A Real Earthquake or Imagined?

Spread out in front of me is the six-page Crisis at Palace special report, compiled by two Daily Mail journalists: Richard Kay and Guy Adams. Following these six pages are two more full pages taken up by a further two authors: Dominic Sandbrook, and the newspaper's editor, Geordie Greig. Of all four writers, Sandbrook's reassurance that the Firm will keep the UK flag flying despite the recent crisis brought on by Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, will be an encouraging read for many.

Generally speaking, the Special Report feature is a direct rebuke to Harry and Meghan, literally debunking every point brought up in their interview with Oprah Winfrey at their Californian home on Sunday of this week. But even before the broadcast went out across the UK on the evening of the next day, the media was awash with what was said during the interview, with a very high percentage of the UK population saying they will refuse, or can't be bothered, to watch it on television.

Harry and Meghan interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.

Even I had to admit that at first, I couldn't be bothered to watch an interview frequently broken by commercial breaks. Moreover, the Press kept on insisting that the programme will be up to two hours long, implying that the interview itself was of that duration. By Monday evening, after so much banter from the Media, I have decided to watch it, commercial breaks regardless. It lasted for less than two hours. Instead, the whole programme took between 105-110 minutes, but allowing for the series of commercial breaks and snippets of their past lives combined, my estimation was that the actual talk itself didn't take much more than an hour, maybe 75-80 minutes if a coffee break between the three was thrown in.

The next day, Tuesday, March 9th, something of a brawl developed between Piers Morgan, one of the presenters of ITV's Good Morning Britain, and fellow host, the weatherman Alex Beresford, who himself has mixed-race blood. And here is the crunch of the matter. Morgan bluntly called Meghan Markle a liar for her testimony over a conversation having taken place between her and an anonymous member of the Royal Family, concerning the colour of the unborn's skin whilst pregnant with Archie. This accusation of racism within the Royal Family had raised Morgan's temper while Beresford, in a rebuke, told him not to be so insulting. At that, Piers Morgan replied, I'm done here, and stormed out of the studio.

If there were any examples of sheer irony, then they surround the resignation of Piers Morgan from the Good Morning Britain chat show - and that was mainly from the readers of The Daily Mail newspaper. On the Online version of the article, there is a long forum of comments actually praising Morgan's accusation of Meghan's lying tactic. Here, he is seen as a national hero, a bulwark defending the institution of the Monarchy. But in the past, Piers Morgan was usually a constant target of ridicule, and whenever he posted an article in the newspaper, the forum column which followed it always contained expletives and harsh criticism.

And now, here is this eight-page spread defending the Firm and thoroughly debunking Markle's accusations, especially the one about racism within the institution. Throughout the week, not a single day had passed without the Media giving it a rest. I'm wondering why - why such an outcry? Did the interview really pose a threat of accusation against the Family? Personally speaking, I doubt it very much. It isn't a real earthquake, only an imaginary one.

Did Harry and Meghan lie? To be honest, I don't know. But if she did lie, then why would she do such a thing? What would they gain from denouncing the Firm and bringing it into disrepute? But again, if she was telling the truth and an accusation of racism was aimed at her and her offspring, what benefit would she had gained in such a public interview? National sympathy? Instead, all had backfired on her, with more than 50% of the population doubting her testimonies. According to a poll, the majority of those who supported Markle were in their twenties age group, whilst the majority of those who doubted her were from the older age group. Similarly, those who favour Republicanism, up to 30% of the UK population, were mostly from those under 30 years of age.

Although such reporting looks to every reader to be an honest refutation of all of Meghan's remarks made in the interview, I can also point out that there were times when the Daily Mail had not been thoroughly honest, especially when reporting about Brexit. I'm referring to an article written by one of their columnists, Stephen Glover, on April 13th, 2017. It was an attempt to refute novelist Julian Barnes' report and publication of the murder of Labour MP and Remainer, Joe Cox, by a right-wing maniac and Brexiteer, Thomas Lair. The killing itself took place on June 16th, 2016. The conviction of Thomas Lair took place at the Old Bailey on November 23rd, 2016, more than five months after the murder. Julian Barnes recorded the events very accurately. But the Vote-Leave Daily Mail columnist tampered with his words, thus making out that Remainer Julian Barnes' source to be inaccurate and misleading.*

Writer and novelist Julian Barnes.

But I shouldn't have been surprised at this. Back in April 2017, the editor of the Daily Mail newspaper was Paul Dacre, a devout Brexiteer, and one who had a big influence towards the swaying of the national vote for Brexit. Yet another irony - the newspaper itself is owned by Lord Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere who, I believe, voted to remain in the EU. The present editor, Geordie Greig, who took over Dacre's post in September 2018, is also reputed to be a Remainer.

This outcry against Meghan Markle's accusation against racism in the Royal Family, I find astonishing! But it shouldn't come as a surprise. Especially that we have a female monarch, one whose been on the throne since 1952, and loved and adored by the majority. What I find interesting is that had the monarch been male - a king rather than queen, would the national outcry and media reporting be just as intense?

This reminds me of an incident that took place on April 9th, 1989. In the House of Parliament, the opposition leader, Neil Kinnock, took a swipe at then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher by calling out "Immaculate Misconception" and "The Assumption of the Blessed Margaret." The Catholic Church was in an uproar! Bishop Alan Clark of East Anglia wrote to the opposition leader describing how offensive the remark was to Catholics in regards to Mary, and that letter was backed up by one written by Cardinal Hume as a sharp rebuke to Neil Kinnock, emphasising the seriousness of the insult in regards to their Mediatrix.**

The way I see it, the emotional reaction between the Catholic Church to Mary, when compared with Piers Morgan's storming off from the studio, looks to be remarkably similar. Mary is the mediatrix, or an intercessor, between the Catholic and Jesus Christ. Our present Queen's status as Head of the Church of England was handed down from King Henry VIII, who proclaimed himself as Head of the Anglican Church after his request to Pope Clement VII to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon was refused.

Thus, it could be implied that our Queen holds the same status as the Pope - to intercede on behalf of the nation and its Church, to God. I'm even wondering whether our female monarch has, in a way, replaced the Virgin Mary as an intercessor - even if only in the subconscious - and therefore perceive her as a kind of saviour-god, and therefore resulting in greater emotional intensity when challenged than if our monarch had been a king.

This drawing towards a female deity to intercede on our behalf has always been perfectly natural. The want of motherly comfort when faced with discipline from a strict and unaffectionate father - it's no surprise that the Catholic Church has far more shrines dedicated to Mary than to Jesus, and more prayers are offered to Mary than to Jesus Christ. The following is one typical Catholic prayer offered up:

Immaculate Heart of Mary, whose love for us is so ill-requited, I offer and consecrate myself to you forever to make some return, as far as in me lies, for your maternal tenderness and to make up for the wrongs inflicted on you by so many ungrateful children. Deign to accept this humble but sincere offering. My soul, my body, my life are yours, and since I belong entirely to you, defend me and protect me as one who is all your own.***

This expression to Mary as a maternal deity is not new. The Muslims honours Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed. Back in Roman times, Artemis and her son Horus was deified. The Greeks worshipped their goddess Diana. Ancient Persia had Ahurani. In turn, the Babylonians had Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod, the Assyrians worshipped Astarte and the ancient Egyptians had their goddess, Isis. History seems to indicate that a mother-goddess is a suitable, more intimate intercessor between the worshipper and heaven than a stricter male entity obsessed with discipline and punishment.

Nevertheless, ancient kings such as the Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman emperors were deified, which called for the building of Egyptian pyramids for their tombs. When the ancient Egyptians realised that their kings were not gods after all but mere mortals, the pyramids were exchanged for mere holes in the ground. There were many such insignificant graves in the Valley of the Kings. In turn, the imperial obligation to honour Caesar as God has put many early Christians in deep trouble for insisting that their Saviour Jesus Christ as Lord above the Emperor.

Egyptian Pyramids - Pharaohs seen as gods.

Personally, I have no issue with the Queen, her sons or her grandchildren. Rather, as I see her, with the majority of Englishmen, she stands for long-term religious, political, economic and sovereign security and stability. Even though I, or anyone else, may actually not see her as directly interceding to God, in a sense she is. Not for nothing that our National Anthem begins with God Save our Gracious Queen, at least in a way that she provides a sense of intercessional security, nationwide salvation. At least that's what I think. And under this sense of national stability, the true Gospel can spread.

It's my opinion that there is no need to panic over the interview between Harry, Meghan and Oprah in any accusation made against Royalty. The Palace will ensure that all members of the royal household will come out of this crisis in good form, and everything will then be fine.

If this interview is seen as an earthquake shaking the Royal Family from the roots, it isn't. Instead, it's only an imaginary earthquake. It will pass...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *For my blog from the archives, which covers this issue in greater detail, click here.

**Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome? 1991 Dorchester House Publishers, page 55. 

***Rev Robert Nisbet, But the Bible Does Not Say So, 1958, 1966, Church Book Room Press.