This time, the British press attacked Meghan Markle for not following tired old royal rules about fashion. What are they distracting you from?
Another day, another tired, boring, and predictable Meghan Markle hit piece.
This time, the British press is horrified — absolutely shocked, I tell you — that the Duchess of Sussex didn’t follow ridiculous rules about fashion when she lived in England.
Here’s the two-fold question: since she’s not living in England anymore, and isn’t an active member of the British royal family, who cares? And what’s the press really trying to distract us from this time?
At some point, the anger towards Meghan Markle has to subside, right? Surely, British women aren’t so desperate that their focus — in the year 2020, with all the other things going on in the world — is solely on Americans who marry minor British nobles, right?
You’d never know it based on the latest hit piece directed against the Duchess of Sussex. This time, the British press is outraged that while she was an active duty member of the British royal family, she had the audacity to wear diamonds before 6:00 p.m. They also cannot believe that she had the gall to not like nude tights — even though Americans haven’t worn tights since the 1970s, at least — and how dare that American strumpet not be used to wearing gloves?
This would all be cute and par for the course if this same British press didn’t gush about Kate Middleton wearing jeans. After all, shouldn’t a British-born and bred woman from a known social-climbing family (looking at you, Carole Middleton) know what the British royal family requires of someone, especially when that someone is looking to be the future Queen Consort?
But when it comes to Meghan Markle hit pieces, the question shouldn’t even be about comparing her to Kate Middleton anymore. After all, barring regicide, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were never going to sit on the throne. What’s more, reports of the two women being at loggerheads have been greatly exaggerated, as you can see in the video below.
The question should be, what’s the press trying to distract us from this time, and does it have to do with a certain “randy Andy”?
It looks like the British royal family has a reason to bring up old news about Meghan Markle: because they’re trying to throw off the scent from yet another Prince Andrew claim.
This time, it looks like the Palace is trying to make the British public ignore the fact that ‘Randy Andy’s’ ex-lovers have participated in a book coming out that details all of the Duke of York’s sex-capades.
According to Ian Halperin, a Canadian journalist who has won awards for his investigative journalism, Prince Andrew not only has a raging sex addiction, but that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein procured fed him women.
There is no doubt that Epstein provided girls to Andrew, and that was the reason they were friends. He had an obsession with redheads, and Epstein would have his scouts combing the streets for the most beautiful redheads before they met.
It gets worse. It seems as though Prince Andrew had an inkling of the way the proverbial wind was blowing when it came to Epstein, and he begged the disgraced financier not to reveal anything about him:
Epstein got information on people and he’d use it against them … [When he and Andrew last] met in 2011, Andrew was on his hands and knees begging Epstein never to reveal anything about him.
One can only imagine what Jeffrey Epstein had on Prince Andrew. And, let’s be real: if he had a Prince on his knees begging for mercy, imagine what he had on other people (like, say, a certain ex-president).
No wonder the Palace wants to throw Meghan Markle to the wolves, yet again. Unlike all the other “royal biographers,” Halperin isn’t ‘cancelable.’ He doesn’t have a personal stake in the claim — he’s not Omid Scobie or Lady Colin Campbell — and his work is unassailable. This book, more than anything else, can prove to be the most damaging to Prince Andrew.
No wonder the British royal family is hoping it all goes away.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.