Why do the British press hate Meghan Markle? The relentlessly negative coverage she and Prince Harry have received over the years contrasts pretty starkly with the glowing praise heaped on Kate Middleton and Prince William. Why are there such double-standards at play?

Certainly, there have been “racial undertones” to the media coverage of Meghan Markle (as well as a tsunami of outright racist abuse on social media). However, is there more to it than that? When Prince Andrew’s relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein caused a scandal, he was quietly retired from his royal duties. It seems absurd that so much more attention is now being paid to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepping back from their own duties.

Critics of Meghan and Harry argue they don’t understand “how being a royal works”. They are supposed to keep their mouths shut, not talk about contentious political issues, smile for the cameras, and earn their taxpayer money. They’re certainly not supposed to sue the media for phone hacking or breach of privacy.

However, we shouldn’t forget the context here. Prince Harry’s mother was, in his eyes, hounded to her death by the British tabloids despite playing the game and giving them access. Meghan Markle has seen her relationship with her father raked over and exploited by the press in excruciating detail.

All of this raises a broader question: why does Britain still have a monarchy? How does being a royal “work” in the 21st century? Do monarchs rise above party politics, bringing political stability, respect for tradition and a sense of national pride? Or is an unelected hereditary monarchy an anachronism in a democratic society?

Why does Britain still have a monarchy? And why do the British press hate Meghan Markle? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: BigStock (c) – cheekylorns


25 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Franz M

    More broadly:
    Why has any country in Europe still a monarchy?

    Answer:
    If these families go with the times they can be a better represtative of the population and be more populare than an elected head of state in a contentious 50/50 election.

    To the money issue:
    The palaces and castles would need attandance anyway. And a president with all of his staff snd duties and security needs also costs taxpayer money.

    A practical example:
    I’m from Vienna, Austria, the capital of Republic that has been the seat of the holy romam Emperor for 500 years and the capital of the Austrian Empire for 100 years during which time most of the representative builidings were errected.
    I guess it would not be more exoensive if a monarchical family would fulfill the duties of an elected president.
    We also had at least 2 very contentious presidential elections in our history (Waldheim vs.Steyrer in 1986 and Van der Bellen vs. Hofer in 2016). Both of which split the country in two equal parts politiqually.

    However, I would still keep the Republik in place. I just believe that a monarchy has its positives and that the money issue is not really an issue.

    Especially the British monarchy naturally is under a LOT of scrutiny and draws a lot of attention which also enhances problems quite frankly.

  2. avatar
    Péter

    England is a backward looking place.

  3. avatar
    Matteo

    why question just the Brithis one? Because its worldwide known?

  4. avatar
    Nikolai

    “Critics of Meghan and Harry argue they don’t understand “how being a royal works”. They are supposed to keep their mouths shut, not talk about contentious political issues, smile for the cameras, and earn their taxpayer money.” Yes, that’s an absolutely correct statement – they are servants of the state funded by the budget, and unfortunately people in their position have to accept all these inconveniencies.

  5. avatar
    Catherine Benning

    Why does Britain still have a monarchy?

    First and foremost, these people are not royal. The blood line here is ridiculous and more, they have no sense of duty to this country. How could they? They do not speak for the people of the UK as their patron.

    How this came about as a result of their upbringing has nothing to do with the citizens of this country. And American choice in this role was ludicrous, this middle aged woman was an actress that really was quite poor, what hppened to the establishment they allowed this humiliation. And the fact the it was causes by the sons of furute kings wold have such low self esteen is really an enigma.
    ““`

    So, once the Queen passes, the Royal Firm has to be seriously considered. This morning we heard on the TV the cost of the monarchy has soared in the last few years from 30,00 GBP to 82,000 and there lies the reality of what is at the back of all this nonsense.

    Far more important is the accusation

    • avatar
      Catherine Benning

      Above was all awry. It should have said 30million pound from tax payers to Royal coffers, increased to 82million in a very short period of time. And how can the sons of future kings have such low self esteem they would end up in a mess like this. Did Charles teach them nothing about social climbing women? But, I suppose, Edward and Wallis ran the same line and got kept for life by the workers. But, at very least, Wallis had excellent taste, not a proverbial bag lady playing at representing the British citizen from a yankee malady. Playing at being a concerned feminist whilst bleaching your skin and ironing your hair in order to fill it with extensions is not a good advert for women who claim they are the equals of men they marry.

      And now the claim of racism. Fergie had it far worse and she is red, Camilla, is still getting it today but knows how to be a gracious lady fit for Consort, should one be needed. And Diana was hounded completely. Not one of them black. As far as I can see. However, they were/are Englishwoman who speaks our language and understands our habits.

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      What happened to the establishment? Love happened – the one that knows no boundaries. The least of concerns for two people in love would be a cold-hearted establishment and its rigid protocols. Money and social origin are also irrelevant. Only love matters in the end. They are doing right by letting go of a heavy, centuries-old, unnecessary load dragging them down to unhappiness and misery.

  6. avatar
    Chris

    Because we never want someone like Blair as president

  7. avatar
    Chris

    Because it is the UK has won the four major wars in history ;) There are not other countries who can be proud to have done so.

  8. avatar
    Steffan

    You are brain washed dimwitts if you think any one should be idolished for thinking then self above or better then rest cause of bloodline. They still inslaving you….

  9. avatar
    Rajesh

    Evet6y society needs a powerful force to maintain the balance between people and government

    • avatar
      Martha

      every? no every

    • avatar
      Yannick

      I never quite thought about it this way, but the Danes for sure, with their 1000 years of straight monarchy, do see it as a stable pillar of their society somehow. Not sure in the UK though. They seem to be only relevant for tabloids. I believe in Quebec last time the Queen came she got tomatoes, so in the french tradition, we dont see much purpose for them to tell the truth.

    • avatar
      Rajesh

      who cares what danes french and others think as long as they are loved by English and tabloids world over..

  10. avatar
    Ana

    it already exists “a powerful force to maintain the balance between people and government” and it is usually called Parliament.

  11. avatar
    Alex

    #1 stupid question of the week

  12. avatar
    Christoph

    So that the mainland tabloids have something to write about.

  13. avatar
    Julia

    I could never bow to another human being. Ridiculous in this day and age. They are rich enough to pay their own bills and say in life. They are rich enough. The Queen owns entire islands chock full of tax havens too and more. If the people ‘own’ The Palace and pay all the bills the royals should move out so the palace can be turned into a museum and real tourist attraction with guided tours inside.

  14. avatar
    Henk

    Harry is not stupid. Princess Diana got murdered by his own bloodline Family. They represent evil in many ways. I think is is very brave of them to step out of the Family, let’s hope they survive! May God be with them.

    • avatar
      Ingrida

      The truth is nobody cares too much about royals abroad. Foreign press mentions essential news like weddings, births. Before coming to the UK, I new that Elizabeth is the Queen. I had no idea what Harry, Charles, Diana or William is. Not to mention far relatives. In the UK, they enjoy more attention. I also support Meghan and Harry towards their family. And, yes, after 5 years in the UK I really believe Diana’s death was NOT an accident Royalty or people who work for them The truth is nobody wants to live a crappy famous life, at least majority. Just thoughts as I currently enjoy my second class life too much

  15. avatar
    Paul

    For the same reason as Spain, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway…etc etc…26 in total…its called History….

    • avatar
      Zoltan

      Exactly right Paul,nearly all European nations are monarchies,which begs the question of why this forum chose to single out the British royal family.

  16. avatar
    IC

    Only a coward society would accept a monarchy.

  17. avatar
    Catherine Benning

    Why does Britain still have a monarchy?

    It is said, the heir is very upset at the split with his brother, but, I feel maybe he is very fortunate this departure has arisen. The brothers were raised knowing one day one of them would be king. I think the heir probably did not realise this very fact could have lay seething in his bothers psychology for many a year. Ending this way may well have been instigated by fate to save him future torment.

    Here is Mordred with Arthur who held similar resentment in his heart.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8SU95ANPX0

    One who bows to the will of a mate in family affairs, is not necessarily the one being used. The reverse is so often the reality. The accused is often used to take up the burden of difficult separation. Just as Edward used Wallis to give reason for abdication. Make no mistake, this act is more sinister than the voicing of, I want to be free. The intention is destructive. The ethnic middle aged divorcee simply a puppet show.

  18. avatar
    Nadya

    Because the Brits love old-fashioned things. They’re now going back to pre-EU times. Soon they’ll bring back the dinosaurs.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

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

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.