Prince Harry’s unbrotherly resentment No wonder the woke creed appeals to the spare royal
What must it feel like to be the spare? Credit: Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty
It is all in Genesis IV.
“Now Abel kept flocks and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering – fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry and his face was downcast”.
As we know, Cain was so consumed with anger and jealousy that he attacked his brother in the fields and killed him. He was put under a curse to be a “restless wanderer” on the Earth.
On the surface this is a story of sibling rivalry, something tormenting Prince Harry. As reports at the weekend suggest, the rift between the young prince and his elder brother seems to be widening as publication day for the pointedly titled “Spare” draws nearer. It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Harry. It can’t be easy being the spare, the younger brother whose role in the royal “firm” started in a position of subordination and has become steadily more subordinate as more direct heirs arrive to dilute his lineage.
There are plenty of younger siblings who have suffered in this way although none of us can imagine the particular hardship of being the “spare” to a throne.
Cain and Abel, though, is about much more than sibling rivalry. It contains deeper truths about human nature and the “deadly” sin of jealousy. It sounds something of a warning, therefore, for the spare prince.
Life, and in particular free market society, produces a constant churn of perceived “winners” and “losers”. Society and the media measure people by criteria of material wealth, fame and power. Hollow as these perceived “virtues” may be, they skew our perceptions, driving behaviour and sentiment.
It is natural for the winners and losers to be attracted to systems of belief which support their self-interest. Thus the winners from capitalism tend to support capitalism and the losers tend to seek out ideologies that would challenge or replace it. Those who resist this temptation are the honourable exception — capitalists who see the flaws in free markets, show real compassion and are willing to give their money away; or those vulnerable and poor who bear no resentment or anger.
Unfortunately the exceptions are far too rare.
Ideas of resentment and jealousy echo through time, and played a prominent part in the 19th century, when philosophers sought to create new theories of morality without God. Nietzsche borrowed a French word, ressentiment, to anchor the origins of his moral philosophy. By his estimation, Western moral thinking had its roots in the master-slave relationship.
The weak and marginalised members of society (such as persecuted Christians) resented those who oppressed them (the masters) and inverted the prevailing morality, turning humility, equality and compassion into the highest virtues.
“While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself … the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naive nor honest and straightforward with himself. His soul squints; his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors, everything covert entices him as his world, his security, his refreshment.”
The dominant creed of the resentful for most of the 20th century was Socialism. As George Orwell pointed out, socialists don’t generally love the poor, they hate the rich.
When Marxist materialism became discredited with the realisation of the economic failures of the Soviet Union and the rising death counts of Communists and Socialist regimes around the world, the bearers of “ressentiment” turned to other domains into which to inject their venom. Key targets were the spheres of culture, family life, sex and race.
And so was born critical theory, the bastard child of Post-Modernism and Frankfurt School post-Marxism. To this conception we owe the hierarchy of victimhood, the one to which we must now all defer; it also spawned the language of the social justice warriors — words such as “my truth”, “lived experience”, “white privilege” (or any other kind of privilege for that matter) “ intersectionality” and so on.
The virus of critical theory was smuggled into the American culture via academia (two members of the Frankfurt School — Marcuse and Adorno — actually emigrated from Germany to US universities before the war).
From academia, critical theory (popularly understood as wokery) has infected the media, publishing, Newsrooms, Hollywood, football commentators, public administration, HR departments, and even Big Tech. Perhaps the last place you would expect it to appear is the British Royal family. Surely they are not the losers in life’s lottery?
But that is to misunderstand the nature of resentment. Even within the Royal Family there are those who consider themselves losers. Cain was only upset about his status relative to Abel. It did not matter that he was Adam’s first born son.
Harry has no doubt been deeply frustrated by his status within the family and the nature of his “spare”ness. There is resentment and there is jealousy. Of course the Woke creed appeals. And no wonder Harry adopts its language. Which leaves us, ironically, with a hereditary Prince lecturing us about “privilege”.
There are of course other dimensions to Harry’s story. There is the shadow of his mother and the influence of his wife. But to the extent that he is a victim, he is the victim not only of his family circumstances but also of poisonous philosophers. Perhaps his example can be a cautionary tale to the rest of us.
Paul Marshall is chairman of Marshall Wace. He writes in a personal capacity.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf Harry were to take another view, he would see himself as very especially privileged.
He is a British Prince of the Blood Royal who, unlike his brother, does not have his life marked out for him – a timetable for practically each and every day, which he cannot abjure.
He gets the privileges of royal birth: the wealth, deference, ability to meet most of humankind’s famous achievers, to have all paths smoothed for him – without the obligation to do an endless round of meetings, so many of which don’t interest him, which is the fate of Prince William.
If the Royals once had even ten weeks of living as most ordinary persons do – struggling to get through on the phone to make a doctor’s appointment, struggling to pay bills, struggling to get good repairs made to plumbing &c, they would have an electric culture shock.
The fact of the matter is that Prince Harry has always been a birdbrain. This was proved by his going to Eton, which is a kind of brilliant junior university, where a huge range of interesting occupations and activities will have been put before him; yet once he was out in the adult world, apart from his job in the Army, he had no clue about to spend his time other than in boozing and frequenting pubs and clubs and staggering out at 4 in the morning glassy-eyed.
He was therefore always going to mean trouble; and in marrying another birdbrain Trouble on a big scale has found him employment.
I don’t know whether anybody in the United States takes him seriously. Certainly in Britain nearly everyone does not.
The one positive contribution he makes to life nowadays is as a source of mirth. To observe how he and his wife fire off big cruel salvos at the other members of the Royal Family; and then are indignantly outraged by the failure of those other relatives to give them ardent welcome and support would make a cat laugh.
But that is all of a piece with the Sussexes’ hypocrisy, dishonesty and double standards.
A future considerably more blighted than that of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor beckons.
Of course he is massively privileged by any sane standard but I am amused when I see the idea of Meghan running for President of the US being floated.Presumably it would be on the Democratic ticket. If such an absurdity would come to pass and she were elected we could have the return of a British Royal to rule over the US. I know she is merely the Duchess of Sussex but she would like Princess Michael of Kent be entitled to go by the name of Princess Henry of Sussex, President of the US. Any Royalist with a sense of humour would delight in the return of the US to a Monarchical tradition, presumably to be followed by Prince Archie of Sussex, with blue blood running through his veins as there is already a strong tradition of sons following their parent into the Presidency.
The Democratic Party is already a great supporter of Plutocrats that indulge in hypocritical woke rhetoric why should they not indulge this fantasy? Perhaps it is time for Boris to revoke his revocation of US citizenship and run against Princess Harry on behalf of the Republicans – endorsed by his good friend ex-President Trump to liven up the contest.
They’d probably go after Boris, a la Obama, about his Turkish heritage – but the idea you propose would be great.
Meghan can’t take criticism…how on earth is she going to survive in politics???
I’m not sure Trump or Biden take criticism all that well.
I’m not sure about Biden but I reckon Trump is willing to trade insults with any of his critics. Markle would immediate play the RACE CARD. Although I’ve not seen the original in any form I believe that her Hollywood publicity blurb claims that she is Caucasian (not even a PoC let alone Black.) Would that be a lie or hypocracy (or both?) The US unliberal Democrat Party is welcome to her.
In the US today it is highly advantageous to claim ‘minority’ status. This explains the number of people (primarily academics) who got caught for having fabricated black or American Indian ancestry.
Trading insults (often semi-literate and silly ones) with everybody and anybody reveals a very thin Trumpian skin. A stronger character than Trump would simply ignore them, instead of “trading insults” with every passing idiot.
Certainly the mainstream media, home of wokeism, wouldn’t criticize her. Especially if she ran as a Democrat.
Meghan Markle is a joke. Like Michelle Obama she wouldn’t know where to begin to do the hard work of getting elected nor does she really have the ambition to do so. The ‘soft life’ is hard to give up especially when bereft of vision, empathy and intelligence.
Your comparison to Michelle Obama is ridiculous here. Obama had a successful legal career before her husband entered politics, and after he left the White House the lefties practically begged Michelle to run, which she flatly refused to do. She (Michelle) is also openly pro-family, something Meghan can hardly be bothered with once said family has served its (i.e., her) purpose. I’m no fan of the Democrats these days, but Michelle has done a good job of avoiding drama and scandal.
Well said
I agree. She was raised by parents who busted their behinds and were committed to improving their kids’ futures–her Dad kept doing postal work despite the pain of MS. I loved that her Mom was very involved in her daughters’ lives at the White House and how they made sure their kids made their beds up every day. Michele’s family was the exemplar of the Black community, before victimhood movements and policies eroded much of it.
More of a concern would be that President Markle would arrive in the White House with a grudge against the UK.
Yes the Royalist with a sense of humour would also need to be indifferent to the fate of the old country should your reasonable prediction prove right.
Would Princess Henry then be both POTUS and FLOTUS?
Perhaps Spare Us.
Thanks for the image of a cat laughing!
a wonderful reply to an intriguing article. “Life, and in particular free market society, produces a constant churn of perceived “winners” and “losers”.” – “If Harry were to take another view, he would see himself as very especially privileged.” But he won’t. Well, at least hasn’t. I’ve been wondering, especially due to the ‘woke’ tsunami which is quite horrifying to someone like me (the post-socialist reality, youknow) – it absolutely reminds me of the 40s and 50s in the union of soviets [not a personal memory, sorry, ‘lived experience’ 🙂 – that of my (grand)parents generation, the stories they told of their ‘lived experience’. Like, there’s a high commission to discuss a composer’s work, and a communist party boss says: It sounds very much like the rotting capitalism infulence to me. Everyone agrees of course, and the composer is no more, publicly at least.]. Or, as a priest said: people don’t want good life, they want better life than their neighbours have. Seem to have, I’d add. Back to the horrors of the woke – people sacked, statues drowned, suicides commited because some (group) condemns someone. Offence taken. Wrong pronoun used. Perceived acts of malice. If I can’t be the King, nobody can. Or is it just the socio/pscychopatic traits of a character? I’m the best, because I am, and if needed, I lie to prove my point. Even if the factual proof is the opposite, in black and white or photos or videos. He can’t be stupid enough not to notice there are limits and restrictions (work ethics, if you wish) everywhere, be you a president or a writer or a shop-assistant.
I agree – i had a colleague who was at Eton with them and several who met them at sports events – fencing & rugby whilst at school. These are guys 20-25 years my junior so much more tolerant of mewling and puking than my school cohort. Whenever they came up in conversation it was often remarked that Harry was a follower of his brother and older/bigger boys in general. That’s clearly still an issue and i really hope he gets his head straight and becomes his own man, its never too late, plenty of time at 40 to “find yourself” ie be happy with your lot. He needs genuine therapy though not the marxist psychobabble that passes itself off today. Its still there but like any good product or sevice would take some finding.
He should ask Jordan Peterson for some therapy sessions.
As long as Harry is married to his enabler, Ms. Markle he won’t have a chance to become a ‘man’.
So very true. I’m quite tired of poor Mr. Markle.
When Rush Limbaugh was commenting on Harry’s engagement, he wished Harry a lot of luck because “with that girl he’s gonna need it.”
Too late. I know he’s thick, but while his deluded, narcissistic wanquerdom would be forgivable in a lad of 20 or even 25, by 30 he should have started to understand himself and the world as he and they really are. He’s pushing 40 now and it has only got worse. I doubt he will ever ‘get it’.
I predict death by suicide this side of 2030. Poor, stupid sod. I’d rather be Julian Assange’s shoes than his.
To answer your question: With perhaps the exception of the Wokesters, I can say that 99+ percent of America, too, is nauseated by this p***y-whipped nitwit. What he clearly fails to understand is that while this hypergamous harridan has the same relationship to him as every other woman in the world – none – his family is his blood. When she gets her knickers in a twist and has traipsed off with the next Chad who’s wearing his shirts and abusing his children, his family would have picked up the pieces. Now that’s gone. It’s too bad.
Yep, it will be a Chad. Or a Troy. Or a Cory.
Won’t be anyone black though, I bet.
I’m not sure i buy the ressentiment argument in Harry’s case. In many ways, he seemed the one who had all the attention, and could’ve lived a gilded life without having the duty of being heir to the throne and the need to marry ‘sensibly’ (Kate is a treasure though!)
He could’ve achieved great things in his position but it turned out he lacked one very basic attribute – sound judgement. The rest follows on from there. I don’t think we need to delve that much deeper, although the general points around ressentiment in this article are on much firmer – and dare i say it? – interesting territory. As for Harry, I and i’m sure many others would be quite happy never to see or hear about him again.
What Harry lacks is not judgement – it’s brains.
Not even sure about that. What he lacks is self-awareness and common sense. You don’t have to be an intellectual to have some cop-on.
I’m afraid he lacks more than just one basic attribute.
As much as I detest Harry’s recent behavior, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt: perhaps the circumstances of his upbringing left him adrift, and his stiff-upper-lip family doesn’t know how to give him the care and empathy that might help him find his way.
And his isn’t the first life that a toxic spouse has royally screwed up.
He’s a 38 year old adult. He’d do better if he started behaving like one.
A rather shallow analysis and way off the mark. The first two (chronologically) posters have said all that needs to be said. “It’s hard not to feel some sympathy”? No, it’s easy to feel no sympathy.
I’ve never had any difficulty feeling no sympathy whatever for Mr Hewitt even before he met Mogadon. That time as a teenager he got rushed into intensive care after consuming a truck load of illegal drugs at a Wiltshire pub in the posh bit,the but with no buses thst keeps the hoi polloi out. He came across as an 18th century libertine aristo then and ever since.
I actually thought this was pretty good, it’s good to hear from the founder of unherd – good work supporting brexit and gb news too!
I found it interesting for his exploration of ressentiment and that maybe he thought Harry might be a useful peg with which to broach the subject.
The trouble is – as with many Unherd articles – the wider point becomes lost in Comments due to the polarisation of opinions around “the peg”.
Interesting and suggestive: I’d expect nothing less from a St John’s man.
Prince Harry has said “I would like to get my father back. I would like to have my brother back” in the release of a trailer for an upcoming TV interview. The Duke of Sussex also says “I want a family, not an institution” and “they’ve shown absolutely no willingness to reconcile”.
—————–
Translates as:
“I’d like to be friends again, but it’s all your fault.”
“I’d like the institution of the royal family to dissolve itself”
—————-
The guy is drowning in self-pity and self-righteousness to the point where he has lost the ability to think straight. Amazing how a man’s ability to perceive reality can be laid waste by hormones. Give him a few years.
Surely he can visit James Hewitt whenever he likes. Please…
Compare the photos now and he looks more like Charles than Hewitt.
……Specsavers………
Sorry my sight is perfectly fine. Hewitt was good looking and remains so. Side by side current photos cannot be denied. There is no resemblance.
Red hair? Stunningly low IQ (of the sort that prevented Captain Hewitt passing the Major’s exams)?
Admittedly, the beardy cretin is going Windsor-bald up top. I haven’t seen a bird’s eye view of Hewitt’s scalp.
Is this tired trope of the b*****d prince never going to die? Harry is the image of Charles, for crying out loud – have you actually looked at his facial features?
Some myths never die. He looks very much like Charles, and ginger hair is common amongst the Spencer clan.
I disagree. Apart from the premature baldness, he looks absolutely nothing like Charles Windsor. And Diana wasn’t even a kosher Spencer anyway: her biological father was Sir Jams Goldsmith – thus explaining her staggeringly close resemblance to her half-brother Zac Goldsmith.
George VI passed through his prince-stage without showing resentment toward his elder brother. It’s obviously not impossible.
Yes, I was thinking … George V became king though not the elder brother, as did George VI, so, when he was growing up, it wasn’t all that remote a chance that Harry could have become king too. He should have been pleased that he was there to serve if needed. And if not needed, the he had the freedom to try various options that suited him.
The fact that Harry is so keen to get his hands on a shre of the top job gives the lie to “there to serve” fallacy.
It’s not “serving” – it’s winning the lottery!
Imagine the state of the country,and us,if God forbid Harry had become King,that’s way before either brother married etc. It’s bad enough having an administration that treats The Treasury like its own personal sweetie box,it would have been like having George IV back.
More like James II and VII, I’d have said.
history tells us that the ‘ressentiment’ was, in fact, the other way around – which is how we ended up with an abdication crisis, and the then Duke of York being obliged to give up his freedom and privacy, and take on the huge duties of King.
It was just a matter of time before some ‘genius’ decided to weave the Harry story into a treatise arguing against making society fairer and more equal. Quite a contortion but a proper play to the echo chamber full of cobblers and confirmatory bias.
The Author of course leans heavily into that most beloved undercurrent of the privileged – ‘my advantage is all deserved’.
As regards Harry – I hope he continues his campaign to illuminate the silliness and daftness of the UK Monarchy, but also had my wife been subject to similar abuse, much of a racial nature, I’d have got her out of it altogether too.
Most of the royal family has been subject to endless criticism about their activities or lack of activities for years. It comes with the position. As for racial abuse – again far more abuse has been directed at them for their ancestors for being connected with slavery, colonialism etc. In contrast Meghan was eagerly welcomed into the Royal family despite the fact that she seemed to be estranged from virtually all her family and as for racial criticism I can only recall a few idiots remarking on her race adversely which will occur anywhere. I don’t suppose you believe the US is a nirvana of racial tolerance.
You’re remarkably well informed about the level of racial abuse members of the Royal family have received. How come you have the facts close to hand on this?
You assume too they are all treated the same. Err, Prince Andrew vs Meghan? The fact so many seem blind to this juxtaposition might relate to the majority of Meghan haters being males, probably middle aged and white, but that’s just a guess and I could be wrong.
I’m sure the US isn’t nirvana, but the sense one gets is they have a little more freedom and certainly here in the UK they’d get none of that.
On what basis do you assert that the majority of Meghan haters are male? If anything, I would say the opposite is true.
Like many people, I was initially taken in by her seeming to be a perfect fit with Harry and believed them when they expressed a desire to work on Commonwealth issues on behalf of the late Queen. I was delighted that the Monarchy were embracing a PoC (although as others have commented, she looks whiter than lots of Caucasians) and happily watched the wedding. Then it gradually became apparent that they wanted no part of the hard work, just the red carpet adulation & photo opportunities. They were also obviously complete hypocrites regarding Green and other Woke issues. I felt almost personally betrayed and deceived by them.
Their increasingly calculating, disrespectful and extremely nasty behaviour since then towards all of his close family has turned me (a woman) into a Meghan and Harry hater.
But then, in the US she was white.
What racial abuse. It was months maybe even a year before I even started hearing rumours that Meghan had some black ancestry. At least her Mother has class and seems to share the late Queens predilection for keeping mum.
Meghan is beautiful and does not have a black or even coffee complexion. She and the people she allies herself with have been developing this angle for political reasons.
“It’s hard not to feel some sympathy for Harry”.
No, it is hard to feel sympathy for him, as he is acting like an utter idiot, making millions of $ out of trashing his own family.
True, it gets harder and harder to feel sympathy. Maybe it’s been a mistake to excuse everything with ‘well, but his mother…’ – maybe that’s why he hasn’t been able to move on? It’s really horrible, but one can’t help feeling – if he insists he’s his mother’s son, what are the personality traits he’s got from his mother?
Diana had two children. Why not this sympathy for William too? Because we don’t have to make excuses for William.
Yes indeed. Like Talleyrand, he’s ‘a shit in a silk shirt’.
Unfortunately Harry and Meghan’s sense of entitlement appeal to many people who went to university thanks to their parents’ money and now feel that the world owes them a living for the next 50 years.
A recent facebook post springs to my mind. Horror of uni degree holder at realizing that her “science career” was the equivalent of being a shelf stacker at Tesco (sorry Tesco workers),ie looking down a microscope all day tweaking a cell now and then,and to add to the indignity finding out the cleaners are on a higher hourly rate.
good article! enjoyed reading this
Very damaged boy.
There are some gems here and I like the insights. But I’d also like to highlight that parts of Critical Theory were developed while its thinkers were personally being persecuted by Nazis in Germany fearing for their lives. So, I’d say those thinkers had a personal stake in weakening the Right-wing in Europe that was more than just musing on abstract lofty ideas.
The Nazis were anti communist but not right wing. Their aim was to have revolution without the Bolshevik atrocities.
Well, yes and no. That’s the Strasserist strain of the NSDAP you’re describing, the ‘Third Way’ that appealed to Lloyd George and Sir Oswald Mosley and many others. Unfortunately, it got the chop along with Ernst Rohm and the SA during the Night of the Long Knives.
Just because someone hates you doesn’t ipso facto make you a nice person
Generations of inbreeding was bound to produce half-witted offspring. Plus he’s a ginger which is never a good sign.
He wasn’t inbred
Oh dear, here we go again with the old stereotypes about gingers. As a natural redhead, although my hair is auburn, I am quite fed up with these silly notions taken straight from the ages of witch hunts that we are “never a good sign”.
Well as an ugly old spinster I’m fed up with centuries of demonising too.
Thanks, great article – Am keen to point out why i think the Frankfurt School & their wokist/warmist foot soldiers chose the media and public services as their means to destroy our civic society: They failed with the gun and bomb thus far and from c1979 have had no success at the ballot box – at least when elections are broadly free and fair. Ultimately they are unlikely to succeed as alongside economic development the human condition has improved over millenia. Of course this is only obvious if you read history, so don’t expect harry and megan to figure it out anytime soon – a tiny bit of me still feels sorry for them BUT the solution to mennall elf lies in the elf itself, not the people you are blaming for it. In fact IME the more you blame others the harder it is to fix yourself.
Is it just me or do I detect traces of gaslighting in this whole sorry saga?
Harry wasn’t spanked enough.
Better get out your whips, leather catsuit and handcuffs and nip down to Monte Cito for a session… vegan might even join in, put it on Netflix, and then your phone would never stop ringing with new potential customers?
I find that very believable. ‘The English vice’: OEs have long been notorious for it.
I don’t know,he seems to have had Wayne Rooney type predilections.
Officers don’t kiss and tell. Besides betraying a trust and losing your honor, you’ll never be a trusted insider again for EITHER side, merely a grifter seeking opportunity for another scam.
When you can afford to hire a ghost writer to express your resentment, that is true privilege. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/books/prince-harry-ghostwriter-moehringer.html
Not a bad breakdown of the cultural infiltration of woke, AKA identity marxism, and its origins in neo marxist critical theorists and the abuse of postmodern ideas. I would say though that “woke” is a product of marxist analysis applied to identity. For this emphasis, I find James Lindsey’s analysis and genealogy very convincing, with its emphasis on primary sources.
To expand on the concept of ressentiment, Stephen Hicks – in ‘Explaining Postmodernism’ – makes a distinction between it and its close English relative of resentment.
“Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment is close to the English “resentment” but with a more curdles bitterness, more seething and poisoned and bottled up for a long time”. This, in relation to the “slave” (or oppressed) awareness of their supposed inferior status and low self esteem.
Yes, certainly there is sibling rivalry. Magnified by the royal element. But there is also a man standing up for his wife. It was very soon apparent Meghan wasn’t going to “fit in” with the Royal Family. She needs the limelight too much. The culture gap could not be wider. Whoever “started” it, Harry could see Meghan get more and more distressed and naturally that upset him. Putting aside how they handled things, getting right away seemed the best thing to do to “save” his wife. He is not lying, deep in his heart he loves and needs his own family. He will always carry that pain while in America. So all that petulance and moaning is the result of a man who is hurting. We all have different ways of dealing with pain.
Oh dear, I’m obviously not nasty enough for this thread. How people revel in their hatred!
No we see truth; that she is a destructive force, an utterly charmless hyacinth bucket who’s taken advantage of a beta male and turned him into a willing cuckold.
Free expression of opinion is only ‘ hatred’ in your interpretation, and opinion, but cannot ” per se” be deemed fact by you, or anyone else
After a week of doing royal engagements it dawned on Mrs Hewitt that YOU DONT GET PAID. Or not in a fee per gig way.
Its an alien concept to her USA frame mind and I can understand that. But that proves it was never going to work. If anyone needs “saving” I don’t think it’s the female in this relationship
I have a demon solution to the Harry and Meghan issue: Harry should be consigned to commute in to The City, post to being given a job of his intellectual equals in the reinsurance industry, and an abode in Kent, Surrey or East Sussex.
Meghan will then discover that her new neighbour/ social set of minor public school, settee and lounge, windsor knot, rugby and golf club aspiranti will make Harry’s Norfolk mob, Household Division, hunting and shooting mates seem like multi- cultural Marxist revolutionaries when it comes to their attitude to her!!!!
Rather snobbish?
Yes, precisely, but with great respect I suggest that you are somewhat missing the point: Markle, who is profoundly ‘ snobbish” towards those she considers her inferiors, not least those who have had the misfortune to work for her, cannot cope with those who she thinks believe that they are ” superior” to her: what I am suggesting is that she would find other ” zones” of British snobbishness cum inferiority complex and envy driven parts of the British socio demograph and anthropology, somewhat worse than those that she imagines that she encounters.
Love snobbish! Don’t be nice and fair to the poor. They will turn and try to rip you off which means you have to kick them in the face and tell them to eat dirt which makes the cry. Which is funny
The combination of Markle and Lower- Middleton, and her self publicity obsessed family, both a pair of veritable Everest level social climbing mountaineers, at least provides entertainment!
ps nickname in certain ” inner” circles….” Archduchess von Untermittelstadt”…..
How stupid of Hyacinth Boiuquet (and isn’t there a BBC correspondent called “Bouquet” as in bunch of flowers and no one calls him Mr Bucket for a cheap laugh) but as I say how stupid of her to aspire to more than living in the dirt,disorder and degradation the rest of her birth family (except sister Violet) are perfectly happy with. But of course they are “authentic”,they are “real” and they KNOW THEIR PLACE.
Does the author who made his millions (billions?!) from exploiting gross inefficiencies in his so called ‘free market society’ really believe the game was, for the most part, free and fair and he was simply the better player? If so, he is deeply deluded
His clever and nasty trick is to frame anyone who has a problem with his success a mediocre ‘resenter’. As a child the most effective psy-op was to call a rival sibling who was getting attention ‘a show off!’ They were then sunk. If they protested, the claim was further reinforced- ‘stop being a show-off!’ Silence was the only way out and the game was won. This article is simply the sly adult version.
Prince Harry will get no support from the great majority of people in the UK (and his wife virtually none) but his book will be read in other countries (some hostile to us) and so he and his wife’s self-indulgence and bitterness are likely to damage the UK’s standing in the world.
The statements made by Meghan Markle in her interview with Oprah Winfrey were closely analysed by a prominent UK daily newspaper and most of them were shown to be self-delusional or untrue.
The palace should continue to view this American book with the contempt it deserves
Judging by Facebook comments I read,a whole lot of American women are deeply sympathetic to Sparkle and Ginge and I get the impressed a lot of them live in trailer parks.
Yep – that’s about the level of US Royalty fans.
It’s them and wealthy, Vanity Fair-reading New York Democrat women (and Graydon Carter himself), basically.
Meghan could play s demon card, divorce Harry and marry Lewis Hamilton, and then the meeja can bore us rigid with their joy?
I’m Irish and could hardly be described as a monarchist. But William was right to take a swing at him. I imagine the cumulative effect of Harry’s endless whining and permanent self-pity and passive aggression would, at close quarters, eventually become unbearable.
Any PoW worth the name would have had him slung into the Tower.
This looks more like estrangement and grandparent alienation. When a manipulative spouse demands loyalty and cutting off of family ties, raging at the family of origin is common. Guilt is so great leaving them more vulnerable to the influences of their spouse’s lies. Classic dynamics. Happening to a lot of us.
This sentence stopped me in my tracks: “Life, and in particular free market society, produces a constant churn of perceived ‘winners’ and ‘losers’.” Um, no, actually Life–capital “L” Life–does not churn out winners and losers. It churns out life. Everything that is alive will someday be dead. He who dies with the most toys, doesn’t win anything: he dies. I do agree that life in a free market society produces a constant churn of perceived “winners” and “losers”. Much to our, and the planet’s detriment.