In response to Angela Levin: As Harry’s biographer, I fear the worst for him,

David Anderson wrote:

This case, if the details above are broadly accurate, is giving the impression of being an illustration of the advice that we should all make sure our sons are well acquainted with: marry a beautiful woman or marry an ugly woman; marry a clever woman or marry a slow woman; marry a young woman or marry an older woman, but whatever you do, don’t marry a feminist.

(And conversely . . . if you’re a woman and want to enjoy being married, don’t be a feminist. Does Meghan give you the idea that she’s happy? Even when feminists marry princes who convert to their creed, they’re still miserable.)

Hughes. wrote:

Meghan has been frustrated in her desire to use Harry and our royal family as a springboard to becoming a globally pre-eminent, divisive political foghorn for leftist orthodoxies. Soon she will be free to do so, believing she can now have the cake and eat it, just as western civilisation is finally standing up for itself against these fifth columnists.

The wheels are all falling off the woke-wagon and very soon all of these wealthy, hectoring cultists will be as welcome as an Old West medicine show.

Bad timing, Meg.

alecto wrote:

From the start it was clear she was on the make; perhaps William saw it too which caused the rift between the brothers, yet Harry, who seems to have inherited the wilful gene from his mother, refused to listen and I fear like his mother it will end in disaster.