I Stand with Piers Morgan Against Meghan Markle’s Racism Allegations

The big news this week has obviously been Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, and specifically Markle’s allegations of racism against unnamed royal advisors and flunkeys. Yesterday Piers Morgan got the heave-ho for very baldly stating his objections to Markle’s allegations. Standing outside his own not unimpressive residence yesterday, the former editor of the Mirror said that he didn’t believe a word Markle said, and that she had done enormous damage to the royal family, especially when Prince Philip was lying in hospital. Zelo Street has published a piece critiquing his remarks, and pointing out that Morgan’s claims to believe in and defend democracy and free speech are a bit rich, considering how he shouts down those he doesn’t agree with. He was also the editor of the Mirror when its journos and those of the Scum were hacking phones left, right and centre. Back in the 1990s he was also in the pages of Private Eye as it was under his editorship of the Mirror that the two hacks in the paper’s ‘City Slickers’ column committed the share ramping that got them arrested. The Eye presented very strong evidence that Piers ‘Boy’ Morgan was also involved, but somehow managed to escape arrest and prosecution. Morgan has fully reciprocated the magazine’s animus towards him. According to Ian Hislop, Morgan sent round a hack to talk to his parish priest, hoping that the good clergyman would betray a few confidences Hislop had made during Confession. In this instance, he was disappointed. Hislop’s like me, an Anglican. Individual confession is part of Roman Catholic belief and practice, not Church of England. And I don’t think the priest told Morgan’s boy or girl any secrets anyway.

Of course, the right-wing scumbag press have been engaged in a long campaign against Harry and Markle. They dislike her as an intrusive left-winger. Alex Belfield, the arch-Tory YouTuber and internet radio host, sneeringly refers to her as ‘Meghan Mallarky’. Not only does he hate her for being left-wing, feminist, anti-racist and ‘woke’, he also sees her as aggressively self-centre and manipulative. His short videos about the couple frequently included him urging Harry to dump her and return to the bosom of the royal family. Zelo Street has also pointed out that there is more than a touch of racism in the press’ antipathy to Markle. Part of their hatred was also due to the fact Markle wasn’t prepared to play their games. She wanted all media access and interviews to be on hers and Harry’s terms, not theirs. Snubbed with their power to make or break celebrities under attack, the press responded with hostile coverage of the royal couple.

But this time I do think Morgan is right. Markle’s allegations simply don’t ring true, and are likely to damage the royal family. Simon Webb, the author of the ‘History Debunked’ YouTube channel, put up a video the other day critiquing some of the remarks Hal and Megs made to Winfrey. Webb is, I think, a Telegraph-reading Tory. He’s also a very strong critic of some of the assertions and fake history put out by anti-racist activists and believes in the ‘Bell Curve’ nonsense about there also being differences in intelligence between the races. But he also seems not to be personally racist, and has put up several excellent videos tearing down the vile conspiracy theory about the Jews promoting mass immigration to destroy the White race. His arguments also seem to be based on real, historic fact.

His video critiquing the allegations Hal and Megs made begins with him commenting on Harry’s complaint that his father had cut him off financially. Webb thought this was peculiar, because by the time he was 20, he’d been supporting himself financially and independently of his family. He was somewhat out of touch with contemporary young people, but it seemed quite odd to him that a 36 year old man on the edge of middle age should complain about no longer being sent money by his father. It can also be added that Harry is immensely wealthy anyway, and so can well afford to look after himself and his wife in the style to which they have become accustomed.

He also wondered how true the allegations of racism could be, considering that Markle doesn’t look particularly Black to him. He observed that she looks more like the olive-skinned people of the Mediterranean. Which, I think, is a fair comment. I know people, who as far as I know are completely White, who go her colour or darker in the summer. Black anti-racists have complained for a long time about ‘colourism’. This is the form of racism in which lighter-skinned people of colour are given higher status, better opportunities and respect than their darker-skinned kindred. It’s another hangover from slavery and the caste system that it gave rise to. Darker skinned, ‘Black’ slaves were held to be more suitable for tough, physical work, while lighter skinned slaves were given less arduous duties commanding greater respect out of the sun. It seems to me that if colourism does exist, then Markle is probably a beneficiary of it, and not a victim of racism.

Then there is that comment by a courtier, speculating what colour the baby would be. It’s actually highly questionable whether this is actually racist. People usually speculate about the appearance of an expected child, and which one of the parents it will take after. Webb here recalls how one of his friends was a bi-racial young woman, who had an affair with a White guy, and became pregnant. Their Black friends freely speculated on whether the child would be White or Black. It seemed to Webb that the royal courtiers were being accused of racism simply for doing what people, including Blacks normally do, without any racist intent.

And the more I look back at Markle’s conduct over the past few years, the more it seems to me that, unfortunately, the scumbag right-wing press do have a point. I think she is manipulative, egocentric and self-promoting. And while I am no great fan of Morgan, I don’t think he should have been forced out of his position on GMB for his opinions on Markle. It very much looks like another piece of cancel culture, where individuals are being silenced for having controversial opinions. Mostly it’s been done against the left, but there have been instances where someone has been removed from YouTube for expressing a reasonable opinion someone has taken exception to as racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic or whatever. I’m sure Zelo Street is right when they point out that Morgan is no real defender of free speech and democracy himself. But Morgan’s forced departure is itself an attack on someone’s right to express their reasonable opinion.

In this matter, it’s Morgan’s opponents who are undermining free speech. Just as the pair’s interview with Oprah threatens to further undermine the monarchy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “I Stand with Piers Morgan Against Meghan Markle’s Racism Allegations”

  1. trev Says:

    I’ve paid little attention to this ‘news’ story myself, too busy surviving to listen to rich people publicly whinging about their private lives. They’ve made their bed so now stfu and lie in it.

  2. Brian Burden Says:

    My response was abruptly deleted. Was this by editorial design, or is there any point my trying again?

    • gillyflowerblog Says:

      Well you are certainly showing your own prejudices with your use of calling Harry by his first name, and Meghan by her surname. And commenting that she is not subjected to racism owing to her lighter skin. “She doesn’t look colored” is the response of someone who needs to consider his own in built prejudices. Plus Morgan hasn’t been silenced. Hardly a day goes by without him rocking up somewhere moaning he has been silenced. We haven’t forgotten his own behaviour in trying to toady the Windsors for his own benefit. He calls liar simply because he was found out.
      And you seem to state as fact that it was a staff member, (a courtier in your words) who questioned the colour. We don’t know who it was
      Finally, if this episode brings to light the self righteous behaviour of the house of Windsor, or at least stops the fawning and obsequious behaviour of some of the nation then all to the good

  3. Brian Burden Says:

    If the former, am I allowed to say that Piers Morgan is an odious man, who I lost any respect for over his treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, and whose comeuppance was long overdue?

  4. Brian Burden Says:

    And can I make it clear that gillyflowerblog is responding to Beastrabban and not to my deleted attempt to reply!

  5. Brian Burden Says:

    THIRD attempt, would you believe? Who is deleting my replies? Is it you, Beastrabban, or is it some robot censor? Or worse, is some human censor snooping on your website?

  6. Brian Burden Says:

    Okay, one more try. The fact that Meghan passes for white is irrelevant. The son of the slave Roxy, in Twain’s novel Puddenhead Wilson, passes for white, but as soon as his true identity is detected he is restored to slavery and, as an extra punishment, sold down the river – a fate all slaves dreaded.

  7. Brian Burden Says:

    Well that bit of my response got through. Let’s try another instalment.There are plenty of indications that the royals would have been unhappy about Harry marrying a lady of mixed race. The Queen and the Duke seemed to have acted with perfect propriety; not so some of the members of the Royal household, if you believe Meghan, and I do.

  8. Brian Burden Says:

    If you don’t think race is an issue here, look at some of the postings on the Daily Mirror blogs.

  9. Brian Burden Says:

    Rather than make a judgement on the loaded soundbites, I watched the Oprah interview in its entirety. It was excellent television and I saw nothing whatever offensive in it. There were no earth-shattering attacks on individuals, but some frank talking. I’m a republican by inclination, but Harry and Meghan impressed me.

  10. Brian Burden Says:

    For some insight in the treatment Meghan complained of from some members of the royal household, consider the experience of the second Mrs De Winter at the hands of Mrs Danvers in Daphne DuMaurier’s novel Rebecca, including the scene where Mrs Danvers almost persuades her to commit suicide. I’m sure nothing so melodramatic happened to Meghan, but that was the general ambience she described. Okay. I’ve had my say for now.

  11. beastrabban Says:

    Thanks for the comments, Brian and Gillyflower. No, I certainly haven’t been censoring them. I assume it’s a bot or something similar at WordPress, unless someone has hacked in and taken control of my board. Which I don’t think has happened.

  12. beastrabban Says:

    Now to reply to some of your comments. Firstly, I don’t think my calling Harry by his first name and Meghan by her surname shows anything about my prejudices. I also call him ‘Hal’ and her ‘Megs’. Also, Harry is best known as Harry, not as Harry Windsor. If I called him Windsor, it could be confused with the rest of the royal family. That’s why I call him Harry.

  13. beastrabban Says:

    Now for your comments about Piers Morgan. Actually, I agree with you about him. He is an odious character. I didn’t know about the attacks on Corbyn, but I’m not surprised. As I say in the article, he was editor of the Mirror when its staff were busily hacking phones and Private Eye, in my view, has shown that there’s a very strong case for him having been involved in the ‘City Slickers’ share ramping scandal. It very much looks like he was as guilty as they were, and should have suffered the same punishment. For some reason he didn’t.

  14. beastrabban Says:

    Now for the comments about slavery. Thanks for the information about the attitude to slaves in ‘Pudd’nhead Wilson’ and ‘Rebecca’. I can’t say I’ve read any of Du Maurier – I think the fact that she wrote the story that Hitchcock filmed as ‘The Birds’ has put me off her! I’ve had a copy of ‘Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Almanack’ on my bookshelf since I was a teenager, but never actually got round to reading it, like so many of my books.

    Yes, you’re right in that under slavery, it didn’t matter what shade a slave was, they were still a slave. In the British Caribbean, however, legislation was passed in some colonies explicitly defining who should be classed as White according to their ancestry. Thinking about it, my guess is that these legal definitions applied only to free people of mixed race. I think those in slavery would, as you have said, still been held in slavery whatever their skin shade. With free Blacks and people of colour, although they were not slaves, their colour still debarred them from enjoying the same civil rights as Whites. They couldn’t vote, stand in elections or serve on juries under the old slave laws. Hence there was a caste system in British Caribbean. There was a difference, for example, between ‘White Jamaican’ and ‘Jamaican White’. One means a Jamaican of pure White ancestry, while the other meant a Jamaican who was mostly White, but had some Black heritage.

    And colourism is still an issue. I don’t know if it’s still the case, but back in the ’90s one of the criticisms of American Black colleges and universities was that they still had the ‘brown paper bag’ test. Traditionally these institutions would not admit anyone who was darker than a brown paper bag. Now I haven’t looked at the Mirror’s reply page, so I’ll take your word that there’s ugly, racist comments being made about her. But I think that she has probably experienced much less racism than a darker skinned woman. I also take your point that she did not accuse the Queen and Prince Philip of racism. And I admit that I may be wrong about it being a courtier when the identity of the person speculating about the baby’s colour is unknown. However, I still don’t accept that the speculation was necessarily racist. We had the Queen’s Lieutenant speaking on the local news about this, who is a woman of colour. She said that as the circumstances and the intent behind the comment were unknown, you couldn’t say whether it was racist or not. And unless the person speculating had phrased the question in racist terms, I don’t think you can say that it is racist.

  15. Brian Burden Says:

    This is the sort of intelligent, well-informed response I’ve come to expect from this blog. Hope you’ll revise your views on H & M, or at any rate try to view them through a diiferent lens.

    • beastrabban Says:

      Thanks, Brian. The compliment’s appreciated. As for Harry and Meghan, I do respect him for what he’s done on behalf of various charities, while much of the hatred directed at Meghan by the right-wing press seemed to be because she was an outspoken feminist. As are very many young women today. And I think Zelo Steet has a point when he says that the press don’t like her because she isn’t playing their game. They want access on their own terms, and to show that they can break anyone through their biased journalism.

  16. Brian Burden Says:

    Can’t resist making a couple more points. Obviously the Queen’s Lt will want to show the Royal Household in the best light, and equally obviously Her Maj herself took no steps to block the marriage as wd have been well within her power. Whether the remark was racist or not is irrelevant. It was certainly tactless, and mixed race people tend to be rather sensitive on this issue. Obviously again, Meghan didn’t go into this marriage with the intention of making waves. Much easier to go with the flow and enjoy the benefits. My impression is tthat most of the aggravation came from the lower echelons rather than the top Royals, people with the mindset of Ann Widdicombe, who, you’ll recall, went on Big Brother to declare that Meghan was entirely unsuitable for Harry, but not because of her colour. Oh no, perish the thought!!

  17. marlapaige Says:

    I understand what you are saying in this piece, however, I believe there is a part that cannot be quantified with specific historical fact.

    Piers Morgan literally threw a hissy-fit on the show. He walked off. Literally abandoning his post during a shift (which is and always has been a fireable offense for almost every job).

    Also, as you laid out so beautifully, he has been embroiled in a lot of crooked and messy things in his career. Maybe it’s not so much cancel culture (which is generalized to cancel anyone who acts in a way deemed wrong, as many have done) as much as a cultures desire to simply cancel him, personally. Maybe this is the first time where he couldn’t avoid the consequences of his actions.

    I honestly didn’t pay enough attention to the whole scenario to know a huge amount. I did consume some information, primarily because there was no way to avoid it as it was absolutely everywhere. But it wasn’t something I was hyper focused on.

    But I have seen piers Morgan in many things. I have heard the man talk. He comes across as a self-centered jerk. It appears when he feels remotely attacked (or when someone says they disagree with him), he seems to set out to create a vile rebuke where he tries to set in motion the destruction of the other person. Maybe, he just finally went far enough on this issue that the whole world said “put this man in moth balls because we’re done.”

    In my opinion, those who sling mud constantly, typically get hit with mud themselves. He attempts to minimize everyone around him, and now he’s been minimized.

    • beastrabban Says:

      Thank you, Marlapaige. You’re not the only person to make these comments about the man Private Eye has called ‘Piers Moron’. I’ve also had other great commenters defend Meghan Markle and her interview with Oprah Winfreh. I had some respect for him when he started giving tough interviews to the Tories, rather than giving them softball questions which the Beeb seemed to be doing. But you’re right – he is a massive egotist and sleazeball. He was editor of the Mirror when it caught George Michael being arrested in gay toilet in Los Angeles. They’d had a photographer posted outside it waiting for him all week. What a grotty way to make a living!

      • marlapaige Says:

        I honestly can’t comment on (defend or otherwise) Meghan Markle or Prince Harry, and wouldn’t feel comfortable doing so. I honestly do not feel the same was as what appears to be the majority of the World. I only know a few facts for sure:
        1. They are both human with human thoughts, emotions, and filters on how they see the World.
        2. They are married and appear to be happy together.
        3. People either love them or hate them depending on personal perspectives or the preferred media they consume.
        4. I do not know them personally. And those that say they do are either “unnamed sources,” or bitter people like Piers Morgan or her father’s side of the family.

        The only opinions I can honestly say are these:
        1. Piers Morgan is a “sleazeball” as you describe.
        2. Nobody knew about or cared about her sister and father until she got involved with Harry.
        3. He comes from the a family that lives in a fish-bowl. If one of them sneezes at some event it’s front-page news across the world with body language experts split down the middle: it was a clear show of disdain for the Queen and the entire country, OR it was just a sneeze.
        4. The one thing everyone used to claim she was lying is that she said she was married a few days before her actual marriage. I can tell you that legal marriage is very different than what an actual marriage is. You can, at two in the morning, turn to your significant other and say vows that are only meant for you and be more invested in your relationship than 50 couples who get the certificate. No one knows what actually happened or why they had that ceremony, but maybe, emotionally, they both feel that was their real wedding and the other, although legally binding, was pomp and circumstance for world consumption.

        All of these things together can be easily summed up with the idea that these are two people who are married (whether you consider it the one she speaks of or the one the world could see in their tv screens), and Pers Morgan is loathsome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: