|HRH The Duchess of Sussex. Bling a ding ding...|
Kensington Palace has issued a stern warning on their Twitter page as to how Her Majesty’s subjects may interact on their social media pages. It is thought that, shall we say, less than fawning references to HRH the Duchess of Sussex may have given rise to this move.
For those unused to hearing her official title, that’s former television actress, Meghan Markle. She of the steaming simulated sex-romps in stationery cupboards, and come-and-get-me-boys underwear shoots.
The netizens of Britain are advised, on pain of exile – or at least of a permanent block - not to “Promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.”
Of course, all the above really should go without saying, but (your Royal Highness), whilst some may have stooped to base name-calling, it’s not your skin tone that an increasing number of people find distasteful; no, it is the obscenity of your out of control, grotesque cash-splashing on clothes and ‘accoutrements’ when a record number of people in this country are living hand-to-mouth. Not yet a year ago, you sat by and allowed the homeless to be shovelled off the streets for your wedding so as not to spoil the chocolate box scene of you tiptoeing, Disney Princess-like, up the steps of St George's Chapel in a Givenchy gown that cost the price of a 3-bedroomed house in the area you later visited to scratch crashingly cringey ‘affirmations’ on bananas in food parcels being prepared for street-walking sex-workers.
You decided to wear a £1,500 Oscar de la Renta silk chiffon number for that outing.
Then there was the £500,000k New York ‘baby shower’ you attended, thrown for you by your chums, with the “most expensive hotel suite in America” given over to you for your stay.
Correct me if I am wrong, but generally speaking, aren’t baby showers (only recently beginning to catch on over here) usually thrown for expectant mothers who are likely to struggle to find the cash to buy what they need for their new arrival?
That’s clearly not the case for you, is it?
Oh yes, we know. Mrs Clooney paid for you to fly over in an executive jet. We’re all aware you didn’t pay for any of it yourself, which, by extension, means we didn’t. I am sure we’re all grateful for small mercies. Your friends, no doubt, have the same “if you’ve got it, flaunt it” mindset you appear to have, so they probably wouldn’t have understood if you had said: “thanks guys, that’s so sweet, but the optics wouldn’t be good right now” - but you could have soothed any hurt feelings by inviting them all over for the christening party in a few weeks.
You may even have been advised that such a trip at such a time might be ‘imprudent’, perhaps even by Amy Pickerill, who has since resigned her post as your assistant. But you didn’t care. Bottom line is you wanted to go, and “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets” right?
For an actress, your tone-deaf inability to read an audience is staggering. It’s probably a good thing you decided to cut your career short in favour of an advantageous marriage, because with that level of disconnect, I can’t imagine we would have seen your Shirley Valentine at the National any time soon.
You decided to change horses and move on to a different job before you slid into your forties and the sexy ingénue parts dried up. Good for you. Trouble is, the job was to be a member of the British Royal Family. It’s a highly privileged position with luxurious offices in central London, but it’s a 24/7 job and it comes with responsibilities. Perhaps you haven’t much experience of job-seeking, but when reading through the spec for a new role, it’s usually a good idea to familiarise yourself with the ‘requirements’ before skipping ahead to the ‘benefits’.
Harry should have told you. We’re not big on flashy displays of wealth over here. We find it a bit “oh dear” and vulgar. It’s just not the “done thing”. If he didn’t, then he’s failed in his duty of care to you as his wife, and as someone with a clearly different upbringing when it comes to money.
We don’t like the smell of hypocrisy either, and someone sporting a $350,000 Botswana diamond, and wearing £thousands worth of clothes, shoes, and handbags, hand-wringing about women, the homeless, and the disadvantaged is definitely a bit whiffy.
Take a leaf out of your Grandmother-in-Law’s book. Look, we all know she’s probably the wealthiest woman in the world, but she’s definitely worn her Barbour more than once.
We sort of like her for that.
|HMQ at the Kennel Club's Cocker Spaniel Championship - 2018|
© Emmeline Wyndham - 2019