Some Thoughts on the Harry and Meghan Interview

     In the United States, CBS has aired the much-anticipated interview between Oprah Winfrey and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, otherwise known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The interview will air in New Zealand tomorrow, on Three. However, it is already the subject of considerable discussion in this country, as indeed it is elsewhere in the world. The interview went for an hour and a half, with a full hour featuring Meghan talking to Oprah on her own, and the last half hour bringing Harry in.

    It was expected that the interview would contain a number of bombshell revelations, and on that score, it didn't disappoint. What I have found rather noteworthy in observing the reactions of people on Twitter and in the media is how quick many people have been to believe every single word that Meghan said. They seem to accept her claims uncritically. However, the Bible says that we should not do that:

    "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." (Proverbs 14:15)

    "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:18)

    "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

     So just because Meghan has alleged some things, and spoken well in the process, it doesn't automatically make those allegations true. (Although to be fair, it doesn't automatically make them NOT true either - we should not be too hasty to believe OR disbelieve someone.)

    One key criterion that the Bible has for establishing whether something is true or not is the testimony of witnesses. 

    "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deuteronomy 19:15) 

    In any case, especially where it's one person's word against another's (and there are plenty of situations where that can apply), it is important to make "diligent inquisition" (Deuteronomy 19:18), meaning investigate, analyse, carefully weigh up what has been said and so on. 

     For some of the things Meghan has said, we only have her witness at this point in time (although Harry has backed up some things - he does have a rather vested interest in doing so, however). Now perhaps some claims will later be corroborated. We shall just have to wait and see. Bear in mind that it is possible for people to lie, which is sometimes referred to in the Bible as bearing false witness, and something God takes an extremely dim view of:

    "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Exodus 20:16)

     "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness." (Exodus 23:1)

     "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

     "He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit." (Proverbs 12:17)

    "A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow." (Proverbs 25:18)

     Sometimes people can conspire to lie together (such as Ananias and Sapphira, a married couple, in Acts 5:1-11). However, when this happens, they tend to have trouble keeping their stories straight:

    "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together." (Mark 14:56-59)

     As a general rule, when a lot of people are tending to say the same thing, it is more likely to be true (although people can unite in pushing false narratives - however, one way to tell these narratives are false is the use of faulty logic and reasoning in them). For example, when Jimmy Savile was exposed as a sexual predator, a wide range of people came forward with very similar stories. Obviously, they weren't all exactly the same, but they were consistent enough to show a clear pattern of behaviour. It has been much the same with the likes of Bill Cosby, Rolf Harris, Michael Jackson and other celebrities who have fallen into disgrace either while still living or after they died.

     So just a quick recap before I continue: the word of ONE PERSON does not automatically make it true (although it does not automatically make it UNtrue either). We should not be too quick to jump to conclusions either way. More evidence (to either support the allegations or counter them) is needed. Also, careful analysis of what has been presented is required.

    Now I would like to take a closer look at some of Meghan's revelations. In doing so, I will use this article on Stuff, as that gives a good breakdown of the biggest revelations and includes some interesting quotes.

 

REVELATION #1: MEGHAN WAS SURPRISED BY THE RESTRICTIONS OF ROYAL LIFE

    One early claim made by Meghan was that she didn't know what Royal life was like. It also seems she didn't make much effort to find out, but relied on what Harry said to her (there is a subtle blaming of Harry here actually, since she is suggesting he didn't brief her too well). Yet she admitted in almost the same breath that she was friends with Princess Eugenie, the younger daughter of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, before she started dating Harry. So on that basis, you would think she might have some awareness of both Prince Harry and the Royal Family in general. Also, she lived for seven years in Canada, a Commonwealth country. And she spent some time with Harry in Britain during their courtship. So how can she have known so little about Royal life? That said, I'm sure that even if someone thoroughly understood what was required to be a senior Royal, experiencing the reality would probably still be something of a shock to the system. It would certainly be a culture shock for someone coming from the United States. But then again, other royal families have had outsiders marrying into them - such as Princess Mary of Denmark, originally from Australia, and famous Hollywood actress Grace Kelly, who married into the Monaco royal family. No doubt they both would have faced steep learning curves, but neither of them quit (of course, Princess Grace, as she became known, died in a car crash in the early 1980s). 

 

REVELATION #2: THE ROYAL WEDDING WAS FAKE

     I'm quite amazed that Meghan made this revelation, because it's more damaging to her and Harry than anyone else, I would have thought. It transpires that the big Royal wedding at St. George's Chapel on 19 May 2018 was a complete sham. As fake as a three-dollar bill, in fact. Nobody had ever suggested that before, as far as I am aware.  No insinuations, no rumours, no anything that the big televised wedding was anything other than the real deal. But as it turns out, Harry and Meghan actually got married three days earlier! They wanted "a touch of intimacy", apparently. The real wedding was just them and the Archbishop of Canterbury in their backyard. Apparently they said to the Archbishop, "Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us".

    Now, there are some couples who will marry in a private ceremony and then later have a second ceremony with all the trimmings for their family and friends. However, as a general rule, there is no pretense that the second ceremony is the real wedding. Everybody at such a second ceremony knows the couple is already married, and that it's more of a post-nuptial celebration than a proper wedding, even if it plays out like a wedding. Harry and Meghan however gave the impression back in 2018 that their televised wedding, which they have now termed a "spectacle for the world", was the real thing. In other words, they lied to the entire world at the time. And I have to wonder, was anybody else at that "wedding" aware of what had transpired three days earlier? Or did Harry and Meghan even lie to the others who were at the "wedding"? And if they can lie and deceive people over something as significant as their own wedding, what else might they lie about? Hmm. But anyway, let's move on.

SPECIAL UPDATE (22/3/21): I am adding this update here rather than tacking it on to the end of the post because it is specifically about the "fake wedding". The Daily Mail is now offering definitive proof that the Royal Wedding of 19 May 2018 was indeed a legitimate wedding. The proof? The couple's own marriage certificate! It is the first time that Harry and Meghan's marriage certificate has been revealed by the General Register Office in the UK. An Anglican priest, Rev Mark Edwards, who has investigated Meghan's claim of a private wedding, quotes another official as saying that as an American, she doesn't understand the Anglican protocols around weddings. That's possible. Harry would understand them though, having been born and brought up in the Royal Family, and been best man at his brother William's wedding in 2011. Yet he went along with Meghan's story about the private wedding. It appears most probable that the "private" wedding was in fact a rehearsal.

SPECIAL UPDATE 2 (24/3/21): After the release of Harry and Meghan's marriage certificate, they have now been forced to admit that their private ceremony three days before their public wedding was not an actual wedding, just a "private exchange" of "personal vows". So it was a special thing just for them, which is fine, and if they had just said that on the Oprah special, there would be no problem. But Meghan said very clearly on that special, "You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that." So they didn't lie to the world about the wedding in 2018 (hence what I said above about that is now incorrect), but they did lie about it on the Oprah interview, causing a lot of unnecessary confusion and anger as a result.

 

REVELATION #3: KATE MADE MEGHAN CRY, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND

    There is a well-known story about how Meghan allegedly made Kate, the Duchess and Cambridge and wife of Prince William (second in line to the British throne) cry during some row over flower girls' dresses. In the Oprah interview however, Meghan claimed it was actually Kate who made her cry, but apparently she apologised and all is forgiven. (If you have really forgiven someone, then why bring it all up again? Although I suppose if it really was a false claim that Meghan had made Kate cry, fair enough to set the record straight.)

    It is worth noting at this point that Kate has never directly accused Meghan of making her cry. She has never sat down and done a "tell-all" interview badmouthing Meghan. The stories in the media about the altercation between Meghan and Kate were based on the testimonies of sources. Now, these were all anonymous sources I think ("inside sources" or "a friend of the family", that sort of thing). But the fact remains, there were witnesses who established the matter (though it's possible they could have lied). There are no witnesses (so far at least), supporting Meghan's version of this incident. Perhaps some will come forward, but right now, we only have the word of Meghan herself to go on. And that is not sufficient to establish the truth of her claim.

    If Meghan were telling the truth about Kate making her cry, you'd think she would want to try to be as specific as possible about what really happened. But instead: "When Oprah pressed Meghan about what the issue was, Meghan was vague, but confirmed it had to do with the flower girls' dresses". She follows that with a kind of head-scratching word salad: "It made me cry and it really hurt my feelings [...] And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn't make sense to not be just doing whatever—what everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot." Umm, OK. That sort of vague language leaves an awful lot open to interpretation (not to mention making your head hurt!). She also contended that Kate was "not allowed" to set the record straight. (Now given that Kate doesn't give formal media interviews too often, she probably is subject to some restrictions, but then why did the media's sources say it was Meghan who made Kate cry, while not one of them said the opposite?) Meghan also said, "I think so much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity, where if you love me, you don't have to hate her. And if you love her, you don't need to hate me". That's a fair point, but I don't think people are just divided along the lines of personal feelings (though  they naturally come into it), but also along the lines of who is being truthful and who is not. Anyway, moving on to the next part now:

 

REVELATION #4: MEGHAN WAS A VICTIM OF "CHARACTER ASSASSINATION"

    Apparently, Meghan thought she was protected as a member of the Royal Family, but after the (fake) wedding, she started to feel differently. "I came to understand that not only was I not being protected, but that they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family, but they weren't willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband." This is one of the more damaging allegations made. And I think the specific statement that members of the Royal Family are "willing to lie to protect other members of the family" has some plausibility. You have to wonder for instance how much they are protecting Prince Andrew. Again though, it's all a bit vague. However, Meghan does cite one piece of supporting evidence for this allegation: the apparently "fake news" (as Donald Trump used to love saying) about her making Kate cry. "The narrative about, you know, making Kate cry I think was the beginning of a real character assassination. [...] And they knew it wasn't true. And I thought, well, if they're not going to kill things like that, then what are we going to do?"

     So Meghan is flat-out accusing the Royal Family of lying, both to protect their own (which is again quite possible) and to support "false narratives" about her in the media. Let me just say at this point that there is a world of difference between character assassination (which basically involves defaming somebody) and justly criticising their behaviour. However, such criticism must be based on truth. If people are angry, it should be with a just cause (Matthew 5:22). And here again, I would remind you that the British media did have sources for their claims about Meghan making Kate cry, whereas there are no witnesses (as yet anyway) for Meghan's counter-claim.

 

REVELATION #5: SOME ROYALS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ARCHIE'S SKIN COLOUR

    If there is one thing guaranteed to trigger rage in people nowadays, it is accusations or insinuations of racism. (For the record, I am as against racism as anyone, but there are times when claims concerning it can be used falsely as a kind of smokescreen for other agendas - Communists in particular have hijacked it over the years for their own sinister purposes.) Meghan insinuates that Archie was not given a title because of his racial heritage (although when he was born, she and Harry had claimed they didn't want him to have a title so he could have as normal a life as possible - also, none of Princess Anne's very white children and grandchildren have titles). Apparently, Harry had "several conversations" with family members about "how dark" Archie's skin might be. (He later confirms this.) But neither of them name any names, with Meghan saying, "I think that would be very damaging to them."

     Well yes, if specific names are named, it would be damaging to those individuals. The problem with naming no one however is that it makes everyone a suspect. In other words, the entire Royal Family ends up being tarnished when the accusation is framed this way. Now, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was in fact some racism within the Royal Family. Prince Philip for instance has been known to make a few politically incorrect gaffes. (According to someone on Good Morning Britain though, he did not say this stuff about Archie - by the way, we don't get GMB in NZ, I saw this on Twitter.) That notwithstanding, this is another allegation for which, at this time, we only have Meghan's testimony (well Harry's as well, to be fair - but then he collaborated with Meghan in lying about the wedding). And as for the claims about Archie not being made a prince or being given some other title, they seem to directly contradict things the couple said earlier about preferring him not to have a title. So which version are we meant to believe? The one they told when he was born, or the one they're telling now?

SPECIAL UPDATE (1/4/21): The supposedly "racist Royal" has been named in this video by Lady Colin Campbell. She states that Meghan lied about there being "several conversations" while she was pregnant, but Harry was (mostly) telling the truth when he described a single conversation that took place before the wedding. The Royal with whom he had this conversation was Princess Anne. However, it is crucial to point out that the Princess Royal did not express any concerns about the possible skin colour of Harry and Meghan's future children. Anne, like her father Prince Philip, tends to be very forthright and plain-spoken. She apparently told Harry in no uncertain terms that she did not like Meghan's character or the way she behaved. Anne also had concerns about how well Meghan would fit into British and Royal culture, coming as she did from California with its very different values and lifestyle. What she DID say about future children was that she feared that Meghan would damage the Royal Family and any children she and Harry might have BECAUSE OF HER CHARACTER. So because she did express some concerns in passing about Meghan's cultural background (NOT her racial background, but her cultural background), this was misconstrued by Harry and later Meghan as a slur against Meghan's race. But in any case, according to Lady Campbell (although I personally agree), Meghan twists any kind of criticism of her into racism.

    Also, it has been established for quite a while now that Archie was not denied a title because of his skin colour. It was all to do with a Royal protocol that was established back in 1917 (and is the reason why Princess Anne's grandchildren don't have titles, and Prince Edward's children don't have them either). Archie will be able to become a prince when Charles succeeds Queen Elizabeth II, because then he will be a grandchild of the monarch.

 

REVELATION #6: MEGHAN FELT SUICIDAL, BUT NO ONE WOULD HELP HER

    During her first pregnancy, Meghan apparently struggled with suicidal thoughts. "Look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he's suffered, but I knew if I didn't say it, then I would do it. [...] I just didn't want to be alive anymore. And that was a very clear and real and frightening and constant thought." She also claims that she "went to the institution" (presumably meaning the Royal Family) to seek professional help, but was refused this because "it wouldn't be good for the institution". Although it was also because she wasn't a "paid member of the institution". The insinuation here being that the Royal Family didn't want to get Meghan help because if it became known that she was in such a fragile mental state, it might reflect badly on them.

    There are things about this that don't add up. Prince Harry has previously had therapy and been quite open about it. Apparently, the Royal Family weren't too bothered about how that made the rest of them look. It has subsequently been revealed that Meghan went to some Royal human resources department. Why talk about your problems in a place like that? Especially such heavy problems as what she was supposedly having?

    Yet again, at this point in time, we only have Meghan's testimony (well, Harry's too - actually, I am quite sure she did talk of such feelings to him, but there may have been an ulterior motive, as I'll explain in a moment). Now, one thing that I have learned from personal observation and experience is that people can sometimes use talk of "feeling suicidal" or "wanting to die" as a means of manipulation. In other words, sometimes it can be a bluff. (In fact, very often, when people are genuinely suicidal, they sadly do it without saying much to anybody. Two people in the Bible who did just this were Ahithophel  - see 2 Samuel 17:23 - and Judas Iscariot. They didn't declare their intentions to kill themselves to anyone, they simply did it. Closer to home, the daughter of a family friend committed suicide a decade or so ago, and also gave no advance warning of her intentions - so I do know what it's like to be personally affected by suicide.) The purpose of such a bluff is control. What better way to gain somebody's sympathy and thereby make them more compliant with your wishes? For example, Meghan may have used these "suicidal feelings" she was supposedly having as a way to convince Harry that she needed to leave Britain. (That said, they didn't leave until some months after Archie was born - still, she could have played it up for a long time afterwards.) Interestingly, there is an instance in the Bible of someone doing this:

    "And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die." (Genesis 30:1)

    So we see Rachel here appearing to threaten suicide (or at least implying that she will die if she doesn't get what she wants) in order to manipulate her husband. The Scriptural record shows that she eventually had two children (Joseph and Benjamin), and died in childbirth while giving birth to Benjamin. (Fun fact: Meghan uses her middle name. Her first name is ... Rachel.) Now, I'm not saying Meghan was definitely saying this stuff to be manipulative. What I am saying is that it should not be ruled out. And it might not just be Harry she was trying to manipulate, but everyone watching the interview (the same public she and Harry lied to, by their own admission about their wedding).

 

REVELATION #7: IT'S A GIRL

    A more light-hearted revelation made in this interview is that Harry and Meghan are expecting a baby girl. There's no reason why they would lie about this, so I have no comment other than to wish them my sincere congratulations.

     In conclusion, a great deal was said in this interview that is potentially very damaging for the Royal Family. (History - both ancient and more recent - has taught us that they have a great many faults, which really shouldn't be a surprise since they are sinful human beings like the rest of us. So there may be at least some truth to what has been said.) Indeed, many people are jumping to some very rapid conclusions in the light of what they've heard. For example, on The Project, guest host Patrick Gower said that he does not believe "a family that holds these kinds of values should be the head of state of New Zealand" (read about it and see video here). Actually, it is only the Queen who is the Head of State (although others are lined up after her, with Princes Charles and William at the head of the queue). Gower is an investigative journalist, and even acknowledged that there are two sides to every story, yet he seems quite prepared to simply take Meghan Markle at her word without bothering to delve deeper into her claims. The mere fact that she has alleged that some members of the Royal Family might hold some racist attitudes is enough to trigger him, it would seem. It's as though his outrage over the MERE POSSIBILITY of racism in the Royal Family makes him unable to see that the truth might actually be different. It has been ALLEGED, and that's enough for him. It's a scary world when people can be judged on unproven allegations. (This also happened in the Bible, mind you - see 1 Kings 21:7-13 for one example of how false but inflammatory accusations resulted in a man being wrongfully executed - on that occasion, Jezebel clearly knew what would push the people's buttons to make them act without bothering to properly investigate further, and maybe Meghan knows how to push buttons and trigger people too. Two further examples of deliberately inflammatory language triggering hasty responses in people can be found in Acts 16:19-23 and Acts 19:24-30, both of which resulted in wrongful imprisonment of those accused.)

    What I have tried to show here is that jumping to such rapid conclusions (one way OR the other) is unwise. There is plenty of reason to believe (in my view) that Meghan Markle, to use her own words, may be perpetuating falsehoods about the Royal Family and her time with them. Or, as quite often happens with deceptive narratives, there may be some genuine truth in her story, but also lies or exaggerations, which constitute a fair amount of "leaven" to poison the whole thing. After all, she and Harry, by their own admission, lied to the world about their wedding, leading everyone to believe that their multi-million-dollar ceremony was the actual wedding when in fact they'd married secretly three days earlier. And moreover, there are no witnesses (other than Harry) for most of the claims Meghan made in that interview. However, it is entirely possible that some people may come forth to back up her version of events. Perhaps there is more truth to Harry and Meghan's version of events than what I think. More evidence is needed, one way or the other. Preferably something specific, rather than just a lot of vague insinuations. But let's not simply assume that just because Harry and Meghan have said things happened, or happened a certain way, that this is factual. On the other hand, we should not assume it's all lies either. Just because someone might push our buttons about supposed racism and suchlike, we should not cast all rational thought aside and make hasty assumptions based on those triggers. Ultimately, the truth is the most important thing, not how we may feel personally about either the Royal Family or Harry and Meghan. And at this point in time, the explosive allegations and revelations notwithstanding, it is not very clear just what the truth is in this whole sorry saga. Hence, we should all wait and see what evidence emerges to either support or refute the interview claims in the next little while.

 

UPDATE: Remember the passage I quoted about false witnesses not being able to make their stories agree? (To refresh your memory, it's Mark 14:56-59.) Well it so happens that Meghan and Harry told very different versions of their allegation about the "awkward conversation" with a member or members of the Royal Family about how dark Archie's skin might be. Meghan asserted that it took place when she was pregnant with Archie. But later Harry, when he joined Meghan (unaware of what exactly she had said), claimed that the conversation happened before they were married! So their witness agrees not together. In which case, why should it be believed at all? Although it's also possible they are taking something that was actually said out of context. (Indeed, if you look at that passage in Mark's Gospel, some of the false witnesses against Jesus did that with something He had said, and applied a different meaning and context to make it appear that He had meant something else.)

     In addition, it appears that the private wedding between Harry and Meghan was not legal (the good news about that is, the televised Royal wedding was legitimate after all). Under the laws of the Anglican Church, two witnesses must be present at a wedding for it to be valid. Only Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was reportedly present for the private ceremony. However, it still means that Meghan lied during the interview. She implied that the wedding had been fully legitimate, so she has still misled the public on this.

 

UPDATE 2 (10/3/21):  Buckingham Palace has now released a 61-word statement that is very diplomatically worded. The most telling phrase in this statement is "some recollections may vary". It also says that the allegations "will be addressed by the family privately" - in other words, no "tell-all" interviews to counter Harry and Meghan's claims. And speaking of those claims, the British media (and some other media around the world) are starting to dissect them very thoroughly, and finding an awful lot of holes in the process. The Daily Mail in particular has come out with a number of excellent articles showing numerous inconsistencies in nearly every claim. For example, Meghan's assertion that she knew virtually nothing about the Royal Family has been quite comprehensively debunked, mainly using the book Finding Freedom (ironically, a work that is extremely favourable to the Sussexes). In one of their articles, The Daily Mail has also shown how Oprah Winfrey took supposedly "racist" headlines completely out of context, and that most stories were actually condemning racism. (Why would Ms Winfrey do such a thing unless she is complicit with Meghan Markle in promoting incendiary but ultimately false accusations of racism against the British media?)

    In another interesting development, controversial ITV presenter Piers Morgan has left the Good Morning Britain show after making his feelings about the interview known in no uncertain terms. He said that he did not believe a word Meghan Markle said (and after leaving the show, has stated that he still doesn't). In a tense exchange with weather presenter Alex Beresford, he walked out of the studio for a short period of time. He did return, but that was to be his final appearance on the show. More than 40,000 people have complained to the British broadcasting watchdog Ofcom about him. Mr Morgan is certainly an abrasive character, and can polarise opinion. I don't know all his views, but I know there are some issues I don't agree with him about. He is also very plainly spoken to the point of being rude at times. With some justification, he could be termed a railer. From a spiritual standpoint, he is lost and needs Christ. In this case however, most of the people offended with him are the ones who uncritically believe the claims made by Harry and Meghan. At least he has made a bold stand for what he believes - a good lesson for Christians, in a way. (In terms of his boldness and courage of his convictions, that is - don't model yourselves on his manner!)

    A concluding thought (for now): when Naboth was falsely accused and stoned to death at Jezebel's behest so that her husband Ahab could get Naboth's vineyard (read 1 Kings 21:7-13 if you haven't already done so), Jezebel instructed the two false accusers she hired to accuse him of blaspheming God and the king. Why those accusations, specifically? Because in that culture and at that time, such accusations were about the most incendiary that could be made against a person. (Also, they carried the death penalty, and Jezebel was out to kill Naboth "legally".) So they were calculated to stir up the people's rage, and those two wicked men did their job well. Without any kind of trial or attempt to investigate further, Naboth was stoned to death. All it took was someone JUST SAYING THE WORDS - once that was done, nobody was interested in proof. Now in Western society today, about the worst thing you can accuse someone of is racism. And in making their accusations of racism against the Royal Family, I believe Harry and Meghan have been just as calculating as evil Queen Jezebel was. They just had to SAY THE WORD "racism", and countless people lost their minds. And just as Naboth was stoned to death on the basis of false accusations that were deliberately calculated to stir up popular anger, a great many people have been quite happy to throw verbal "stones" at the Royal Family over allegations that scratch itching ears, but have little if any real substance.

 

UPDATE 3 (13/3/21): The fallout from the interview carries on. The Daily Mail has published this article in which they very thoroughly document the many inconsistencies and inaccuracies of Harry and Meghan's claims. (It is well worth reading to learn just how deceptive and manipulative that interview was.) They also show how many headlines depicted during the interview, which purported to prove that the British media's coverage of Meghan Markle was racist, were in fact doctored and extremely misleading. For example, one headline, which related to an offensive remark about Meghan made by the model lover of the then UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Henry Bolton, was chopped to make it appear as though the paper itself was making a racial slur against Meghan Markle. In other words, the headline was taken out of context to make it appear to mean something entirely different. (This is similar to how false teachers operate, whereby they take Scriptures out of context to justify their false doctrines.) The Daily Mail quite rightly asks, "will CBS and Oprah now investigate the true story"? Oprah Winfrey's company, Harpo Productions, has issued a statement that does not address a single one of the points made in The Daily Mail's article. Instead it just lamely says that Harry and Meghan "shared their personal story" and adds, "We stand by the broadcast in its entirety". So while they don't admit any wrongdoing, they do not deny it either. The statement pretty much amounts to a gesture of dismissive contempt towards The Daily Mail, and it makes me wonder: aside from Harry and Meghan, just what agenda was Oprah herself pursuing with that interview? Particularly with regard to race relations in both the US and UK? Why show those headlines in the way that she did? Either she was extremely sloppy with how she put them together, or was deliberately misleading her viewers. If the latter, what exactly was she trying to achieve with that?

As a postscript to what I said about Piers Morgan in a previous update, it transpires that Meghan Markle herself laid an official complaint with Dame Carolyn Walls, the CEO of ITV. It is notable that Dame Carolyn is a former editor of The Guardian, a left-leaning UK newspaper. In other words, it appears that Meghan had a direct influence on Mr Morgan's departure from Good Morning Britain. 

 

UPDATE 4 (15/3/21): There has been a most fascinating article written in The Daily Mail by Douglas Murray (it's well worth a look - read it here). I don't believe this man is a Christian, but he nonetheless makes some extremely interesting observations about truth and its importance in a civilised society. A particularly telling observation he makes is this: "We live in an age, whipped along by social media, where the concept of ‘the truth’ has disappeared". He also comments, "Instead of ‘the truth’, we have that wonderful Oprah-ism: ‘Your truth.’"

This sounds uncannily like something the prophet Isaiah noted about the society of his day:

    "And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment." (Isaiah 59:14-15)

    Another telling reference Mr Murray makes is to what he calls a "great mass derangement". I agree that a collective madness seems to be taking over many sections of society. However, the Bible also has something to say about that:

    "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

    "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness". (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) 

    Now, that passage in 2 Timothy is talking about people no longer wishing to endure sound Biblical doctrine (God's Word is truth - John 17:17), but we seem to now be in an age where people no longer care for any form of objective truth. Certainly, a great many people, including some in more liberal sections of the media, have preferred the fables spun by Harry and Meghan to any actual truth. The verse in 2 Thessalonians refers in particular to the delusion that will make people follow the Antichrist in the final tribulation, but with the way so many people prefer whatever "truth" scratches their itching ears, it is possible that the strong delusion Paul referred to is taking shape already.

    Another great article, also in The Daily Mail, is this one by Candace Owens. Here is a black woman who does not agree with Meghan Markle's claims about racism. (And she is far from being the only black woman who takes issue with Meghan's allegations.) She notes that as a conservative commentator, she has often been attacked in the British press, sometimes quite viciously, yet does not view any of these attacks as having a racist motive. I don't follow Candace Owens that closely, but this article is certainly a breath of fresh air and common sense.

 

UPDATE 5 (18/3/21): Prince Charles and Prince William have attempted to reach out to Harry and Meghan. (Well, they spoke to Harry, at least.) The Sussexes then decided to leak details of these private conversations to Gayle King, who is a close friend of both Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle, and who proceeded to relay some of the details of the conversations on CBS This Morning. This disclosure of private conversations sounds an awful lot like what the Bible would call "talebearing". A good dictionary definition of talebearing can be found in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary - see it here. Proverbs 11:13 notes, "A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter". Proverbs 20:19 adds, "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips". And Proverbs 26:20 speaks volumes to this whole situation: "Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth".

    But with Meghan telling tales to Gayle King, and the latter sharing those same tales with her viewing audience, the fire of the row between the Sussexes and the Royal Family continues to blaze. It is now a matter of public record, so I might as well go over what she said here. The first main point she noted is that the conversations were "not productive". In other words, they didn't go well. Ms King then said, "No one in the Royal Family has talked to Meghan yet at this particular time". After what she said about them to an audience of millions, I don't altogether blame them. (It's interesting that both Charles and William preferred to speak to Harry on his own, rather than Harry and Meghan together.) Ms King also made it clear that Harry and Meghan are very unhappy about the press coverage they have been getting in the wake of their interview. She accused Buckingham Palace of believing "false stories" that are "very disparaging against Meghan still" (certainly, there has been plenty of negative press about her, especially in the British tabloids, although I think much of it has been warranted and I have not seen any blatant falsehoods, which is not to say that everything written about her in the past week is necessarily 100% accurate). According to Ms King, Harry and Meghan want the Royal Family to "tell the Press to stop with the unfair, inaccurate, false stories that definitely have a racial slant". Unsurprisingly, she does not provide any examples. I have read quite a few articles about the Oprah interview now, and while some could perhaps be termed "disparaging", I have not seen a single instance of overt racism or any kind of so-called "racial slant". But Harry and Meghan continue to play the "race card" as a diversion or deflection tactic. Keep people focussed on the race issue, and they will (the Sussexes desperately hope) forget about the scrutiny of the Sussexes' behaviour and the veracity of their explosive allegations.

    Ominously, Ms King went on to remark, "Meghan has documents to back up everything that she said on Oprah's interview. Everything". If Meghan has these documents, I wonder why she didn't produce any of them during the interview? The only "evidence" we did see during that interview was the doctored headlines! Since then, one e-mail apparently written by Meghan about the whole incident around the Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton) making her cry has come to light. It was quoted by her biographer and staunch ally, Omid Scobie. However, the original e-mail, which would have included a date stamp, was not shown. It was just cited second-hand by Mr Scobie. How can we know, without seeing the original e-mail, that it wasn't made up after the interview? On the other hand, there is no definite proof that it's false either.

    One last thing that Gayle King did was provide a character reference for Meghan, in what was a clear dig at those making bullying allegations against her: "Anyone who's worked with her will tell you exactly who she is, she's really a sweet caring person". The word "anyone" is misleading, because the people making bullying allegations against Meghan Markle have worked with her (or at least, for her) and clearly have a very different impression of her. I don't doubt though that Ms Markle can act sweet and caring around people she chooses to (including Ms King). But that does not rule out the possibility of her having bullied some of her former staff. Most bullies and abusers are what the Bible would call "subtil" or "subtil of heart". In other words, they're very cunning. They know how to put on a "nice act" with some people. What this achieves is that when a person they have abused or bullied tries to expose them, all the people who have only seen the "nice act" then defend the abuser. The "nice act" is so convincing that they think it's impossible this person could behave in any other way. "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14) Just as Satan can transform himself to appear as a benevolent angel of light, bullies and abusers (who are among his children in this world) can hide their true nature - at least, with some people. They can appear angelic to some, yet behave like devils to others. (I have a good deal of personal experience with bullies and abusers, so I have seen them do exactly this.) The Bible has a LOT to say about people who can appear to be one thing, but are something else entirely. (That is mainly to do with false converts and false teachers, but there are also verses that apply to fake people generally, e.g. "They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak." - Psalm 12:2) So just because someone might appear "sweet and caring" to you, it doesn't mean they behave the same way to everyone. Gayle King is doubtless "speaking her truth" in terms of her personal experience with Meghan Markle, but that does not amount to the WHOLE truth of what others have (allegedly) experienced.

UPDATE 6 (22/3/21): As I shared a bit further up, the wedding certificate for Harry and Meghan has now been released by the General Register Office in the UK, and it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that their real wedding did indeed take place on 19 May 2018 (in other words, the big televised wedding was in fact the genuine article). So why claim they got married in secret three days earlier? It is also being reported, mainly by UK tabloid The Daily Express, that an additional 90 minutes of footage from the Oprah interview exists and may be aired at some stage. However, in a poll conducted by the Express, 85% of people in the UK don't want to see it. Even Good Morning Britain host Susanna Reid, who has previously been a pretty staunch "defence" to Piers Morgan's "prosecution" when it comes to the Sussexes, has been troubled by Gayle King's disclosures. As she correctly observed in a clip you can see and read about here, Meghan recently successfully sued The Mail on Sunday for publishing private correspondence between her and her father Thomas Markle, yet now Gayle King has revealed details of private conversations with Meghan's blessing. Strange behaviour indeed from someone supposedly so concerned with privacy!

    If the extra 90 minutes of footage are indeed broadcast and there are more incendiary allegations to chew over, I'll write a new post about it rather than keep adding to this one.

UPDATE 7 (25/3/21): For the first time, the US mainstream media have run a story about the many inconsistencies in the Harry and Meghan interview. (Until now, only conservative outlets like FOX News and The New York Post had challenged their narrative in the US.) CNN, one of the most left-wing channels in America, ran a report by their UK correspondent, Max Foster, exposing several of the biggest holes in the Sussexs' story. I managed to see this. It didn't cover every inconsistency (there are so many after all!), but quite thoroughly picked apart the ones that Mr Foster did choose to highlight. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a link to this item as CNN now appear to have removed it from their Web site. (As I write this, there is still a link to the item in the Google search engine, but if you click on it, you end up at the main CNN Edition site.) It is a shame, but not entirely surprising, that CNN would quickly remove this story. I wonder if Meghan complained to them like she complained about Piers Morgan? (That is only speculation on my part, but nothing would surprise me.) However, the fact that CNN would choose to run the story at all, even if only "for a limited time", shows that the false narrative spun in that interview is starting to seriously fall apart.

UPDATE 8 (3/4/21): This is a follow-up to Update 3 above. The Press Gazette is reporting that the legal representative of Harpo Productions has informed Associated Newspapers that Oprah Winfrey's production company has no intention of amending its misleading montage of headlines. Charles L. Babcock of Jackson Walker LLP wrote a letter to Associated Newspapers on 30 March in which he said that "the issue of racism in the British tabloid press is a matter of public concern and that the Prince and Duchess are legally entitled to their opinions on that subject and their respective opinions were fairly presented in the published interview". (My emphasis) I would agree with Mr Babcock that the OPINIONS of Harry and Meghan were fairly presented, but opinions are not the same as truth or facts. Frankly, he is skirting around the real issue. However, he then does address the question of misleading headlines more directly: "[The] portrayal of the Daily Mail in the montage you complain about was either literally true [...] or substantially true that is, it was not materially false. Harpo will not change the montage." Now this, particularly the part I have underlined, is some seriously weaselly wording. Something that is substantially true is not completely true. And if it is not completely true (or "literally true", as Mr Babcock put it), that means it contains falsehoods. It doesn't have to be completely false (or "materially false", to use Mr Babcock's expression) to be deceptive. Pretty well every false teaching in the world has a certain amount of truth in it. (That is partly what makes these teachings so dangerous - the verifiable truth in them makes them seem credible to the undiscerning.) The Bible tells us that "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9). For something to be true, it must be true all the way through. If it contains any error at all, then it has "leaven" (an older word for yeast), and that leaven will make the whole thing blow up. Now that most specifically applies to doctrine (when you hear a doctrine, be on the lookout for leaven - the true stuff is fine, it's the leaven you have to watch out for). But in a wider sense, it can apply to anything that purports to be true and factual. And these headlines were not presented in a completely truthful manner. There is "leaven" in the way some of them were clearly doctored and also in the way they were implied to be all from the British press when in fact a good number were from the US or Australian press.

   Associated Newspapers issued a strong and forceful response on 1 April. Their legal director Elizabeth Hartley wrote, "I have stressed in each of my letters that this is an issue of accuracy and integrity. It is a betrayal of viewers’ trust to broadcast faked images. It is not our concern, but it also does nothing for your client’s reputation and the credibility of its programme content." She is quite correct, especially in the parts that I have underlined. Ms Hartley goes on to say: "Your client’s unwillingness to remove these false headlines and attributions, and it appears that there were more, speaks volumes. There is never any justification for falsifying content and, if their views were correct, it would not be necessary to deploy such underhand tactics." Once again, she hits the nail on the head. For its part, Viacom CBS has refused to respond to Associated Newspapers, The Daily Mail or the Press Gazette. Piers Morgan recently labelled CBS the "Cowardly Broadcasting Service", and their ongoing silence on this matter does indeed smack of cowardice (or it might just be dismissive contempt, which is just about as bad). However, if CBS did say anything, it would probably be with the same vague and vapid language that we have seen from Harpo Productions.

    It is fitting in a way that Oprah Winfrey has what could be called a "cult following". Because through the interview that she did with Harry and Meghan, and now the tricky wording of her lawyers' letters, she is behaving rather like a manipulative cult leader might. It is in the way that she is using deceptive tactics (like those headlines) to mislead people and provoke a certain reaction in them, then later using evasive language to dodge accountability. This is not how honest and upright people operate. But it is how liars and deceivers (religious or otherwise) conduct themselves all the time. Speaking of Oprah Winfrey as a kind of cult leader, there is a fascinating old article in The New York Times, entitled The Church of Oprah Winfrey and a Theology of Suffering, which is worth checking out. Particularly telling is the very last sentence of the article: "She rarely asked tough questions, and because she believed, millions of others did, too." This is precisely the tactic (along with the dodgy headlines) that has been used to give credence to Harry and Meghan's wild claims.

UPDATE 9 (13/4/21): It has been a while since I last updated this post, but the recent death of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has resulted in some fresh developments worth noting. For the first time in over a year, Prince Harry has returned to the UK in order to attend his grandfather's funeral. But Meghan is not accompanying him due to her pregnancy being quite well advanced. This means that Harry's isolation from his friends and family will be temporarily reprieved. I hope the Royal Family can make good use of that, although their main focus will naturally be on farewelling Philip. Assorted members of the Royal Family have been releasing formal statements in tribute to Prince Philip. Today it was the turn of Princes William and Harry to do the same. There was a time when the brothers would have released a statement jointly, but such is the wedge between them at present that they gave their own separate tributes. William's one had the sort of gravitas that might be expected of a future king, but concluded with the following rather pointed paragraph: "Catherine and I will continue to do what he would have wanted and will support the Queen in the years ahead. I will miss my Grandpa, but I know he would want us to get on with the job". This is seen by many commentators as being William's way of rejecting Harry's claim that he is "trapped" within the British monarchy. Meanwhile, Harry's own tribute had a rather more light-hearted touch. He described Prince Philip as  "my grandpa: master of the barbecue, legend of banter and cheeky right 'til the end". This statement by Harry was a significant improvement on the original statement issued jointly by the Sussexes on the day of Prince Philip's passing, in which they said little other than "Thank you for your service ... You will be greatly missed". (Ellipsis theirs.) The coldness of this drew widespread criticism.

    While Meghan has not released any official statements, she did get a friend (or possibly friends) to "leak" something to the media on her behalf. From the way this friend (or friends) spoke, it is clear Meghan had told her (or maybe him or even them) what to say and fully authorised the "leak". Various newspapers have reported this "leak", in which the "close friend" said that Meghan decided not to travel to the UK because she didn't want to be the centre of attention, that she left it up to Harry whether to go or not and that she was willing to forgive the Royal Family and move forward. If Meghan doesn't want to be the centre of attention, why get a friend to talk to the media? And what happened to the earlier narrative about her being given medical advice not to travel because of her pregnancy? Saying that she let Harry decide whether or not to go implies that she doesn't let him decide things at other times. As for her being willing to forgive the Royal Family, that elicted an Oprah-like "WHAT?" from me I must admit. She wants to "forgive" them over her false allegations? What she's really saying is that she wants them to agree with the lies she told about them. It is frankly beyond dispute (because the evidence is very clear) that the vast majority of claims that Meghan made to Oprah Winfrey were lies, or at best, errors based on misperceptions or misunderstandings. Other claims can simply never be proven (or outright disproved). It is also telling that not one shred of evidence has been produced to prove any of Meghan's allegations, apart from one e-mail of questionable origin.

    Piers Morgan has done a few interviews recently in which he claimed there were 17 lies or exaggerations in the Oprah Winfrey special, and that sounds about right to me. I have decided not to comment on Mr Morgan's interviews otherwise. For one thing, he did not really reveal anything all that new in them. For another, he is a railer, although most of what he said in those interviews was quite true and correct. (One incorrect claim he did make was to say he had "universal support" in the UK. That would mean 100% of people in Britain agreed with him, and while the majority might concur with his opinions of the Oprah interview, there are plenty of other Britons who do not.) The Bible warns, "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." (Proverbs 22:24-25) Now of course, I will never be friends with Mr Morgan on a personal level (it's highly unlikely we will ever even meet), but I don't want to respect his person, as that might cause me to be too partial towards him or worse, copy his manner. While I do agree with Mr Morgan's opinion that Harry and Meghan said many things in the Oprah interview that were simply not true and that those who disagree with their claims should be allowed to express their views without being branded racists, I do not consider him a good role model. He is not a man whose ways I want to learn, especially with regard to his abrasive manner and often prideful disposition. And as I said in an earlier update, Mr Morgan is a lost man who needs to repent of his sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Just as Harry and Meghan are lost and need to repent.

    There are two couples in the Bible who Harry and Meghan remind me a lot of. The first couple is Samson and Delilah, whose story is recorded in Judges 16:4-21. Much like Meghan, Delilah was greedy for money. The Philistine lords offered her a substantial sum of money (1,100 pieces of silver from each of them) to betray Samson to them. In those days, that would have been an absolute fortune which probably set Delilah up for life. She made three betrayal attempts that were unsuccessful because Samson lied to her. I have often wondered why Samson didn't just leave Delilah after that first attempt to betray him. Instead of continuing to lie to her (which was sin on his part), leaving would have been a far more sensible thing to do. Perhaps he had a bit too much confidence in his own strength or cleverness. Or it may have been that his infatuation with Delilah was such that he didn't want to leave. He preferred to enjoy the pleasures that she offered him rather than get away from the threat that she posed, even when that threat was apparent. And just as Samson was well and truly under Delilah's spell, Harry is every bit as much under Meghan's.

    Delilah then resorted to a favourite weapon of the wicked: emotional manipulation. We read in verse 16, "And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death". As so often happens, this tactic had the desired effect. Samson told Delilah the truth at the fourth time of the asking, she summoned the Philistine lords again, Samson's hair was cut and he lost his strength, ending up in the hands of the Philistines. And so Samson paid a heavy price for staying with Delilah when it was clear from very early on what kind of woman she was. Likewise, I believe that Meghan has used similarly manipulative tactics to make Harry move to the US with her, thereby isolating him entirely from his friends and family (some of whom had figured Meghan out). This is a common tactic of extremely controlling people, both male and female. The more isolated their victim is, the more control they can exert over them. But like Samson with Delilah, Harry is so blinded by love that he cannot see the danger that is right in front of him. He has let Meghan persuade him that she is his "rescuer". He made it clear in the Oprah interview that he "didn't realise" how "trapped" he was until Meghan "showed" him. In other words, he has totally bought into her narrative. I fear that just as Samson's relationship with Delilah ended in catastrophe for him, the same will happen to Harry. Obviously, Harry's catastrophe, if and when it happens, will be rather different to Samson's, but there is every chance of it resulting in tragedy for Harry as it ultimately did for Samson. I fervently hope not though.

    Now on to the second Biblical couple that remind me of Harry and Meghan. And that couple is Ahab and Jezebel. They reigned for a time as king and queen of Israel, and could be called, among other things, "renegade royals". Ahab was a rather petulant individual, sulking when he didn't get his way, and Harry can also be petulant. But in addition to that, Ahab was controlled by his wife. "But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up." (1 Kings 21:25) In like fashion, I believe that Harry was stirred up by Meghan to join in with her extraordinary allegations in the Oprah interview. This is not to say that Harry is innocent in this matter, any more than Ahab was innocent of the wickedness he did, but I think that Ahab would probably not have done quite as much evil had it not been for Jezebel's stirring, and I also reckon that Harry would never have said the things he did to Oprah if it hadn't been for Meghan. I have previously alluded to another way in which Meghan closely resembles Jezebel: she knows exactly what buttons to push to achieve her aims. When you consider how Jezebel set up Naboth, it is clear she knew how to create a convincing false narrative, and Meghan (who actually told Oprah that "life is about story-telling"!) has a strikingly similar talent.

UPDATE 10 (26/4/21): There is a growing trend among Meghan Markle's detractors on social media to refer to her as "Harry's wife". As with the refusal by Jacinda Ardern to name the Christchurch terrorist, it takes some notoriety away from her. Two people in the Bible who are never named are Potiphar's wife and the rich man who went to Hell while the poor beggar Lazarus, who begged for crumbs under the rich man's table, went to Heaven and also was named, thereby being given some fame in eternity that he did not enjoy while alive. So there is some Biblical precedent for it. 21 years ago, I had an encounter with a psychotic and predatory woman who had the exact same spirit as Potiphar's wife. After I escaped her clutches, I decided to no longer write or speak her name, and to this day, I have not written or uttered it. In my view, the Duchess of Sussex is like that aforementioned woman, Potiphar's wife, Delilah and Jezebel rolled into one, so I am quite on board with referring to her as Harry's wife, and will call her that henceforth in this and any future updates.

    For quite a while, the detractors of Harry's wife have speculated that Archie is not her real child, and there has been growing chatter that her second pregnancy is also fake. In the last week or so, especially since the official mourning period for Prince Philip ended, the speculation has reached fever pitch. A variety of photos showing significant discrepancies in the size of her baby bump (taken at similar times), and peculiar things about its shape, have been cited as evidence. Then too, there have been other strange things, such as the odd behaviour of Harry and his wife when Archie was born. (For example, they announced the birth with an Instagram post that had words and no pictures, and later made another post that showed a baby's bare foot, but no faces, and then when Archie made his first public appearance, Harry refused to show the baby to the media, except for a very small part of his head.) Now on YouTube, an explosive video has been released by a lady with the user name, "Bookworm 2". This lady claims to have information from three separate sources that Archie was mothered by a surrogate. If true, it means that Harry's wife was never pregnant. Biologically, Archie may well be Harry's, but the mother is not Harry's wife. (His middle name is Harrison, an obvious play on "Harry's son".) The same sources say that the Duchess of Sussex is not pregnant now either. Oprah Winfrey purportedly found this out and wanted to discuss it during THAT interview, but Harry's wife refused. However, she reportedly has a diabolical plan, which will be to allege that the Royal Family forced her to use a surrogate because they didn't want a black baby in the Royal bloodline. The truth is that they did nothing of the kind, but she is supposedly going to claim it, perhaps in a new interview with Oprah. This will be her way of justifying her fake pregnancies. Apparently, this is why she made the claim about the Royals having concerns about Archie's skin colour. It is, supposedly, a set-up for this next sensational reveal.

    Another allegation by "Bookworm 2" is that Harry's wife is blackmailing the Royal Family to remain silent about the surrogacy of Archie. The Duchess knows that many people won't believe her claim of being forced to use a surrogate if she makes it public, but she also knows that enough people will believe her to cause a huge public uproar. Even if her claim is categorically debunked, enormous damage could be done to the Royal Family in the meantime that may, to use one of Harry's wife's favourite buzzwords, be almost unsurvivable. So "Bookworm 2" is openly calling for Prince Charles or Prince William to go public with this story - get the real truth out there before Harry's wife can release her version of events. 

    As yet, the mainstream media has not picked up on this video. At this stage, it has not attracted a huge amount of comment on Twitter either. It may be that "Bookworm 2" has got this wrong. Even if she is right, it is important to stress that this is unverified information right now. I personally think it is plausible. "Bookworm 2" has been very specific with what she has said, although she has taken care to protect her sources. Usually, when someone wants to be truthful, they tend to be specific and back up what they say with evidence. When they're lying, they're usually vague and don't provide evidence (there has still been next to no evidence for the claims on the Oprah interview, but plenty of evidence debunking most of them). So I think "Bookworm 2" sincerely believes that what she is saying is true. But it is still possible that she is mistaken. However, if what she says is indeed true, that is incredibly wicked on the part of Harry's wife. In fact, it's so evil that it takes my breath away. It shows that Harry's wife will stop at absolutely nothing to get what she wants, no matter who is hurt in the process. Sounds a lot like Jezebel, who was the most wicked and ruthless woman in the Bible. But even Jezebel might not have thought of a plan like this! Again though, this is speculation and it could turn out to be incorrect. I actually hope it is wrong. I sincerely want it to be wrong. Because if true, it's too awful to contemplate. But as the saying goes, watch this space.

UPDATE 11 (11/5/21): I am currently reading Meghan and Harry: the Real Story by Lady Colin Campbell. To date, I have read eight chapters. I'm reading the book on the same Kindle Paperwhite I used to read Daughter of Gloriavale by Lilia Tarawa. With that book, I ended up doing a running commentary. While that was an interesting exercise, it was also quite time-consuming, so I decided not to repeat it with this book. However, I would like to comment a little bit on the eighth chapter, since it deals with the first pregnancy of Prince Harry's wife and the speculation among her growing number of detractors that she was faking the pregnancy and using a surrogate. It thus follows on from what I was talking about in my last update to this post. Anyway, the reasons for the speculation are what I was referring to in the previous update: unusual discrepancies in the size of the baby bump, behaviour that was odd for a woman supposedly heavily pregnant and all the secrecy surrounding the birth itself. Lady Campbell notes that the media were well aware of the rumours flying around the Internet, but chose not to report on them. The reason being the damage they would do to the monarchy. (This would also explain why they completely ignored the video by "Bookworm 2" that I discussed in the previous update.) Also, Buckingham Palace did its part to shut down some of the more extreme conspiracy theorists. However, as Lady Campbell points out in this chapter, Harry and his wife could have done much to quell the speculation of her pregnancy being phony. If the pregnancy was real, they could have quite easily taken steps to prove it and thereby silence all but the most hard-core and die-hard conspiracy theorists (who will cling to their theories no matter how much they may fly in the face of evidence or logic). Instead of that however, they became ever more secretive as the due date approached, suddenly getting very precious about "privacy". An interesting revelation by Lady Campbell (although it's also a matter of public record) is that during the first public presentation of Archie, when he was supposedly two days old, Prince Harry was asked who he took after. Harry replied something like, "He's changed a lot in two weeks so it's hard to tell" (that's not verbatim, just the gist). Perhaps he was tired and not thinking straight (which any new father probably would be), or maybe he made an inadvertent slip about when Archie was actually born. In any case, he made some rather clumsy attempts to cover for his error.

    Now, this book by Lady Campbell was published in June 2020. So it came out after Megxit, but before the Oprah interview. And it contains a very interesting possible reason for Archie lacking a title. As we know, Harry's wife has tried to claim that it was because of concerns about the colour of his skin. However, British law states that a child born to a surrogate is considered illegitimate. Even if the surrogate uses the prospective mother's fertilised egg, the child is still considered born out of wedlock and therefore illegitimate. This is very significant when it comes to the line of Royal succession. British law also stipulates that an illegitimate child cannot inherit any Royal or aristocratic titles. Now if Archie was legitimate (born from the womb of Harry's lawfully wedded wife), then he should have automatically been made the Earl of Dumbarton upon birth. Yet he was simply "Master Archie". However, the media have carefully refrained from pointing this out. Lady Campbell herself does not definitively state that Archie is illegitimate. The main point she was getting across in this chapter is that Harry and his wife contributed a great deal to the speculation about the pregnancy due to the way they behaved. And ongoing odd behaviour over the second pregnancy (which had not yet begun when this book was published) continues to fuel the rumours.

    Anyway, after reading this, I have formulated two theories about what might be going on. The theories concern the real reason Harry's wife made the claim about Archie not getting a title because of his skin colour (which has been proven false). Remember, what I am about to say is conjecture. The first theory assumes that she used a surrogate for Archie and is also using one for her second child. If that is in fact the case, then Archie is illegitimate and not seventh in line to the British throne. Scandal of the century if true. Harry and his wife would not want this to become public knowledge. So they (or maybe just the wife) came up with the story that Archie was being denied a title because of his skin colour. Play the race card, and questions over Archie's legitimacy fade into the background. Now the debate is no longer over whether Archie is legitimate or not, but over whether the Royal Family is racist. Job done in terms of distraction and deflection from the real issue. However, in terms of those who are seriously questioning the pregnancies, it was a bit of a fail. The rumours haven't stopped by any means. But the tactic probably did work in terms of preventing the public at large from asking too many of the wrong questions. Incidentally, if the Archie pregnancy was fake, and this one is too, then the miscarriage last July was likely also a work of fiction. Why lie about that? Easy - to get public sympathy. Also, people feeling sorry for Harry's wife over her supposed miscarriage would be less inclined to speculate negatively about her on other matters. And claims of "mental health struggles" and "suicidal feelings" in a certain interview could be used for the exact same purposes ...

    My second theory assumes that Harry's wife was in fact genuinely pregnant with Archie, is pregnant now as well and that therefore Archie is legitimate. (That would also most probably mean that the miscarriage really happened.) If this assumption is correct, then all the weird behaviour may simply have been to get people talking. Because if you're being talked about, even in a negative way, you're the centre of attention. It is becoming very clear from Lady Campbell's book that Harry's wife has an ego roughly the size of Mt. Everest (being very spoiled as a child contributed to that) and therefore has a constant desire for adoration and attention. (A good example of someone in the Bible with a gigantic ego is Haman in the Book of Esther. Another one I can think of is the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in the Book of Daniel, whose ego was about as big as the gold statue he had built.) So in some twisted way, she may have considered that fuelling speculation about her pregnancy was a good way to keep herself uppermost in people's minds. But if the second theory is true, why then would she say what she did about Archie's titles? One charitable interpretation is that she either didn't know or misunderstood the laws around succession and titles. (Harry should have set her straight on that score.) A less charitable slant is that she wanted to cast a malicious smear on the Royal Family as a spiteful act for not being allowed to conduct herself as she pleased while being part of "The Firm". (The book gives numerous examples of her flatly refusing to follow standard Royal protocols and making all kinds of crazy demands.) I might add that this would not be the first time Harry's wife has lied about being the victim of racism. Lady Colin Campbell documents some other examples in earlier chapters - for example, a supposed college roommate who made fun of Harry's wife over the divorce of her mixed-race parents. There was just one problem: this roommate never existed. Some former friends of Harry's wife say in the book that she tends to make up narratives to suit her purposes. Another example of that was her claim, while touring Fiji, that she paid her own way through college with much heroic struggle, when in fact her father paid her tuition fees.

    Frankly, I have an open mind about whether Archie was born from Harry's wife or a surrogate. There does not seem to be much firm proof either way (again, Prince Harry and his wife really should clear that up once and for all). However, if Archie was born from a surrogate, it does rather beg the question of what the rest of the Royal Family knows. Regardless of how accurate "Bookworm 2's" speculation might be, if a surrogate was used for Archie and it becomes public knowledge someday, it's going to be very damaging to the Royal Family if it transpires they knew about this and colluded in the cover-up, irrespective of any supposed "racist" motives they might have had. Whatever they know, or don't know, you can sure they are well aware of the rumours. If a surrogate gave birth to Archie, and they know this, Harry's wife might be holding it over them. Which could explain why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex still have their titles, despite Harry's wife recently releasing a children's book (with the inspirational title, The Bench) that had her title prominently featured on the cover. Royal protocol dictates that Royal status should not be used for commercial gain. But then, Harry's wife has ignored just about every other protocol. This is a pretty major one though.

    Anyway, to conclude this update, it is now just over two months since that interview aired. If Harry's wife thought that the interview would make people "see the light" about the Royal Family (as she has painted them), she must be bitterly disappointed. While there was an initial outburst of public anger towards the Royals, this quickly died down, especially as most claims in the interview were conclusively debunked. In New Zealand for example, media chatter about us becoming a republic faded out after only a few days. In the UK, the popularity of Harry and his wife has nosedived spectacularly (which I'm sure is the absolute opposite of what she expected). These days, the only Royal Family member more disliked by the British public than them is Prince Andrew. Prince William and Catherine (the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge) on the other hand seem to be going from strength to strength, especially after Prince Philip's funeral. And the Queen remains about as popular and loved in Britain as she's ever been. If the wife of Prince Harry hoped that the interview might cause the Royal Family to grovel to her, she has again been thoroughly disappointed. Ultimately, while the Royal Family suffered some short-term harm from the interview, it appears to have done far more damage to Harry and his wife, and really didn't do much for Oprah Winfrey's reputation either. God has His ways of humbling the proud. That said, the interview was still highly destructive, in that people lost jobs, friends and family were divided and so on.

    One thing is for sure: this saga is far from over. However, I don't want to comment on every move made or every word uttered by Prince Harry and his wife, which is one reason why I'm only updating this post fairly sporadically. For the most part, I really only want to talk about things that relate back to the interview, or perhaps things where some Biblical application can be made. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time (including working on other posts) than dwelling unduly on the Sussexes' activities. For people who claim to want privacy though, they do have a most uncanny knack of thrusting themselves into the public spotlight on a remarkably regular basis (such as with their recent appearance at the Vax Live concert in Los Angeles - well, Prince Harry was there, but his wife made a pre-recorded video). So I won't be updating this post again in a hurry, unless of course there is some particularly significant development to report on.

UPDATE 12 (18/5/21): It is almost the third wedding anniversary of Prince Harry and his wife (although if you still believe what they told Oprah Winfrey, it was already two days ago - heh). An interesting new trend has emerged this month - the couple appearing in public separately rather than together. Earlier this month, Harry made a solo appearance at the Vax Live concert in Los Angeles, while his wife delivered a solo address by video at the same event (sitting on a bench, as you do when you've written a book called The Bench). Now a few days ago, Harry has given a solo interview with one Dax Shephard on the latter's podcast, Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard. (I had never heard of this podcast or Mr Shepard before, I must admit.) I wonder whether this new trend could be leading up to a separation in the way that their very long holiday in Canada was leading up to Megxit? Of course, Harry's wife is (presumably) heavily pregnant, so it could also have to do with that.

    Anyway, this interview with Dax Shepard lasted about 90 minutes. I have not listened to it and don't intend to either. However, I have heard one or two excerpts from it. I have also read a little bit about it. Unlike the Oprah interview, I am not going to break this one down in exhaustive detail. Instead, I'll just mention a couple of key highlights. Perhaps the most significant thing to emerge from the interview is that Harry accused his father, Prince Charles, of causing him pain that Charles himself had been caused by his own parents (Prince Philip and Elizabeth II). He also introduced a new phrase into the English language: "genetic pain". This simultaneous attack on his father and grandparents upset many in the UK, who feel that he is pretty much attacking the British monarchy outright. But Harry also managed to offend many in his adopted homeland when he described the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly) as "bonkers". Ironically, the First Amendment gives Prince Harry the freedom to insult it! But what also irks some Americans is that the US Constitution was established after the War of Independence, the aim of which was to free America from the constraints of ... the British monarchy. So it's not exactly great diplomacy for a member of the British Royal Family to insult the United States Constitution (and specifically, its First Amendment, which grants many freedoms that Americans hold dear).

    Many of Harry's critics are pointing out that he should stop blaming his family for his problems and start taking responsibility for his own actions. They have a point - we are all ultimately responsible before God, and accountable to Him, for our own sins. However, the sins of our parents and grandparents can still have an effect on our lives. There are several verses in the Bible that talk about how one person's sins can carry down through generations. Here is one: "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Numbers 14:18) A couple of simple examples include Abraham pretending that his wife was his sister to avoid being killed for her, and then Isaac telling the same lie about his wife Rebekah. Or Solomon being a polygamist like his father David (only much worse). However, there are also people in the Bible (such as some of the more righteous kings of Israel and Judah) who did not emulate the wickedness of their fathers or grandfathers. Nevertheless, if someone commits a particular sin, there is a greatly increased chance that some or all of their children will commit the same sin. However, it all comes down to individual character and usually whether a person is saved or not (although as we see in the Bible, even saved people can sometimes emulate their parents' sins). I might add too that depending on the sin committed, children can suffer genuine spiritual harm, especially when there is abuse, but also in other situations. For example, Harry must have been damaged by the adultery of both his parents. Yet Prince William would have suffered similar damage, and he has managed to rise above it. Losing his mother at a young age unquestionably caused Harry much grief. Yet William experienced that same grief and managed to work through his pain and use it in a positive way in his life. Thus, notwithstanding the damage that was truly done to Harry in his childhood (incidentally, I see nothing wrong with acknowledging such damage as long as you're not blame-shifting), he does need to come to a point where he faces up to the reality that his own choices have dictated his behaviour. His parents' and grandparents' sins are their fault, but Harry's sins are his fault. But right now, he is just about as full of pride as his wife, and so is unable or unwilling to see this.

    Incidentally, I have now finished Meghan and Harry: The Real Story. It was a very insightful read. Lady Colin Campbell shows a good grasp of the viewpoints of both the couple's supporters and their detractors. I won't give an exhaustive review of the book, but I do want to highlight one point she made in particular: growing up, both Harry and his wife were extremely spoiled. Harry was spoiled by his mother, the late Princess Diana, while his wife was spoiled by her father in the main. Neither of them were properly disciplined, but were allowed to get away with anything. Harry's wife in particular was given anything she wanted. This led her to grow up with a sense of entitlement and an unceasing desire to have her own way all the time. For all Harry's lack of discipline, he did actually do quite well in the Army and wasn't quite as entitled as his wife. But she appears to have brought out the worst in him, rather like how Jezebel brought out the worst in Ahab. And just as Ahab was led by Jezebel, so too is Harry led and completely dominated by his wife.

    What is also noteworthy about Harry's wife is that she has an extreme lust for money and fame. (This is brought out very well in Lady Campbell's book.) She can never have enough of either of those things, and this is what motivates her day by day. It is all rooted in her inordinate pride, which was never disciplined out of her when she was young. If Harry and his wife continue in all this unrepentant pride, it is not going to end well for either of them. God eventually judged Ahab and Jezebel, and He will do the same to their equivalents in Montecito if they do not repent and humble themselves before Him. I will close this update with a few Scriptures about bringing up children, the danger of loving money and what God thinks of pride.

    "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15)

    "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." (Proverbs 29:15)

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (1 Timothy 6:10)

    "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Hebrews 13:5)

     "Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer." (Psalm 101:5)

    "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

    "Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." (Proverbs 16:5)

    "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)

    "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:12)

UPDATE 13 (26/5/21): I have been meaning to update this post for a few days, because there have been a couple of significant developments. The first is that an enquiry by the BBC has found that Panorama journalist Martin Bashir acted deceitfully to obtain the historic interview with Princess Diana in 1995. For example, he forged bank statements to give Diana the false impression that people were being paid to spy on her. Prince William and Prince Harry both gave statements in response to these revelations. William did a piece to camera in which he slammed the BBC for its unethical behaviour (not only what Bashir did, but also in how the organisation covered up his actions later) and said that the Panorama interview with Diana should never be allowed to air again. Harry on the other hand issued a written statement in which he took a swipe at the media in general and said that what the BBC had done was merely representative of a much wider problem. He pretty much brought everything back to the "unfair treatment" he thinks he and his wife have suffered.

    Just four hours after William's statement had been broadcast, a new series co-produced by Oprah Winfrey and Prince Harry, entitled The Me You Can't See, dropped on Apple TV+. Or at least, the first episode did. The programme features a variety of celebrities and non-celebrities talking about their mental health issues. It also includes a sit-down interview between Ms Winfrey and the Duke of Sussex (this time however, his wife is nowhere in sight, continuing the theme of her being largely absent from the picture this month). In addition, there is footage of Harry having some sort of weird therapy session in which he crosses his arms and taps himself with his eyes closed. Apparently, what he was doing is called "tapping therapy" or something called EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique). Here is a New Zealand site about it (not recommended other than for informational purposes). The site explains how it works in this way: "We work with the body’s electrical energy system and literally tap into it. Tapping Therapy (EFT) is like an emotional version of acupuncture, but without the needles. It involves tapping with the fingers on various energy/meridian points on the head, upper body and hands, whilst bringing to mind the problem (the psychology part)." (Emphasis mine) This is dangerous stuff, delving into the realms of the occult. For any Christian readers, you should have nothing to do with anything like this. Harry is not a Christian of course, but this is going to spiritually mess him up even more than he already is.

    As in the March interview with Oprah, a number of devastating accusations are made. But whereas it was mostly Harry's wife making the accusations back in March, this time Harry is making them on his own. He accuses the Royal Family of "total neglect" and complains that they wouldn't listen when his wife was allegedly suicidal. He also accuses Charles of treating him the way Prince Philip treated Charles, thereby perpetrating a "cycle" that he wanted to break. One of the more extraordinary (and frankly ludicrous) claims made by Harry is that the paparazzi chasing Princess Diana on the night she died in that Paris car crash were hounding her because she was dating Dodi Al-Fayed, a man who "wasn't white". That is patently false. The media hounded Diana no matter who she was dating (or more accurately, fornicating with), and as often as not, she actively courted them because she loved the attention. Harry then draws a line between this supposedly "racist" motivation by the press for hounding Diana and the purported "racism" directed towards his wife by the same press. Moreover, he asserted that the media would not stop harassing his wife until she died, just like Diana.

    Needless to say, Harry's popularity, which had already nosedived after what took place in March, has dropped even further. It remains intriguing to me the way his wife is continuing to stay out of the spotlight at the moment. It's almost as though she wants him to take all the heat this time. And in The Me You Can't See, he certainly provides his critics with plenty of ammunition!

    However, Harry and his wife still have their supporters, however dwindling their numbers may be. A local example is Verity Johnson, who has written this column about the couple on Stuff. In fact, responding to this article is really my main motivation for this update. The article is a fine example of strawman logic - set up a false "straw man" and attack that rather than address the real issues. Harry and his wife use racism as a straw man, as a matter of fact. The real issue is their behaviour, but rather than address that at all, they cry "racism!" and then rail against their critics while falsely accusing them.

    But Verity Johnson at least does not play the race card. Instead, she sets up a "generational divide" straw man. Her reasoning seems to be that if you don't like Harry and his wife, it's because you're a grumpy old person. She completely and utterly overlooks anything to do with their behaviour or the lies they've told (and continue to tell). Her opening paragraph sets the tone: "Ever since Megxit, I can’t help but notice a pattern among the people who hate Meghan and Harry. The older you are, the more likely you are to hate them. They’re like muesli or local council elections: you only start caring once you’re over 40".

    Notice that she doesn't use a word like "critics" or "detractors", which would be more neutral, but goes straight for "people who HATE". You don't have to actively hate someone to criticise their behaviour (by that logic, every parent who scolds their child must hate them) or fact-check statements they make. However, I will admit that I am over 40. But I have seen critics of the Sussexes who are quite definitely UNDER 40. Some even by quite a long way. Conversely, I know (or know of) supporters who are over 40. However, it is certainly possible that detractors of the couple are generally older. That may just be because older people tend to have the wisdom that comes with age, and better abilities to reason and discern (although I have known older people who still acted like children and quite young people who were wise beyond their years). However, just as it is far too simplistic (and moreover false) to blame dislike of the couple on racism, it is just as simplistic and wrong to blame it on old age.

    Ms Johnson then explains her millennial logic: "And in that way I’m very millennial because I’ve never understood the fascination with Meghan and Harry. I mean, they’re kinda boring. Not in a bad way. They’re like yoghurt. Nice, but not exactly inflammatory." Did she even watch the Oprah interview? What part of "There were concerns about how dark Archie's skin might be" or "They wouldn't help me when I felt suicidal" was "not exactly inflammatory"? Virtually the entire interview was inflammatory, and the inflammatory rhetoric has been continued on in the Dax Shepard podcast and now this new series on Apple TV+.

    Ms Johnson then goes on to describe Harry's wife as "very LA; as glamorous and predictable as a living Instagram feed". Once again, this completely overlooks the behaviour Harry's wife has engaged in, much of which has actually been quite unpredictable. I'll give her the "glamorous" part though - Harry's wife can scrub up as well as any other reasonably attractive lady. Anyway, Ms Johnson's take on Harry is that he is "a sweet, normal dad, whose most defining feature is that half his heart will always be tragically trapped in that dismal London day in 1997 behind his mother’s coffin. But that makes him a heartbreaking figure, not an irritating one". Again, this is totally sidestepping the way Harry is behaving at the moment. Certainly, the twelve-year-old Harry walking behind his mother's coffin makes for a heartbreaking memory in anybody's mind. But here is the thing: Harry has grown up now. And just because he lost his mother in tragic circumstances at too young an age, that does not excuse the way he is acting now. It does not excuse the lies he and his wife are telling. And let us not forget that Prince William also experienced that same heartbreak. Yet he is not lashing out at his family the way Harry is.

    Apparently though, in Ms Johnson's world, criticism of Harry and his wife is just so much "celeb bashing". She really can't understand it. She wonders, "how do these two rather dull people inspire such naked rage? How did absconding from a life of meet-and-greets and emotional constipation inspire such seething, sulphuric fury?" These are leading questions that appear designed to elicit a specific answer that will then shape the way you think about the couple. If the only fault of Harry and his wife was that they were "rather dull", it would naturally be ridiculous for people to get so worked up about them. And if their only crime was merely "absconding" from Royal life to make a new life for themselves in the United States, it would be absurd for people to feel such hostility towards them. Essentially, that is what Ms Johnson is trying to lead her readers to think. With these questions, she is implying that people are getting worked up over nothing. The problem is, she's asking the wrong questions.

    Ms Johnson then goes on to advance the theory that millennials care about mental health, while the older generation doesn't so much. She contends that the real reason why people (and specifically older people) are annoyed with Harry and his wife is that their stance on mental health really irritates them. She puts it this way: "As a millennial, it’s easy for me to miss how controversial this argument is. We’ve all been raised to consider mental health the most central, paramount point of wellbeing. But over the past week, it’s been impossible to miss how much that attitude annoys older generations. It blows open a seething, throbbing, generational fault line". So once again, not a word about the BEHAVIOUR of Harry and his wife. That is the real reason why people are so angry with this couple. It's got nothing to do with their stance on mental health. But actually, that is part of the problem in a way, because they are weaponising it. They're not actually trying to help people. They're trying to make money from attacking the Royal Family. Essentially, they are blaming their behaviour not on their choices, but on so-called "mental health problems" that are the fault of Harry's family. And what is the great crime of the Royal Family, exactly? Just that they wouldn't let Harry and his wife get their own way. That's what it boils down to. They wouldn't allow them to ride roughshod over every single rule and protocol. How mean of them! Parents, you'd better stop disciplining your children when they misbehave or setting them any boundaries. Start spoiling them rotten instead and let them run riot without any rules whatsoever. Much better for their mental health, you know.

    Apparently though, it's all about how we "interpret strength". "It’s not just that the older you are, the less important you think mental health is. It’s more that you have a different interpretation of strength. Whereas millennials think it’s strong to walk away, older generations think it’s strong to endure. Silently." Perhaps older generations can still recall what the Bible teaches about enduring afflictions (e.g. 2 Timothy 4:5). That said, there are some circumstances where walking away is good. For example, if an argument is getting heated, walking away from it can often be a wise course of action (e.g. 1 Samuel 20:34). But there are other situations in which walking away is wrong, because it might involve breaking your word if you promised something, or showing cowardice when you should show courage. (Would it be "strong" to walk away if you saw someone being assaulted, for instance?) Ms Johnson is far too general here. She overlooks the fact that different situations can require quite different solutions. What may be "strong" in one set of circumstances might be a serious weakness in another. What Ms Johnson is also overlooking is that the passage of time is showing that "Megxit" was made under false pretences. It was supposedly about "getting more privacy", yet Harry and his wife have been in the media spotlight far more than they ever were in the UK. The reason being that they thrust themselves into it at every opportunity.

    Next, Ms Johnson states: "Life is hard, goes the tough-boiled logic, but it’s a sign of your mental fortitude to be able to get on with it. The royal family are a great example of this: they’ve always measured their humanity by their ability to repress it". This last sentence, accusing the Royal Family of repressing their humanity, is rather an insult to them. Now, their approach to life is certainly not perfect. It has its good and bad sides. I would not recommend them as a good role model for Christians in many of the things they do, especially their habits of fornication and adultery. However, their "never explain, never complain" approach to life seems to have worked fairly well for them over a number of centuries. It's not so much that they don't give vent to feelings though, just that they keep it private most of the time. Moreover, Prince William has shown that it is possible to bare your soul (at least, to some extent) without annoying people. The thing about William though is that when he opens up about personal pain, he does it in a reasonably discreet manner. He opens the door a crack, just enough to give you a reasonable impression of, for instance, his grief over Diana's death. But he does this without blame-shifting. If he does cast any blame, as he did with the BBC, he does it justly. He does not blame the BBC for any of his own failings. He blames them for their failings. If you want to blame anybody, blame them for their own sins and not yours. Harry on the other hand overshares. If William opens the door a little way to give you a glimpse into his soul, Harry flings it wide open and moreover invites you inside so he can give you the grand tour. Furthermore, he shifts blame. None of his personal failings are his fault, in his eyes. They're all the fault of his horrible racist family (as he portrays them).

    Ms Johnson then makes the quite extraordinary claim that what she calls hatred for Harry and his wife is vague. I don't know what company she mixes in, but from what I have observed, criticism of them is actually very specific. Piers Morgan for instance is certainly quite specific with his views. There is nothing vague about what he writes. In fact, I have never seen anyone who dislikes or criticises Harry and his wife because "Oh well ... they're just ... Oh you know!" as Ms Johnson claims. So this is an extremely inaccurate and unfair portrayal of the Sussexes' detractors. Either Ms Johnson lives in some kind of very sheltered bubble, or she is deliberately ignoring the multitude of warranted criticism out there. I realise this is an opinion piece rather than serious reporting, but even so, you would think she might have tried to do a bit more research.

    She continues on her merry way, completely misdiagnosing the problem. "It’s because it comes from that instinctive, inarticulate spurt of vitriol that boils over inside us all when we hear someone complaining about stuff we ourselves had to endure silently. “Well I suffered too,” snaps our deeply buried, long-burning bitterness, “so what are you complaining about?”" Actually, occasionally there is an element of that in some of the criticism. For instance, I have seen people say things like "I lost my mother at a young age too". However, their point is not so much that they suffered, but that they have not used that tragedy to excuse their subsequent behaviour, whereas Harry is doing that. So once again, it all comes back to the behaviour of Harry and his wife, which Ms Johnson persists in totally skipping over.

     More of the "generational divide" spin: "It’s made worse because millennials rarely acknowledge how much pride and pain goes into this age-old endurance of unhappiness. And so we glibly infer older people are one over-suppressed heartbeat away from a coronary – and they think we’re just self-pitying weaklings who can’t get our lives together." Perhaps some older people judge Millennials in this way. Personally, I don't. (I'm not a Baby Boomer though, but from Generation X - not sure whether that makes a difference.) But if it was truly a generational thing, then older people would dislike William as well. After all, he is a Millennial too, having been born in 1982 (the millennial generation comprises those born from 1980-1994). But right now, William and Catherine are the most popular Royals after the Queen. And from what I can tell, their popularity spans generations, although it's possible they may not be as popular with the younger set.

     Ms Johnson continues to dodge the real issue by claiming that Harry and his wife "are now the most high-profile symbol of society’s shifting attitudes to mental health. They have inadvertently become a battleground for which generation seems to have cracked the secret of what inner strength, internal wellbeing, and general happiness in life looks like". Not only is she perpetually dodging the real issue, but the assertion she makes here is almost as patently absurd as Harry's own spurious claims of racism. If Harry and his wife have cracked the secret to internal wellbeing and general happiness, I have a friend in Nigeria who needs you to look after a few million dollars for a while. Before he met his wife, Harry used to be quite a happy chap. But since meeting her, and especially since he married her, he mostly looks miserable. Moreover, if they're so happy, why are they constantly trashing the Royal Family? This is not how people who are happy and contented with their lot behave. And why is Harry having so much therapy if he has cracked this great secret? Does not compute. No matter which generation you are part of, Harry and his wife are NOT good role models for happiness.

    The article concludes with this paragraph: "I’m not convinced either generation has a perfect response. But I am fairly sure that we’re not going to find it by obsessing over this hot, rich, but rather boring young couple". I have to ask which generations Ms Johnson is referring to. There is the Millennial generation, which she is part of, then there is Generation X, which is mine, and the Baby Boomers, my parents' generation. (Actually, my mother is old enough to be part of the Silent Generation that preceded the Baby Boomers.) Children today might be considered to be part of Generation Z, or Generation Alpha if they're very young. But apart from referring to her own generation, Ms Johnson does not specify which generation she classifies as older. (I'm guessing that she most likely means the Baby Boomers, but Generation X is getting on in years too.)

    She is right in that obsessing over Harry and his wife is not the answer to better mental health (although a better term would be spiritual health, and the way to better spiritual health is to get saved and then walk in the Spirit rather than seeking to fulfil the lusts of the flesh - see Galatians 5:16). But the problem with Ms Johnson's entire rather patronising opinion piece is that she has created this straw man and argued against that, rather than examining the real reasons why people dislike Harry and his wife. Now, I cannot speak for everyone, and some of their critics may have illogical or irrational reasons for their dislike (maybe there are even some who despise their relative youth, although I have yet to come across such a person), but from what I have observed, the real reasons why people criticise them and feel animosity towards them are as follows: 

    1) They have told a pack of lies. "A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin." (Proverbs 26:28) Nearly everything they claimed in the March Oprah interview was a lie, and can be easily proven as such. Granted, none of us are without sin when it comes to telling lies (Romans 3:4) We have all sinned against God in this respect. However, their lies were malicious and sometimes incendiary. Nobody likes people who constantly lie, especially when that lying involves slander and extreme disingenuity, and moreover appears calculated to cause maximum destruction. 

    2) They constantly play the victim card when there is considerable evidence available that they are perpetrators and not victims (take for instance the bullying allegations against Harry's wife). Most of their detractors (including yours truly) believe that their real problem with the Royal Family is that the latter would not let them have their own way all the time. They did not subscribe to Harry's maxim that what his wife wants, his wife gets. In essence, Megxit was just one big tantrum by spoiled children who did not have their every demand met. (And as Lady Colin Campbell has revealed, both Harry and his wife were very spoiled when they were actual children.) Just what fruit has "Megxit" borne, anyway? Harry could have gone to America and still kept in regular touch with his family back in the UK. He could easily be enjoying cordial relations with them, the geographical distance notwithstanding. But instead, he is completely isolated from them, and moreover he has lost all credibility with most of the British people. Even those who still feel some sympathy for Harry over Diana are getting thoroughly fed up with him. He has even angered many Americans after insulting the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So that is the fruit of Harry being led by his wife, as Jezebel led Ahab. (Incidentally, Ahab was wicked in his own right, but his evil grew even greater when he married Jezebel - see 1 Kings 16:30-31 and also 1 Kings 21:25. Harry likewise had serious flaws as a single man, but they have been greatly exacerbated by his wife.) Nothing good has come of it, and the way they're going, even more rotten fruit will soon follow.

    3) They do not practise what they preach. For example, they lecture everyone about climate change, but then travel in private jets (which create a lot of carbon emissions - that is a Very Bad Thing nowadays). Or they witter on about "compassion", but show absolutely no compassion to either of their families. (Constantly badmouthing your family in public is hardly an act of compassion, nor is cutting them off cold.) If there is one thing that gets right up the nose of even the most hardened sinners, it's hypocrisy.

    4) There are many signs (if you have eyes to see) that Harry is being emotionally abused and gaslighted by his wife. The fact that he is completely isolated from all his family and friends now is a HUGE red flag. As is the fact that his current outlook on life is due to the "new understanding" his wife has given him. There seem to be a lot of things that Harry didn't realise until his wife told him. In short, he has completely swallowed the narrative that she has fed him. Not to mention how miserable he looks all the time now, compared to how he was before he met his wife. One of the more horrific things he revealed in his latest interview with Oprah Winfrey was that his wife told him, in very specific terms, that she was going to kill herself. But then she told him that she wouldn't because she didn't want him losing another woman in his life. Back in the original post, I speculated that Harry's wife was using talk of suicide for the purposes of emotional manipulation. What Harry has revealed proves it beyond any doubt. But he is so brainwashed by his wife's lies that he thinks she was being "compassionate" by not killing herself, rather than seeing that she was ruthlessly exploiting his past grief and current fear of abandonment.

    These four reasons for disliking Harry and his wife have absolutely nothing to do with generational differences. Unless the Millennial generation thinks it is acceptable to lie, falsely play victim, say one thing but do another, treat your family like dirt and so on. If these things are widely accepted by Millennials, perhaps there is a generational divide. But I am pretty certain that Millennials have the same God-given conscience as everyone else, and the same faculties of reason as everyone else, and that if they really want to, they can see just what is wrong with this couple.

     I want to conclude with this: many critics of Harry and his wife have experienced abuse in their lives (including this blogger). And when I say abuse, I'm not just referring to the domestic or family kind. I am also referring to things like workplace bullying and stalking. Abuse can take many forms. Perhaps Ms Johnson has never suffered any serious abuse in her own life. I am genuinely happy for her if that is the case, and I sincerely hope that she never does have to experience it. However, when you have gone through it, there is one advantage you gain, notwithstanding all the damage it does: you can more easily identify patterns of abusive behaviour in others. You can see the signs - in things people say, in body language, in obvious lies that are told, in strange rationalisations, and so on. You develop a sort of "radar" for this type of thing. Red flags that many others overlook are glaringly obvious when you have been there before. And for a great many of the Sussexes' detractors, the behaviour of this couple sets alarm bells not just ringing, but clanging deafeningly. (I must be honest: this is the principal reason for my own interest in them.) Many of those who have not given up on Prince Harry altogether are very concerned for his wellbeing. I think time will prove that concern to have been justified, although I would be quite happy if I am wrong about that.

    More than her faulty logic and patronising tone, it is this blindness to those clear red flags that irritates me the most about Verity Johnson's article. Either she can't see the red flags because she has never been abused herself (and again, I hope she never is - I would not wish that on anybody). Or she is turning a blind eye and making up some other reason for people's dislike because she does not want to face the reality of the situation for some reason. I have seen this before when other people have attracted criticism for abusive behaviour. Those who defend them either make ridiculous excuses for them or invent these fake straw men as Ms Johnson has done. Hopefully her piece is just a product of simple ignorance. But the article is a good example of the type of logic (or rather, lack thereof) used by defenders of Harry and his wife. I hope that if Ms Johnson writes about the Sussexes' critics again, she will be better informed about the actual reasons for people's animosity towards them than what she was this time around.

    Actually, there is another thing that bothers me about articles like Ms Johnson's: they are a form of justifying the wicked. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." (Proverbs 17:15) When you fail to reprove clearly abusive behaviour (which is also SINFUL behaviour) that is occurring right before your eyes, either by pretending it's not happening or making ridiculous strawman arguments, that is justifying the wicked. Conversely, when you accept an abuser's lies and join them in oppressing their victims, or when you excuse the abuser and make false accusations against the victim, or when (as Ms Johnson has done) you simply trivialise and dismiss the rightful anger that people feel towards someone over their evil deeds, you are condemning the just. Rightly are both these things called an abomination to the Lord, and they are utterly abominable to me as well.

UPDATE 14 (28/5/21): "Bookworm 2" has written an open letter to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and posted the contents of that letter on her personal site. Everything in the letter is already in the public domain through her videos, so she is not divulging anything private by sharing it. Most of it is a slightly less detailed rehash of her video that I talked about in Update 10. So I won't go over it in depth for once, but rather I invite you to read it for yourself. As I have stated above, I have an open mind about this. I don't automatically accept the surrogacy theory as gospel, but nor do I rule it out. I think that the information she is presenting is at least worth consideration. One way or the other, I share her desire for the truth to come out. And IF what she is claiming IS true, I agree that it would be better for the Royal Family to come clean about it. Because if Harry's wife gets in first, it will not be pretty.

    Meanwhile, Harry himself has made another appearance with Oprah Winfrey in a "town hall" style follow-up to The Me You Can't See. I don't think the full episode has dropped yet, and I do not intend to watch it when it does. But from reports I have read, it seems that Harry goes on a bit about suicide awareness as a result of what he learned from his wife threatening suicide. He is still utterly clueless about how extremely manipulative she was with that. Oprah Winfrey seems to be just as clueless - or perhaps she is turning a blind eye in order to avoid killing the Sussex "cash cow". Very often, when wickedness is being done, money is at the heart of it. The larger the sum of money at stake, the greater the wickedness.

UPDATE 15 (7/6/21): It is the Queen's Birthday holiday in New Zealand, and fittingly, news has dropped of a new Royal baby. Prince Harry's wife has reportedly given birth to a baby girl at the Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. And the new baby has been given the name Lilibet Diana, although she will be called Lili for short. The infant's middle name is a tribute to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and it was likely that the name Diana would feature somewhere. However, the name Lilibet is controversial. It is supposed to be a tribute to the Queen, but Lilibet was a special personal nickname that she had as a child and which was also a term of endearment used for her by Prince Philip. So quite frankly, it feels kind of impertinent to me. To call the baby Elizabeth or Lily would be fair enough, but actually using the name Lilibet, which was so special and personal to the Queen, doesn't smell right. It's like they're trying to hijack the name to serve their own agenda. Moreover, it is quite bizarre for Harry and his wife to choose this name when they have spent the last three months attacking the Royal Family and casting aspersions on the Queen's parenting skills, among other things.

    I am certainly not the only person who feels very uneasy about the use of the name "Lilibet". Here for example is a video by the YouTuber PDina. She explains why she herself is unhappy with the choice of Lilibet as a name, but also some makes some excellent points about all the games that Harry and his wife keep playing. For example, she notes that people keep speculating about the surrogacy theory because of the way the Sussexes have conducted themselves. Instead of being upfront and straightforward with people, they just constantly keep playing mind games. As PDina says, when they continue to make everything a mystery, it only serves to make people speculate more, and for that matter, criticise more. And this is why I said in Update 11 that if the first pregnancy was legitimate, some of what they are doing may be motivated by a simple desire to get attention. Set people's tongues wagging by acting in a way that causes them to play guessing games leading to all sorts of conjectures. The more people are talking, the more attention the Sussexes are getting. That way, they stay relevant.

    An example of being mysterious and playing games is the Sussexes' decision not to share any photographs of the new baby. There are to be no photos of the baby on its own or of the mother and child together. This completely flies in the face of normal customs when it comes to new Royal babies. More than that however, it will only add fuel to the fire of those who believe the second pregnancy has been as fake as the first (in their view). Without photos, what evidence do we have that this baby even exists? I'm sure it is real, but why not silence the doubters, or at least give them pause for thought, by showing a picture or two? At least there have been some pictures of Archie. However, many of them have been very odd. For example, a recent photo shared on his second birthday (6 May) showed a small child with his back to the camera holding a bunch of balloons. It could have been any child. As such, some people question whether it really was Archie in the picture. Now Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge shares normal photos showing her children's faces whenever one of them has a birthday. There is absolutely no doubt who the child is. Moreover, when the Cambridge children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, were born, all the usual protocols were followed and the birth was witnessed as required by British law. So there is no question whatsoever about their legitimacy and place in the line of succession.

    I was thinking again about the Sussexes' extraordinary revelation (subsequently proven untrue) that they got married in secret three days before their televised wedding. Prior to the Oprah Winfrey interview, not even the fiercest critics of Harry and his wife questioned the legitimacy of their wedding. I doubt whether even the most extreme conspiracy theorists would have been saying, "Oh no, that wedding was fake and they actually got married secretly beforehand". Yet Harry and his wife then went and cast doubt on the legitimacy of their wedding themselves! They created a conspiracy, or whatever you want to call it, where none had previously existed! Why would anyone in their right mind do something like that? But maybe they were just doing it to troll people. As PDina said, perhaps they were simply playing mind games. And all these weird photos of Archie, and now the refusal to show any photos of Lili (I prefer that to Lilibet for this baby, I must say) may just be more trolling on their part. What I am suggesting is that they may not be trying to cover up anything (like use of a surrogate), but just playing some bizarre trolling game to get people's attention. However, I am certainly not ruling out the possible use of a surrogate, either for Archie or Lili. I remain open-minded about it. Because the behaviour of these two makes it impossible to reach any clear conclusions one way or the other.

    One bit of good news for those who are weary of the Sussexes is that they are going on "parental leave", which presumably means that they will be keeping out of the public spotlight for a while. I don't begrudge them some private time with their new baby, but at the same time, it's more game-playing on their part. It's their way of saying, "We're not going to talk about this child, or show pictures, or do any of the usual sorts of things that protocol requires when a Royal baby is born". Again, by not following the standard protocols, they are just encouraging people to question the legitimacy of the birth, and even in more extreme cases, question whether there is a new Royal baby at all. If only they would conduct themselves in an open and honest way, all such speculation would either go away or be confined solely to the darkest and most extreme corners of the Internet.

    Incidentally, I am currently reading The Real Diana, another Royal biography by Lady Colin Campbell. It's quite an eye-opener, I can tell you. I have learned some things from this book that I think bear some relation to the way Prince Harry is behaving now. In particular, Diana had a knack for telling some pretty big whoppers. She created a public image of herself that was largely false. For instance, she was no virgin bride, but tried to convince the public that she was. Moreover, far from being a scorned woman, she cheated first in the marriage and had more lovers than Charles! (That said, her natural gifts for interacting with people were not an act. She really was very good at that. Her remarkable charisma was a genuine thing.) Also, when she was looking to separate from Prince Charles, she painted an inaccurate and unfair picture of him to skew public perception in her favour. (This is not to say that Charles does not have his faults, but nonetheless the way in which Diana portrayed him was not truthful.) Now recently, we have seen Prince Harry attacking Charles in a similar fashion. He appears to have inherited his mother's talent for changing the narrative (in other words, lying) to cast himself in a better light. However, Diana was rather better at it than Harry or his wife have been. But it's rather fascinating, and also very sad actually, to see how many of Diana's sins are now being repeated in Harry.

 

UPDATE 16 (9/6/21): Until now, Lady Colin Campbell has been rather careful to avoid openly stating that she believes in the "surrogacy theory". In her latest video however, she is a good deal more candid on the matter. In particular, she notes that the announcement of baby Lili's birth by the Sussexes, and also the wording of the statements by Buckingham Palace and also the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, strongly hints that a surrogate was used. For instance, Harry and his wife say that they are "pleased to welcome" Lili, which is more the sort of language that might be used when adopting a child or accepting one from a surrogate. And the statement by the Palace (or it might be the Cambridges) talks of a baby born FOR the Sussexes, not TO them. Lady Campbell says that perhaps there is just a problem of sloppy English, but if not, then the statements are saying, without spelling it out, that Lili was not born of the body of Harry's wife. As she also notes, in the United States, a child born of a surrogate is considered legitimate, but this is not the case in the UK (hence why it is a problem for the line of succession if true).

    Now, Lady Colin Campbell is someone whom the press takes some notice of. Until now, the media have not touched the surrogacy theory as far as I know. Other YouTubers speculating about possible use of a surrogate by Harry and his wife are not as well-known to them. But with someone as prominent as Lady Campbell talking so openly about it, I wonder if that will now change? With the lack of photos and sudden "parental leave" announcement, it really makes you wonder whether the Sussexes really want quiet time with their new baby or are trying desperately to cover something up.

UPDATE 17 (10/6/21): If Prince Philip were still alive, he would have turned 100 today. But Prince Harry and his wife have found a way to upstage this. They are threatening to sue the BBC for libel because there was a report on the Radio 4 Today programme that they did not seek the Queen's permission to name their new daughter Lilibet. The Today programme got its information from a senior aide at Buckingham Palace. Apparently, when senior aides brief the media, the Queen signs off on it. The BBC is standing by the Today report, and significantly, Buckingham Palace is not disputing the report or distancing itself from it. Yet Harry and his wife are insisting the story is "false and defamatory", and warning other media outlets through their lawyers not to spread it. From what I can gather, they did have some sort of conversation with the Queen about naming the baby and indicated that they wanted to name it in her honour. They claim the Queen was supportive of this. Now, Her Majesty may well have believed, or assumed (quite reasonably) that they intended to name the child Elizabeth. If that was the case, she would probably have been happy enough with that. And if that is true, then the revelation of the baby's actual name may have been as much as shock to her as anyone else. But whatever inkling she may or may not have had, the mood in the Palace is apparently one of "cold fury", according to Lady Colin Campbell's video that I shared yesterday. And it appears that, through the "leak" to the Today programme, the Queen wants her displeasure made known. In which case, Harry and his wife are not just accusing the BBC, but calling the Queen herself a liar. It seems that their recollections, and hers, vary!

UPDATE 18 (22/6/21): Prince William turned 39 yesterday, although that's not what this update is about. (It seems like only yesterday that he was born! But I digress.) The Times, which revealed bullying allegations against Prince Harry and his wife (mainly the latter) a few months ago, has just recently published an extract from a book by Robert Lacey entitled Battle of Brothers and subtitled "William and Harry: The Inside Story of a Family in Tumult". Mr Lacey is known as the historical consultant for Netflix series The Crown. The book was first published in October last year, but is now being updated with new revelations. In fact, the updated version includes twelve new chapters! The extract printed in The Times is also available on Mr Lacey's own Web site, and you can read the entire thing here. A particularly telling revelation is that the split between William and Harry began earlier than many had first thought, all the way back in 2018. And it centred on the bullying claims against Harry's wife. "We now know that Princes William and Harry were no longer on speaking terms before the Sussexes set off for Australia. Feelings had already “changed”, as Harry put it, and drastically so. The brothers had parted on extremely poor terms, with the trouble centring on Meghan’s stringent treatment and alleged bullying of her staff." (My emphasis)

    Mr Lacey then goes over old ground of the allegations made by Jason Knauf, before quoting an unnamed courtier. "“Meghan governed by fear,” claimed one courtier. “So many people said it. Nothing was ever good enough for her. [She] humiliated staff in meetings, [would] shout at them, [would] cut them off email chains — and then demand to know why they hadn’t done anything.”" (Emphasis mine) That line, "nothing was ever good enough", is so revealing. This is one way to know you're dealing with an abuser - when nothing is ever good enough. Normal people may occasionally get grumpy with you, or even air more serious grievances occasionally, but when somebody is impossible to please, they're abusing you by making you feel like you're not good enough and can never measure up. They set you up to fail. There is an example of this in the Bible, which I'll get to in a moment. But firstly, more of what Mr Lacey has to say. "But as the months went by the American’s feelings became more ambiguous, as numerous colleagues — women whom he greatly respected — continued to bring him stories of what they said they had suffered at Meghan’s hands." Interesting that the self-professed "feminist" seems particularly fond of oppressing other women. The "American" in that quote is Mr Knauf. According to another courtier, Prince Harry did not behave much better towards his staff than what his wife was doing: "“I overheard a conversation between Harry and one of his top aides,” recalled one Kensington Palace courtier. “Harry was screaming and screaming down the phone. Team Sussex was a really toxic environment. People shouting and screaming in each other’s faces.”" Sure sounds like a lovely place to work, doesn't it?

    Prince William was apparently apoplectic when he learned of all this. "William personally knew and liked all the individuals whom Knauf had named in his dossier. The prince regarded them as assets to his household — colleagues to be cherished and for whom he was responsible. Human beings. Like Knauf, the prince was appalled that his respected staff may have been put in this position." The allegations confirmed his own deep misgivings about Harry's wife, in particular that she "was fundamentally hostile towards the royal system, which she failed to understand as an outsider". According to Mr Lacey's account, William phoned Harry, but the latter would not listen and hung up on his elder brother. William then visited Harry personally, but this did not go well either. "William believed Meghan was following a plan — “agenda” was the word he used to his friend — and the accusations he had just heard were alarming. Kate, he said, had been wary of her from the start." So Catherine evidently had some kind of "gut instinct" that warned her of danger. (While we should not follow our hearts, we should listen to our gut instincts if alarm bells are going off.) Notwithstanding Harry's own awful behaviour, courtiers sensed that he might be in some danger. His wife "was undermining some precious principles of the monarchy, if she really was treating her staff in this way, and William was upset that she seemed to be stealing his beloved brother away from him. Later courtiers would coin a hashtag — #freeHarry. It was only half a joke." (My emphasis) Another thing that abusers will frequently do is divide families as they isolate their victim from his or her loved ones.

    "“[Harry's wife] portrayed herself as the victim,” recalled one Kensington Palace staffer, “but she was the bully. People felt run over by her. They didn’t know how to handle this woman. They thought she was a complete narcissist and sociopath — basically unhinged. Which was why the pair of them were drawn to each other in the first place — both damaged goods.”" See now, this is also what Potiphar's wife did in Genesis 39 - portray herself as a victim when she was the perpetrator of the very accusation she was making! The words "narcissist" and "sociopath" a derived from psychology and allude to "personality disorders", which don't really exist. The Bible calls such people "evil" or "wicked". They are also full of extreme pride. Indeed, the term "lovers of their own selves" sums up today's so-called "narcissists" very well. 

    Moving ahead to the end of the extract, Mr Lacey notes that it is a mistake to believe that Prince Harry initiated the split in the Kensington Palace household whereby the so-called "Fab Four" (William, Catherine, Harry and Harry's wife) all lived and worked at close quarters. "It was William who made the decisive move. Following his furious confrontation with his younger brother in the autumn of 2018, the prince instructed Simon Case to start the process of dividing their two households immediately. William wished to be separated from [Harry's wife] on a day-to-day basis — and that meant being separated from his brother as well." I have to say that I have every sympathy with William in this regard. Although I was in a rather different situation, I was forced to end a friendship with someone whose wife kept acting in a very inappropriate manner towards me. Sometimes when you want to remove a toxic person from your life, you may also have to separate from someone you would prefer not to. It is a sad but necessary sacrifice. But whereas I just lost a friend, poor Prince William lost a brother.

    For an example in the Bible of workplace bullying after a fashion, read Exodus 5. The Pharaoh of Egypt changed the Israelites' working conditions (which were already pretty bad). They were forced to gather their own straw to make bricks, whereas previously they had been given the straw. Of course, the time spent gathering the straw meant they had less time for making the bricks. But they were still required to make the same number of bricks as before. Unsurprisingly, they were not able to do this, which meant consequences: "And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and demanded, Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and to day, as heretofore?" (Exodus 5:14) They tried to plead with Pharaoh, but he just accused them of being idle (see Verse 17). This is exactly the sort of thing that modern workplace bullies do. They create difficult conditions that make it impossible to complete tasks, make false accusations and unjustly punish people for their "failures" which were created by the actions of the bully or bullies! It is clear that Harry and his wife have acted this way. Prince William may not be a saved man, but he was right to take strong action over this. Too often, bullies in the workplace are allowed to get away with their wickedness because people don't stand up to them or look the other way.

    Incidentally, Harry's wife has given a new radio interview about her new book, The Bench. She seems to think it will contribute to a new world (or maybe New World Order?) and show "another side to masculinity". Hmm, sounds a lot like the "masculinity" of Ahab to me ...

UPDATE 19 (23/6/21): The Daily Mirror is currently running some stories about the bullying allegations involving Prince Harry's wife, including this summary of developments to date. This is particularly relevant: "It is understood that “at least 10” former staffers are now “queuing up” to assist an independent inquiry set up in the wake of the claims." That's a pretty solid number of witnesses to establish the matter. Also worth reading is this piece by Russell Myers. It reveals that Harry's wife intends to "issue a complete rebuttal of a series of allegations that she “bullied” her staff by demanding Buckingham Palace hand over a “point by point” breakdown of the claims." Sources close to her are apparently anticipating a "brutal showdown" between her and Buckingham Palace. But for all her "disputing" of the allegations, the Duchess of Sussex nonetheless appears to be attempting to excuse her actions, with a source claiming that she "is adamant the staff were not up to their job and could not deal with the pressure of working for her and understanding how she wanted things to run". This is textbook workplace bully-speak. Every bully in a workplace will try to make their target feel as though they are "not up to their job". But they do this through trickery, such as creating unreasonable burdens the way the Pharaoh did to the Israelites in Exodus 5, or lying (e.g. about meeting times, then later claiming the target "didn't listen"), or shifting the goalposts (for instance, telling you to do a task one way, then later berating you for that and saying you should do it another way instead). And there are many other dirty tricks they play besides. One ploy that Harry's wife is alleged to have used was to cut people out of e-mail chains and then demand to know why they had not followed orders that they hadn't received (due to being removed from the relevant e-mail chain). Have a look at this page. While I don't agree with the psychology-based stuff on it, it otherwise gives a good overview of workplace bullying like what Harry's wife is accused of. This page on the same site as the previous one is also worth a look, just to give you some understanding of how workplace bullying can play out.

    Buckingham Palace wants to get to the truth with this bullying inquiry, and I really hope that they do. I hope that all the alleged victims get justice. However, what would be even better still is if Harry and his wife came to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. I don't think the chances of that happening are too great, but nothing is impossible for God. That said, many of their critics have the same need for Christ, notwithstanding my agreement with them on this couple. Also, even if the Sussexes did miraculously get saved, their alleged victims still deserve justice. (God forgives us our sins, but still wants us to make things right with those we have wronged).

    I would also like to say that we should not turn to psychology for solutions about bullying in the workplace or anywhere else. The Word of God has all the answers we need. One of these days, I might do a post specifically about bullying (not just in the workplace, but in other areas of life) and elaborate on that further. Meanwhile, in other news about the Sussexes, there have been reports that they bought the domain names for their new daughter (still no photographs!) before she was even supposedly born! Which means that they planned the name long before talking to the Queen about it, despite their claims that they asked her about it first.

    A little late breaking news: "Bookworm 2" has written a new open letter to the Queen about the surrogacy speculation around both the Sussex children. Read the letter on her site here.