In Royal Family Drama, Harry and Meghan Look Worse and Worse

By Michael Curtis
American Thinker

January 25, 2020

As the drama of Harry and Meghan unfolds, it becomes ever clearer that Harry is a figure not of tragedy, but of self-interested hypocrisy.  The prince is not only dull, but the cause of dullness in others, more a figure of betrayal than of sacrifice.

The psycho-drama of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is one of spoiled individuals shedding crocodile tears over their fate.  In his final speech on January 18, 2020 in London, Harry delivered what was in essence an address about himself, mentioning as always the impact of his mother Diana on him but never mentioning his father, Prince Charles, who has been financing him.

Eighty years ago, King Edward VIII explained his abdication by saying he could not be king without the support of the woman he loved.  In similar fashion, Prince Harry explained why he was “giving it up” for the woman he loved.  But unlike the consequent action of King Edward in leaving the country, it is not clear that Harry is as direct and straightforward.  Harry said, “What I want to make clear is we’re not walking away.  We both do everything we can to fly the flag and carry out our roles for this country with pride.  The U.K. is my home and a place that I love.  That will never change.”  However, he did walk away and immediately left for Vancouver Island, where Meghan is residing with son Archie, accompanied on the flight from London by at least three Met protection officers. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $3.99 Buy New $8.00 (as of 05:27 UTC - Details)

Harry defended himself: “I haven’t always gotten it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option.”  But in fact there were a number of other options: at one extreme, fulfilling royal obligations in a life to which he was born, and at the other retiring completely from public life and becoming a private citizen.  His chosen option is to have his cake and eat it, retention of some privilege and continuation of financial support, at least from his father for at least a year, without fulfillment of official obligations or military duties.

For her part, Meghan, still formally duchess of Sussex, issued a bizarre, curious statement, saying quitting the royal family was the best thing that could ever happen to Harry.  In the royal family, his spirit, and hers, was being crushed.  Her love for him made their new life possible.

For a long time, Harry has played the Diana card.  Meghan seems to be doing that with son Archie.  Meghan, presumably referring to Buckingham Palace, said she did not want Archie around such a “toxic environment,” one where she can barely breathe.  Moreover, she confessed she cannot be the best mother to Archie if she is not her true, authentic self.  That self is not defined, but to outsiders, she is an elitist snob, happiest with Hollywood royalty, not a social justice warrior.  She has no immediate desire to move out of the $14-million mansion in Vancouver Island she has been lent.  She and Harry do not intend to change their website or Instagram name.  She can now do as she pleases without asking permission.  Not the least important is that the Sussex pair they will keep their royal titles, though they cannot use His or Her Royal Highness in public or for commercial use.  Nor can they officially represent the queen at events.

Read the Whole Article

Copyright American Thinker