Weddings are usually cause for celebration, and royal weddings are cause for national rejoicing.
The hopeful thought is that this wedding would help reunite a currently dis-United Kingdom. Prince Harry risked his life as a soldier for his country, and his partying and roguish behaviour are modest by historic royal standards.
That was before Markelgate!
We’ve seen embarrassing footage of Prince Harry negotiating with entertainment executives about his wife’s voice-over skills when he was actually due to attend an event for The Marines, where he is the royal patron! Youtube link here.
When Meghan Markle married Prince Harry, the Crown granted the former Suits actress the title “Duchess of Sussex.” This is an almost unimaginable honour for someone of her commoner background. The Duchess now claims she had no idea what she was getting into and claims she hadn’t even looked into what the royal family was about before she agreed to marry Harry. After two years, the couple decided to renounce royal duties and move to America to be celebrities.
He married a woman who seems to treat the royal family as an ATM. The Duchess also understands that her (part) black skin privilege has more real power than any claim to nobility. She can call any criticism “racist” and rally journalists and fellow blacks to her defence.
A potent form of this power was Meghan Markle (and her husband’s) interview with Oprah Winfrey. Winfrey is another master at building power. The media billionaire used her massive platform to give a privileged fellow traveller a chance to claim she was a victim. Media power is more powerful than royal prerogative it seems.
The Duchess made several allegations during this interview. She said a member of the royal family worried her son Archie might be too “dark.” Who? She wouldn’t say. She complained that the Palace will no longer provide security to the family. They have quit their jobs. Meghan Markle said that she had “suicidal thoughts” but was discouraged from seeking mental health. A stiff upper lip was once an admirable trait.
Today, the best way to deal with pressure is to cry about it on television. Prince Harry chimed in to criticize his father, the future king, saying he “let down” his children.
All this with Prince Phillip at death’s door? Intentionally or not, they are creating an independent power base. And so we get the spectacle of a black billionaire asking a half-black actress with a royal title who lives in a $14.5 million mansion about how hard her life has been, which was written about here
In another time Meghan would not have been a Duchess, she would have been his mistress ( and definitely not his wife). Not because she is not of ‘pure blood’ or of white stock, but because she is a commoner. From a humble background. An actress no less- not dissimilar to the King Charles Nell Gwynne union.
The following day Piers Morgan kept the show going when he stormed off Good Morning Britain after having a row over race and the Meghan and Harry interview with weather reader Alex Beresford, who is apparently mixed race, although I didn’t know this until he highlighted it! The YouTube link is here (comments were turned off predictably)
This was followed the typical outrage and indignation from a predictable array of talking heads here All very entertaining for the masses. Meanwhile did you notice this consultation on digital identity? It closed on the 11th March!
The government is seeking feedback on the introduction of digital IDs via a new Govt. consultation. If you have concerns, this consultation ended on the 11th March
The Government recently published its draft rules for a “trust framework” which will provide the foundation for new digital identity products. Essentially, it puts in place a set of rules and regulations, which, once approved, will pave the way for private companies to create new identity products.
Sounds interesting, so why such little fanfare!? The introduction of the Identity Cards Act 2006 was controversial. Newspapers highlighted the issue in big, bold headlines, and politicians of different persuasion voiced their concerns in long impassioned speeches.
This time, nothing. And to make sure we were offered a nice selection of race baiting and faux race realism to keep us busy!
You only had until 12pm (11th March) to offer your feedback – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework
While the national identity card was to be legally mandated, the new digital ID infrastructure is proposed as a matter of choice.
But we know the illusion of choice will be rolled out, as the debate around the Covid19 vaccine demonstrates. Technically, people are not legally required to have the vaccine, but it’s becoming increasingly likely that travel and access to specific services – will be limited for those who refuse to have it.
There are 4 key points to be aware of, as originally outlined by the Alliance for Natural Health:
● That there must be no unsolicited sharing of digital ID data with the private sector
● We demand that conventional, non-digital IDs are maintained as an option for use alongside digital IDs in all situations where a digital ID may be used
● That there is no discrimination, as well as no reduced privileges or penalties for those who do not choose to use digital IDs
● That the UK government does not link or incorporate vaccination ‘passports’ into digital IDs, as this would undermine both equity and privacy, while introducing a host of major ethical challenges.
The roll-out of digital ID’s will likely become another coercive measure to further digitalise people’s lives and ensure that every individual becomes ever more reliant on online services. To opt-out would be to miss out.
As the report itself states:
“Using digital identities will mean users do not have to rely on offline channels (such as by post or over the phone) to interact with organisations or access services. Social distancing caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has meant there are fewer opportunities for users to do things in person. This means it can be safer, as well as easier, for users to complete some interactions and transactions online.”
And it also appears to point towards a longer-term future where face-to-face contact is, at best, discouraged, and a life lived behind screens is the norm.
Civil liberties are under attack like never before. And the media has provided an entertaining, and very effective, distraction to take our eye off the ball. Did they succeed?
We won’t have long to wait.