Emily Andrews. E-m-i-l-y A-n-d-r-e-w-s, Oh, Emily Andrews. We’re not sure what moved you to send out this tweet, but thank you for confirming what we’ve always known about you and the “family and household.” It would be remiss of us not to respond.
Do you remember that unconscious bias Prince Harry spoke about in his conversation with Jane Goodall? Well, an excellent of example of unconscious bias would be describing an ADULT as “feisty and having sass.” Let us ignore how condescending it is to assume a level of familiarity reserved for friends and family, which immediately eliminates you. Feisty and sassy are also another way to dismiss a woman’s accomplishments by reducing her to ‘personality quirks.’ I’m not calling you racist (THIS TIME) however, you should know that maybe not in the UK, but in the US “sassy and feisty” are code words for woman of color. So, no Emily, ”sassy and feisty” is not a compliment.
“You don’t hate her, you admire and like her.” Well, congratulations, but no one cares because Princess Meghan is not a contestant in a popularity contest.
A lot of people in the “family and household” are “upset” by the qualities you described as “admirable”, so we can infer that a lot of people in the “family and household” are lazy, petty and jealous.
You say it would be” remiss of a journalist to just ignore that”. Well, actually Emily, you are incorrect. A REAL journalist would ignore their personal feelings and report the FACTS. If you are affected by the “family and household” unfounded and unreasonable objections to her, so much that it colors how you report, then you are being unprofessional, small-minded, weak-willed, and complicit. That does not make you a journalist, just a glorified mouthpiece; another cog in the wheel of the propaganda machine.
It’s funny how you claim the “family and household” object to Princess Meghan, yet Royal Reporters and Correspondents seem united in ignoring or excusing the “family” for doing the things for which you all expressed strong objection to when Princess Meghan does it. For example, there was understanding for Prince Andrew flying off in a private jet in the wake of his friend, Jeffrey Espstein’s alleged suicide. Benign indifference to the Cambridge family holiday to Mustique, a private Caribbean Island, which can only be accessed via a private jet. However, the full force of your condemnation was brought down on Princess Meghan and Prince Harry for using a private jet for their vacation destination. What your selective outrage has once again demonstrated is that you have NO problem with royals flying private jets, you have NO problem with royals who’ve expressed concern for climate change flying in a private jet; but you have a SERIOUS problem with Princess Meghan flying in a private jet.
You know what else we’ve noticed? The “family and household” being “upset” about Princess Meghan’s “admirable” qualities has not prevented them from copying her. We see them out there attempting to give speeches, attempting to dress in a more relaxed manner, copying the SussexRoyal style on their social media platform, adding “spoke at the UN” to their bio. Note: attending a meeting in a room at the UN is NOT speaking at the UN.
From all of this, any reasonable person can infer that the “family and household” have no problem with Princess Meghan’s “admirable” qualities. They are envious and parasitic, and with shills like you they profit from those “admirable” qualities while attempting to strip her of them and transfer them to the upset “family and household.”
We see you Emily Andrews. We see you and your ilk and the “family and household;” we see you all. Your mendacity is offensive; your double standards are contemptible. Your arrogance in thinking your propaganda campaign so lacking in subtlety will succeed, shows a level of arrogance that is gross and sordid and cheap; but so at home in the gutter where the British press seems to dwell.