Criticising Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's overtly political new projects is NOT racist or showing unconscious bias – the Sussexes are facing no more scrutiny than royals have in the past

PRINCE HARRY this week moved to make the highly controversial House of Sussex immune from any future criticism.

As part of his wife MEGHAN’s ill-advised and highly political guest edit of Vogue’s September issue, the Duke promoted the idea of so-called “unconscious bias” leading to racism, even if someone doesn’t actually consider themselves to be racist.

His point was clear and it was catnip for the awful online Sussex Squad who have spent the past two years attempting to drown out critical coverage of the couple by making outlandish and offensive calls of racism, belittling those who are actually suffering from that type of discrimination.

Harry has been bristling about even the smallest criticism of him for some years now and has the thinnest skin of any Windsor.

Unlike Meghan, who swears she doesn’t look at her own press, royal sources tell me Harry reads everything, often stewing over even the most minor of slights.

He sits in his publicly-funded mansion (£2.4 million of our money over the last year alone), watching TV coverage and flicking through articles about him while cursing his forlorn staff.

Obviously, it’s so much easier for them to blame anything uncomfortable on racism, rather than actually address the fact that much of the negativity towards the couple is coming from within the royal family.

But to call the outrage over Meghan’s Vogue guest edit racist in any way is to entirely miss the point.

The reason it has attracted so much coverage is because of just how controversial it is – dominated by politics and sensitive social issues, Meghan appears to be using the magazine to lay out a future woke political manifesto.

When that change includes supporting Greta Thunberg – a 16-year-old Swedish firebrand with pushy extreme left parents whose policies would probably bankrupt the country – some examination and critical analysis is required.

To say other royals have not been subject to the same criticism – or actually, in many cases, far worse – is absurd.

PRINCE CHARLES has been the focus of acres of highly barbed column inches, including from me, for continuing to wade into sensitive political issues.

It’s right the media points out that, as our next king, it is essential for the future of the monarchy that he keeps his gob shut at times.

And what about all the other female outsiders who have entered the royal family?

To say DIANA SPENCER, SARAH FERGUSON, SOPHIE WESSEX and even KATE MIDDLETON had an easier ride is either naive or delusional.

In the months before Diana’s death she was a revered figure whose overwhelming public support and call in her legendary Panorama interview for the throne to bypass her husband came close to causing a constitutional crisis.

But she still remained a target for criticism when her campaigning becoming too political.

Just three days before that tragic accident in Paris, Diana – no longer a future queen following her divorce – was being severely criticised for describing former prime minister JOHN MAJOR’s landmine policy as “hopeless” in a French newspaper interview.

But well aware of the need to remain out of politics, her office released a statement denying she had made the comment and stressing that “her stance on the question of landmines has been apolitical throughout” and “her concerns are exclusively humanitarian”.

Fergie’s post-divorce entry into the entertainment industry, with tacky Weight Watchers campaigns and appearances on US TV shows like Friends, made her a figure of derision.

Sophie was forced to give up on the unrealistic dream of keeping up a PR career after marrying PRINCE EDWARD.

No one suggested any of the coverage around these events was racist.

It should be remembered the vast bulk of stories about Harry and Meghan’s misadventures are coming from sources within the royal family.

But this week reporters, commentators and even balanced telly stars like EAMONN HOLMES and RUTH LANGSFORD raising genuine questions have been quickly branded racist by non-entity royal correspondents and Twitter trolls masquerading as left-wing commentators.

As for Labour MP DAVID LAMMY, who decided to use the criticism to accuse the UK of being “shamelessly full of racist tropes”, shame on him.

Do we really want to become a world where you’re being discriminatory unless criticising someone of your own race, gender or sexuality?

We all agree Meghan’s mixed-race heritage is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the questionable path she is going down by becoming a political activist while a fully paid up member of the royal family here to represent us all.

TROLLING on social media has reached a new low and if you’re a contestant coming off Love Island it can be a disconcerting experience.

Islander DANNY WILLIAMS has revealed his family were forced to call the police while he was in the villa because his accounts received so many messages threatening serious harm.

During an emotional interview on my talkRADIO Friday Drivetime show, he told me: “A serious amount of trolling happened whilst I was in the villa, that was when police were contacted.

“There were things like being added to group chats where people would collectively send threatening messages like coming to hurt you and that kind of stuff.

“It’s more for my family’s sake especially when they were sort of powerless whilst I was in the villa it was a very stressful time for them.”

In a worrying sign of the times, one of the trolls was unmasked as a child whose school ended up disciplining him.

But the 21-year-old from Hull insists he is “coping OK” in the aftermath, explaining: “The way I see it when you put yourself on a show like this you have to be open to the interpretation by the public.”

That’s still no excuse for the keyboard warriors on social media who should get a life and think of the impact they could have on someone they’re never met.

Wootton's Week





Source: Read Full Article