities, may have chosen to send the young women to Earlswood together. While apparently cutting off all contact with the five girls it was likely a hard decision; very few parents get up one morning and decide to write their kids off completely. It's also worth noting that popular thought at the time was to make a clean break of it - that it would be distressing for the disabled person to see family members and not be taken home with them, it would likewise be extremely painful for the family members leaving them behind.

It seems improbable that a birth-injury disability such as cerebral palsy would (a) not be recognised as such and (b) affect at least five of twelve cousins (after all, we don't know whether the two who died in infancy would have been similarly affected or not). Much more likely is some genetic illness although what motivation would there have been for seeking a diagnosis at such a late stage when their siblings children, and indeed THEIR children, all appear to have been unaffected. Sure, there's curiosity but realistically only Katherine could have been genetically screened, the others having died before such testing was widely available. Even if she had been screened that does NOT guarantee any answers. 

"If the 85-year old Katherine had made her first ever public appearance on the Buckingham Palace balcony: that would have been abusive"

Obviously this was a scenario that was never going to happen - as a Bowes-Lyon she would not have got a balcony spot in a month of Sundays. But even if it had been an option I agree with Crace; it would have been abusive. While hiding people with disabilities away is, thankfully, largely done away with there is nothing admirable about putting them on display to be gawked at like in old freak shows. Like I said earlier - there's a big difference between secrecy and shame, and privacy and protection.

Maybe their family did them dirty but it was in line with societal norms of the era and judging them by the standards of several generations later is pointless. Also, no one has ever really addressed whether Earlswood was a good, bad, or indifferent place to be. I also think this sort of story is immensely unhelpful to struggling carers who may need to consider residential homes

Perhaps we need to consider empathy before judgement, especially in a historical context where little can ever be certain. 

I shred comments like these for breakfast...

If you've had the misfortune to read my blogs before you'll know where this rant is going.

I am an EGALITARIAN. I believe that fundamental equality is an ABSOLUTE BASELINE of where we should be working from as a society. The fact people think there's equality when there blatantly isn't is INFURIATING.

In the interests of full disclosure I identify as agender which basically means keep your gender stereotypes and expectations out of my cornflakes.

I am also an opinionated potato meaning I can't keep my rants to myself if my life depends on it.

And no, I do not apologise for swearing.

So, I saw this comment and just had to shred it:

"How ridiculous, what inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race", she's excelled & married a Prince to boot. His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have. As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality", this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days. I doubt very much that Harry and his family will experience the problems that ordinary working class families will."

1) "What inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race"" - first up, FUCK OFF WITH THE SCARE QUOTES. How dare you imply that it's anything less than a real and valid factor in how she's been treated?! How goddamned BLIND are you that you can't see the racism in the thread you are currently commenting on??? One thing that particularly gets me in every damn thread is the microaggression of misspelling her name. Honestly, there's an article where (9 times out of 10) it's in the headline but somehow y'all type 'Megan' over and over.

Here's an example of a multitude of times Meghan has been disrespected for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS as her white sister in law: https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Catherine is disrespected in two ways - calling her Kate which she hates, and referring to her by her maiden name ten years and three kids into her marriage - but never once have I seen her called a gold-digger or a monkey.

Sure, there are a couple of other differences, Meghan is American, an actress and a divorcee... but I personally have never seen one comment that has even implied those factors have anything to do with the constant stream of hate she's been subjected to.

TBH I think that the public's general loathing of Meghan has a lot to do with her cutting out her toxic af abusive father... who just so happens to be her white parent. If she was seen to be 'embracing' her white family (even though they're the worst trash) I imagine the public might be a little kinder. Which is the stupidest reason for keeping a man like Thomas in your life.

2) "she's excelled & married a Prince to boot" - you really can't see this as being the cause of a lot of her problems?! I don't know how much sh*t she got on a daily basis before she was linked to Prince Harry but I am willing to bet vital body parts that it was a drop in the ocean compared to what she's dealt with over the past few years.

3) "His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have" First up, not all children thrive... lots of minority ethnic and mixed kids really suffer, especially in an education system which expects them to fail, and often leads them by the hand to that eventuality.

Even if Harry & Meghan opt for private education Archie & Lilibet will still be in a minority. They'll be additionally othered by their royal status too.

And just go look at the substance abuse and suicide rates among the kids of celebrities. Rather than growing up in an ivory tower they tend to burn up under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny. Wealth provides many privileges but it causes many more problems; but more than that it's the royalty aspect... they can never escape. Wealth provides no protection or respite.

4) "As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality"" again with the scare quotes like gender equality is a thing that exists. Women are asked about babies & relationships in interviews, men are asked about their work. Women serve less time for the same crime, men are less likely to get custody of their children.

There are DOZENS of articles on the sexualisation of young female celebrities, with special attention to how gross it gets when they 'come of age':

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/millie-bobby-brown-18th-birthday-creepy-sexualized-child

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/slideshow/2509093/celebrities-sexualized-young/

What on earth makes y'all think Lilibet will escape this???? Even if she's fortunate enough to grow up fat and fugly enough not to be targeted that way she'll be forever disregarded and disrespected as a human being because women pretty much only have value if they're attractive.

Similarly Archie will run a very minimal risk of public comment on his looks or body type. That, my dear gammon, is why gender equality doesn't exist.

5) "this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days" Again, the 'real world' (which this guy clearly knows very little about) is rife with gender inequality but women shouldn't have to 'hold their own' like it's a goddamned battle!

6) "experience the problems that ordinary working class families will" Gatekeeping suffering is a really bad look. The bizarre idea that only the 'working classes' experience problems in life... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!!! I'd rather be 'poor, obscure, plain and little' than face the wrath that the royal family, celebrities and other in-the-public-eye people face.

The idea that rich people don't suffer like poor people supposedly do is nonsensical. Take the sad, current story about footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and his partner Georgina Rodriguez. Y'all think they don't suffer the loss of their twin baby boy any differently than any working class family?! *Maybe* they're better placed to pay medical costs, funeral costs, therapy to cope with their bereavement... but that's as far as money, status, or privilege goes. The practical aspects only, the pain itself is universal.

There are people bitching about why they were having more children anyway when they already have a daughter together and Ronaldo has other kids via surrogacy (er, large families are okay?), people posting crying-from-laughter emojis, people choosing to make nasty jibes at his skill as a footballer. And I know there's been worse, although thankfully most threads have been good at getting the most offensive stuff deleted fairly quickly.

Even some of the gestures of sympathy are dubious af - everything happens for a reason and it's God's will are incredibly hurtful things to say. Then there's this:

"Liverpool fans are planning a minute's applause in the seventh minute for Cristiano Ronaldo during Manchester United's visit to Anfield this evening following the heartbreaking news of his baby son's death.

Absolutely class!"

How the hell is applauding a dead baby an act of respect or 'class'?! the time-honoured gesture is a SILENCE. I hate to think how the public would react if Archie or Lilibet passed... Commemorative tat memorabilia perhaps?! Just think how Meghan was treated when she revealed she'd miscarried another child... accusations of her cashing in on the loss mama label. Speculation she was lying.

At least most working class families get to suffer their problems, bereavements, etc. etc. in relative obscurity and comparative peace.

Further Ranting About A Twitter Rant

Today I got blocked on Twitter by some dumb c*** who accused me of defending Jimmy Savile. NOT what I was doing. I was defending, as usual, the principles of due process and 'innocent until proven guilty' - pointing out that there can't be a case against Savile because he is dead as the dead cannot present a defence.

More to the point, the row started because of nasty allegations calling Prince Andrew a proven sex offender.
1. He had an acquaintanceship with a man who was later convicted of sexual offences - which is not a crime
2. He has since also been accused - which does not make him guilty
3. He has not even yet been questioned

I have tweeted at length about this too.
An ordinary person will spend time with hundreds of people in a lifetime, a person in Prince Andrew's role will encounter thousands. If you think you KNOW the people around you, you're an idiot. Every rapist, murderer, child molester, whatever was someone's relative, friend, co-worker. If you think that "they must have known" you have got to be crazy.
I've lived a fairly sheltered life - I have spent years stuck at home as a full-time mum and now as a carer. When I have worked it has never been with lots and lots of people. But can I say I have never associated with a person who has groped, molested or raped? Of course I can't! I knew fairly little about most people I worked with. I didn't know if they were married or had kids or spent their weekends in babygros and adult diapers.
I've never done well with friendships but the few people I would count as true friends I know only a little better. I am aware I know what each person CHOOSES to present to me, that I only see the tip of the iceberg about another person's personality.
As for relationships I've done even worse but the fact I ended up as a single mother, twice over, is pretty indicative that you can be fully intimate with someone and still not know them.
There are allegations that Prince Andrew has failed to co-operate with the FBI...there are also counter claims that the FBI has not attempted to contact him. Either way, his co-operation is entirely voluntary at this point. Who knows where the truth lies?
Meanwhile, it's hard for the US to take the high ground after refusing to extradite Anne Sacoolas, wanted in connection with the death by dangerous driving of 19 year old Harry Dunn. Nations have a tendency to protect their own - just the way things are. Briton's expect the nation to come to their aid when they're jailed abroad or whatever - and I've tweeted at length about how dumb I think that is too.

The fact that Prince Andrew knew someone who turned out to be a sex offender is, imho, not particularly meaningful. You honestly expect any of the royal family to know everything about everyone they know?! That's not even a thing that regular people with far smaller circles of acquaintance can be expected to know.
As yet there's no proof he knew of any wrongdoing or committed any crimes himself, only allegations - hence my arguing for due process. The other tweeter brought Savile into it and I pointed out that the two cases are entirely unalike as Savile is dead and there can be no case brought against him...and that is where it all started - with the assertion that a complaint filed does not equal proof of guilt "that's what courts are for, not social media" - mind you, you can't argue with the type of idiot who actually believes 'there's no smoke without fire' (probably thinks they sank a real ship for the film Titanic an' all...)

My tweets on this read as follows (copied & pasted direct):

• I'm blocking you for defending witch-hunt and thinking due process is an optional extra. Moron.
• I have no sympathy for Savile but we have a legal process for a damn good reason. THAT is what I am defending.
• If YOU would expect a fair trial, a weight on evidence rather than hearsay, DEMAND that principle is applied for others
• Every person who supports trial by media deserves (IMHO) to be accused of heinous crimes they didn't commit.
• I think my abhorrence of this comes of being bullied at school. Especially by teachers whose word was law.
• My daughter too got punished for being in fights... as the victim of a persistent bullying campaign.
• [This tweet is edited as it involves an allegation of child sexual abuse as told to me but turned out to be false] I reported it, as you do. Police got back to me: Kid didn't have a stepfather. Kid had a history of not knowing fact from fiction, and a psychiatrist.
• I blocked the kid. But I know others who believed them.

"In the year to the end of March 2017, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated:

• 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, equivalent to 3.4 million female and 631,000 male victims
• 3.1% of women (510,000) and 0.8% of men (138,000) aged 16 to 59 had experienced a sexual assault in the last year."

(Source: https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/)

So if one in five WOMEN will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime how likely do you think it is that those acts were perpetrated by just a handful of 'monsters' you personally will never encounter? I'm not going to go so far as to suggest each victim has a separate assailant but we're still not talking about a small group of serial rapist and gropers. We're talking about a significant number of people here - do you even know which of the women you know have been sexually assaulted? Do you even think they would share with you? An awful lot of people never tell their nearest and dearest such things. If you don't know the victims in your life how do you expect to know the perps? Do you think they're easily spotted by their sinister moustaches and black hats or what?!

I am an exceedingly opinionated potato and I believe a lot of things about a lot of people, usually based on little more than intuition. I try to be careful about how I express those opinions, if I even do.

I don't even have much faith in due process. But it's the best we have - we all deserve a fair hearing and assuming someone's guilt based on social media bullshit and the tabloid press is just DUMB.

White-privilege or targeting the vulnerable, regardless?

I've seen a lot of commentary about the racism at play in the press regarding Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and this article in particular emphasises the crap she's had to deal with, comparing headlines about her with virtually identical instances featuring Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
This pair of headlines from the Daily Mail sums it up rather well as they're by the same writer, only weeks apart:
"How Kate went from drab to fab! From eyebrows and pilates to a new style guru, our experts reveal the Duchess of Cambridge's secrets to looking sizzling" - Sarah Vine 14 Jun 2019
"My memo to Meghan Markle following her Vogue editorial - we Brits prefer true royalty to fashion royalty" - Sarah Vine 29 Jul 2019
If you don't want to click the link other examples include: 
Praising Catherine's simple and elegant choice of wedding flowers (inc Lily Of The Valley) to claiming Meghan put her bridesmaids lives at risk...for using Lily Of The Valley. 
Saying simply that William and Catherine would be spending Christmas with the Middletons in 2016, pointing out that they also had in 2011 - the first year they were married; but accusing Meghan and Harry of snubbing the Queen when they chose to spend Christmas with her mother in 2019 - the first year with their son. 
Positive coverage of Prince Louis' Christening (which the Queen did not attend) and criticising the Sussexes planning because the Queen was unavailable when they'd scheduled Archie's Christening.
Note: these examples are all tabloid press - The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and so on.

That stories are handled differently whether they are about Catherine (with or without William) or Meghan (with or without Harry) is pretty clear.
It is also worth noting that the press is pretty disrespectful of BOTH Duchesses - Catherine is repeatedly called Kate although she is supposed to be styled Catherine. Both are repeatedly called by their maiden names of Middleton and Markle despite being married with children - although many women choose to keep their name after marriage it is traditionally a great insult because it strips a woman of her married, and in this case Royal, status and implies illegitimacy of her children!

The question is: 
Is the press prejudice against Meghan RACIST?

Whilst quite probably there are racist motivations for the press' shitty attitude toward the Duchess it's a problematic assumption to make as nothing provably racist has been indicated; although certainly the public comments on these various stories can be overt.
I understand, to an extent, the accusation of white-privilege - that because I am white and see no racism in the press' words doesn't mean it's not there. However, the reverse also holds true - it is possible to be black (or indeed any ethnicity) and see racism which is not there. [Edit: claiming racism purely on the basis of Meghan's skin colour is itself an unfounded racial bias]

Back in the dark ages of my youth the press was being shitty to Diana, Princess of Wales (the former Diana Spencer) and Sarah, Duchess of York (the former Sarah Fergusson). The spouses of Anne and Edward largely seem to escape such attention - possibly a throwback to the idea of an heir (Charles) and a spare (Andrew), which would apply to William and Harry also.
Both of them were white but the press had a whale of a time hurling abuse at the both of them. It's easy to remember the hell they put Diana through as she died as her car attempted to out-race paparazzi but Sarah's marriage was destroyed and press attention / intrusion caused her a great deal of harm as well. I have decided to include their examples in this blog in the hope it might create a slightly better basis for comparison.

Is this 'simply' a matter of the press, limited in the shit they can throw at the royal family themselves feeling justified in targeting the 'outsiders'? In which case, why has Catherine been virtually left alone? Perhaps they decided to give her a pass because she is mother to the heir to the throne?
Certainly a lot has changed in the decades since Diana's death but the press are still happy to target Meghan - why?

If an argument is to be made that this is racism in action we'd need to exclude other factors which could cause prejudice.

First, nationality.

• Diana, British
• Sarah, British
• Catherine, British
• Meghan, American

Meghan is certainly different in this regard. Anti-American sentiment isn't usually a thing in Britain but then the last time and American got close to a Prince it almost brought down the whole monarchy. I don't really credit this theory but it can't be ignored as a factor in making Meghan an 'outsider' and a target for negative press attention.
Prince Philip similarly started out deeply unpopular because he was Greek and whether that xenophobic streak is still relevant it's hard to say. Prince Harry's former girlfriend Chelsy Davy is Zimbabwean but their relationship never reached the point where she was targeted by the press - whether she would have been welcomed (as a white woman) or vilified as a foreigner cannot be known.

Secondly, pre-marital styles and social class.

• Diana was the Honourable Diana Frances Spencer - daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer. Parents divorced 1969. Both parents remarried and her stepmother was the only child of romantic novelist Dame Barbara Cartland.
• Sarah was Miss Sarah Margaret Fergusson - daughter of Major Ronald Fergusson. Parents divorced 1974. Both parents remarried - her stepfather was Argentinian.
• Catherine was Miss Catherine Elizabeth Middleton - daughter of Michael and Elizabeth Middleton who are described as 'upper middle class' and remain married.
• Meghan was Miss Rachel Meghan Markle - daughter of Thomas Markle Sr and Doria Ragland who divorced in 1987. Neither parent has remarried.

All four are considered 'commoners' but all commoners are not created equal - Diana's father was an Earl, Sarah's was a Major. With three of them come from broken homes it seems unlikely to be a factor.
Public opinion seemed clear at the time of the wedding that sympathy was strongly with Doria - who had largely raised Meghan as a single mother (Diana and Sarah's mothers both having new partners to support them) - and against Thomas - whose heart attack ahead of the wedding meant he could not attend seemed suspiciously unverified and curiously timed as his attendance had already had doubt cast upon it. Doria has handled herself well, as has her extended family. In contrast Thomas has courted media attention, as has Meghan's half sister Samantha Markle and, to a lesser extent, her half brother Thomas Markle Jr.
Personally I find it curious that Mr Markle has been given a platform at all. Nothing I have seen from him has been in any way 'in the public interest'. Is his voice being heard because he is white? I don't think so, personally. I think he's being heard because it makes it easier for the press to legitimise Meghan as a target - a royal target they haven't had since Diana's death. I can't think of any example of a royal bride being undermined by her own family in such a way. Even Diana's dysfunctional relationship with her stepmother never sunk to such depths.

Thirdly, pre-marital life.

• Diana, age at marriage: 20, occupation: kindergarten assistant, status: single.
• Sarah, age at marriage: 25, occupation: worked various jobs which are not clearly documented, status: single
• Catherine, age at marriage: 29, occupation: worked in her family's business doing 'catalogue design & production, marketing and photography', status: single.
• Meghan, age at marriage: 36, occupation: actress, status: divorced.

Again there is a bit of variety here but three distinct factors stand out - Meghan was the oldest royal bride by nearly a decade although I have no idea why that might make any difference; she was previously in the 'disreputable' business of being an actress*; she was divorced - bringing to the fore the comparison to Wallis Simpson again.

* Although unlikely to be considered nowadays actresses were historically associated with prostitution and a career in which deception is kind of the point led to even more successful actresses being outcast from polite society. it is worth noting that whilst Meghan's acting skills have been unkindly critiqued she's also dismissed as a 'consummate actress' any time she shows emotion.

Whether any of these factors in any way explains the press vilification of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, it seems clear to me that there are multiple potential reasons why she has been singled out as a particular target, none of which can be definitely excluded.

• American (xenophobia, comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Raised by a single mother (classism, the tabloids have long enjoyed slagging off single mothers)
• Undermined by her father and step-siblings (family collusion in targeting her)
• Older bride (ageism, although unlikely relevance)
• Former actress (classism)
• Divorcee (possible classism? Comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Mixed race (racism, colourism) 

What is also clear is that Meghan herself has done nothing whatsoever to warrant such vile and unreasonable treatment.
I have every sympathy for the couple and support their decision to step back from the front line.
Whilst I fully support the Queen sharing out the workload, Charles has expressed the desire for a slimmed-down monarchy. The royal family are damned if they aren't seen to be doing enough to 'earn their keep' and damned if they want to live their own lives it seems.

Royal Baby Name Guesses

Royal baby name odds, from William Hill, updated 29/04/19

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/04/29/royal-baby-name-odds-title-meghan-markle-prince-harry/

Girls
1. Diana 4/1
2. Victoria 7/1
3. Alice 12/1
4. Grace 12/1
5. Isabella / Isobella 12/1
6. Elizabeth 14/1
7. Alexandra 20/1
8. Harriett 20/1
9. Rose 20/1
10. April 25/1

Boys
1. Arthur 16/1
2. James 16/1
3. Edward 25/1
4. Albert 33/1
5. Alexander 33/1
6. Christopher 33/1
7. Daniel 33/1
8. Henry 33/1
9. Phillip 33/1
10. Joseph 40/1

My Opinions
For girls I'd like to throw Diana, Grace, Isabella, Harriett, Rose AND April out of consideration. IF a month name were to be used, May would be better as Harry's great great grandmother Mary of Teck was known as May, and we're nearly in May now. That leaves Victoria, Alice, Elizabeth and Alexandra from the top bets... Harriet was on my list of preferred names but not with two t's and because it was a great grandmother's name.
For the boys names I'll throw out Edward, Albert, Christopher, Daniel, Henry and Joseph. I think it very unlikely the baby will be named Henry as that's Harry's proper name and that is rather out of fashion of late. That leaves Arthur, James, Alexander and Phillip. Arthur Alexander was one of my top picks if I'd ever had a boy.
A good few people have suggested the idea of twins in which case using Elizabeth and Phillip would be rather nice but I don't think twins are especially likely as Meghan is allegedly planning a home birth and has apparently gone to full-term. Not that these things CAN'T happen but an older first time mum having Royal twins at home seems a stretch too far and an early labour is statistically more likely.
Obviously many other names have been suggested including a nod to Meghan's mother, Doria...I wonder if they might splice Doria and Diana like Renesmee in The Twilight Saga who was named after Bella's mum Renee and Edward's adoptive mum Esme. Daria? Dorana? Hmmm...
Unlisted names I think might make an appearance are Helena and Leopold.

My Prediction
Names in order of preference and using the Royal family's tendency to give four Christian names:
Girl: Helena Alice Doriana Victoria
Boy: Arthur Alexander Leopold James

Now just for time to tell.

EDIT - 03/05/19

Royal baby name odds, from William Hill, updated 03/05/19
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/05/03/royal-baby-name-odds-meghan-markle-prince-harry-boy-girl/

Girls
1. Diana 4/1 (no change)
2. Allegra 8/1 (new)
3. Grace 8/1 (up from #4 at 12/1)
4. Alice 12/1 (down from #3, same odds)
5. Isabella / Isobella 12/1 (no change)
6. Victoria 14/1 (down from #2 at 7/1)
7. Elizabeth 20/1 (down from #6 at 14/1)
8. Alexandra 20/1 (down from #7, same odds)
9. April 25/1 (up from #10, same odds)
10. Catherine 25/1 (new)
Harriett and Rose have left the top 10 in exchange for Allegra (rather like it) and Catherine (good name but the same as Harry's sister in law? That'd be a tad odd...although it would put those stupid feud rumours to bed).
I've started thinking of Eleanor as a good, classic Royal name long overdue for a comeback. I am still VERY much of the opinion that if they don't use Doriana for a daughter they are very very wrong indeed. So my updated girls' name is now Eleanor Doriana Victoria - also shifting to the three christian names pattern adopted by William & Catherine.

Boys
1. Arthur 12/1 (up from 16/1)
2. James 16/1 (no change)
3. Albert 20/1 (up from #4 at 33/1)
4. Edward 33/1 (down from #3 at 25/1)
5. Alexander 33/1 (no change)
6. Christopher 33/1 (no change)
7. Daniel 33/1 (no change)
8. Henry 33/1 (no change)
9. Oliver 40/1 (new)
10. Phillip 40/1 (down from #9 at 33/1)
So only one new entry - Oliver has been a very popular name in the UK for a long time but it's association with Oliver Cromwell makes me point and laugh at the idea of it being used as a Royal baby name.
I'm still quite happy with my boys' name guess but if I was switching to a 3 name combo I'm not sure which I'd drop... Arthur Alexander Leopold, Arthur Leopold James? Hmmm, wonder if either of them are James Arthur fans?! Maybe Harry is more of an Ed Sheeran fan...remember the commemorative plate incident (source: https://planetradio.co.uk/heat/entertainment/celebrity/ed-sheeran-prince-harry-mistake-plate/)? Maybe for a 2nd guess I'll go Arthur Leopold Edward ;)

CONCLUSION
#BabySussex was a BOY - delivered safely on Monday 6th May 2019 at 05:26 BST and weighing 7lbs 3oz. It was announced on the 8th that Harry and Meghan are naming their son ARCHIE HARRISON MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR, he does not have a title at this time. Basically all the top guesses were wrong - from the expectation of a girl to the two or three expected middle names. No idea where Archie might've appeared in the betting, if indeed it was suggested at all. On the plus side maybe their naming a potential future daughter 'Doriana' isn't so unlikely after all!

Someone on Twitter disagreed with my bet on 'Arthur' (despite it being the top of the bookies shortlist by that time) "as Pippa just had a son she named Arthur" ...Pippa being Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's sister Philippa Matthews nee Middleton. As such she is no relation to Harry & Meghan so her choice of baby name is fairly irrelevant.
If such a thing were a factor it obviously means very little to the Royals as evidenced by Prince Louis of Cambridge, William & Catherine's third child. Louis Arthur Charles was born a little over a year ago. Not only does he share a name with older brother Prince George (George Alexander Louis) and his father (William Arthur Philip Louis) but he also has a STEP COUSIN of the same name! Prince William and Prince Harry's stepbrother Tom Parker-Bowles has two children LOLA (b. 2007) and FREDDY (b. 2010) and their stepsister Laura Lopes has three children ELIZA (b. 2007) and twins GUS and LOUIS (b. 2009) - all these step cousins having been born since Prince Charles marriage to their grandmother Camilla in 2005.

I very much like the name 'Archie' but I'm not a huge fan of 'Harrison' because - and you can laugh at this - I don't like surnames used as Christian names. Yes, I know 'Heggie' is a surname and yes, I chose it myself. Surnames are good as gender neutral names though...
Speaking of this a good few people liked the name 'Spencer' - after Princess Diana's maiden name - for a child of either gender. Despite her enduring popularity I can't imagine it being used as a Royal baby forename, a middle name perhaps, but overall I would rather William and Harry looked to the future in their own families. Not only that but let's not lose sight of the fact that Catherine and Meghan both have their own families and connections - it is not only William and Harry who might want to commemorate loved ones in their naming of their children. 

Harry and Meghan...but mostly Meghan ;)

I was scanning through this BBC article on the Royal Wedding (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44172172) and felt compelled to type a few words...

Directly linked to the article is my first point.

Several paragraphs begin with points:-

• It's not that she is a commoner
• Nor is it that she is divorced
• Nor is it that Meghan is American
• But it is the fact that she is, in her own words, "biracial"

And then it goes on to emphasis "And there's more. She has (or had) a job! She has (or had) a public profile!" ...well, I don't think her racial identity is key - although I see that for the black and biracial communities this is a significant event - and I feel the BBC article has rather missed the cumulative aspect of all these points. Just as Meghan is black AND white she is also a commoner AND Divorced AND American AND an actress!!!

Commoners marrying into the British Royal Family isn't unusual; the aristocracy pool is limited. Foreigners are less common nowadays but again, no big deal. The divorcee aspect is more interesting as, combined with the fact that Meghan is American, it invites a comparison with Wallis Simpson.

Born Bessie Wallis Warfield in 1896 she was twice divorced. Her first marriage, to Earl (name, not title) Winfield Spencer lasted from 1916 to 1927. Incidentally, Earl and his 2nd wife (of 4) divorced in 1936. He died in 1950.

Her second marriage was to Ernest Aldrich Simpson, a second marriage following divorce for both parties. Ernest and Wallis were married from 1928-1937 when Wallis divorced him to marry Edward VIII, or the Duke of Windsor as he became when he abdicated in order to wed her. Whilst Ernest may seem a victim in this scenario it is worth noting that he married his third wife, Mary, that same year. Ernest died, widowing a fourth wife, in 1958.

Unlike Wallis however, Meghan has only been married once before - to Trevor Engelson, from 2011-2013 - and, again unlike Wallis, did not have to obtain a divorce to marry Prince Harry; she was already three years divorced by the time their relationship was established.

Possibly the single most significant detail is that Harry and Meghan are marrying at St George's Chapel, Windsor. In 2005 Harry's father, Prince Charles, married his stepmother, the once-divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand) in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall followed by a blessing at St George's Chapel.

The denial of a church wedding to the heir to the throne marrying a divorcee (despite being divorced himself, although first wife Diana was already dead...this former-spouses-still-living seems significant; Camilla's ex husband is still living) was still a step up from Edward VIII being forced to abdicate. It is worth remembering though that Prince Harry's place on the accession list has been bumped down three times in recent years with the births of his nephews and niece; it may be that Harry marrying a divorcee, and in church, is less controversial not only because times are a'changin' but because he is so unlikely to ever take the throne - and with it the role as head of the church of England. All the same, times HAVE changed and we have moved on from the abdication crisis...and hopefully Camilla will be acknowledged as Queen Consort in due course ;)

Personally I don't think Meghan being biracial is of particular significance...is there any reason to expect a British Royal to only consider a white spouse?! Mixed marriages aren't especially noteworthy in British society...but I *AM* interested in the fact that she is from a 'broken home'.

Meghan was born in 1981 to Doria Loyce Ragland from her only marriage - to Thomas Markle, 1979 to their divorce in 1988. Thomas had been married before and has two children from that marriage - Thomas Markle, Jr. and Samantha Grant.

This alone is not new or especially significant. Diana Spencer, Harry's mother, was also from a broken home - her parents divorced when she was 8. Diana had a famously difficult relationship with her stepmother Raine (d. 2016). Similarly Sarah Ferguson, who married Prince Andrew, had parents who divorced when she was 15.

However, it is the behaviour of Meghan's family that sets her story apart.

Doria, her mother (who is black) has behaved impeccably. She has seemingly accepted advice from the palace and has supported her daughter's impending nuptials with grace and poise.

Thomas, her father (who is white) has been, in my humble opinion, a complete and utter twatfuck. He has seemingly accepted no advice from any quarter and is intent on making life difficult for his youngest child, aided and abetted by his two elder offspring. Between the three of them they have had plenty to say, especially to TMZ, little of it supportive. I am supremely unimpressed with Thomas Markle, Sr's public image. I do not hold the palace or the media accountable; he is a grown man who ought to realise what harm he is doing his daughter. If I humiliated one of my daughters like that I doubt either of them would ever speak to me again! It is utterly callous and selfish.

Despite family break ups the parents and siblings of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson had the good sense (and good manners) to avoid making spectacles of themselves and embarrassing the brides-to-be in the international press. I feel deeply for Meghan in this situation but I also think this high profile mess will be of some benefit to other young people with divorced parents. While the promoted image is of divorcees who will still co-parent their child(ren) properly and considerately the reality is often very different with dead-beat or absentee parents who their children are likely better off without. And yes, I *AM* thinking of my ex and his non-existent role in raising our daughters. This hits home as I imagine one of my daughters asking their father to play a part in their wedding...only to be disappointed in the final stages of preparations.

The fact Meghan has had a career, particularly a high-profile one, before her marriage into the royal family is especially noteworthy.

She has (according to her Wikipedia page) worked as an actress (best known for her role as Rachel Zane in Suits), as a freelance calligrapher, and also ran her own lifestyle website called The Tig from 2014 to 2017.

Other celebrity royal brides include:

• Grace, Princess of Monaco was formerly Grace Kelly, Hollywood actress, before her 1956 to Rainier III.
• Queen Letizia of Spain was a divorced TV presenter before marrying then Crown Prince Felipe in 2004.
• Charlene, Princess of Monaco was born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and competed at the 2000 Olympic Games as a swimmer for South Africa. She married Albert II, Prince of Monaco (son of Grace Kelly) in 2011.

The idea that royal brides sacrifice their independence, their careers, their personal freedoms, their opinions and pretty much everything upon marriage has been popular with feminists and republicans alike. The idea that a successful, independent, self-proclaimed feminist such as Meghan Markle would be willing to make such a sacrifice (to me) suggests that the feminists and republicans are missing something. Maybe love is worth all the sacrifice; but maybe the platform royalty have is an opportunity to do real good in the world too. NOT that I'm suggesting she's marrying Harry for a position of power, merely that despite the restrictions of royal life it does have an advantage of profile - you only have to look at the charitable works of other royals to see what can be achieved; Harry's mother Diana did much for the campaign against landmines and did incalculable good for people living with HIV/AIDS, Harry has done much charitable work, particularly in founding the Invictus Games for disabled armed forces personnel and veterans. You can only imagine what a determined, educated woman like Meghan Markle might be able to achieve. Marriage is what you make of it. Think of it as restrictive and you will feel trapped and miserable; think of it as a set of new opportunities and (hopefully) it will be a whole different experience...says the terminally single potato person lol.

I wish Harry and Meghan all the best - both for their wedding tomorrow and in all that follows. I particularly hope that Thomas Sr's absence will not blight Meghan's big day. I find it especially touching that of all the people she could have asked to stand in his stead she chose to ask Prince Charles, her father-in-law-to-be, to accompany her down the aisle...as if she has already been fully accepted into the fold. I hope Doria plays a significant role tomorrow too, and maybe in the future as well - as a single mum I would rather like to see Doria become an honorary part of the establishment!

Princess Diana

As the 20th anniversary of her death approaches every creep with a story seems to be crawling out of the leaf litter to paint her as either a saint or innocent victim of a callous royal family. This is my take on it all.

Marriage and Divorce
I was only three when Charles and Diana married so I don't remember any of that. Virtually everyone seems to agree that their marriage was a bad idea from the outset but I think it is a tad unfair to lay all the blame at Charles' door. Just as my own ex was the one who (IMHO) didn't try and ultimately ended our relationship I can also acknowledge that, while I did my best, there was blame and responsibility on my side too. Just because Charles (like my ex) was the older partner doesn't mean their divorce was entirely his fault.
In this whole mess were Charles, his 'others', his family, Diana, her 'others', her family and the media.

My Feelings on Diana
As a child I recall wanting to be a princess. Nothing unusual in that. But when asked why I declared that I wanted to be able to throw up without getting told off. My parents had no sympathy for me and my childhood illness but especially the fact I got (and still do get) dreadfully car sick. Never once did they question their own wisdom in insistently driving me all over the place with the inevitable consequences. Basically I had caught wind of a story about Princess Diana's bulimia (an illness I also suffer) and was miffed she got sympathy and I got yelled at.
I was never a fan of Diana's though...

Her Death
I had a weird experience when Diana died...my brain just totally failed to accept it for a while. Especially odd as I didn't much like her. I was all 'why have the put dates under her picture like they do when someone dies?' and 'why are they using the past tense? Idiots' because I just wasn't processing it at all.
I may not have liked her but I was extremely sad that she'd died and left her boys without a mother. As a single mum myself that felt close to home. For all her fame and beauty and wealth she hadn't had it easy and I suppose I had hoped she would get a happily-ever-after.

The Royal Family
The whole flag at half mast thing...royal protocols had to be changed to appease the people who couldn't understand that it wasn't a thing. Pointless tbh.
Why should the Queen have led the national mourning? If she had she'd have been criticised for usurping the Spencer family's role. I thought it weird enough that Charles-her-ex went with Charles-her-brother to bring her body home. I would not want my ex near my dead body any more than my living one! Probably that was all public pressure and damage limitation; must've been unpleasant for her brother though...
Why should your ex mother-in-law pay for your protection detail after you cheated repeatedly shamed the family?! I dare say Diana could've afforded more than the one bodyguard...ultimately they were DIVORCED, she chose her path away from the royal family so leave them out of it!

Paparazzi
AHA! Here's the real bad guys of the mix. Who've got off exceedingly lightly IMHO.
It baffles me how the royal family come in for more of a bashing than the paps who chased her car until the crash...and then took photos of her as she lay dying.
Her driver, Henri Paul, got the official blame. More than 3 times over the French drink driving limit (over twice the British) and with prescription meds in his system it is possible the end result would have been the same...however, driving at over twice the speed limit was as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the paparazzi pursuit. There is, however, speculation that Paul signaled the paps...even if so that does not negate their role in a high speed chase which put other lives at risk.

Camilla
Now, I like Camilla. She's good for Charles. William and Harry seem to have a good relationship with her. That's all matters. And yes, I will call her my Queen when the time comes.
Was she to blame for Charles and Diana's divorce? No. Or at least not to any significant degree.
Was she to blame for Diana's death? Hell no.

I really do find it distasteful that all this is getting dragged up again. Talk about her work for HIV awareness, land mine charities etc. Talk about her being a 'style icon' if you must. But leave the conspiracy theories and royalty bashing out of it.
>:(
Rant over.