A few days ago, the Daily Mail published an article about Queen Elizabeth’s “August horribilis”, a play on a speech she gave in 1992 when she referred to it as an “annus horribilis” (terrible year). What’s happening now, of course, is her second son is making headlines around the world for his friendship with a pedophile who died in federal custody. You’ll note, though, that Prince Andrew’s connection to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal isn’t what the Daily Mail listed first when cataloguing why it’s been an “August horribilis” for the British royal family. Check out the order:
So the Duke of York is being accused of raping a girl who alleges she was a sex slave and that only gets the silver medal in a headline about a messy month for the royals?!? This is what I’ve been picking at over the last few weeks about equivalency. Of course Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and other royal family members, should be challenged over their use of resources. But is it on the same level of offensiveness as the new information that’s been released about Prince Andrew’s relationship with a registered sex offender?
And all this was before the events of yesterday when Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked Her Majesty to suspend Parliament to force through Brexit and she accepted his plan. Some people are mad at her. Some constitutional experts and historians have said she had no choice. The Queen has been dragged into a political sh-t storm over her country’s biggest challenge – in the UK, there is no issue more pressing than Brexit, so if we’re talking about the “August horribilis”, there’s probably nothing that sucked more for the Queen than the decision she was put in the position to make yesterday.
If that Daily Mail article were updated though, how do you think the prorogation situation would rank? Above or below Harry and Meghan’s private jets? Would the paper’s readers still be encouraged to be more outraged over Harry and Meghan’s holidays over a political crisis and a royal’s friendship with a pedophile rapist?
Yours in gossip,