Monarchy and Liberalism is an Unhappy Marriage

The shockwaves are still reverberating around Britain after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s announcement that they intend to step away from their current role within the Royal Family. Though there’s understandably a measure of scepticism about the importance of the movements of, in truth, minor royalty, ‘Megxit’, as it has not-so-creatively been dubbed by the press, is in fact as culturally significant as Brexit, if not more so.

Despite all the extraordinary trappings and privilege a Royal life has always been one that has existed inside the stillness of a gilded cage. It’s a life of public service, handsomely rewarded. But in the modern world few want to be imprisoned in anything but the limits of their own nature; they want no guides other than the sometimes-wayward choice of their own passions. In such a world, if the Duke and Duchess consider freedom more important than service, frankly, who are we to argue, if they grow the wings to fly beyond the days and weeks and months of stuffy protocol. And to sing their own tune of brave self-reliance. Meghan – the feminist diva; and Harry – the artist formerly known as Prince.

The problem, however, is that this flight of freedom is dependent upon the buoyancy of that which they seek to renounce. In what is an astonishing act of sheer chutzpah and ignorance, they are unilaterally plotting to effectively commercialise the Family’s legacy, and by implication, the country’s heritage, in order to feather their own nest. It appears to be an act of treachery which has been brewing for some time.

It has emerged that back in June 2019 the Sussexes applied to trademark ‘Sussex Royal’. Under intellectual property law they will have the option to attach this brand to an eclectic mix of goods and services, ranging from magazines to sports goods. It also didn’t escape notice that back in July, Meghan Markle was guest editor of the September edition of Vogue magazine, where she was described as a “changemaker” who “is breaking barriers and setting the agenda across the globe”. “Changemaker” is the United Nation’s speak for globalism, which is essentially the gradual dissolution of national boundaries, power centralised under a network of regional bureaucratic proxies, with huge combinations of transnational capital operating behind the curtain.

On their plush new website, which, judging by its polish, has clearly been in the offing for several months, the Sussexes have spoken of wanting to “balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages. This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter”. In other words, keep the privilege and relinquish the duty.

That they “intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent”. But, of course, by this they mean only independent of the Sovereign Grant, which accounts for about 5% of their income, and not independent of the allowance from the Duke’s father, the Prince of Wales, who gets most of his income from the Duchy of Cornwall. This is estimated to be several million pounds a year, not a dime of which originates anywhere other than the public purse because it is money made from commercial activities off land that the Royals hold on trust. They also don’t want to give up their round-the-clock security which the British taxpayer pays to the cost of £7.6 million a year, and it will surely only increase if their activities bestride continents.

Perhaps the most symbolic statement of all is that they want to “carve out a new progressive role within this institution”. A progressive monarchy, however, is an oxymoron. Responsibility, duty, and tradition are anathema to modernism. By definition.

Let me explain. It can be summarised as the contrast between the classical world – the world of antiquity from which Monarchy is derived – and the modern world of industrial globalism – from which Liberalism is derived. In the classical world the fundamental question of self was how to conform one’s soul to the divine meaning and purpose embedded in the world, and thus be drawn up into eternal life. The answer was through prayer, virtue and wisdom. That was the central concern of pre-modern, or what we may call, classical man. They believed that the world was full of divine meaning and purpose, and thus every person was born into a world of divine obligation. We were all obliged to conform our lives into a harmonious relationship with that divine meaning and purpose. 

For the modern person, however, the question is completely inverted, because they have redefined the world through the lens solely of science, which reduces the great human drama to nothing more than biological, chemical and physical properties. The modern person asks how one conforms the world to one’s own desires and ambitions. And the answer involves tapping into those institutions that operate by the mechanisms of power and manipulation, namely science, technology and the secular state. 

That’s the key difference between the traditional world and the modern world, the religious world and the secular world, and the nationalist world and the globalist world.

What’s happened as a result of this paradigm shift is that we’ve gone from a communal life, centred on the moral obligations inherent in family and church and community; and instead moved more into a contract based life, where we have no moral obligations apart from those we enter into through self-interested, rational contracts.

The notion of the modern autonomous self is that it has no more obligation than what the sovereign individual imposes on his or herself. This stance clashes with the classical world of duty and self-sacrifice – to subsume oneself within tradition and culture and divine obligations, of which the Monarchy is an embodiment. It was this sense of the divine that was the axis on which revolved all other elements – the relations of child and parent, of husband and wife, of brother and friend; life was, in its essential relations, throughout of a divine purpose. But in the world of industrial globalism the social framework is moulded by the character of the sovereign individual. It breaks prior boundaries.

It’s no secret that Meghan Markle is an ultra-liberal: she’s a self-avowed feminist, she’s pro-abortion, she hates Trump. And she’s on board with all the typical liberal talking points. Woke, in a word. It seems evident that it’s this self-identified left-wing liberalism that is clashing with the traditionalism of the Royal family. The clash is of our times. It is fundamentally irreconcilable.

Frogmore Cottage

Within the framework of the institution every possible concession had been made to make the couple happy. The Royal Family facilitated glamorous tours to Australia and Africa. The Queen allowed them unprecedented privacy for the birth of their child, Archie, far more so than any other royal birth in the past. And her Majesty accommodated their request to move from Kensington Palace to Windsor. Frogmore Cottage – more of a mansion than a cottage – which is owned by the Queen, cost the British taxpayer £2.4 million to renovate to the couple’s specifications. At the property, which they fully intend on keeping, “so that their family will always have a place to call home in the United Kingdom”, they had a housekeeper, two personal assistants and two palace orderlies, before public pressure led to them dropping the staff and, in a recent development, repay the public purse for the refurbishment. But one must ask, will they be paying any rent on this multi-million-pound crown property other people had to vacate for their accommodation?

“What Meghan wants, Meghan gets” is the Duke’s now infamous refrain to orderlies, many of whom were reportedly dispatched by the Duchess’ high-handedness as quickly as they were summoned. For a minor Hollywood actress she has certainly taken to the role of difficult and spoilt princess with considerable aplomb. And I’m sure that had this sorry affair been dramatized she would have been in line for several prestigious nominations. The one position in the household that did appear safe from the axe was that of chef, as it was reported that the Duchess preferred to prepare her own meals. Now, there’s a surprise. Often is the case that in the curious compound of character the flavour is sometimes disagreeable in spite of excellent ingredients.

Prince Harry was one of the most popular members of the Royal Family. Blessed with the common touch, like his mother, he has the ability to bring people together. He is human. Approachable. And it’s been evident that behind the bravado and charm is a damaged and sensitive young man for which the public has every sympathy. But since Harry fell for an American actress, he’s undergone a radical transformation. From a boyish, emotional, wayward, fun-loving Prince; to a boyish, emotional, wayward, subjugated Duke.

Harry is the moon-struck slave of Meghan. Not merely deeply in love with her, but completely steeped in her, as if she were his place of refuge in a lifetime of distress. Because his love seems to be attended by a despondency hitherto, we have not associated with him. It’s almost as if some dim unrest has been brought into vivid consciousness by her influence.

To understand the man, we must follow his growth. A love paradoxically mingling with his peculiarly tense and gloomy character seems to derive from the fact that Harry is reliving his life with his mother through his relationship with his wife. An Oedipal transference of a son’s love to a man’s love. Meghan, who is an independent and successful woman three years his senior, appearing to provide him with the Jocastian fusion of conjugal love and maternal belonging. And perhaps after winning the ring, Meghan was pregnant with not only Archie, but Oedipus and Jocasta’s offspring, Antigone. Because the struggle between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the Royal family mirrors the struggle between Antigone and Creon. It represents the struggle between elemental tendencies and established customs by which the outer shell of self is painfully being brought into harmony with its inward needs. Indeed, this is rather unravelling like a Greek tragedy – immutable causality and inexorable development are fundamental aspects of this tale.

Meghan is calling the shots. Not only has Harry learnt the lexicon of Woke, her introduction into his life has led to the breaking of boyhood friendships, many of whom weren’t invited to the wedding or evening reception, apparently their much-valued place being taken by more photogenic international celebrities. These are the aristocrats of the modern day. A-listers mingling with one another as the blue-blooded Royal households of the past forged alliances by intermarrying. It’s a hierarchical network of publicised friendships, each feeding off the other; with lesser lights, in a pitiful pecking order, scavenging after resource rich targets like seagulls circling as they search for food.

International super stardom is essentially all the obnoxious elements of monarchy shorn of its redeemable features. And it seems that the Sussex’s plan for modernising the monarchy is for it to essentially be all the obnoxious elements of celebrity shorn of its redeemable features. Exactly what talent are they selling?

The more they flog their Royal titles for personal gain, the more they devalue it. Even if they have now lost the HRH, they still plan to crassly trade off the back of the Dukedom of Sussex, which is part of the country’s history and legacy. This destroys the whole raison d’être of Royalty. It breaks the divine bond with the public which will therefore owe them no favours and no obligations. And, of course, the liberal world owes the Sussex’s no favours and no obligations – with incessant exposure the appeal of a picture-perfect lifestyle will fade with time, like a photo left out in the sun. By flying the nest in this manner, they are cutting off the branch on which the nest was built.

The Duchess was speaking to ITV’s Tom Bradby

The reason for their departure is that this lavish lifestyle they’ve enjoyed to date has made them rather unhappy. On the couple’s tour of Africa, the Duchess confided to a Royal reporter that “it’s not enough to just survive”, that you have got to “thrive”; that she has “really tried” to adopt the British stiff upper lip before concluding it is “internally really damaging”. Apparently, nobody asks her how she feels. The Duchess was speaking just after attending a centre which caters for children who have had their limbs blown off by landmines.

It doesn’t matter who you are, where you are, and who you’re with, in our society if you say that you’re not ok suddenly you become the centre of attention. You’re irreproachable if you play the mental health card. It’s classic narcissism, born of an inherently narcissistic ideology. And it speaks to the extraordinary levels of an entitled and self-absorbed victimhood culture that these comments can be uttered without shame and, more to the point, taken seriously. But liberalism is essentially a parasitic ideology, seemingly immunizing many people to their own self-awareness.

It is certainly the crowning glory of liberal civilisation – the sight of somebody who has everything in grief. Naturally, the Duchess received some criticism for these comments. But since the Sussexes have announced that they intend to step away from Royal life left-wing liberals are claiming that the press have hounded the Duchess out of the country. Because the country is racist. Apparently. On the contrary, apart from a few examples in this regard – which doesn’t make the country racist – the public have been very welcoming to Meghan Markle. Had she been white and British the coverage would have been brutal. She’s escaped much of that on account of being a “woman of colour”, which increasingly people wear as some sort of Woke shield, protecting them from legitimate criticism. People are just so frightfully worried of being called “racist”, they’re hesitant to ‘go there’, even when criticism is deserved. Because as soon as that word is uttered you become a kind of social leper.

So, you can trash a country’s culture, its heritage, disrespect and threaten the Queen, by suggesting that you will do a candid interview if you don’t get your way, and help to turn one of its most precious, historic institutions into a crass circus, but left-wing liberals will still present you as the victim. To which the public get no right of reply.

Presently, moral obligations don’t exist prior to the sovereign individual having chosen them. Unless of course you happen to be a white man. In which case you’re obliged to walk on eggshells; where a special set of moral obligations exist in the present as a result of choices made by people hundreds of years ago in the past based upon shared skin pigmentation and sex. Other groups inherit concomitant grievances in proportion to these moral obligations. So, liberals will reject the idea of inheriting responsibility or duty or loyalty, but they’re eager to inherit some abstract grievance. This aspect of Woke culture, the ranking of groups in ascendant victimhood, is not liberal; it’s neo Marxist. The moniker Liberalism is merely a smokescreen which hides the guilty.

The entire ideology is rife with contradictions and phoniness, which is primarily why many high profile, self-identifying liberals are insufferable hypocrites. Preaching, say, to everybody about the importance of making lifestyle changes to counter the purported perils of anthropogenic climate change, while regularly going off on jaunts in private, carbon guzzling planes. And nothing says environmentalism quite like intending to set up a lifestyle that has you flying across an ocean on a private plane multiple times per year! But irrespective of the claims of hypocrisy, to hold court and flaunt your moral virtues as the Sussexes have done, is simply vulgar; like flaunting the fact that you are wearing the latest designs from New York. Something the Royals have always commendably avoided.

The Sussexes are essentially part of an elite class of individuals who proselytize to each other in what is little more than a fanciful game. In truth, they are the enablers of all that they oppose. They take as a mistress the very lavish lifestyle they advocate against, and yet they act as though they have moral superiority. It’s shallow; transparent. Mostly because in the liberal world of industrial globalism words carry little burden outside of contractual obligations. Thus, words and actions and combined endeavours are often debased to such a point where only their outer shell is left, which remains intact for the sake of appearances.

Of the two, Harry’s conduct has been far more abominable. It is, after all, his family, and his country. He is still, though, in spite of everything, very much a product of his environment. It seems the duty he had to family and country has merely transferred to the woman he loves. This chivalry towards his wife has strong and deep roots, derived from a background of duty and piety, and no doubt wanting his marriage to succeed where his parents’ marriage failed; but the double-irony is that this chivalry, in his own search for love and happiness in a wider world, has effectively severed him from his roots, and it will most likely lead to the breakdown of his marriage.

Chivalry relies upon the purity and chastity of its recipient – a state of utter subjection to the will of a disdainful lady is clearly not a wise approach. And especially not if the object of the devotion is a left-wing feminist with history. As soon as this lady had the child, she had the leverage to change a situation she chose to participate in, and to take Harry along for the ride. It seems feminists are so miserable that not even a Prince is good enough. In fact, nothing will be. Ever.

Harry will find that his wife will keep turning the screw. The more he yields, the more he’ll weaken their relationship and reduce their sexual polarity. They’ll grow to resent one another. If he doesn’t yield, she’ll think he’s being unreasonable because she’s become accustomed to getting her own way. It’s a catch-22. In the meantime, Harry will grow resentful of being removed from his station in life. That would be a kind analysis. If we’re being unkind, we would say much worse.

Either way, the marriage has no future. Which is fine. Because marriage has essentially been degraded into being little more than a social contract. Certainly, it’s this sense of having a retreat which sterilizes much of the meaning of the vow and its significance. Everywhere in the liberal world there is this dogged effort to obtain gratification without paying for it.

The great flaw of Liberalism is that it unanchors people from a sense of allegiance; a unifying principle. The ideological by-product of industrial globalism, which has broken down barriers to trade and growth, it has taken the very basic idea that we are born into some fundamental unit of existential solidarity, from which we derived meaning, and replaced it with an inordinate patchwork of contractual reciprocity.

It is devoid of the sense of the sacred. Tremendous economic growth has not been matched by individual, social and spiritual growth. Everywhere people running about with nothing firm beneath their feet. With no law but the inclination of the moment. No warrants for treachery and cruelty. No sense of social shame. Not a great deal binding people to the past or to each other. Liberalism is an ideology where selfishness takes possession of a culture.

On the other hand, lives simply woven together by divine trust and love isn’t enough to keep a civilization alive. Because it mostly depends on a small, static society that never looks outside or beyond. Such as ancient Sparta, which in anxiously trying to hold on to its own social order, was already imploding before it fell to the Macedonians. Successful societies have never drawn a curtain; instead, have invariably looked outward, never ceasing to develop.

Megxit does in fact reveal this clash between core values – one which we can trace as far back as the 13th century when the church became part of the international banking system. It’s the clash between monarchy and liberalism, traditionalism and secularism and of course nationalism and globalism. And it’s precisely these kind of tensions that we can expect to see more of as that clash only promises to intensify.

53 thoughts on “Monarchy and Liberalism is an Unhappy Marriage

  1. You’ve put into words exactly what’s been going on in my mind but I wasn’t able to put together in words 🤔 I agree so much with what you’ve said.

    Even when Harry and Meghan announced they would marry, I always thought it wouldn’t work… She was always far too modern and outspoken for an institution like the Royal family. I honestly think she shouldn’t have even married Harry, and was aware that she wouldn’t fit in, but wanted to climb up the social ladder regardless.

    I think the Royal Family only really works in this day and age because it is still based on duty, and putting your country above yourself. If they were to adopt Meghan’s attitude to things and “woke” themselves up, it would be totally bizarre and it just wouldn’t work. They’re incompatible.

    I think this marriage won’t last… Harry will be miserable leaving behind everything he has known all his life and will have difficulty being a celebrity. Leaving the military behind will especially be a blow for him I imagine. I imagine the scrutiny and paparazzi will be worse over there anyway. She clearly loves attention, whereas he wanted to avoid all that.

    I’ll be surprised if they actually fade into obscurity and avoid all media attention. But I really doubt that will happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you. I agree that Meghan had no intention of living the Royal life – the idea is absurd. The values clash between what she stands for and what the Royal Family stands for is fundamentally irreconcilable. It was always going to be a ticking time bomb.

      From Harry’s point of view, it does say much about how damaged and sensitive he is to be taken in by this woman (unless he saw MM as a means to escape from a wretched entanglement, which I think is unlikely – doesn’t strike me as being sharp and conniving enough to pull off such a scheme). Apart from the very gullible, everybody can see from a mile off that this lady is a shark in shoes.


      • I agree with you both. Her globalist views drastically contrast with the nationalist views of the BRF. It is their duty to serve, promote and protect the people of Great Britain. Meghan, by all accounts, is a self-serving, hypocritical “victim.” Whatever faults (in a family context) the BRF or her father have are small in comparison to hers.
        Thank you #yankewally for introducing me to this blog!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Most interesting view. I agree that Harry has become a henpecked little woos. There is another vulgar description Cu&t struck. An affliction attributed to mommies boys who see the stairway to heaven for the first time they experience a vagina. I think you have struck the nail on the head with the globalism and “woke” herd . It seems to be the way of the “force be with you” star wars that has enthralled the youngsters and sucked in by the gullible by the age of computer-generated imagery and computer games. They seem to believe that what they see on the screen is reality in the game of thrones world and AI bot crap et al. This seems to have become the new world order reality. The Globalist UN agenda has them hook line and sinker.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for your comment. I agree. She has Harry’s balls in a jar. You know, it’s almost admirable how quickly she’s managed to pull his strings and extricate herself from a situation she chose to participate in. You do have to question Harry’s complete political turnaround since meeting MM and the events that have taken place since. I opted against putting this in the article, but I do think Harry meeting with the Obamas shortly after their engagement was announced, and MM meeting with Hilary Clinton at Frogmore Cottage in November, is suspicious. As is the tone of Vogue magazine’s September issue.

      Globalism destroys the whole reason for the Monarchy. Rightly or wrongly, the Royal Family is one of the symbols of British nationalism and the commonwealth. I do feel that this story is far from over.

      Thanks again for reading and commenting.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Excellent article and as someone else mentioned, you’ve put into words exactly what I was thinking. Now we need Harry read this article!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you for your kind comment. “Burn the ships! Burn the ships!”, cried Cortés. I’m afraid it’s a bit late for Harry now. He’s in uncharted territory and there’s no going back.


    • Thanks! That’s very kind of you to say. I’m sure that people will be feeling a little Meghan and Monarchy fatigue at the moment to have yet more material in the papers haha. Thanks again for stopping by.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I appreciated your analysis on this subject as well as your well worded argument. The entire situation is more insane by the day so far, but I suspect this is just the beginning of much worse to come from these two. I think she is far more insidious than people realize. Markle has connections to globalist actors so far above her that a natural “friendship” (as she describes these elite connections) between them strains all credulity.

    I hope you continue to write about this. I will share this on Instagram. Have a good day.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree. Very well said. When a story stretches credulity to such an extent invariably there’s more to it than meets the eye. It could easily be a globalist Trojan horse or even something within house. Certainly, clandestine meetings to the usual suspects before and after nuptials adds fuel to the speculative fire. My instinct is that MM and Harry would not be as audacious unless they had considerable support behind them. It’s hard to imagine them playing hard ball with the institution, and taking on the press, alone. You couldn’t wish for worse enemies. And it flies in the face of Harry’s repeated pleas for a quiet life. We’ll have to monitor and wait for more information. I’ll definitely revisit the subject if I feel there’s anything more worth saying.

      Thanks for reading and commenting. I really appreciate it. Have a great week!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. This is an exceptional,beautifully written and intelligent article about this disastrous affair. It seems the wicked web of mm spider will continue spinning and engulfing more of the monarchy and others. Thank you for your insightful assessment, I couldn’t agree more.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for your kind words. Though I agree this sorry saga is far from over, the one positive we can take, and we should take positives where we can get them, is that MM is not nearly as clever as she thinks she is. In time the web she is spinning will only ensnare herself, in what will be a poetical, if not altogether cheery, end. Thanks again Rosalee for your lovely comment.


  6. Very concise analysis of this train wreck! They both are playing a dangerous game that will have future consequences for all involved.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree. They are jumping from the plane without a chute, and taking others along for the ride. There can only be one outcome – getting squashed by their own conceit. It’s a very old tale; it just has a new assortment of characters. Thanks for reading and commenting.


  7. I never trusted her from the start. To me, she was always an opportunist, with her goal to take as much as she could before fleeing back to North America. This is an excellent article, I’m happy to a found it.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I just watched the television program Harry & Megan: The Royals in Crisis. Apparently, they have been planning their move for about a year! It’s obvious this was a stepping stone for her from the start. A lot of people saw this coming though as she is a very transparent person.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I’ve been following this story for months and this is the most intelligent and insightful article I’ve seen to date. I am particularly enraged at the claims of “racism” and “sexism” being flung around. It’s particularly obnoxious from a “WOC” who has plenty of examples of true racism to point to. It cheapens the struggles of those who have gone before her. Especially since she has apparently ghosted that side of her family as well as the Caucasian side. Meghan’s insistence on walking herself down the aisle was not as symbolic as we originally thought. She truly has no loyalty to anyone but herself. Even Harry comes in at a distant second. And Archie is simply a prop and a bargaining chip.

    One point of confusion for me has been the rabid aggression of the couple’s “sugars”, or social media followers. I’ve been puzzled at the extreme measures this group employs to silence detractors. From death threats, to outing, to attempts to put businesses out of business, it’s very aggressive behavior on behalf of a couple most have not, and will not ever meet. Some sense of community perhaps, in a world that no longer recognizes community? That would also explain the incredible polarity of today’s political climate.

    This is a fascinating story, and one that I don’t believe will end happily. Its simply Shakespearean.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ‪Yes, this sorry affair does have echoes of Shakespeare, though of course more Anthony and Cleopatra than Falstaff. I ‬actually think that one of the reasons why Harry and Meghan’s story has gripped people the way it has is because it has all the elements of the classic archetypal story. It’s resonating at a deeper level, converging with the narrative within, and evoking what it is to be human in a way that all can immediately apprehend, if not fully grasp. Few writers have dug into the archetype better than Shakespeare. And in their own way I think Harry and Meghan are scratching at its surface.

      I think you’re right. Neo Marxist identity politics is filling a communal vacuum. For several decades liberalism has been so ideologically dominant that it has helped dismantle many traditional structures, such as church, family, nation; and replaced them with nothing. In fact, it’s chief flaw, as far as I can see, is that it has nothing useful to say about community. As you astutely point out, this is probably why many people are leaning towards the pseudo communal structures of neo marxist identity politics: race, gender, sexuality, religion. They are desperately searching for meaning and belonging in a system providing neither. This is ultimately fracturing the population into disparate and often, belligerent groups.

      Marxism is fuelled by spiritual paucity, demoralisation, and an inferiority-vanity fusion in the individual, and CONFLICT in the wider collective. In fact, without conflict the grand Marxist narrative dissipates into dust. The proletariat of the 19th century are the minority groups of the 21st century. A modern doctrinal variant first cooked up in the 20s and 30s and which achieved full mutation in the 60s. Essentially, the ideological intention is to foment chaos, with a view to ultimately usurping the existing order.

      The media – and especially social media – is fuelling group identity and division, channeling tribalisms like a metal rod over a fire; with activists, who are largely funded by predatory transnational capital, ideologically bullying, threatening and abusing people to make examples of them in order to scare off any further detractors. Their job is to stir the pot as often as they can. When some sort of victory for equality is achieved, they immediately start their next crusade. It never ends.

      The intention is to create chaos, paving the way to greater social equality, albeit in atomised groups. This sets the stage for communism. As you know, this is the facilitation of economic equality. These days the elite calls it “climate change”. Slow boil communism packaged in a way to harvest the public’s credulity.

      So, I think everything we are seeing, the increasing polarisation of society, with tribes forming around group identity markers, is because we are living in a neo Marxist/postmodernist paradigm. Upside down realities is its specialty. MM is the victim; women are men, men are women; censorship in the name of tolerance; and many self-confessed liberals being decidedly illiberal, without knowing the difference. All of it is an assault on the existing order, and everyone in it.

      Here, we can identify another flaw of liberalism – it doesn’t provide an adequate defence to bad ideas. Which is why, I think, this parasitic ideology is being consumed by its natural parasitic successor.

      I really appreciated your intelligent comment! It was a great contribution. Thank you

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Thank you for the well thought out and well written article. In thinking about this situation and all of the whining about MrMarkle’s mental status, maybe her plan is to eventually have him committed and be his conservator.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. my thanks to Yankee Wally for introducing me to your blog. Eddie you are an exceptional writer: an articulate impressive article. I really hope you get this published in mainstream media. I am looking forward to seeing more of your writing especially about Harry and Meghan. Much of what you wrote agrees with opinions on Twitter. I posted your article to Tumblr and Twitter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I love your user ID 🙂. It’s certainly a curious affair and one that promises to bubble on for some time to come. I’m sure I’ll revisit it in the future. Thank you for the lovely comment.


  11. My user ID is a tongue in cheek reference to Meghan Markle wanting to retain Duchess of Sussex and Sussex Royal to merch the Royal Family

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I agree with your characterization of Meghan’s conduct with respect to the monarchy and her relationship with Harry. Attributing it to Meghan’s belief in globalism, liberalism and feminism however is really a long, long stretch. Many people, both men and woman, adhere to these values, yet not all of us lack integrity or respect for duty, family, religion or community. Your analysis and conclusions seem to be based solely on your own conservative ideologies.
    Meghan’s actions over the marriage as well as her history demonstrate many character flaws. She does not value relationships and she is an image-obsessed fame-whore. She is also manipulative, selfish, greedy, duplicitous and controlling. She did not acquire these traits from feminism, globalism or liberalism. As with most people, her character was likely formed early on from a combination of genetics and upbringing.
    I am an American but have always had an interest in the history of the English monarchy and a great respect for it as an institution. Like you, I believe that Meghan knew exactly what she was getting into when she accepted the marriage proposal and that the whole Megxit affair is having a negative effect on the Monarchy. She has demonstrated disrespect for the whole of Harry’s family and for the UK. While the marriage is probably doomed, I fail to see what feminism, liberalism or globalism have to do with that.
    I am a liberal and a feminist and have been married for many years to the same person, raised kids, retired in good standing from a long professional career, attend church, have friends and participate in my community. Contrary to what you claim, belief in feminism etc., does not lead to the decline of family, religion, duty and community, it upholds and expands them. Queen Elizabeth herself is a wonderful example of feminist and globalist principles at work in the world. She attends her affairs of state on her own, her husband has no part in her duties as Monarch, and she is dedicated to the Commonwealth, which she calls “our global family.” What else is the Commonwealth except an organization that promotes the UK as a global partner to the member countries. She recognizes that
    a commitment to global cooperation and peace is not an abandonment of national identity or autonomy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Donna. Firstly, you’re engaging in some classic cart-before-the horse thinking. I agree that MM did not necessarily acquire her traits from feminism, globalism or liberalism; my contention is that she would have naturally acquired a feminist, globalist and left-wing liberal outlook from her traits. They are more commensurate to her character, and thus more likely to attract her sympathies. Because in their purest form they put the sovereign individual at the centre of the drama, which is precisely what MM has spent the last 38 years doing. Outlook will always follow that curious blend of upbringing/genetics/experience, and never the other way around. It’s one of the only logical things we can say about the forging of a personality.

      At this point, we should also distinguish between people and ideas. We must disentangle your entanglement. People house many contradictions; they’re idiosyncratic, perplexing, incongruous. It’s perfectly normal, say, for a person to identify as one thing, but engage in contradictory behaviours and beliefs, without knowing the difference. In fact, it’s not only normal, it’s quintessentially human. But ideas do not house contradictions. In a Platonic sense, they materialise imperfectly in the world, but they exist in their absolute and perfect form away from it. As I explained in the piece, Monarchy and Liberalism, as transcendent ideas, are fundamentally irreconcilable. In the same way nationalism and globalism are irreconcilable. Take the idea, universalise it, stretch it to its outer most boundaries, and both can’t subsist. They clash.

      Without a sense of divine allegiance the reason for monarchy dissolves. Liberalism slowly erodes into that allegiance because it unfetters people from time and place.

      Without national boundaries the nation dissolves. By definition. And, again, without nation the Monarchy dissolves because Monarchy is fettered to the past and a specific place and people, and NOT to a map. It’s the British RF and not the Global RF. It has no affinity with Netherlands or China, it has affinity with Britain and the commonwealth.

      “….a commitment to global cooperation and peace is not an abandonment of national identity or autonomy.” Of course not. You can be a populist and a nationalist and STILL be committed to global cooperation. The only place those ideas are irreconcilable is in your own imagination. But this “commitment” of which you speak, the political and economic integration that is reorganising and centralising power across borders, will ultimately destroy, firstly, national autonomy, and finally, national identity. It’s been a gradual process but one which has been accelerating these last 20 years. And when it happens humans will be no nearer peace; but nearer to a type of tyranny never before seen on the face of the earth.

      I appreciate you taking the time to leave a comment. All the best


  13. This was a stunning post. The most important article I have ever read about them.

    At first I was so excited about Meghan. Being an American monarchist Who has intensively studied British history, i couldn’t have felt that there was a better choice for Harry.

    She was from Los Angeles, where I am from. She was pretty, and a grown woman. She had experience of the wider world. She seemed to be interested in charitable work. Her biracial background seemed to hold potential to inject a sense of “the now” into a staid institution and perhaps improve race relations in the U.K. and commonwealth. Indeed her interest in her charitable works was so perfect – now she has the ultimate platform and endless resources to help people. She seemed to appeal to the people who might not have felt the monarchy was for them. She had a dog that was spotted riding with the queen in her car. I felt a bright new day dawning. I stayed up till 3am Los Angeles time to watch the wedding.

    Then… the drama with her father. Her mother being the only family member at the wedding. Rumors began to whirr of a rift brewing between Harry and William. I thought this is just the crazy British press trying to cause trouble again.

    Then it seemed no sooner was the ring on her finger that the real issues began. She seemed awkward and out of place at royal events. She would dress inappropriately- she wore all black standing on the balcony of the palace which is a no-no color unless you’re in mourning. Some rumors about them moving. I thought well that is ok because not being The heir , Harry can have a longer leash. I heard “tour of Africa” and i thought great! They can live abroad and be a mobile unit and start helping people. Then suddenly there is that bizarre interview (outside the center for injured children), which was framed strangely, royalty are often not “looking up” at the interviewer. I think with her Hollywood camera knowledge, knew she ought to film herself gazing up at the interviewer, almost childlike, which could trigger an emotional response in the viewer – combined with her remarks that she feels hounded or attacked? and the interview was itself inappropriate. Royalty do not do random interviews like that. Uh oh. I gave her the benefit of the doubt, maybe the British press looked down on an American girl. Maybe she was the target of unfair criticism. Further cracks soon began to show.

    Then came the vogue magazine cover. With the woke focus on black women. Okay I thought, this is inappropriate, she isn’t a “star” she’s now royalty and this isn’t the right thing for her to do, But again I gave her the benefit of the doubt because, well maybe she gave into temptation and as a half black woman representing two racially diverse countries, it might help bring others around the royal cause. Again I gave her a pass but I was now feeling awkward.

    Then came the New York baby shower with Venus Williams and other stars. That’s not right I thought – why isn’t she with her in-laws in England? Why does she think she can have it both ways? Royalty and celebrity are not the same.

    Then came more wokeness, a woke instagram, Harry repeating woke talking points, and then the utterly shocking news of them “stepping away”. You can’t just “step away” from being royal. You’re either In or out. Then came the news of the request of daddy Wales paying for security.

    By this point she had lost my Sympathy and I began to see her for what I thought her critics Had unfairly painted her as initially – a new Wallis Simpson.

    When the news was confirmed of them stepping away and moving to a mansion in Canada, to me that was the end. I took down from my wall their official wedding portrait which I had neatly cut from a magazine.

    Add to that their selfish request of security money. Security for what? I thought you’re trying to be normal now? Huh?? My mother, another monarchist began to openly loathe Meghan and now refers to her as “Me-Again”. My dream became a nightmare, and My mother said have u seen the strange, sloppy way she is Always photographed holding Archie?

    I realized this was indeed a new Wallis Simpson and that history was repeating itself tragically within her majesty’s lifetime. Twice the Queen has seen an American upend the values of the Firm.

    I was VERY pleased when it was announced that the queen had revoked the HRH. Only the queen can give, or take away, those titles. Go queen, I thought. Then I began to think was it the queen at all who made that decision or Charles or William? Thus the rumored rift was indeed true.

    Then was announced the move to Los Angeles, EXACTLY THE PLACE these “give us privacy” clowns wanted not to be. I realized what she really is – a conniving opportunist, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A Jezebel who had seduced a weak willed, emotionally damaged man away from his home, family and birthright.

    All these things happened head-spinningly fast.

    How was she able to do this?

    I achieved GREAT satisfaction from the lockdown happening almost immediately following their move to LA and news reports of Harry being “miserable and alone”.

    The marriage will not last the next five years, Mark my words and she will walk away with millions of dollars and her empty title of duchess intact and all the invitations to Beyoncé’s house she could ever hope for. The aging, unknown actress is now seen as the greatest of all by the stars she Could never have even been in the same room as before.

    I am disgusted.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Patrick. Thank you for your fantastic messages. I really appreciate you taking the time to write them.

      This is a great overview of the history of this mess. I particularly liked:

      “I realized what she really is – a conniving opportunist, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A Jezebel who had seduced a weak willed, emotionally damaged man away from his home, family and birthright”

      Harry must be extremely damaged to have been taken in by this predatory woman – his bravado and self-assurance is I think more of a front than a deep-seated characteristic. The way she has executed her plan – and I do believe it was a plan – has almost been admirable. But had Harry been more confident in himself or his position there is no way MM would have ever been able to pull this off.

      Wearing black that day was highly inappropriate, as was that abominable interview in Africa. Both were very visual and pointed assaults at the institution. Also, great spot that the interview in Africa was subtly framed with her looking up at the camera. Princess Diana used to do that. Tilt her head and look up forlornly with a wide-eyed look of vulnerability.

      Meghan is a very manipulative woman.

      I agree that this marriage has no future. In Harry, an ageing actress has seen a spectacular invitation to fame and has grasped it with no thought of the consequences. In fact, it probably is even more sinister than that – this woman would rather be infamous than a nobody.

      Thanks again Patrick for taking the time to post such a great comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s