Harry and Meghan – An organised assault on the British Monarchy

Philip Gegan
Picture courtesy ofCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence.

Harry and Meghan. It was bound to end in tears. Not so much for them, perhaps (though that remains to be seen), but for the rest of us.

Just their names seem to ring out a note of warning to all British people. With the publication of Harry’s ghost-written book, “Spare”, both he and Meghan have placed themselves in the vanguard of a concerted attack on, not just the Monarchy, but the very foundations of the nation state of Great Britain.

Harry and Meghan (1)

From the outset Meghan Markle had no intention of sharing in Harry’s Royal duties or contributing positively to the monarchy. In the early days her toothy smiles and dark eyes hid her malevolent intentions. In more recent times both her and Harry have dropped any pretence of wanting to be a positive part of the Royal Family.

I’m not going to cover the history of how Harry met Meghan, married her, came to be her puppet, rowed with his family over her and her mechinations, and became isolated in his luxury home in Hollywood. We’ve all read about that to saturation.

By playing the “victim” in the whole story, Harry hoped to gather public sympathy and place his antagonists in the Royal Family on the wrong foot. He has achieved precisely the opposite. The public support he has enjoyed since his mother’s untimely death, and especially since his engagement to Meghan, has all but evaporated.

His much-hyped book, with its accusatory title and photo of Harry looking suitably wronged and angry, will no doubt be on the pulp pile before long, being sold off at 99 pence to free up some storage space.

The fact is that Meghan’s influence on Harry and on the events that subsequently engulfed the Royal Family was malign in the extreme.

Harry and Meghan (2)

The current crisis in the Royal Family can be said to have started in January 2020, when Harry and Meghan announced that they were “standing down” from most of their Royal duties in order to divide their time between the UK and North America. They did this by posting on Instagram, as you would. After all, why bother telling the Queen first?

The Guerilla War against the Royal Family

It wasn’t long before they were bidding the UK goodbye and moving their home to across the Atlantic. Not just to the other side, either, but way out west. First Vancouver, and later Los Angeles, where Meghan wasted no time in re-establishing links with all the good folks she knew in Hollywood before she met Harry.

This latter move came as a surprise to many people, who recall Meghan’s vow not to return to the US to live as long as Donald Trump remained President (as he was, still, at that time). But she was not alone, as dozens of other Hollywood celebs had made a similar vow after the 2016 presidential election, and yet continued to live in the US afterwards.

Meghan’s hostility towards President Trump and friendship with the likes of Barack Obama were just the outward manifestation of what she really is, which is a Cultural Marxist. As such, she is irrevocably opposed to the institution of Monarchy, wherever it may be.

This explains nearly all of what has happened since she met Harry and realised he was a weak character whom she could easily control. She has since done so ruthlessly and in a way that is calculated to cause the maximum damage.

Since their move to the US, Harry and Meghan have been engaged in a kind of guerilla war with the Royal Family. They complain at every opportunity that their privacy is being breached. Yet they choose to live a lifestyle that has them constantly at the centre of public attention.

They appear frequently before the cameras, doing interviews and appearing on celebrity TV shows like Oprah Winfrey. They produced and starred in their own documentary series on Netflix.

Now we have the publication of Harry’s ghost-written book, “Spare”, containing accusations against people who are not only part of our Monarchy, but in many cases Harry’s own flesh and blood. The way in which he has betrayed his brother, William, is particularly unpleasant. Harry has now accused both his brother and his father of actual assault – an extremely serious accusation.

I won’t go into further detail of all the allegations as that’s not the point of this post, but it is clear that the breach between Harry and Meghan on the one hand and the Royal Family on the other is probably final.

Comparisons with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson

The behaviour of Harry and Meghan has invited comparisons with that of King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. Both Harry and Edward VIII are/were weak individuals who married an older, more dominant and probably more intelligent, manipulative woman. Both Meghan and Mrs Simpson are/were Americans (Meghan is Canadian by birth but has chosen to live most of her life in the U.S.) and both were married before.

Mrs Simpson was married and divorced twice before she met Edward VIII. Meghan was previously married to an American Jew, Trevor Engelson, for two years. The extent of her lack of commitment is illustrated by the fact that, in order to marry Engelson she had to “convert” to Judaism, with all the rigmarole that entailed. Then, on leaving him, just two years later, she dropped Judaism just as easily as she had adopted it.

Mrs Simpson had no real career, other than marrying and dominating rich and influential men, it seems. Meghan had a modestly successful career in acting, though it is uncertain if she will act again. Both women are/were good at finding ways of making money, mostly involving their marriage to members or ex-members of the British Royal Family.

Yes, there’s money to be made by marrying a Royal. That is, if you’re prepared to stoop low enough. To their great credit, all commoners who have married into the Royal Family since the end of the Second World War have resisted the temptation to try and cash in on it. All commoners, that is, except Meghan.

Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson ended up isolated and living abroad. Harry and Meghan, also, are now rapidly becoming isolated, as well as living abroad. Even Barack Obama, who had been one of their most well-known supporters, snubbed them by not inviting them to his 60th birthday party a year or two ago.

But at least Edward VIII (when he was effectively banished and known as the Duke of Windsor) never attempted to cash in on his former Royal status or write a book “exposing” members of the Royal Family.

Now we have Harry revealing things that most people don’t want to know, and, worse, that can cause tremendous problems for the people he has left behind. The foolish revelation that he “killed 25 Taliban” whilst serving in Afghanistan has breached several protocols, and opened himself, his immediate family, and the Royal Family themselves to possible revenge attacks.

And the admission that he has taken illegal drugs on a regular basis has done nothing to help the fight against drugs and the degradation and death of White British youth who resort to them.

Harry and Meghan – Not all about money

Many commentators are saying in light of the latest developments in the Harry and Meghan saga that it’s all about money. The dramatic split between Harry and Prince William, the frequent “showdowns” between the two, and between Harry and his father. More showdowns between Harry and the Queen Consort, and Harry and Princess Catherine, and even Harry and the late Queen, have all helped to generate publicity enough to start the gravy train rolling.

But, ominously, when Harry met Meghan it wasn’t all about money.

Let’s take a look at where our nation is today. Our power and influence in the world is at rock bottom. Our economy is a shadow of what it once was, being propped up by a fiat currency that’s living on borrowed time. The lock downs of 2020 to 2022 have left a lasting, toxic legacy of bankruptcies, suicides of young people, fear and confusion. And that’s not just us. It applies to most of the rest of the western world.

But at least we in Great Britain have one thing that hardly any other country, outside the British Commonwealth, has. We have a monarchy. A Monarch who dedicates his or her life to representing the nation at home and throughout the world. A king or queen who has tremendous power, but who actually has very little power, thanks to the ability of our ancestors in coming up with a brilliant and unique solution to the problem that plagued them.

All powers in this country derive from the sovereign. All public office holders take an oath of allegiance to the king. When King Charles III is crowned at the forthcoming coronation, all the peers of the realm will take an oath of allegiance to him as King. The King personifies the nation. It is not the powers that he has that are important, but the powers that he withholds from other people.

He unifies the nation. He is the head of the Church of England, the chief lawmaker as the King in Parliament, and the chief law enforcer, above every Chief Constable in the country. He is the head of all branches of the armed services, and all courts in the land act under his authority.

Of course he delegates nearly all of these duties to the appropriate officers, who (in theory, at least) have specialist knowledge and experience in their field. But it is the King who represents and embodies this country, through his Prime Minister and other members of the government, at home, and through his ambassadors and diplomats abroad.

The important point is that he has the power to dismiss any of these officers if circumstances require. He takes ultimate responsibility and can himself, where necessary, be brought to account, as happened with King John (Magna Carta, 1215) and King Charles I in the mid seventeenth century.

Harry and Meghan vs our Constitutional Monarchy

This system of constitutional monarchy has evolved over several centuries. It took wars and battles, including the Civil War, to ensure its triumph. It is unique to us. It is precious. Those who decry the monarchy do so from a standpoint of ignorance. Because it is not the personages who comprise the monarchy at any given time that are important. It is the concept, the whole system of government, that is uniquely attuned to the British psyche.

We have a monarch with almost absolute power, in theory, but who seldom, if ever, has to use it. Thereby persons of evil intent who would impose an unpopular, authoritarian government upon us, are frustrated. Law abiding citizens can invariably breathe more easily on account of this institution. But in return for this absolute power, the Monarch has to forego most of his personal life.

Would those who agitate against the Monarchy be prepared to assume such awesome and fearful responsibilities for their whole lives? To forfeit much of their privacy, that most ordinary citizens take for granted?

To have their every move, potentially, photographed and videoed? And their every decision and, indeed, everything that they may feel obliged to be involved in, discussed and analysed by commentators in the media and on social media? And, of course, by the public at large in every inn and tavern in the land?

And to behave with dignity and restraint, whatever the provocation may be, and however unfair and unjustified any criticism may be?

Whatever wealth the Monarch may have or receive from the Civil List, it is doubtful that any amount of it would be sufficient to compensate him for the way of life he is obliged to follow, or his sacrifice of the things the rest of us enjoy without question.

Yes, we are a lucky nation, in this respect at least. But, as racial nationalists know, there are malevolent, evil powers in the world, becoming more powerful every day. They look upon us and our nation as an irritant, as something that is in the way of their grand scheme of destroying civilization in all civilised countries. They want to make us like every other country, before abolishing all nations completely.

With a monarchy ostensibly ruling our nation, that task is all the more difficult. They want our Monarchy out of the way. It is one of the very few things that could, even now, frustrate their plans to reduce human existence to that of digitised slaves serving a very small number of tyrants – a worldwide gulag from which there can be no escape. Big Brother will always be watching.

The abolition of monarchies in nearly all other countries of the world, sometimes in a most bloodthirsty manner, has made their work easier. Have these countries enjoyed more freedom and greater power and influence in the world through losing their Kings and Queens, their Princes and Princesses, their Dukes and Earls, their Emperors and Empresses, their Lords and Ladies?

No, they have not. They have, instead, become all the same. Cosmopolitan. They’ve lost their individuality. And they are less capable of standing up to the malign machinations of the international money power. This power, largely through its current manifestation of the World Economic Forum, has a particularly grisly vision of what the future will be like for everyone else. More on that in another post.

Harry and Meghan – Pawns in the Game

This is what the Harry and Meghan affair is really all about. They are the pawns in the game. Their string pullers smile grimly as they watch the pair trying to get their own back on the British Monarchy for perceived wrongs and making as much money as they possibly can in the process. They have made themselves part of the plan to enslave the British people.

By rocking the Monarchy with allegations of assault and other victimisation, and portraying leading members of it in a cruel, distorted light, Harry and Meghan are doing their best to destroy it. And the Monarchy is one of the few things left that stands between us and the dystopian future the likes of the World Economic Forum, the international money power, and all their grey-suited apparatchiks have in mind for us.

So let us all forget Harry and Meghan. They can do what they like now that they live abroad and have effectively resigned from the Royal Family. It will be refreshing not to hear any more of their bleating, virtue-signalling and self-pity. We have other, more important, things to think about. Such as raising public awareness of the dangers that our nation (and nearly all other nations of the world) face in these dangerous times. Goodbye, Harry and Meghan, and good riddance.

David Irving – Lessons from History

Will Wright

I have recently begun reading David Irving’s book, Goebbels – Mastermind of the Third Reich. This book is 533 pages and I have currently read 140 pages. I am trying to rush my way through it, among what else I have to do, including my other reading.

Why am I reading this book? Is it of any value? Well, I have always been interested in history. So is this a self-indulgent activity? Up to a point. It is history, about a foreign country a hundred years ago. In many ways Germany is, and was, a very different country to the United Kingdom. So much of life was very different a hundred years ago.

Bearing that in mind then, are there any lessons to be learned by modern British Nationalists? Yes. David Irving is inspirational. The lengths he has gone to in order to uncover the information that he needed to create this book. The hurdles that he had to clear. The lengths which the organised international Jewish community went to in order to crush Irving’s efforts. The Jews do not want you to read any of David Irving’s books. Doesn’t that make any truly enquiring mind want to know what is in those books that World Jewry fears?

Irving’s own life story is about intellectual rigour, a terrific work rate, and the courage and bloody-mindedness to persist against powerful enemies. That should be a lesson for everyone. But what about the subject of the book? Joseph Goebbels was a thinking man. That is why the book is subtitled Mastermind of the Third Reich. He too worked very hard. He too had a lot of courage. That is moral courage as well as sheer physical courage. He was a physically small man with a crippling physical disability. One that caused him constant pain. Yet he regularly placed himself in very dangerous situations for the Nazi cause – not least by attending a staggering number of very violent political meetings.

Irving tells us:

The tide of political violence was rising. Eighty-six Nazis were murdered during 1932; Goebbels alone lost seven men, and the police seldom caught the murderers.

The killing of fifteen-year-old Herbert Norkus was particularly nasty. He and five pals had been distributing leaflets early one Sunday morning when they were overwhelmed by communists. The body of Norkus, son of a working-class Nazi from Plotzensee, was found in the entrance hall of No. 4 Zwingli Strasse, where he had bled to death from six stab wounds. Goebbels personally inspected the scene with its twenty-yard trail of dried blood and the one bloody handprint on the whitewashed wall. After going on to the morgue he wrote these words in his newspaper: “There in the bleak grey twilight a yellowing childish face stares with half-open, empty eyes. The delicate features have been trampled to a bloody pulp.” The next day he buried the artist Professor Ernst Schwarz, an SA officer gunned down in a communist ambush a week before.

Anyone who combines intellectual brilliance, industriousness, and courage should be an example to British Nationalists. Because so many people in Britain today are not at all intellectual, nor do they even behave intelligently. A great many people are lazy, selfish, and materialistic. On top of that, they are cowardly. And then they do not understand why they do not succeed.

This blog recently posted a review of an article written by Simon Heffer, written by veteran British Nationalist Martin Webster. Simon Heffer is intelligent and well-educated. As a senior and prominent journalist he must know all sorts of information that the general public does not. But like almost all Conservative types he appears to put self-interest and self-preservation above speaking out about what he must know has happened and is happening.

A big reason that modern Britain is in the mess that it is, is because of people like Simon Heffer. They should be providing our national leadership against decline, corruption, and foreign subversion. People like him will only go so far when writing or speaking about what is wrong with the country. Those people will never speak out against Jewish power. Britain’s current race and immigration problems (and much else) are a result of Jewish-led policies over a long period of decades. Anyone who does not think so has obviously never read the books of Kevin MacDonald.

Rarely, an established journalist such as Peter Oborne, comments on “Britain’s Israel Lobby” and they suffer the downturn in their career as a result. But this is very much a rarity.

Jews, politically-correct leftists and those who ‘go with the flow’ usually work very hard. They are now the ones with political power because of their efforts in the past. How do any British Nationalists expect to succeed if they are uninformed and poorly read, lazy, and cowardly? Life does not just throw up changed circumstances – those have to be worked for – and usually, fought for.

An important article on Free Speech in the Daily Telegraph by Simon Heffer… (You can hear a ‘but’ coming…)

Martin Webster
Roald Dahl

Simon Heffer has an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph, “George Orwell’s chilling prediction has come true – it’s time to make a stand. The censorship of books, statues and history is an attempt to eradicate the past and enforce a single point of view”. It might be helpful to read the excerpts below first before returning to my commentary.

The points Heffer makes about the destruction of free speech resulting from the rewriting of Roald Dahl’s works are sound, as far as they go — but if he and his ‘Right Wing’ Tory kind wish me to express sympathy for the plight in which they now find themselves, I can only quote a phrase coined by the first Chairman of the National Front, A.K. Chesterton: “The level of the Thames will not rise appreciably as a result of any tears I may shed.”

Heffer and his kind of ‘right wing’ Tory believe that mass Coloured Immigration has been not been good for our country. But he and they have never revealed the cause of what I regard as a disaster — who was behind it — nor did they campaign with their might and main to halt and reverse it.

On a slightly digressive topic, he and his kind never wanted Britain to join the EEC — later the EU — and whined about our membership of it. But it took a brave non-Tory, Nigel Farage, then leading the United Kingdom Independence Party, to get the Brexit ball rolling. Thereafter, it took a sequence of chaotic Tory administrations to fumble the ball — whether by incompetence or deliberate slyness masquerading as incompetence we may never know.

Thanks to the Tories, a part of the United Kingdom — Northern Ireland — is faced with the European Court having the final say on trade between itself and all other parts of the UK. This is not, as Boris Johnson promised, “getting Brexit done”. His Brexit was not “Oven-Ready”. The full restoration of British national sovereignty may yet — and not for the first time — rest on an adamantine “NO!” from Ulster Unionists. (End of digression.)

What did Heffer and his kind do to oppose the imposition of the Race Relations Act and its subsequent increasingly oppressive anti-free speech amendments? Nothing. That Act was the start of the post-WW2 slide towards the suppression of rights and liberties hard-won by our ancestors over centuries.

The first draft of Race Relations Act was devised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the 1950s under the working title ‘Group Libel Bill’. All subsequent amendments were drafted by Jewish lawyers connected with the Board and pushed on to the legislative agenda of whichever party was in office, not only by Jewry’s massive media power but also by senior Home Office civil servants such as Neville Nagler who, on retirement, became CEO of — yes! — the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Did we ever hear about any of this from Heffer and his kind, who must have known? No. To speak up against the anti-free speech iniquities of the Race Relations Act legislation would have been deemed to be “anti-semitic” simply because organised Jewry was so hugely associated with its promotion — another essential fact it was crucial for careerists not to mention!

Apologists for Tory cowards plead that to have campaigned for the free speech of “Right Wing extremists” would have destroyed the career of a chap like Heffer, a clever, talented and industrious man.

No column in the Telegraph. No editorships with that group or with the Mail group. No professorship at the University of Buckingham, (a “private university” stuffed with Jews). No publishers like Weidenfeld and Nicolson willing to publish your books. No lovely home near Saffron Walden in the bliss of rural Essex.

As I write this, a phrase pops into my head: “…All this can be yours! All you have to do is bow down and adore me!”

So Heffer and his kind went rather quiet when patriots — some of them, perhaps, rough diamonds — got pulled into court for “incitement to racial hatred”. These ‘Right Wing’ Tories sought to justify the abandonment of their free speech ‘principles’ by attacking “Right Wing extremism”. Jewry patted them on the head and gave them another biscuit.

Thus the slide down the slope to outright oppression accelerated.

And now — mercy me! — Heffer and his kind find themselves oppressed by the very same forces which over the decades since WW2 have worked to criminalise and crush the free speech of “right wing extremists”.

Only a day or so ago we learned that these forces of oppression now include the government (Home Office/MI5) organised security outfit Prevent, set up to steer young people away from terrorist activities. Prevent has issued to its agents lists of books, films, TV programmes, journalists and the like which only a few years ago were part of Britain’s mainstream cultural fabric. Interest in any of them nowadays must be regarded as an indicator of terrorist proclivities. Reports must be made to the authorities.

I wonder if Simon Heffer is on that list? He did, after all, write a far from condemnatory biography of Enoch Powell 25 years ago. Say no more! Nudge!-nudge! — wink!-wink! I’ll tip-toe to the telephone straight away.

Thus far I have only referred to “Simon Heffer and his kind”. Who are “his kind”? The most telling example I can give of the kind of person in that company is Andrew Roberts, to be precise: Lord Andrew Roberts. He is a long-standing toady to Jewry, though likes to be thought of as ‘right wing’. Early in his career as a historian he held at least one private lunch at his Chelsea home for the late Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia.

As Roberts’ career progressed he found it expedient to make an attack on the late Dowager Lady Birdwood (Jane Birdwood) in the London Evening Standard’s ‘Londoner’s Diary’ because she quoted extracts from the last chapter of his book Eminent Churchillians.

This chapter recounted how the Conservative Party in the 1950s stifled the efforts by Cyril Osborne MP to get the issue of Coloured Immigration to the UK debated in the House of Commons. Roberts described how Osborne’s efforts were crushed by the Establishment’s resort to blackmail, intimidation and bribery. Roberts ended his account with the words:

“… and so the greatest demographic change to the population of Britain in a thousand years was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever…”

Yet in his comments to the Evening Standard he found it necessary to call Jane Birdwood “a danger” simply for quoting his words —  which by then I expect he wished he had never written — which establish that the multi-racial society was imposed on Britain without any democratic legitimacy through the deployment of conspiracy.

Roberts’ elevation to the House of Lords must surely indicate that he performed a sufficient number of Acts of Contrition to secure the forgiveness of those who must not be offended.

Background to the above photo from Choice.

After the National Front and I parted company in December 1983 (I had been the party’s National Activities Organiser since 1969) I set up a small typesetting/graphics business. In about 1987 Jane Birdwood asked me to type-set/design her occasionally-published newspaper Choice. I soon discovered that due to her advancing years she wanted me to write most of the articles as well.

In late 1994 I picked-up on the publication of Andrew Roberts’ Eminent Churchillians and in the review of it I quoted from his text which exposed the fraud perpetrated on the British electorate in the matter of suppressing a debate in the House of Commons about Coloured Immigration. The review praised Roberts for revealing those facts.

Because Choice had always been an anti-Jewish paper, its praise for anybody — even if not on a specifically Jewish topic — was always pounced-on  by the Jews and, as in the case of Roberts, they ‘leaned on’ on the person concerned for the ‘crime’ of doing/writing/saying anything that Choice would find praiseworthy.

They clearly got on to Roberts big-time. Steward Steven, who was Jewish, the then editor of the London Evening Standard, made room in the paper’s ‘Diary’ for Roberts to distance himself from Jane and subject her to gratuitous abuse. She was then about 88 years of age.

Extracted quotes from Heffer Telegraph article: 

[with, towards the end, one or two apposite comments from myself…]


“What is it about the past that some young people find unbearable? After all, no one is expecting them to live through it. Indeed, some of us who did find the present infinitely worse. …”


“…Sadly, it goes far beyond children’s books, and indeed books generally: films, statues, television programmes, indeed, if they are allowed into the public arena at all. Are we really so delicate? Why tolerate this lunacy?…”


“…We have arrived at our own endless present, or Year Zero, where the record, historical and otherwise, is readily falsified. Its rules are designed to prevent what that arrogant and self-regarding minority who feel obliged to police and alter the thoughts of the rest of us consider the ultimate crime: giving offence.

“Most of us have spent our lives encountering things that could, if we wallowed in self-regard, offend us deeply. We were trained to ignore them and get on with life. Now, suddenly, we cannot be trusted to do that.

“Therefore books, art, films and television programmes must be censored or suppressed, statues taken down as though the lives they commemorate never happened, streets and buildings renamed to eradicate thought criminals. Like Pol Pot, that minority feels a moral duty to erase the past to attain Year Zero. Sadly for us, their main qualifications are an overbearing self-righteousness, a profound ignorance of history and a deep misunderstanding of the idea of liberty that few of us share.…”


“…a section of society with high responsibility for preserving freedom of speech and discourse – the trade of publishing – now willingly sacrifices its historic principles, for which people once risked prison, to censor books. …”


“…People like an argument and in a free society deserve to be allowed one: they don’t want some affronted youth telling them they can’t read, learn and dispute something, like the Victorians covering up their table legs.

“Prof Biggar’s book committed the crime of stating a simple truth: that the British Empire did good things as well as bad. The hostility with which such a contention is met today is deranged: it is literally undebatable.

“Indeed, a prime motivation in wiping out the past and creating the endless present is the determination of a young generation of British people – ironically almost all white, and expensively educated – to make their fellow Britons hate themselves for their heritage.”


“The climate has changed violently, precisely because we have allowed it to.”

[MW: Yes indeed! You and your kind allowed this change by your silence when “Far-Right Extremists” were in the dock!]


“They inflict their control freakery on their elders, who are equally terrified to gainsay them.”

[MW: Yes — people such as you; people who put ‘respectability’ and personal career first and the survival of our race and nation nowhere.]

“If we don’t make a stand, it will end with destroying our democratic right to liberty, and sooner than we imagine.”

[MW: When have you ever ‘made a stand’ when it really counted? The time for making purely intellectual / political “stands” is at an end because the likes of you funked it when such stands could have been effective. Now we face, as Enoch Powell predicted ‘…The Tiber foaming with much blood…’.]

This post was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald's The Occidental Observer on February 26th 2023. We are grateful for his permission to re-post.