Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Meghan Dilemma: Douglas Murray Nails It
OK. Let’s get the pedantry out of the way first. Per Merriam-Webster (emphasis added here and there just for clarity):
dilemma: noun: di·lem·ma də-ˈle-mə
1 a: a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice–faces this dilemma: raise interest rates and slow the economy or lower them and risk serious inflation
1 b: a situation involving such a choice–here am I brought to a very pretty dilemma; I must commit murder or commit matrimony George Farquhar
broadly : PREDICAMENT
lords and bailiffs were in a terrible dilemma G. M. Trevelyan
2 a: a problem involving a difficult choice–the dilemma of “liberty versus order” J. M. Burns
2 b: a difficult or persistent problem–unemployment … the great central dilemma of our advancing technology August Heckscher3: an argument presenting two or more equally conclusive alternatives against an opponent
The title of Murray’s December 9 Telegraph article is America’s race-obsessed elites have declared war on British institutions.
He’s exactly right about this. Meghan Markle, and her tool, the rather dim-witted Prince Harry, have decided to frame whatever grievances they have with the British royal family in terms of the often-regrettable history of racial relations on this (the US) side of the Atlantic. Probably (IMHO) because it’s so much easier to do so (and–for Pete’s sake–just follow the money!). Secondarily, I expect, the strategy has something to do with the fact that she’s clearly wearing the relationship’s pants.
I expect, for most of you, that Murray’s Telegraph article is behind the paywall. So, herewith, some excerpts:
What does America have against the Royal family? Strangely enough, given the history, in the main the answer is “almost nothing”. I was in the States when Queen Elizabeth II died and was struck by the surge of public sentiment there…When the news of her death broke, American audiences demanded wall-to-wall coverage of events from the UK.
Yet…in the case of the New York Times, having only waited a couple of hours, they soon began to push the news into the same remorseless groove of identity politics into which everything else in America is now played.
Local writers were drafted in to attack the Empire and Commonwealth (which will sound awfully familiar to Netflix subscribers).
…
Now these elite anti-British bigots are going to have new material, provided to them by one of their own – the woman born Meghan Markle. As the Duke and Duchess of Sussex bask in the attention surrounding their “tell-all” Netflix show, we can already see the groove that they have been pushed into. It is a peculiarly American groove and one that bears no relationship with either Britain or the truth.
It was the British novelist Zadie Smith who once observed that race in America is what class is in Britain – the discussion beneath every discussion…As the summer of George Floyd in 2020 proved, America is only ever one bad police interaction away from major riots and cities burning down. It is a country on a perpetual knife-edge over any issue to do with race.
…
Whatever the cause, it is beyond question that America looks at everything through the lens of race. So it was probably inevitable that the Sussexes, now living in America, would use race as the main lens through which too view the British public and monarchy.
Of course, nothing could be more inadequate as a tool…many British people had to be told that [Meghan] was a person of colour… As the crowds that turned out for the 2018 royal wedding in Windsor showed, the British people were thrilled by the union of the Sussexes. IWhat better way to head into the 21st century [than with a multi-ethnic British royal family]?
But then Harry and Meghan chose their own way, for reasons they will doubtless now try to justify at inordinate length…the Sussexes seem to have been surprised by aspects of the Royal family. It seems to have come as a shock to the couple that there is a “hierarchy” in the monarchy – a fact that you might have thought was obvious.
…
Both of them have retreated into the only explanation that Meghan could possibly have; the explanation for everything in America: “racism”.
…
The truth is less exciting, far less scandalous, and without doubt something that the Sussexes will never want to hear: the British public only turned against the couple because the couple turned against the British public and one of our great institutions. When the Sussexes chose to keep their titles but spend their time chasing celebrity in California, they rejected the idea of public service to which every other royal is committed. Even worse was that the couple should have made the final months of the Duke of Edinburgh and the late Queen that much more unhappy by appearing as wrecking balls against the institution that had so carefully nurtured Prince Harry and welcomed his wife.
…
The great secret of all institutions is that people are loyal to institutions that are loyal to them.
…
The Sussexes could have been something great – a jewel in the British crown – but they wrecked themselves. If they want an explanation as to why they have become what they have, and ended up where they have, it lies in their own selfish actions.
Those of you who soothe yourselves by framing this particular soap opera as something peculiar to we fusty old Brits and our monarchical tradition, and who can’t quite manage to recognize it as the same-old, same-old attack on Western Civilization and our common values, have at it. You may think you’re striking a blow for republicanism. But really, you’re (totally, boringly, repetitively, explicably) just missing the point.
Published in General
IS there not a three paragraph limit to quoted material, otherwise the site is in trouble for copyright violations? (Non profits sometimes waive that legal stipulation, but mainstream media rarely if ever do that?)
I don’t know. Maybe you are the expert on this matter? Otherwise, perhaps someone with some authority can educate me.
Yeah I agree, while it does seem like celebrity gossip, it’s not trivial. I feel so sorry for that poor old lady who had to resign last week. Charles needs a good boot up the arse for his disloyalty.
We find it grimly entertaining that La Markle and H are so ignorant that they complain about oppression from rituals that were established before there were any colonies anywhere and well before any (dark skinned ) slaves in evidence. Of course the “Norsemen” and the Celts had slaves aplenty from their plundering but they were probably just Ginger’s so no matter. And when the Isles were filled with white skinned peoples. Not to mention that the Brits ended slavery first among the West.
As to justification – it’s all about the Benjamins. What did Winston say: We know what you are, we are just haggling over price?
I think it has to do with how much of the original work you quote, whether you ‘transform’ it with commentary/parody etc. (ie make something substantively new from it) and whether your quote causes material damage to the original publisher (eg if you ‘quote’ an entire article that is behind a paywall elsewhere then it’s arguable the Ricochet readers are getting something without having to pay the original publisher, thereby damaging that publisher).
But perhaps a lawyer among us can advise?
Edited to add: perhaps useful:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html
A couple of points:
– Ricochet (employees) did not author this content; a user did, and that matters.
– There’s an argument for Fair Use here.
– I’m not aware of a numerical limit in law, although numerous rules of thumb exist. If Ricochet has some such limit as a rule of thumb, I am not familiar with that either.
It’s a judgment call. In this case another defense is that this serves as a “taste” presented to a small audience (even if it does go on the front page), which might induce readers here to start checking out The Telegraph (which is a FINE paper), and maybe even “convert” to paying subscriber.
There are situations which are not judgment calls, but this broaches none of them.
If I were running the site, I would look at many factors — and then make a judgment. Obviously, media outlets do the same regarding their content which makes it off the reservation.
Finally, The Telegraph is unlikely to go crazy on a small target like Ricochet. There was that other situation, but that was (in my mostly un-informed opinion) more borne of malice and contrary ideology than laws or even rules. Pity a judge agreed.
Doug and Zadie need to get out more. There are vast swaths of this country who know little of Meghan Markle and care even less.
Meghan had a podcast available on YouTube. The first one had 11K views. The second fell off a bit – 90%. She didn’t break 1K again until the last one, which hit +3K. It was then cancelled. She’s not exactly been setting the world on fire.
Re the OP, consider this: the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. People are not indifferent to the royals, and if that’s because the royals are a a soap opera, well – whose fault is that?
It’s still better for the royals than indifference, because with indifference the institution would die.
Even mockery like this is better than indifference. Arguably the regular ‘royal scandals’ are what have kept their profile up. Who knows or cares who the Danish royals are or the Dutch royals are or the Spanish royals are? Outside of those countries nobody. Everybody know the royals means the British royals, just like The Queen meant Madge. Scandals are part of the reason why.
Edited to add:
It makes one think how the royals have basically been transformed into glorified public servants whose role is to uphold some synthesised “tradition”. Think of Henry VIII. He flipped the table – started a new church because he wanted to divorce his wife, killed a bunch of wives because he basically wanted them out of the way, routinely had affairs with women who were not (yet) married to him…now that’s scandalous behaviour. Can you imagine him losing any sleep about upholding tradition? Can you imagine him going on Oprah in a bid for public sympathy? I truly cannot. That’s also part of England’s history and tradition – the interesting part!
Harry and Meghan want out of the limelight until it suits their fancy and then they seek attention (Oprah interviews, Netflix shows). I pity Harry – he seemed to be solid and normal when he was in the military – but the loser Meghan seems to have ruined him. What a couple.
I’d agree with pretty much all of this, but a couple of additional points.
It’s a difficult issue to assess without seeing the original, since “fair use” can be a sliding scale. However, it is quite relevant that the material is pay walled. Also, my impression from previous questionable uses here is that, right or wrong, the PTB think they have a handle on what flies and what doesn’t.
Frankly, in light of what’s transpired here over the years and which has largely passed without comment, I’m more than mildly entertained by the reaction to this post.
Carry on.
As far as Murray’s writing goes, it is so spot on that it almost makes discussion moot. All I could say is perfect (!). Glad you said it bud.
Do you find a Telegraph subscription to be a worthwhile thing?
Those two are a joke, perpetually humiliating themselves, but blissfully unaware. The only people who take them seriously are either in on the grift, or trying to get paid, or as stupid as Harry.
Having said that, I predict a nasty divorce in about 3 years time. Harry’s going to want his balls back some time, probably about when he starts his mid-life crisis. He’s going to grow increasingly isolated from all his old friends and associates. He’s going to tire of her controlling claws. I suspect he realizes he’s being humiliated by her now, but pride won’t let him do anything about it, and he’s got young children to think about.
I am embarrassed for the two of them and wish they would stop making both our countries look bad – her insistence that she is a ‘victim-princess’, something no one over ten believes in; and Harry’s disturbing angry impotence.
The Wince-or couple really needs to seek the blessings of obscurity.
+100
Actually, I do. It’s fairly pricey, if you’re in it for the long haul, and past the introductory (cheap!) offer. There are a few different levels. I have the “plus” subscription, which costs more, but which gives you a “free” subscription to share with a friend, so I do. It includes some extras, like the puzzles, which I also like. The basic subscription costs less.
I like it because it’s a complete site. It has reasonable news coverage, with (reasonably) balanced opinion, and all the regular sections. It has very robust ‘living’ sections such as travel, books, lifestyle and culture. And its food and recipe section is a delight. I’m enough of a girl that I really miss the “Women” sections of the newspapers of my childhood, and this is the closest I can come to them. The columnists span the gamut from left to right, but the readership (to judge from the comments), heaves distinctly to starboard. I comment occasionally, and my sister and I have a friendly rivalry, to see who can get the most “likes” on matters that interest us both.
I am a Brit, so perhaps its emphasis on matters British is of more interest to me than it would be to others. Overall, though, I value its wider perspective than that I find in most US news coverage.
IIRC, @iwe has a Telegraph subscription. I’d be interested in his thoughts.
He’ll wind up slapping Chris Rock before this is over.
You are exactly right: just another attack on Western civilization.
Brit crosswords are nothing like American ones.
I also have digital Telegraph subscription. American papers have very little about the rest of the world. I like to know what is going on without listening to the BBC.
I also like reading about the Queen, Prince William and family as well as the Princess Royal.
Agree. I’d rather stick forks in my eyes than listen to the BBC. This is sad, because I grew up listening to the BBC World Service, and have many fond memories of it and the programs thereon.
Pro-tip: To prevent BBC listening, stick the forks into your ears instead.
Times Radio on YouTube is nice, though you might run across Cathy Newman on there. Cathy is famous for her battle of wits against Jordan Peterson; all of his versus her half.
They do have a tendency to focus on nonsense sometimes, or have daft takes on the events of the day. They managed to do both for a few days in a row when the COP27 Climate “Summit” was held a week or so ago. They did a few pieces on Prime Minister Rishi Dweeb.
The Civilization Strikes Back!
Self-absorbed and entitled is rather tedious. It infects every aspect and class in the new Woke world. Perpetual aggrievement is the new passport to fame, fortune, and wealth.
The irony is stunning. M&H are notable (and therefore commercially viable) only because of the British monarchy, the very institution they attack. The thing that feeds them is the recipient of their hate. In that, they are a microcosm of the Western young woke. Widespread prosperity (relative), time, energy (not required for mere survivial) allows time to hate and work against the society making your life so cushy.
The names some Brits use for her /them are pretty funny in their focus on solipsism and grift: Me-again, Me-Gain, and my favorite: Ginge and Whinge.
Exactly! It’s not *all* about the Benjamins. A lot of it has to do with the psychological “benefits” of victim status and status generally. We don’t elevate people of moral, academic, and artistic excellence anymore. It’s not a meritocracy so much as a victimocracy. And *Princess* Meghan is a victim of her in-laws. /epic eyeroll
Considering they did promote this post, I assume that means they’re okay with it.
Another reminder to see Krysten Ritter in “Don’t Trust The B**** In Apartment 23!”