The sad saga of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle – collectively known as The Sussexes – has taken yet a further turn in the twisting tale, which began on a pampered lawn in the presence of Oprah Winfrey. From a fairytale with a distressed would-be princess, this has devolved into a shadowy narrative of half-truths and outright lies.
When a person tells one lie, is it fair to assume that they have told others? Not if you are a member of the once-vaunted Fourth Estate, and the person in question has a significant amount of social credibility.
First One Lie
During the widely-watched Winfrey interview, Miss Markle informed Oprah that she and Harry had, in fact, tied the matrimonial knot three days prior to the $50 million public ceremony. She said:
"You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. The vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."
A consultant for the Faculty Office (which deals in marriage licenses), Mr. Borton, responded saying, "They couldn't have got married in the grounds of Nottingham Cottage as it is not an authorized venue and there were not enough witnesses present. You cannot be married with just three people. It's not a valid ceremony. I think the Duchess is confused. Any certificate she may have of her vows on the wall is not an official wedding certificate."
Were Miss Markle and Prince Harry confused? Was the public surprised that the happy couple's special day was not regarded by the said couple as their actual wedding? Certainly, but her words were believed, and the legacy media has done its utmost best to cast this lie as either a simple mistake or "misspeak."
And Then Another
The blockbuster story from the interview was that Miss Markle hinted that her child, Archie, was denied a royal title because of his racial mix. This suggestion was bolstered by alleged discussions held by people within the royal household of the possible color of Archie's skin. But yet again, this was either a seriously misinformed opinion (unlikely because Harry himself would be well aware of the actual facts) or an outright attempt at twisting the truth.
The reality is that according to the Letter Patent issued by King George V in 1917, only the children of the monarch and the grandchildren are entitled to use the title prince or princess. Miss Markle's assumption that her child is not called a prince because of race is ludicrously misleading. However, as Prince Harry presumably knows, once Queen Elizabeth passes, Prince Charles will become king, and Archie will then be the monarch's grandchild, and as such, be known as Prince Archie.
Running Cover
Members of the activist media have been spinning nuance with a passion not seen since the days of Hillary Clinton's failed election campaign. The important question is why.
Certainly, Americans have little love for the British monarchy and fought a war to break free of it. But choosing to side with someone who has provided easily checked misinformation in the name of fighting for racial justice has more the smell of ideology rather than historical bias. For some folks in the Fourth Estate, the truth doesn't matter, only the Golden Ideology Goose. Perhaps it never did.
~
Read more from Mark Angelides.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
