In which the Spectator gets it wrong

Within hours of your engagement being announced, a Spectator columnist set the tone, writing: “Obviously, 70 years ago, Meghan Markle would have been the kind of woman the prince would have had for a mistress, not a wife.”

Well, not really, actually. We went through this 80 years ago in fact. At which point the King decided upon the wife option for the American divorcee, not the mistress.

90 years ago we might have made the assumption the Speccie just has done. 70 years ago the incidence of it not working that way was all rather fresh in the memory.

9 comments on “In which the Spectator gets it wrong

  1. So Harry is marrying a washed-up slut without any redeeming features at all. Who, at 36, is unlikely to have children without medical intervention.

    F**k he is an idiot to opt for marriage not the mistress option. I mean, he is really f*cking retarded.

    Which goes to a point I often make – the Royals are actually what happens if you scrub a football hooligan down and shave enough hair off the strategic places. They are not remotely middle class. Which is usually not a bad thing. But now they seem determined to join the underclass.

    That is fine if that is what they want. But it probably means extinction of the Royal family. Because ultimately they depend on prestige and admiration. No one admires Harry for marrying an over-age Hollywood starlet.

    I hope the sex is worth it. And at least on the plus side, for those that believe in Blue Blood, the son from the other side of the blanket will take his father’s blood out of the Royal gene pool.

  2. As a child, Markle objected to a Procter & Gamble television commercial for a dish soap, which featured the line “Women all over America are fighting greasy pots and pans,” which she believed to be sexist. She took action by writing letters to lawyer Gloria Allred (who often advocates for women’s issues) and the then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. Months later the offending line was changed to “People all over America are fighting greasy pots and pans.”

    There is just so much in that story that makes the heart leap for joy.

  3. What is Harry thinking? She’s older than him, divorced and apparently nicknamed ‘Princess Pushy’. She’s not even beautiful. Is there no one that vets potential mates for the Royals?

    Shakes head.

  4. @So Much For Subtlety, November 28, 2017 at 10:46 am

    +1

    @Jonathan, November 28, 2017 at 11:05 am

    +1

    @Tim Newman, November 28, 2017 at 11:26 am

    What is Harry thinking?

    Mummy issues.

    Agree

    Divorced within 5 years?

    .
    Thesps: Never appear with children or animals

    Non-thesps: Never marry thesps or animals

  5. “Is there no one that vets potential mates for the Royals?”

    Well yes, I’m sure there is. And they did such a good job in choosing Diana that maybe they’ve decided to sit this one out. William already has an heir and a spare doesn’t he? And he’s still second in line after Charles (if I get this comment finished in time).

    So who gives a fuck who Harry marries?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.