When Sparks Fly...

Earlier today, as I watched the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh on television with my wife, I felt a lump in my throat as we watched the Queen sitting all alone at her seat inside St. George's Chapel within the walls of Windsor Castle. I, too, was almost about to cry as we watched her sitting all alone, mourning for her beloved husband. Almost her entire face was obscured by the brim of her black hat and also the black face mask she was wearing. To me, for her to wear a mask while sitting alone, away from all her family members, seemed so unnecessary, especially when she is already fully vaccinated and the interior of the chapel happens to be very large and spacious. However, not far away sat her two married grandsons: Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge and his younger sibling, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex.

Sometimes I wish I was in Prince Harry's shoes. No, not because of his title of Duke, neither because of his wealth and not because of his fame and social standing either. But rather, had it been me who flew back to the UK from California to attend my Grandad's funeral, the first thing that would cross my mind would be to ask to be brought to my older brother, Prince William, who is second in line to the throne. 

The Duke of Edinburgh's Coffin.

If he consents, I would then run into his arms and allow my tears to wet the shirt covering his shoulder. I would plead for forgiveness and full reconciliation, as both of us had emerged from the one and the same womb. The ball would then be entirely in my brother's court. Would he accept my plea of repentance? Or would he push me away so hard that I actually stumble backwards across the room? 

I felt a sense of sombre while I watched on TV both brothers walking behind the coffin. But unlike at their mother's funeral back in 1997, this time, these two brothers weren't walking next to each other. Instead, their cousin, Peter Phillips, was walking between them, as if acting like a human barrier, just in case these two brothers were to suddenly pounce on each other. 

Come on! As if such an incident would have ever happened. Not at Prince Philip's funeral.

Here, I try to look inside the Duke of Sussex's head while he's under quarantine, a tongue-in-cheek attempt to analyse his train of thinking. 

                                                                   **********

"What rotten luck it was to have someone beat me to the throne even before I was born. From conception onwards, I will always play second fiddle to my older brother William. It's like having a carrot held in front of two moving donkeys, but no matter how fast I can run, I'll never get to eat the carrot. The other beast is head and neck ahead and the gap between its mouth and the carrot is getting narrower, albeit slowly.

"Being initially third in line to the throne still sounds pretty good. I have already jumped in front of my two uncles, Princes Andrew and Edward. But trust my brother to marry Catherine - or Waity Katy, as that Daily Mail columnist, Amanda Platell, used to call her. How Platell loved to show some contempt at the future Duchess' apparent idleness before she married William. Then later, as soon as a baby is born to them, it would take my place as third in line, pushing me back to fourth.  

"Then how could I forget 2003? That was the year I finished my studies at Eton. A real posh school. Fit for a prince. But that doesn't really solve anything. My older brother also attended Eton. Our Dad Charles should have sent him up north to Gordonstoun. Perhaps the school would have made more of a man out of him. After all, Dad attended, but he was so miserable there, so I was told. Maybe that was why both of us attended Eton instead. 

"Then my gap year and that awful trip Down Under! While there might have been other British tourists visiting real attractions such as the Great Barrier Reef, instead, I had to work as a cattle rancher. Or a cowboy as they called him. Cowboy? Nah! Here in the UK, a cowboy is a dodgy builder - or any swindler who charges an exorbitant price for delivering shoddy work or even no work at all. No! I'm not a cowboy, and I don't want anyone to call me that. I'm a prince, for heaven's sake, even if I have to spend the whole of my life under the shadow of my brother.

"Coming to think of it, this is the funeral of our Grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh. During his lifetime, there are legends that he had quite a tongue. Let's see. Asking the President of Nigeria, who greeted him whilst dressed in formal national garments, if he was ready for bed. Commending a black Brit who was born here that her English is surprisingly superb. Then that bit about calling the Japanese "slitty-eyed." Or was he referring to the Chinese? It doesn't matter, anyway. As the Media cried out throughout the last week, his death marks the end of an era. Yea, I know what that means. The British Empire and all the white supremacy which went with it. No wonder Philip took the p*ss out of anyone who might look a little different.

Prince Philip when young.

"Going back to that trip in 2003. Australia, a Commonwealth nation. A former colony in other words. How the British subjugated the indigenous Aboriginals who lived in that land for maybe thousands of years. So, if I'm a rep of the old Empire, how dare they assigned me as a rancher! Playing a role in maintaining the Reef, surely this would have been a lot better. None of that poo stench one would expect at a cattle ranch. Coming to think of it, I wonder if the Duke of Edinburgh would have loved the Reef? He was so much into the natural environment and the threat of climate change, even my father inherited the same set of traits, which is also parallel to the views of David Attenborough. 

"As a rancher and knowing that I must play second fiddle to my brother, had made me feel miserable Down Under. Then they began to accuse me as one of those whinging poms. Okay, perhaps I did feel like a Prisoner Of His Majesty's Service but had they treated me more like a Prince than a Pom, then there would have been nothing to whinge about. 

"But since Mum's death and her funeral, I made every effort to get on well with William. And so we both did. We were inseparable. The bond between us couldn't be broken, no matter what strain it was subjected to. But to live under his shadow, always playing second fiddle - why does anyone need to question the way I had behaved before I met and married Meghan? Why was it that through being an extrovert, I managed, quite successfully to woo the nation, making me the second most popular Royal after the Queen?

"And those parties I loved attending! On one occasion, I was caught topless by a passing photographer. What a scream! Especially when my pic made it into the national newspapers. And then having started the Invictus Games back in 2014. What a success they were. Not to mention the polo games I played, which I had inherited from both my father and grandfather. Oh, I loved it, really loved playing in the rain and ended up drenched and mud-splattered. Like that, I can shine my own light to cancel out William's shadow, at least for the time being.

"Then Meghan came along. Wow! What a raving beauty! And with African bloodline, this, to me, has enhanced her beauty. And this film star had recently divorced her husband. Yea, I know what the Bible says. That is, if a bloke marries a divorcee, he commits adultery. And my Grandma is the Defender of the Faith and head of the Anglican Church. And there was a time when our Church forbade divorcees from remarrying. But with the advance of Darwinism, much of that is discarded. A divorcee she may be, Meghan is the one for me.

"After the wedding and after the close of the honeymoon was when reality began to percolate into our lives. That was when a split between them and us began to show. It was Meghan who shone a light into my soul. How would I have ever known that by being a Royal myself that I too, had the imperialistic mentality festering in the subconscious? I wasn't even aware of it, and coming to think of it, none of my family members had ever been aware of it. Yet, here it sits in the subconscious mind - and has an influence on everything I think, feels, says and do. I guess it's his subconscious that made Grandad make such gaffs to his non-white hosts.

"And when I told her about that stag do which was held at Windsor Castle. I attended dressed in a Nazi suit. It was meant to be a lighthearted gaff, a fancy dress party. But it was Meghan, with her darker skin and therefore, more sensitive to these issues, who revealed to me my subconscious intuition. It was after all this was revealed to me that my imperialistic intuition got to me, and feeling rather ashamed of my Royal upbringing, I became more inward-looking and withdrawn. Meanwhile, the rift between Willian and me became wider, which also gave me another perception of the whole institution.

Prince Harry at a polo match.

"And just as Grandad became ill and was hospitalised, this interview with Oprah Winfrey came along. Really, it couldn't have been at the worst time. As Grandad was in a London hospital, recovering from an op, it had to be Meghan who accused our family of racism. What she was doing was revealing this intuition that dwells in their subconscious without any of them being aware of it. But I guess it can manifest itself in one way or another, such as in Grandad's gaffs, a sensitive question that was asked of Meghan, or even the way I dressed for a party. For her to accuse the Firm of racism was the final straw which broke the back of our relationship camel with William. No wonder he was furious!

"If it wasn't for royal protocol, I think William would have punched me hard in the mouth! I bet he was itching to do just that. Whew! Talk about flying sparks! Therefore, had I had the chance, I might have called William over and had a talk in the hope of cutting a trail towards reconciliation of some sort. However, with the pandemic, I had to quarantine as soon as I entered the UK. I couldn't see anybody for a week, let alone William. But to be honest, do I really want to make it up to William? After all, both he and his wife had upset Meghan before now. It's no surprise that I too feel agitated over this whole issue, and withdrew from royal duties last year.

"Why, oh why, wasn't Meghan better accepted by the rest of the Royal household? The British Empire was all about national white supremacy. It was out of this fruit of Empire where this human maggot grew within and crawled out. Charles Darwin had certainly left this dark brown stain of Evolution within the apple, making it inedible. I have already been reading the funeral schedule during isolation. It involves staying separate from my brother.

"But Psalm 104 will also be read out during the service. It's all about God's Creation. Something the Duke of Edinburgh believed in. Oh, the nation will bow its head momentary whilst it's read out aloud. But after that, it will be universally discarded with Darwinism fully embraced.

"It's all about pageantry. Nothing more than that."

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.

Stiff Upper Lip, Cause for RUIN?

It wasn't that long ago when I was in the men's locker room, feeling heavy-hearted with a sullen face to show for it as I was getting ready for the gym. A team of other guys was also there, preparing, so I believe, for their five-a-side. But these were not young athletes making up the team but a group of older, middle-aged men. And two or three of them were in a discussion about a McDonald's beefburger bun, with one of the men complaining about how the top half of the bun crumbling (or something similar happening to it) making the bun more difficult or awkward to eat.

One suggestion came from his companion:

Why not ask them to stick the burger between two bottoms?

I broke into a grin as my spirits were suddenly lifted. As I made my way out of the locker room for the gym, I gestured a thank you to the stranger, my anticipation of collecting an injury halfway through a workout having dissipated.

Thank goodness this kind of saucy British humour hasn't yet sunk to the seafloor, at least not entirely, having been close to drowning by the tsunami of political correctness. The locker room was the ideal environment where Prince Harry would have felt at home. The ambiguous meaning of the two bottoms would have sent this Jack-the-Lad Royal guffawing in amusement.

Prince Harry after winning a polo match.

As a Christian believer, I find nothing offensive about such humour. It has no swear words and it's free of smut. This gag, for example, was on the exact level of those saucy postcards which were so abundant at every British seaside resort, bringing laughter not only to the buyer and recipient alike but also to brighten the day for any postal worker who earned his living shifting through the mail daily.

Indeed, what has happened to those postcards? I haven't seen them for years. Alongside that, I wish you were here of holiday free spirit which was often written at the back of those postcards to assure the recipient that the sender really was having a good time. The change in Harry's personality since he married Meghan seems to be a reflection of this dying British humour which was once a hallmark of the nation.

And so the Media brings Harry and Meghan to the centre of attention within the last few days. And I read The Daily Mail columnist Piers Morgan's vitriol demonisation of Harry's mixed-race wife, blaming her for the couple's decision to go out alone without first discussing such a move with the Queen and the rest of her family. So cutting was Morgan's criticism of Meghan that even Lord Sugar of the BBC programme The Apprentice had asked him whether his lambasting is really his racist attitude disguised as moral criticism and royalist fervour.

And that's the truth which must be faced. Alongside the humour which we Brits are so renowned for, among those from the Far Right, racism isn't that far below the surface. Of course, the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence way back in April 1993 will never be forgotten but remains indelible within our minds for the rest of our lives, along with the "institutional racism" within the Metropolitan Police which blocked the killers from having the book thrown at them. And more recently at football matches, "monkey noises" made by spectators at black players have brought distress on the pitch, with one match close to midplay abandonment.

And reading some of The Daily Mail's comment forums to do with Meghan Markle, I have seen racial bias aimed at her. Therefore it comes as no surprise when Piers Morgan's vitriol is aimed at her rather than him if racial bias has anything to do with his attitude.

But here I want to put everything in perspective. Yes, I feel sorry for the Queen. I believe her specific order not to go public until all is agreed should have been honoured. What a shock to hear such news for the first time via television. It goes to show that we are all people, including all members of the Royal Family, with thoughts and emotions. And of no surprise, as that's how God made us, with the ability to feel, regardless of the British stiff upper lip culture Britain is renowned for. 

Another reason for feeling sorry for the Queen. She could be under public pressure to slim down the Royal Family to only those members who are direct heirs to the Throne, that is, by mother-to-son, father-to-son, etc, without involving uncles or aunts. Or, in other words: Elizabeth - Charles - William - George in line for the throne, but omitting Harry, Andrew, and Edward and their children. As such, Archie, Harry's son, will also be excluded. The Queen may have been reluctant to do this, but still felt that it was her duty to listen to the nation's opinion. Harry and Meghan might have gotten the hint earlier last year, not long after their wedding. If such a hint was dropped, then it comes with little surprise that Meghan in particular wishes for her husband and herself to go independent.

A "slimmed down" Royalty? By national demand?

Talking about the stiff upper lip dominating Buckingham Palace, I have three books in my possession and in the past year, I have read them all. One is Chavs by Owen Jones, the second, Stiff Upper Lip by Alexander Renton, and the third is Posh Boys - How English Public Schools Ruin Britain, by Robert Verkaik (emphasis his.) While Jones concentrates on the demeanour of the working class by the shutting down of heavy industry, especially during Margaret Thatcher's reign in Parliament during the 1980s, the other two authors concentrate on the Public School system. Renton himself was a boarder in both Ashdown Preparatory and Eton College before taking on the post of Journalist for The Independent and The London Evening Standard newspapers.

Renton uses his own experiences to highlight the beatings, fagging (obeying the demeaning orders of an older pupil), cold baths, vile food, paedophile teachers, along with hypocrisy and cronyism which, although loved by some of the alumni, to most other students, including the author himself, can all add up to psychological damage. In turn, Verkaik concentrates on the history of the Public School system, emphasising that its origins were to give an education to the poor and ignorant without payment of a high fee - before such schools were taken over by the rich and the aristocratic as one way to set themselves apart from the lower classes through payment of astronomical fees. He then stresses how one from a Public School is paid a higher income and enjoy greater privileges in employment and social standing than one from a State Comprehensive - even if they have identical jobs.

As statistic go, only 7% of the British population attended Public School. Yet despite this number, this dominates all male members of the Royal Family. Prince Philip attended Gordonstoun School in Scotland, along with his three sons, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. When Prince William was born, it was decided that a break with tradition was due, and both William and Harry attended Eton College instead. It is said that both Edward and Harry were struggling students, with Edward needed some outside help to achieve his exam passes. That means any genuinely bright student attending a comprehensive would have out-performed these two Royals.

A student from a comprehensive may have four A*Levels, another student from a Public School may leave with just three A Levels but it will always be the public school student who will be given preference at Oxbridge and enjoy greater perks at work as well as landing plummier jobs such as starring in an acting career. Yet when I read the biography of Prince Charles' early life more than twenty years ago, I was astounded by the sheer misery he had experienced at Gordonstoun, particularly on his homesickness and the constant want for his mother's love. Instead, she was engaged in duties abroad as a Royal as well as elsewhere in the UK and he felt he was dumped to get him off their backs.

After reading Renton's book, Stiff Upper Lip, I became convinced that Charles' misery at Gordonstoun was the bedrock for his shaky marriage with Princess Diana, even if reading his biography may have lent a hint as well. He could not stomach her emotional mother-like attitude, especially towards Third World indigenous children suffering hunger and the effects of war. She was loved by the British public to a greater degree than her emotionally-crippled husband. In turn, she was longing for her husband to open up and allow his emotion of love to flow towards her. But it could never have happened. Gordonstoun made sure of that.

And that, I believe, is the kind of stifling atmosphere Meghan Markle found herself confined to. As an American, this stiff upper lip culture of Buckingham Palace was too much for her. So indeed, unlike Piers Morgan's scathing words thrown at her, I tend to feel more sympathetic. But furthermore, I'm sad for the two of them. I would hate to see their HRH title stripped from them, also no longer receiving grants from Prince Charles and the loss of other benefits as Royals. Also, I pity the Queen too, especially after going through so soon with her favourite son Andrew, who was involved in a friendship with a rich paedophile, and that also for the need to "slim down" the Firm, apparently, by public demand. For someone who is in her nineties and with an ailing husband to look after, such sources of stress aren't called for.

Personally, I wish God's blessing for all members of the Firm, Harry and Meghan included. And the only true source of blessing is to know Jesus Christ personally as Saviour. Although my good friend Andrew Milnthorpe has reminded me before now that the Queen has genuine faith in Christ, and I accept this as true, I do wonder whether the rest of her family share this faith. The Public School-enforced emotional restraint among all members making this so frustratingly unsure! However, I have doubts whether Meghan is saved and I question Harry too. If they aren't and neither is Charles, this goes to show that the stiff upper lip is a blockage preventing the Gospel being spread, even among family members. Furthermore, if Renton's testimony is to be believed and Verkaik's knowledge of the system is to be taken as true, then the Public School is very unlikely to be a hotbed for successful Christian conversion. Rather, it stands in the way.

Prince Charles with his father at Gordonstoun

And by thinking of all this, I do ask myself whether people can see Christ living in me. I have been a believer for nearly half a century, yet I have a brother who, until lately, has been a sworn atheist, after feeling delusional about the Roman Catholic Church in which he grew up. At present, he is more of an agnostic than atheist yet he does respect my faith. My two nieces also have respect for my faith but had so far not converted them, although my younger niece and I went to the Kerith Centre for morning Sunday service more than once. Although one or two might have crossed over the line as a result of my testimony, I long that people could see Christ in me more clearly.

This whole shenanigan within the Firm brings a shameful epoch in British history but I cannot say that the British Public School system is free from blame. 

A Wedding and a Gay Churchgoer.

As many of my readers may be aware, the front page of today's edition of The Daily Mail national newspaper carries a photo of the bride and groom leaving the church in Windsor, and exchanging a kiss whilst their arms are entwined. Yet if I were to see them walking along the street or busy at a shopping mall, I would not even give them a second glance, as they would appear as total strangers. But not to the rest of the nation, it seems like, who would have recognised the bride as Princess Eugenie, the daughter of Prince Andrew, the second son of the Queen (after Prince Charles and Princess Anne), and therefore Her Majesty's granddaughter.

She had just tied the knot with, as it looks to me, some unknown fellow, Jack Brooksbank by name. An aristocrat of some sort, as I tried to scour both the newspaper and the Internet on what he does for a living. All I got was that he is an ambassador for several brands of wine. Whatever that's supposed to mean, one thing for sure, he never got his hands dirty fixing a broken pipe or stood in a muddy trench in search for some frayed cables.

Jack Brooksbank with Princess Eugenie.

Yet the Daily Mail devotes its first seventeen pages to the wedding, plus a further twelve centre pages as a souvenir pullout, making a grand total of 29 pages altogether, which is a typical reflection of our nation's obsession with celebrity. Heavens! Why didn't they make it into a tidy number of thirty pages? But when it comes to crowd attendance, there is quite a significant difference between this Royal wedding and that of Prince Harry and Meghan at the same venue a few months earlier. Harry's wedding had attracted a crowd of 100,000 spectators, whilst this one pulled in only 3,000 onlookers, according to the newspaper. The small fact that Eugenie's nuptials took place on a Friday, and therefore there were many employers unwilling to give their workers a day off, this might well have had a hand in the vast difference of crowd numbers, as Harry was wise enough to marry Meghan on a Saturday.

Am I one of a majority who really couldn't give a damn? A minor Royal had just got hitched, and I was far more interested in the gym workout, followed by a relaxing sauna afterwards. And while I was preparing to row for a full hour on the Concept 2 flywheel machine, three thousand devoted followers lined the street, with just one overnight camper. Personally, I wish them good luck and God's blessing. Although I do wish them well, that's not the point here. Rather, if there is such a country which practically deifies Royalty, it has to be Great Britain. And the English in particular.

It's nothing new of course. Far from it. The Pyramids of ancient Egypt, for example, remains a lasting testimony of the Pharaoh's deification by his loyal subjects. Sometime later the Romans were at it. I believe it was Emperor Augustus who initiated the Pax Romana, which allowed its citizens to live in peace whilst the Empire expanded. Since the Pax Romana is an abstract quality rather than an entity, the idea of worshipping the Emperor as divine suited them well. It was not long before Emperor-worship became compulsory on the penalty of death, which brought problems to the early Christian who insisted that the risen Jesus of Nazareth was God, not the ruling Emperor.

These Roman emperors certainly did not live saintly lives. They tended to murder their own family members in order to ward off any threat of rivalry and to secure their own power. The majority of these ancient rulers also had handsome boys in their bedrooms, what we at present would label as pederasty and paedophilia, such scandals in Her Majesty's Government would shake the very foundations of Parliament. It does look to me that generation after generation of governance under a Christian Constitution has made the churches effective in its role as Salt of the Earth.

Poor John the Baptist! He wasn't so lucky in stemming evil. During the days of his ministry, King Herod successfully wooed his brother's wife while her husband was still alive. And so he rebuked the couple in public, calling their marriage adulterous and a sham. Indeed, after John's arrest and imprisonment, Herod had taken a liking to his captive and even called him up to his palace to hear more on what he had to say, according to Mark 6:20. But John's rebuke failed to bring repentance. He never sent his wife Herodias back to his brother. Instead, he allowed her hatred of the prophet to fester and eventually used her beautiful daughter to lull the king to have John executed.

However, Herod's sin looks to be incredibly mild in comparison to those of the reigning emperors in Rome. Really, Herod's sin wasn't unlike our own perception of marriage, divorce and re-marriage taking place all around us at present. Here in the UK, even under a Christian Constitution, this sort of thing takes place all the time, despite what both Jesus himself and apostle Paul had taught, that he who marries a divorcee commits adultery (Luke 16:18, Romans 7:1-3).

1-hour workout = 6.4 miles, 520 calories and no wedding bore!

Which makes Prince Harry's wedding to Meghan a very awkward issue indeed, since Meghan was a divorcee herself. Therefore, according to John, Jesus and Paul, the marriage between Harry and Meghan stand as an adulterous relationship, yet as many as 100,000 stood to watch the nuptials and giving their blessing, as with the TV and newspaper media.

Then came the news from Northern Ireland that a Christian baker has won a legal victory against two gay men who wanted a cake decorated with a motto advocating same-sex marriage. The two men ordered the cake and were ready to pay for it, but the baker refused to make it, based on his own Christian convictions. So the two men took the baker to Court, but lost the case, mainly due to the fact that same-sex marriage is still illegal in Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of the UK.

Organisations such as Christian Concern has endorsed the baker's legal victory with praise. As with John the Baptist's rebuke to Herod, their loss of the Court case did not bring these two gay men to repentance, but most likely had left them shimmering in bitterness and resentment. And Christian Concern will be celebrating their tenth birthday at the Emmanuel Centre next weekend - the same venue in London where Creation Ministries International held their Conference a month ago.

We were invited by my PhD friend Andrew to go with him to the celebration. At first, I declined the invitation. But when Andrew revealed to me that a connection was possible between declining morals and the rise of Darwinism, a chord was struck within and I had to re-think. I admit that I wasn't keen to push my wife's wheelchair into London all over again after such a short time, with all the transportation problems such a contraption would bring. But I eventually agreed to attend if Andrew was happy for me to go on my own with him. So off we shall go.

But what has brought me to say Not this time initially? Much to do with moral reformation but without the re-birth of the spirit, as the case of Herod and the two gay men shows. Here I try to use empathy here, to try and put myself in their shoes:-

During the Court case, it is repeated over and over again that the issue of the cake is against Christian principles. The Judge sides with the baker and I lose the case. What would I then be thinking? How would I feel? Certainly not warm towards the churches! And as for the faith itself, any credibility it might have had is taken away by the punitive attitude it has. And it's so grossly unfair. It's all very well for a straight preacher, happily married with two children, to stand in front of the pulpit and declare how wicked and evil same-sex relationships are. But he wasn't born that way. And to say that homosexuality is a mere mental condition borne out of choice...well, that's an insult in itself. Why is it then that a vast majority of gays would have preferred to be heterosexual, marry and have children? And why choose to bear the rejection and hostility from mainstream society? Furthermore, why is there a frightening level of suicides among us gays, way above those committed by straights? And that despite that gays consist only 4% of the population?

And my view of God? A punitive monster in the sky who is obsessed with hellfire, and the certainty that all gays will go there. The churches are no better. Nothing more than a house of constant condemnation. And here is the crunch. I can't help being the way I am. For example, I could walk along a street or at a shopping mall. I could be in the office or even a factory shop floor. Or, heaven forbid, I could even be in church. I catch sight of a decent, handsome man. I quickly look away but it's already too late. My heart beats rapidly, nerves cause my muscles to tighten, libido sets in. The trouble is, there is also a higher level of embarrassment if ever he would find out how I felt, or anyone else in the room. Choice? Rather, I'm bound for eternal condemnation, in chains from which I cannot break free. After all, with such a divine monster in the sky - if he exists - how could I possibly turn to him for mercy?

And so that's how the churches and society as a whole would perceive a gay person. I think there is an element of truth in reports written by psychiatrists and psychologists that homosexuals have the least happiness ratio in any society. Not so much because the sexual experience can be so unpleasant, but more likely the feeling of fear of rejection which can include verbal and physical harm.

Although there are churches and para-church organisations such as Christian Concern which can be quite heavy when they come to LGTB issues, it does look to me that they are far from true moral reformation. I can be wrong of course. They testify of God working through them. However, real repentance without regret is a grace which can only come through conversion and regeneration by faith in Jesus, the crucified, buried and Resurrected Christ. Conversion to Jesus Christ as Saviour is the only answer.

And this especially when considering these other issues: Have you ever looked at another person and harboured a secret lust? Then you are an adulterer. Do you have a superior attitude towards another person of inferior status? Are you snobbish? Or hold racist views? Then you are a murderer. Have you ever manipulated your tax return with dishonest intent? Then you are a thief. Have you ever rebelled against your parents? Or shown hostility towards them? Then you have dishonoured them. And in frustration, you shout, Oh for Christ's sake!? Or Jesus Christ Almighty!? Then you are a blasphemer. And even told a white lie? Then you are deceitful. The fact is, where sexuality is concerned, we are all deviants. as the Scriptures says:

There is no one who is righteous, no, not even one.

Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3, also Romans 3:10-12.

The trouble with me is, I am no better than any other sinner. I'm just as bad. Therefore to attend a Christian organisation dealing with moral reform but with the lacking emphasis of a faith in Christ, then there are elements of hypocrisy. If ever there was one in deep need of moral reformation, then it is me, especially in my thoughts and motives. Without Christ, I'm lost and without hope. Yet by God's grace, I shall be going. Not to shout from the rooftops that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is wrong, but to learn further where all these worsening moral standards have a connection with Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory.

A Nasty Bug in the Ointment...

It was a typical Friday afternoon. I had just completed a workout in the gym, and I have made my way across the leisure centre premises for a session at the sauna and spa suite, still dressed in gym outfit, which is now damp with body sweat. After stripping off my singlet and appropriate footwear, I was ready for the shower to rinse off all traces of sweat before immersing myself into the soothing warm water of the bubble bath, in preparation for both steam room and dry sauna bathing and relaxation.

It was just before entering the shower when one of the regulars turned to me and asked,

Frank, what do you think of the wedding?

To which I answered, pointing both my index fingers to each of my ears,

Not interested. Look, I'm up to my ears with it!

Okay, he responded jokingly. I won't say any more about it.

A bystander, another regular whose conversation was ongoing until my arrival, continued with his diatribe:

That f-----g Charlie, all he wants is to get back into public favour! He declared, as if spitting out his words, thus setting the whole atmosphere of the entire suite as definitely not wedding-friendly. He was referring to the Prince of Wales' voluntary stepping in to give away the bride to his own son at the altar, after the bride's father failed to turn up due to illness. Afterwards, I was pondering. Personally, I always liked Prince Harry. He did not inherit the characteristic "stuck up" attitude of traditional English royalty, but instead he was more of a party-goer as well as sports organiser, particularly for war veterans. One of his highlights was when he was caught stripped naked at a private affair in Las Vegas, and such was spread throughout the media as a major scandal across our nation. Harry proved to be as human as the rest of us.

So what was it that irritated all of us at the spa suite? Simply this, this whole shenanigan is so high key, with newspapers such as the Tory-leaning Daily Mail, TV and radio, all going on and on about the forthcoming wedding, and how wonderful it will be, and how glorious to Britain's image it will be to ourselves and to the rest of the world. Even the BBC, in realising ideal weather conditions, predicts scores of street and garden parties in full swing dotting the land. Perhaps a visit to our spa venue the previous evening would have created a sudden culture shock for the media.

Because, going by that Friday's experience, men in general are not interested in such public weddings. Instead, these events have a far greater appeal to women, who are more inclined to scrutinise the dress the bride is wearing and whether the groom is chosen the right coloured tie to match his suit. These things appeal to women.

But not so much to men, the majority just couldn't be bothered. Therefore it wasn't too much of a surprise to find that on my weekly morning visit to Starbucks, there were more men sitting there than on a normal Saturday. Fortunately for us men, the date of the wedding is also the same day as the F.A. Cup final held at Wembley. Between Manchester United and Chelsea, I believe. It really does not matter. This fixture has a far greater appeal to men than the wedding, and especially to those two team's devoted fans. Indeed, I used to watch football from time to time as a bachelor. However, my wife is out-and-out against football. After watching a match on TV late one evening after she had gone to bed, she then declared that she won't allow football in the house any more. Fair enough, I'm not a football fan anyway. I cannot blame her either. She simply cannot stand the enormously high salaries these players earn whilst many live in poverty and need to visit food banks.

And so what a day this is! A Royal Wedding for the women, and the F.A. Cup Final for the men. But as a Christian believer and student of the Bible, serious thoughts have gone through my mind, especially concerning Meghan Markle, who will be the bride. Nothing to do with her interracial background. Actually, I wished she had married William, second to the throne after Prince Charles. Now that would have shocked the nation to its core, wouldn't it? A future black Queen. Not only a breakaway from a thousand years of British tradition, but also enough perhaps to shut up all those in far-right groups, whose central beliefs includes white supremacy. But instead, she marries Harry, sixth in line to the throne, and therefore absolutely no chance of sitting. 

But with the issue going through my mind, Meghan is a divorcee. Before meeting Harry, she was married for two years to film producer Trevor Engelson. Then they divorced in 2013. And here is the issue, highlighted by non other than Jesus Christ himself. He said that if a man marries a woman who is divorced, he commits adultery (Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:12, Luke 16:18). The stress on the importance of this teaching is by three-time emphasis by the Holy Spirit in each of the synoptic Gospels. Therefore it must be important. Even Paul the Apostle, ministering to churches after the Atonement, has written that if a Christian wife suffers a divorce, if she was to re-marry another man, she would be called an adulteress (Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:11). 

It's little wonder that many unbelievers regard us Christians as miserable sods, out to ruin the happiness of many by our "holy" standing. Personally, I dislike the idea of portraying myself as a sour-face moralist, always sporting a frown on my forehead, and always having judgement on others and condemning them as wicked. That kind of attitude would makes me very obnoxious indeed - not the type of person to have around! And certainly not bringing any glory to God either! Furthermore, I would be perceived as having no understanding of emotive power of attraction and falling in love, along with lacking of any perception involving the sexual desire for this other person.  But I must be real here. The New Testament looks to be against divorce and remarriage. No doubt about it. If anyone stood up and publicly declare that Harry should not marry Meghan because she is divorced, he would be very unpopular indeed, if not publicly lynched.

Therefore it came as no surprise to me that Christians in general has been silent on this issue, as if there is a struggle between Bible conviction and the want for national and monarchical glory. Arminian Christians who don't believe in Eternal Security of the Believer will, for one, immediately assume that if Harry was saved in the past, he's certainly isn't saved now, having committed a sin serious enough for him to lose his salvation. And if that looks to be far fetched, then I know of one well-known itinerant preacher, David Pawson, who wrote books emphasising this issue. Yet despite all this, the rest of the nation raise their hands in gladness and God's blessings.

After watching a You-Tube video which appeared on the playlist out of random, I have been thinking: Supposing Jacob Rees-Mogg was at the ceremony. When the banns were read out prior to the vows being made, this Member of Parliament stood up and loudly announced,

I object to Prince Henry marrying Meghan Markle on the basis that she is divorced.

I remember our wedding in October 1999. Then, as now, the banns were read out before the vows were taken. A moment of deafening silence followed the reading out of the banns. This was the opportunity for anyone to express any reason why Alex and I must not marry. Such a reason is known as an impediment. If the impediment is valid, the wedding will not go ahead. 

Therefore, why have I singled out Jacob Rees-Mogg? What's so special about him? Known by the Daily Mail newspaper as "The Englishman's Darling" for his emphatic support for "hard" Brexit, he attended Eton, had graduated at Trinity College in Oxford, and speaks with a plum tone of voice. I have church-going friends who believe in him and should stand as party leader and lead the country as Prime Minister. If there was anyone who would "get the job done" in Britain leaving the EU, Rees-Mogg would be such a candidate suitable for the role.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP.

Therefore coming across a You-Tube video entirely by chance without having to search for it was certainly enlightening, and I couldn't help making a connection between his interview and the nation's adoration of the royal wedding. The interviewer was The Guardian newspaper journalist Owen Jones, a boyish-looking individual, but in reality already in his thirties, and a holder of both a B.A. and a M.S.t. degree, for both he studied at University College, Oxford. I personally don't agree wholly with Owen Jones, as he appears to be rather radical left-wing and a supporter of trade unionism, but the interview he gave Jacob Rees-Mogg at an arranged meeting I have found intriguing:

OJ: What makes you cry?

JRM: I haven't cried, certainly not in adulthood.

OJ:  So you haven't cried since you became an adult?

JRM: No. I'm not in favour of this New Age "drippiness".

OJ: What's wrong in being emotional?

JRM: The British did best when they finally starched their upper lip.

OJ: The biggest killer of men in their fifties is suicide. They have depression and suicidal thoughts, yet can't talk about it because it's seen as "dripping"?

JRM: They can get help, but I don't think that talk about the inner self is interesting to people.

To tell the truth, I find it sad to hear such words coming from a British MP. Had it been from a bricklayer, a plumber, an electrician or simply from a yard worker at a factory, then I might have had a better understanding. But an MP, setting an example for his constituents to follow? And for the rest of the nation to follow? How could he define masculinity in the way he does? Not exactly Christian is it? After all, Jesus of Nazareth wept in public - twice, at least. Does that make our Saviour a New Age "drippy"?

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a devout Roman Catholic, so he should know something about Jesus. He faithfully attends church every Sunday and Holy days. I wonder how he feels about John, one of the Lord's disciples, leaning on our Saviour's breast during the last supper? Not to mention how he wept over the fate of Jerusalem on one occasion, and on another occasion slobbering over the death of Lazarus. Therefore I am wondering whether sincere regular church-going Christians fully realise Rees-Mogg's character, beliefs, and ideas, other than being a devout supporter of Brexit.

Furthermore, as a Catholic, it's standard practice to call upon Mary, the mother of Jesus, to intercede for him and his family. A more intimate title for Our Lady is Mama, particularly in Italy where a mother-child relationship is actually encouraged. Therefore I wouldn't put it past Rees-Mogg to shed a secret tear to Mary as he pleads for her rather obstinate and wrathful Son to forgive him for his sins. An interesting point here. His "drippy" attitude towards emotionalism could well come from his own perception of the Son of God having a "masculine" and judgemental personality deprived of compassionate emotions. 

Therefore Rees-Mogg knows perfectly well that to marry a divorcee is wrong, according to Catholic teaching. But he remains stubbornly silent concerning Harry's marriage to Meghan Markle. He knows full well that to speak up would sever all popularity and lose a large majority of his followers. Yet the media constantly promotes the wedding for the glory of Britain and its monarchy. The Archbishop calls down a blessing upon a couple whom many believe the Bible calls adultery. When it comes to the Bible versus the Glory of Britain, the latter will always win whilst the Bible is cast aside as irrelevant.

Indeed, the teachings of Jesus about marriage, divorce and adultery is a bug in the ointment. A very nasty bug, coming to think of it, as its presence causes the sweet aroma of national glory into a putrid stench of compromise by rejecting the Bible except when it suits them and denying the teachings of our Lord.

Rather like the Creation/Evolution debate. Creationism is a bug in the ointment of academic Christians. Therefore they concoct a formula, a "halfway house" of Theistic Evolution in order to minimise the stench wafting from the ointment which such Biblical teaching has imposed on science.

Narcissism, the Cold, and the Tube.

To stand outside doing practically nothing on a chilly morning at the end of November isn't a pleasant experience, especially as a moderate strength breeze from the Arctic percolates the winter coat I'm wearing and begins to chill the skin and penetrate my arm muscles to my bones. Then to add to this, I hadn't had a hot coffee for the last two to three hours, and I was longing for one. Then I was made further uncomfortable by an ailment in my left foot, the malady recognised as Plantar Fasciitis by my GP. This rather painful impediment to walking and even merely standing made the overall discomfort more intense, to the point when I called out to Wesley that I'm feeling unwell, and I need to return home. So much for the gym workouts from where the sharp pain from the heel to the ankle, had first began.

Wesley is an aspiring window cleaner, to whom I sold my business during the process of retirement. As he himself is not only self-employed, but as a company director, he also assign jobs to other self-employed window cleaners, forming a team of workers who can complete a housing estate within a day, where formerly, it took me five working days to complete the same area. Much of this is also due to the advanced technology of the pole system replacing the ladder, hence saving much time and effort, unlike the traditional cloth, bucket and ladder which was my trademark during 35 years of domestic window cleaning.

And so, how did I come to know Wesley? Some years ago I met him with his father at Coral Reef Sauna World. Back then, Wesley was barely out of school, and rather than further his education, he decided to work for his cousin in the window cleaning trade covering mainly commercial properties, including school premises. When his cousin suddenly died prematurely, Wesley took over the helm and was able to expand his business, which was based in Aldershot, a Hampshire town some sixteen miles away from Coral Reef Waterworld and my nearby home street. In the meantime, after their successful visit to the Grand Canyon at my recommendation, both Wesley and I began to attend the sauna every Saturday morning where I was able to mentor him on the trade. I did this with the intention of selling him my business, even with retirement still more than ten years away, I could still see it coming, and when the time eventually arrived, I was able to pass on a thriving business to amalgamate into his own enterprise rather than to see it pass into oblivion.

Therefore I often arrive to "supervise" the team when they work at my former estates, as well as having a cheerful chat with my former clientele. Usually I stay for the full duration until they are ready to pack up and go home, (usually between one to two o'clock in the afternoon) but this time it was different. As the chilly wind bit into me, I remember an incident which occurred several months earlier. I was looking outside my kitchen window to see and hear a forty-something year old dustman shouting a rebuke at the teenage recruit who appeared not to be committed to his work. That was quite a while ago, and I never saw the lad since. I can fully imagine the senior refuse collector at the end of his shift, approaching the Council offices to protest, This lad is of no use to us. Assign him to someone else or get rid of him!

Or at another case a few years earlier, whilst I was cleaning the windows of one house, the owners of the property next door was having an extension built. Whilst all the contractor's equipment littered the back yard, suddenly the builder shouted to his younger recruit, a man in his early twenties, I'm not paying you to sit down! I doubt whether the younger man had kept his job after that, since afterwards I saw the builder working on his own.

Echoes of my adolescent years! But at least I had the comfort of working indoors, protected from the adverse weather outside, and just about avoiding dismissal. But the attitude was the same, like the two recruits, I was small fry in an adult, fully masculine world. And whilst this week I was standing outside, watching Wesley getting on with his job, I was wondering what it would have been like as a young recruit at a building site, or at a roadworks, or a railway engineering works, or anywhere else in an all-male environment involving heavy labour outdoors in a biting wind, rain, snow, or for that matter, even scorching sunshine. And subject to teasing or even bullying, with myself being an easy target for the older worker to vent his own frustration, if not merely to poke fun at. I then desperately would have wished to go home, to settle on the comfortable sofa in front of the fire with a mug of coffee. Instead, I would have had no option but to remain at the site at the foreman's discretion - or, having taken enough, to leg it, knowing full well that my post is automatically terminated, along with its source of income. 

And so such is the fate of leaving school without any qualifications, as I did in 1968.

I guess it's "the grass is always greener on the other side" ethic cannot be truer than if, for example, a road had to be dug up in the middle of Oxford for a new pipe or cable to be laid. As the cold wind blows and my knees are knocking together as I attempt to carry a heavy tool to an older colleague who has told me to fetch it with a level of impatience, I'll be glancing at the historic beauty of the colleges around me which makes up Oxford University, with a crushing feeling of envy for every undergraduate who was successful enough at school for admission. Fortunately, by God's grace, I have never found myself in such a situation. Yet the crushing unfairness of life prevails, as I stood watching my business successor at work. Because it was only on the day before, when I was considering a sauna at Coral Reef, that I remembered a visit by Sophie Rhys-Jones, Countess of Wessex, to attend the official opening of Coral Reef Waterworld after two years of closure. 

Sophie, Countess of Wessex, is greeted at Coral Reef

Sophie is the wife of Prince Edward, the youngest of the Queen's offspring. Although I would never had recognised her if I saw her in the street, nevertheless her marriage to a member of royalty had made her a celebrity. And that, being ninth in line to the throne, they would never sit on the throne. Especially with the birth of William and Harry from Prince Charles, the Queen's firstborn and his wife Diana, then later, William's wife Catherine popping out one baby after another, had demoted Edward's position to the throne from third place to ninth at present, and that will fall to tenth after Catherine's third child is born. Then not to mention Harry's new sweetheart Meghan. Any babies popping out of her womb in the future will demote Edward's place even further.

And so Sophie Countess of Wessex was treated as full royalty at the official re-opening of Coral Reef Waterworld. With her was the Mayor of Bracknell with her team of civil servants. And an album of photos was posted on Facebook to commemorate the event. And at one photo was that of an on-duty lifeguard about to slide down one of the newly-installed tubes, and getting paid too, for the pleasure of showing off to the Countess. I had to laugh. Because standing next to the start of the flume was one of the elderly civil servants who was watching with apparent envy!

The officer on the left looks on with envy...

As I wrote two weeks earlier in my blog, Gone Down the Tube, it's the boy in the man wanting to get out and have some fun. As he stood there alongside the Countess, I could almost see his shadow climbing on to the inflated raft and then yell out as he pushes himself to full speed down the flume!

Oh, how life may seem unfair, if my own experience as a school-leaver had anything to go by. I suppose it's the matter of birth combined with circumstance. Because along with the Countess of Wessex greeted with royalty at Coral Reef Waterworld, there has been an announcement of Prince Harry's engagement with American girlfriend, divorced actress Meghan Markle. Being multi-racial as well, and an immigrant to boot - I wonder why there is a deathly silence hanging over such groups as Britain First, an anti-Islamic group who wants all immigrants booted out of the country. But I guess it's because Prince Harry also will never make it to the throne either, being sixth in line at present and falling. And here is what I find so ironic. Just today (Saturday December 2nd) the Daily Mail national newspaper had devoted six full pages on Meghan Markle, her background and her parents. Of all such tributes, one stood out above all, and that is Meghan's father, Thomas Markle, who "has an aversion to wearing a collar and tie". At least this fellow has something in common with myself.

It would have been interesting indeed, on how these far-right groups would have responded had Meghan Markle had married Prince William instead, who is destined to be King. Believe me, I would have loved to have seen any response coming from them. And staying with our beloved Daily Mail newspaper, only the day before I read an article by journalist Tom Utley. He criticised the Millennial Generation, including his own children, for voting to remain in the EU during the June 2016 Referendum, with their assumption of national friendship and unity along with freedom of trade and movement. Utley's rebuke and his support for Brexit was to do with its future economy. Nothing about patriotism. Not that Utley is anti-patriotic. Rather, he is very patriotic, only he dares not bring that up in his article!

The right-wing, Conservative-supporting Daily Mail newspaper constantly has its journalists writing articles in defence of Brexit. It is as if leaving the EU has fallen out of favour with the public, especially with our Government's struggle with the divorce bill, the issue of international trading, and the question of the Northern Ireland/Irish Republic border. So the newspaper keeps on defending Brexit as if on a verge of panic. But there is one word conspicuously missing from all of the newspaper's articles on Brexit. And that word is Narcissism.

In context, it means an exaggerated viewpoint of Britain and its people, based on its rich history of world conquest and imperialism, along with winning both world wars, entwined with the idea that the English are God's special people, exalted higher than all the other nations on Earth, and therefore deserving of special privileges and unique blessings. It is this national feeling that exalts the Royal Family to divine status, in effect replacing Jesus Christ with the British monarch as a bridge-builder between the people and heaven, very much like Roman Emperor Constantine did around 312 AD. There are a large number among the English population who are narcissists, quite likely a very large percentage. But they won't admit it, at least not in public. The Daily Mail is certainly narcissist, but it won't bring itself to admit it. As such, it's little wonder that even a minor royal, such as Sophie, who will never sit on the throne, is perceived as worthy to take part in a local ceremony with all the pageantry to go with it  - whilst there are many workers, faceless men who toil outdoors in the chilly wind, all aware of the "like it or lump it" attitude from their employers.

Meghan Markle with Prince Harry

The Brits devotion to their monarch reminds me of a story in the Old Testament. Here we read about the seer Samuel who was approached by the sons of Israel, begging for a king to rule over them and to lead them into war, whenever it's necessary. Samuel was grieved by this, and so he took the petition to God himself (1 Samuel 8). God then answered Samuel,
It is not you they are rejecting. Rather they have rejected me from being king over them, just as they have rejected me since the day I took them out of Egypt - verses 6-9. So God allowed them to have their way, and instructed Samuel to anoint Saul the son of Kish, a horse rancher, to be their first king.

With the possible exception of David, history has shown that having a king proved Israel's downfall. After the death of David's son Solomon, who himself had apostatised in his later years, Israel was split into two nations, Ephraim and Judah, each with their own king, who often fought against each other. All the northern kings were evil, primarily leading the people to worship foreign gods which involved child sacrifice. There were some good kings reigning over Judah, including Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah, but the majority were evil, leading their people to idol worship too. Eventually, things got so bad that both nations went into captivity to Assyria and Babylon respectively.

There is only one King, the only true King, Jesus Christ. And his claim as King is well deserved, for being God, he was the only one to have ever defeated death. No one in the whole of human history had ever done that. And because of his victory over death, he is ready, willing and able to give eternal life to everyone who believes. Now that is something to celebrate.