When the storm broke about Piers Morgan I joked to friends that he would defend his coverage of Meghan by saying there was nothing racial about it as he was equally outrageous to ALL the members of the Royal Family. We all laughed. But here in Mail on Sunday (Note 1), Piers did just that!!! He states: ‘Meghan‘s had no worse media treatment than other Royal brides such as ….Wallis Simpson’.
He avoids mentioning the press coverage of the wedding on 15 November 1916 of Nadejda Torby to Geoge Mountbatten where it was wondered whether the Royal Family was about to have Black babies. Better stay clear of that one, Piers!
In his rantings, he cannot see how ridiculous he looks. When he is told he need not apologize he takes that as justification, but when he is explicitly told to apologize he takes that as a breach of his freedom of speech! Of course, when he was told he need not apologize it was said in a tone of voice to suggest he should but that he could say he did it of his own free will. He knew that or the matter would not have been mentioned. That is the code.
He quotes Mr Markle as saying he does not think the Royal Family is racist but Piers does not finish the quote:
“I have great respect for the royals and I don’t think the British royal family are racist at all. I don’t think the British are racist.”’ (Note 2)
Any who can say carte blanche, the British are not racist, either have no knowledge or are lying through their back teeth.
Then Piers ‘outs’ many of those who sent him private messages of support not thinking they might not wish to be ‘outed’. Nor does he consider that some people might wish to show solidarity in a crisis (what are friends for?) even if they disagree with his conduct.
Piers Morgan then engages in purely vicious misrepresentation: he claims that he has been proven right and that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, supports him
A better report of Justin Welby is in The Guardian:
‘The duchess said nobody knew the couple had shared personal vows for “just the two of us” ahead of their wedding day in Windsor on Saturday 19 May 2018.
However, it was thought that this could not have been a legal ceremony as it lacked witnesses and a registered venue, and was instead likely to have been an informal exchange of vows.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper la Repubblica, Welby was asked about what happened. He said the legal wedding took place on the Saturday, adding: “But I won’t say what happened at any other meetings.”
The archbishop told the paper: “If any of you ever talk to a priest, you expect them to keep that talk confidential. It doesn’t matter who I’m talking to. I had a number of private and pastoral meetings with the duke and duchess before the wedding.
“The legal wedding was on the Saturday. I signed the wedding certificate, which is a legal document, and I would have committed a serious criminal offence if I signed it knowing it was false.”
During the interview, Meghan had told Winfrey: “You know, three days before our wedding we got married. No one knows that, but we called the archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle, is for the world, but we want our union between us.’”
She said the vows they have framed are “just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury”. Both Harry and Meghan said it was “just the three of us”. (Note 3)
There are of course several matters of jurisdiction here. A religious institution may not recognise inter faith marriages or remarriages even though these are recognised in civil law. The separation of these two are evidenced in almost every Church wedding as after the exchange of vows the priest announces ‘I pronounce you man and wife’. At that moment the registry procedure has not been completed so the marriage has not been made under civil law …so what does the statement ‘I pronounce you man and wife’ mean? One interpretation would be that for a Christian marriage the exchange of vows are all that is necessary so that in the eyes of the Church the marriage is concluded with the change of vows. However the civil law will not recognise such and will insist on the registry procedure which normally takes place during an ‘inter-mission’ in the Church ceremony. Bear in mind Justin Welby, the Archbishop, specifically confirms that an event did take place with the Prince and Meghan and himself but would not elaborate.
To further confirm this, let us look at the Catholic Church advice on marriage:
Catholic wedding vows
The most important part of a Catholic wedding is what is commonly known as the exchange of vows. These words are the heart—the essential element—of the sacrament of marriage; they form the covenant that establish the couple’s marriage. The Church calls the exchange of vows consent—that is, the act of will by which a man and a woman give themselves to each other, and accept the gift of the other. The marriage can’t happen without the declaration of consent (Catechism #1625 – 1631).
..then after the consents have been given (exchange of vows) …‘The priest acknowledges that the couple have declared their consent to be married, prays for God’s blessing on the couple, and declares, “What God joins together, let no one put asunder” (The Order of Celebrating Matrimony #64). This is the point at which, sacramentally, the bride and groom become wife and husband.” (Note 4)
There is no mention of the required civil procedure at all in the above. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned they are married.
Piers tweets: ‘UPDATE: Following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s confirmation that Meghan Markle was talking a load of old flannel in her Oprah interview..’ (Note 5)
This of course counts as low grade propaganda , or shall we say it outright given his colleagues would have explained it all to him though he already knew it – deliberate lies.
At the end of it all, Piers claims the right to freedom of speech, that he should be allowed to express his honestly felt opinions as if the megaphone of a media presenter has no greater obligations than your usual pub conversant. But he then complains that his sons are being subjected to vicious and rude abuse. Is that not someone else exercising their free speech rights? Are they not expressing their honestly felt opinions?
A more serious review of Piers Morgan’s self-indulgent rantings will follow anon.
PS. I had chosen the ‘redux’ title before Piers Morgan’s April Fool joke!
1. The Mail On Sunday 28 March 2021