The Economy Is Strong But Nobody’s Buying It

In a recent CBS/YouGov poll, 59% of people questioned described the current economy as “bad”, with nearly 2/3 believing it was stronger during the Trump administration. This stands in sharp contrast to what the experts are saying and what the numbers show: GDP growth was 3.3% last quarter, unemployment down to a record-low of 3.4% (from 6.9% when Biden took office), consumer spending is up, inflation is down, etc. The fact of the matter is, despite these impressive indicators, the “average Joe” just isn’t feeling the good times or benefits. This can likely be attributed to years of price increases prior to recent change, the uncertainty of the Covid years, and staggering interest rates. In tandem with the general politicised air of today, people feel vulnerable to what’s been described as the “vibecession”, an addendum to the “perception becomes reality” thesis.

Needless to say, this is a major problem for the Biden camp as the election approaches. As with our last piece on Biden’s presentation of his age, it’s not necessarily effective to just state that everything is fine or “the economy is strong”. The lapse in credibility comes from the day-to-day reality of gas and grocery prices; the latter of which have remained high despite the slow-down of inflation in the past year. Indeed, the gravest mistake the Biden camp has made in this respect has been to emphasise this improvement, while blatantly ignoring how desperate the rate of inflation was in 2022 (8%). Either side of that (4.7% in 2021 and 4.1% in 2023) aren’t exactly great either, when you compare with the 2010s’ figures (e.g. 1.8% in 2019). So while the economy is on the right path, people are still feeling that 11% increase in grocery prices (2021-22), which normally would have been a 2% annual increase.

As elections are largely media driven, we must remind ourselves that fear is unfortunately a big selling point too. Therein, the anxiety surrounding what may come seems to be more pressing than ever. As the invasion of Ukraine sent energy prices skyrocketing (albeit far more in Europe), people have become wary of international affairs having knock-on effects. The beginning of last year was marked by reports of massive layoffs in the tech industry. AI meanwhile, hovers as a merciless shadow over the proceedings of so many more. The housing market, of course, remains a mess as people resist selling, lest they lose optimal interest rates. And some economists have speculated that recent consumer spending (or splurging) could create vulnerability in the market going forward. It may be a glass-half-empty approach to looking at things, but the notion of a “vibecession” (while cringeworthy as a term) is not a merit-less one.

Again, it takes time for economic improvement to translate into reality. Back in 1992, George HW Bush’s electoral hopes were partially dashed by an 8-month recession (which ended in March 1991). The sluggish recovery cast doubts on his ability to govern domestically, leading to the popular slogan employed by the Clinton camp: “it’s the economy, stupid”. A compromise on his 1988 “no new taxes” pledge had actually helped set the stage for the growth of the 1990s but alas, despite recovery by the election, Bush’s image never faired as successfully.

Will Biden’s? There has been a longer stretch of economic prosperity than in 1992 (unfortunately mired by high inflation rates) but should things keel out and continue as they are, I think there’s cause for optimism in his camp. There’s still eight months to go and the creation of new jobs and businesses are likely to bolster his image. But it’ll take some strategic selling and frankness. As with the matter of age, perhaps Biden needs to acknowledge the perception out there; how devastating inflation’s been, while promising in turn to challenge unjust profits on the parts of certain corporations. He took a step in this direction during a Super-Bowl break, by addressing the scandal that is “shrinkflation” (where product sizes shrink but prices remain high; this is whole other article though so I won’t delve deeper for now.) He needs to continue fighting for an economy that works for low- and middle-income families, via cost of living prices, as well as the bigger picture trends of GDP and employment. Again, it’s the perception that becomes reality.

How Joe Biden Should Approach The Age Question

Depending on your source, an alleged 3/4 Americans have “concerns” about President Biden’s age (81), including 50% of Democrats. As the oldest president in American history, it was inevitable that this would become bait for opposition. After all, it’s easy and it’s sort of fair… just as a general observation of humanity and what old age does to people. Unlike in 2020 too, the Republicans now have years of press conferences and interviews to pick a part then cut back together as presentations and memes of cognitive decline. The Democratic establishment have held steady on their candidate but even with a slew of legal landslides coming against Trump, we can still see many sweating. This is why I’ve taken it upon myself to offer some practical advice for Biden’s team in how they respond to these criticisms because so far it’s not been great.

To offer some additional context here: at a press conference earlier this month, he angrily rebutted a journalist’s claims that these were valid concerns before going on to mix up Egypt and Mexico on another topic. He also recently mixed up the president of France with a former president, Francois Mitterrand, who died in 1996. So… not great. This week, he stopped by “Late Night with Seth Meyers” for what was a fairly softball interview. Seth asked about his age and while Biden was relatively strident in his response, he immediately began to offer comparisons between himself and the mad man, Donald J. Trump; in effect, saying “you know what’s old? Trump’s ideas”. Fair enough. The ideas are what are most important. But is that really the way to handle this? It’s a pivot which shows he’s not really capable of debunking the wider criticism of cognitive decline. It’s a pivot away from a question of character to one of policy. The kind of answer that irritates rather than impresses.

Biden simply needs to accept and address this question more gracefully. He can’t outrun it. So what I would propose is that he leans into it as Ronald Reagan so expertly did in 1984 against Walter Mondale: “I will not exploit for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Now obviously, don’t say that verbatim; Trump’s already been president, but you get the gist. Employ a little humour. Hire some joke writers. Take control of the story. Then… as he’s already done, you can reiterate that while you are indeed old, your ideas are not. On top of that, you’ve got a great team behind you and have a successful term already behind you. A record you can exploit. And why not; with wisdom comes age.

By trying to manipulate this narrative or avoid answering the question directly, Biden can be painted as distracted, if not delusional. While he’s always been prone to gaffes and the odd stutter however, part of his appeal lies in his kooky grandfather persona. Occasionally not with it but ultimately, empathetic and kind-hearted. He’s the nice candidate, where Trump’s the bullish blowhard. Having a president at 81 isn’t exactly anyone’s ideal situation but in a contest of character and policy, this should be a lot easier than it’s proven thus far. Sometimes you just have to take the card your dealt. With cost of living prices still proving problematic and crises abroad, you can’t convince the public that the economy or international security is strong but what you can do is reassure them that the right man is at the wheel.

One Year Out… Does Biden Still Look Good?

To answer quite literally; yes, I think Joe Biden looks dashing for a man pushing 81… But the ellipsis begs the further question of how he will look when he’s 82- which he would be upon commencing his 2nd term in January 2025. Well…

Running the country is different from running for the presidency. If we were to chalk this up to the record, Biden would look quite good (at least with Democrats). He’s gotten the US out of Afghanistan, lowered drug costs, made a start on cancelling student debt, and passed an inflation-reduction act, to name a few things. But… those measures simply aren’t painting the larger picture, which is that of an old man struggling to load up a restaurant’s QR-code menu on his phone (I know, frustrating for all). He’s old news. Past it. Out to pasture. Bamboozled by the times. Pork chops for dinner. Why, he’s even older than the president who was elected 31 years ago. The man’s ancient. Now, wisdom is acquired and in theory, having an older leader is no bad thing. But at some point, perception trumps (sorry) reality and if the latest polls are anything to go by (39% approval; Trump supposedly leading in 5/6 swing states), Biden’s not looking like a promising prospect anymore.

Biden’s detractors and supporters both fear he will struggle in the debates. While he held his own reasonably well against Trump last time, he may struggle in 10 months. Trump’s only several years younger but he just doesn’t wear his age the same way. It’s like his ego has sustained him with an unnatural propensity for spewing entertaining nonsense. Sure, Biden can fact-check him but I’m inclined to agree with Dave Chapelle’s analysis that Trump comes across as an “honest liar”. He may not know what he’s talking about but he’s not playing to the weary cringe-inducing politic-speak Biden or Hillary indulge in. Plus, last time Trump was running, the pandemic was hampering his support. This time around, virtually nobody will care about that and Biden will have four years of political baggage to account for. Basically, he’ll be playing defence this time around.

And the defence will likely be centred around his son; Hunter Biden. That’s a whole other kettle of fish but again, since perception trumps reality, and the Republicans have been beating this drum for years now, it’ll be tough for Biden to avoid this. Perhaps too, it stings his supporters to admit that this was newsworthy, even if slight against the plethora of lawsuits dogging Trump. To the vaguely uninformed, the messaged received is: there’s some dodgy stuff with Biden, some dodgy stuff with Trump, it’s a wash; we’re all in the swamp. And thanks to the preposterous level of subjectivity in news media today, it’s hard to put things back in perspective.

Outside of all this conjecture however, two issues may affect Biden’s rating in the next 12 months; foreign policy and inflation. Typically, the former doesn’t have as much of an impact on the average voter but foreign aid and support directed towards Ukraine and Israel may weigh something. Republicans have opposed Biden’s allocation of “too much in funds” for Ukraine while support amongst Democrats for Israel has decreased somewhat. Since these are contentious matters (also worthy of a lot more exploration), I won’t dig in deeper (or cast judgement), other than to say there is a tangible level of resentment directed at the government for taking this capital from home. This leads us to inflation.

Inflation actually peaked in June of last year at 9% and is now 3.7%, but in day-to-day life, prices are still rising on the likes of personal care products, groceries, restaurants, rent, and more. It’s also speculated that it won’t keel out until 2025, which will prove a major factor in the election. Even though it’s not totally in Biden’s control, the “buck ends” at the Oval Office (as foolishly accounted for by Harry Truman). While statistically wages are up and unemployment is down, inflation will make the largest impression on Biden. It takes time for the appropriate measures to lead to results; for example, the economy was on the mend in 1992 but hadn’t yet shown, affecting Bush Sr’s campaign. As with the “controversy everywhere” analysis aforementioned, it’s hard for people to know where to direct their anger but the Republicans will beat this drum as the Democrats play defence.

So, as Biden languishes in the polls, with the possibility of the Dark Lord’s return, many have suggested it might be time for someone else to step in and run in his place. This seems unlikely at this point but not without precedence. In March 1968, Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek re-election, mostly owing to his lack of favourability with the Vietnam War. His VP, Hubert Humphries, went on to lose to Nixon later that year, though one of history’s great “what ifs” remains in if Robert Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated that summer. And you know what, we have Robert Kennedy’s son running as an independent this year, so a Trump v. RFK Jr v. Kamala Harris ticket could materialise. Maybe another Republican could clinch the nomination, especially if one of those lawsuits leads to something with Trump. Maybe Kamala somehow gets popular? Well, there’s a long stretch ahead still but as it stands, it looks to be a rematch in November 2024 and that’s… terrifying.

American History In The Washington Walrus’ Time: 2016-Present

The Washington Walrus has finally hit 100 articles! And in the 7 years since its inception (January 2016; okay, we don’t post regularly), a lot has changed in America. So to commemorate this momentous… moment, we thought it’d be fun to try and summarise and maybe evaluate some of the things that have happened since then. How has the character (or “soul”, as Joe Biden would put it) of this nation changed? What distinguishes today from back then… Well, there’s only one place to start.

2016: The Rise Of Donald Trump

In his final Last Week Tonight segment of that year, John Oliver blew up the cursed numbers themselves in a therapeutic gesture of frustration and disappointment with what seemed like a terrible year, marked by numerous high-profile celebrity deaths (David Bowie, Prince, Alan Rickman, etc) and the election of Donald J. Trump. The latter point marked the most significant shift of this period of time.

While most of us were certain of Hillary Clinton’s victory, in hindsight, the writing was on the wall. Many Americans felt betrayed by the system and disappointed in the not so perceptible “changes” promised by the Obama administration. In truth, Obama had to sweep up the mess of the economic downfall that occurred in 2008 and was largely gridlocked in his domestic agenda, against increasingly combative Republicans. Hillary Clinton, it seemed, was not the answer. Perhaps, no run-of-the-mill Democrat was.

In the 2015-16 Democratic campaign, Bernie Sanders had emerged as an unlikely favourite amongst the youth. An independent with a noble, if not particularly successful track record, he seemed to capture something of the same spirit that led to Trump’s shocking election; a feeling that corruption was ripe is Washington and lobbyists, billionaires, and special interest groups were calling the shots. For quite awhile, he was a great challenge to the Clinton campaign, but ultimately lost. (Many assert that had he succeeded, he might’ve beaten Trump. I’m not exactly convinced he wouldn’t…) This is besides the point however. The point is that a rot had set in and politics would not proceed as usual.

2017-19: “Chaos Is A Ladder”- Littlefinger

Upon releasing her memoir, Becoming, the following year, Michelle Obama wrote that she “stopped smiling” upon listening to Trump’s inaugural address because she simply couldn’t pretend any longer. For those who hoped he would rise above the petty insults and divisive rhetoric of his campaign, it became immediately clear that things were about to get wild. First, there was the ban on people flying in from predominantly Islamic nations. Then, a series of cabinet upheavals. Scandals galore. Then, an insensitive summary of Charlottesville, in which he deemed there were fine people on both sides; both sides being white supremacists and protestors. It was in this moment, Joe Biden apparently decided he should run, in order to “save the soul” of America.

The fact that Trump was so emboldened in his office and able to get away with (seemingly) anything perhaps emboldened the left, in turn. If the battle couldn’t be won in Washington, then perhaps it could be in the culture wars. Indeed, the values of left and right had polarised increasingly throughout the decade with right-wing commentators arguing the left were pushing a politically correct agenda across America, particularly in universities while the left challenged the right’s reticence on civil rights’ issues including gay marriage, trans identification, and more.

The breakthrough of the Harvey Weinstein case in 2017 marked a major cultural shift in the dynamic of women dealing with powerful men. With the colossal expose, a number of issues and transgressions were brought to light, helping to widen the scope of what was and wasn’t acceptable behaviour (or had always been). In the following years, Hollywood would amp up their promotion of diverse works and female-led stories, again sparking the ire of many who felt politics (or liberal politics) had become more important than art and story. At the same time, a parallel was being drawn by critics of the Democratic Party, who felt identity politics and the optics of diversity were becoming ever more prioritised in electoral agendas. This was dismissed by some as generational blindness. “OK boomer” became a de facto response for many.

The battleground for the culture wars had traditionally been fought in news media. By the 2010s though, social media had become the dominant source of information for most. Where misinformation and been brought to light with the 2016 election and the ensuing trials of Facebook, there now also lay the problem of a new level of sensationalism in misleading click bait headlines, yellow journalism, and (often) straight-out lies. Trump’s rise to power was seen as being emblematic of a post-truth world, in which both sides claimed ownership of whatever the “truth” was. Annoying celebrities started confessing their stories as “speaking [their] truths”. There was much cringe-worthiness to be found. Most crucially, it seemed beyond political differences, the left and right had come to hate each other outright.

Let’s not forget the dual disappointments of Game of Thrones season 8 and The Rise of Skywalker (both 2019) either. I’ve nothing to say about them. Just don’t forget.

2020: The Boiling Point

The fact that this year started with an impeachment barely anyone remembers shows how crazy the Trump years had gotten by this point. Somehow, 2020 would become the year all hell broke loose for a couple of reasons. First, the beginning of lockdowns in response to the emergence of Covid-19. Second, the protests and unrest that resulted from the murder of George Floyd in the summer. Both of these factors influenced the culture and politics of the US enormously this year, with the mania perhaps lending some desire for normalcy, found in the wrinkled hands of old Sleepy Joe.

How Covid became a political issue may be question for future historians but by 2020, when everything else had, there was no reason this shouldn’t have been. Indeed, Trump mocked Biden in the debates for “wearing the biggest mask” before getting Covid himself. Beyond his pantomime, it was drawn as a debate on the nature of civil liberties for many; with some arguing against big government limiting their freedom through mandated governmental worker vaccines and lockdowns. Others felt that these opponents were questioning science itself in the name of partisanship or wilful ignorance.

As regards the second factor, the Black Lives Matter movement had become increasingly visible throughout the 2010s since social media allowed for the sharing and exposure of police brutality. With the shocking violence and boiling point of George Floyd’s death, the truth was driven home once again that black lives were treated as second class in America. Critical Race Theory became more prominent in the years that followed, with a wider net cast for those learning of the systemic oppression caused by economic and power models in US history. And while some progress had been made since the 1992 riots, Americans were reminded of the lived realities of many Black Americans. Unfortunately, this lesson has needed repeating throughout history.

2021-Present: Conflict At Home & Abroad

2021 started off with a little hiccup at the Capitol. A misunderstanding or something. Then a new leader was sworn in. So… Joe Biden’s presidency has and hasn’t marked a return to normalcy. I, for one, no longer feel the need to google the president’s name every day to see what wackiness he’s gotten up to. On the other hand, America remains deeply divided and though Trump is presently indicted, I don’t think his loss in 2024 is guaranteed. The same seeds of discontent fester and not even under the surface. To many, these legal proceedings are a “witch hunt”. Increasingly the idea of a “national divorce” seems pushed to the forefront, even if in political jest.

The Biden presidency (post Covid), outside this sphere, has chiefly been defined by the Ukraine-Russia war and inflation. The expansion of NATO and America’s involvement in this conflict may define the coming years, if no resolution materialises soon. As Trump had been (shall we say) cozy with Putin, things would likely change should he succeed in getting a second term. For most Americans however, economic burdens will distinguish this decade (even more so) than the last. To go back to where we began, it seems Bernie Sander’s concerns have only become more pertinent and fully understood with the passing years. As billionaires control social media and politicians fail to close the left-right divide, the country lies in a precarious position.

The Washington Walrus Thanks You…

Thanks to all for reading this or any of the articles we’ve put out in the last 7 years. It’s been an interesting blog to attend to, even if not attended to regularly. While it started out as an exercise in writing about current politics and American history, it transformed to something that could address all sorts of cultural, social, and even entertainment-based issues. No subject’s too light or heavy to cover, so long as something lies beneath the surface (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes’ scoring not accurately reflecting viewers’ interests and appreciation of art).

The Kamala Harris Problem: Meritocracy vs. Identity

The nature of the vice presidency is typically one of brief significance, ridicule, and vague adaptability. They’re briefly significant in the election cycle because they can be used to give some momentum to a candidate’s campaign, as the final months close in. They’re ridiculed because, while seemingly senior in management, they’re often sidelined next to other key positions such as Chief of Staff or Secretary of State. And then their actual role remains vague, depending on the administration, and adaptable, because their responsibilities may change depending on the issues at hand, their credibility, or image.

All of these things are as true for any VP as they’ve been for the current incumbent, Kamala Harris. And yet, with an approval rating hovering in the 30s (a few points below Joe Biden’s), she seems to be suffering the brunt more unjustly. To the left, this is because she is a woman and mixed race. To the right (and many others aside), this is kind of for the same reasons, if with a twist. They see Kamala Harris’ very appointment in terms of affirmative action; a choice made solely to appeal on the grounds of identity politics. To reel in those wide-eyed liberals.

This is a tough ordeal for Harris because she can’t exactly deny such criticisms. Indeed, it was always Biden’s plan to choose a woman as his running mate but given she’d been relatively tough on him in the debates, she also might’ve drawn some early intrigue for her strength in challenging a potential “yes man” agenda. This might’ve mattered to some. To most, it probably didn’t.

But say, Harris was just what many expected; a choice to appease Democratic voters. This is hardly different (beyond the issues of gender and race) in making such a decision. Kennedy picked Johnson (despite disliking him) to win the South. Roosevelt was forced to go with Truman for his fourth round, to appease his party. Mike Pence was hardly a regular at Trump’s various resorts but yielded an opportunity to appeal to more traditional, evangelical Republicans. This kind of appointment is nothing new. And yet…

Well, things have changed a bit. The cultural and political wars of today are more toxic than ever. There is increasing skepticism and frustration with the Democratic Party and liberals today (from within and outside the party) on how important identity politics has become in electing and appointing important positions. Credibility is at play on the level of perception and media coverage. Plus, more tangibly, there’s the matter of Sleepy Joe’s age. He’s 80. And while relatively fit for the job, one can’t help but hover over the matter of mortality. Indeed, the question of whether he’ll run again in 2024 has been springing up at every occasion (he plans to, by the way). This is awkward for Harris because (already labelled an affirmative action pick), she’s been perceived as a forced successor; a more likely leader than most VPs have been before her. The optics are concerning.

The gullible (or innocent) response to this quagmire would be to posit that Harris need only prove herself in the role she has to attain credibility. If you regard most the criticisms of Harris however, they’ve been mostly vague: weak on immigration (not exactly a simple issue to tackle); not doing enough to support Biden and conversely, out there too much or hidden in the background; and “dysfunctions” in her office (as if Trump’s cabinet didn’t changed a thousand times in his first year). Again, this role is largely symbolic and without definition. Harris’ main prerogative seems to be addressing immigration, voting reform, and other issues (e.g. the destruction of Roe v. Wade) with an ambassadorial-type approach, which granted hasn’t yielded any phenomenal results. But the same people who’d argue how disastrous she’s been would likely be hard-pressed to define the legacy of past VPs such as Pence or Biden, himself. The point is that most people simply don’t care about the actual job, whatever they think it may be.

To return to the matter of image then, Harris faces a challenge there may be no solution to. It seems to me that she’s been given a raw deal on one hand but on the other, having watched her give several interviews, I’m not exactly impressed by her traditionally political, say-a-bunch-without-saying-anything approach either (see her on Colbert recently; cringe). The 2024 election is looming and where the question of Biden’s age lingers, so too does a tangent on Harris’ continued suitability. At the end of the day, is she worth the hassle? Would offing her prove cowardly or tactically smart? If Biden’s credibility is at stake, I think he’d be better off sticking with her; the image of loyalty supersedes political meanderings. They may be no Obama-Biden, but they can at least stick it out and maybe one day, Harris’ legacy will be revised to reflect her support of this administration rather than her attributes as a candidate.

Prince Harry’s Spare: Truth & Credibility

Right off the bat, I feel guilty for shedding further light on the already overtly-exposed and disgraced former (wait, still current?) prince. After all, in the last several years, his drama has become the gift that keeps on giving for tabloid newspapers and social media. His new memoir, Spare, focuses on the toxic nature of this coverage and yet in a paradox, feeds the same beast; which he’s acknowledged to an extent, if in the unyielding quest to have “his truth” heard. Having got caught up in the media blitz, after starting The Crown, I was just too nosy to not give the audiobook a listen. I thought his account merited an analysis to ascertain credibility, since it brings to question so many major issues: the nature of truth; our celebrity-obsessed gossip culture; mental health; and the monarchy’s role in today’s society. So rather than do a typical review, I thought I’d examine the book and Harry’s troubles through the lens of each of these points.

A) Speak Your Truth

This phrase annoys me. While experiences differ, I think we should try keep “truth” closer to fact than opinion, if we’re to judge any account. For the sake of this article, I won’t get hung up on it (since Prince Harry’s probably just using it in the popular cringe celebrity way) but let it just hover over the following points and consider what truth may be derived from the other side (i.e. the Royal Family’s). While I don’t think Harry is lying, his credibility and image do rest on the age-old folly of sometimes fitting facts and evidence to suit one’s conclusion rather than the other way around.

B) Gossip

I feel like most of us are guilty of consuming crass, yellow journalism and Harry, for all his personal objections, is too. For example, in discussing his father’s marriage to Camilla, he states that he was happy for both of them, even if he felt she had “sacrificed [him]” to the press in rehabilitating her image in the wake of Charles’ and Diana’s split. He keeps his assertions vague but suggests that at certain points, he became a whipping dog in order to make other members of the family look better. What exactly was said is kept on the back burner since there’s no solid evidence, though I’m inclined to believe his suspicions.

Indeed, this synergetic relationship between royal palace staff is paramount to Harry’s expose, even if the stories were later (and by him) confirmed true (Kate vs. Meghan, the boys unhappy Camilla, Harry’s drug use, etc.). To an extent, it’s become ironic for criticism on his part since Harry and Meghan have, at every turn, been exposing every bit of gossip they can in turn. Is this to be perceived then as Harry’s own scorched-earth retort? He’s laying it all out there so that it’s shown he has nothing left to hide? Beating the press at their own game? Perhaps these are the acts of a desperate man who’s had enough? Whether he’s been effective remains to be seen however. For just as he can lay it all out there, so too can new press reports and slants be spun. For many, Harry now appears more petulant, conniving and fame-hungry than ever. Meghan, who was (perhaps unfairly) characterised as being “difficult” is now seen by many as also manipulative. I’m not sure if this tell-all book, which delves into heavy gossip, does much to rehabilitate Harry’s image in terms of dignity (which is supposed to be the essence of a Royal). The question mark hovers over whether lowering himself to their standards is the way to go.

C) Mental Health

Prince Harry’s vendetta against the press is understandable, if not for the historical record, then for the personal trauma it’s caused him. In several interviews, he’s stated that he does not want to see “history repeating itself”, as regards what happened to his mother. Certainly, you could argue that his coverage has been extensive and overtly intrusive; even for a royal (perhaps as a means of contrast to the heir, the press wanted to dramaticise the tragedy of the “spare”). The effect of not being able to play out your mistakes in private can’t be underestimated. He’s never had a chance to live an ordinary life, even if his was a privileged one.

In this regard, I see a certain value to him “speaking [his] truth”. Perhaps shining a light back on those that have exposed him will eventually lead to the media holding itself to some account. Of course, to turn things around again, this still wouldn’t necessarily paint him in a good light, because there can be more than one truth if its subjective. And perhaps Harry’s doing himself more damage than anyone else by digging this hole further because for however famous he was ten or twenty years ago, he’s a hundred times moreso now.

D) The Role Of The Monarchy

Harry’s objections to having previously been forbidden to speak out against press coverage and claims made about him are understandable but par for the course as a member of the Royal Family. While monarchies are inherently wrong to many, they can at least serve a function as a symbol of their nation. To this end, the Royal Family has to be somewhat detached from politics, bias, and sensationalism. We’re (sadly) not really supposed to see them as everyday people. But- Britons admire this about the crown’s purpose; to transcend petty squabbles as the emblem of dignity and grace in an otherwise turbulent history. A tradition or constant with a code that outweighs any fads.

Of course, Harry would clarify that his criticisms are of the players and mechanics of the institution rather than the institution itself. To many, this is a difficult distinction to make, since these roles have been at play for many decades at least and are part and parcel. Criticism has been levelled at him in turn since he won’t relinquish his title as Duke of Sussex, retorting weakly in an interview with Anderson Cooper, “what difference would it make?” (He did offer initially to rescind them, apparently, before exiting the UK in early 2020 though he didn’t mention that in his response; some argue he can’t keep his story straight.) Anyways… even if you’re to believe Harry on a majority of these issues, this seems a tough bridge for many to cross. The difference is it would lend him credibility in a “put your money where your mouth is” way. Instead, to many, it seems Harry wants to have his cake and eat it.

But principles are one thing when it comes to defining what makes the Royal Family; what about when unprecedented criticism and racism enters the foray. Did Meghan not deserve a proper defence? Harry acknowledged that Camilla and Kate initially had some degree of negative coverage but argues it went that bit further with Meghan since there were racial undertones to much of the discussion and gossip about her, citing a 2016 Daily Mail article entitled “(Almost) Straight Outta Compton” as an example. Indeed, if assertions weren’t outright, there were a great many comments on her exoticism and cultural background. How racist these were in intent has of course divided the public but it’s fair to say there was an element of prejudice there that was absent with Kate or Camilla. Given his Nazi garb at a costume party and some choice comments in the army, it’d seem Harry’s hardly the cultural commentator we need but I give him credit for at least admitting to his own “unconscious bias[es]”. This could open up a whole other book of issues though.

The point here is that there’s a tug of war between tradition and evolution in the Royal Family. It seems, given the nature of their relationship with the press and the tensions that have built, some level of change is needed. The problem is Harry has become such a divisive figure that he may not be the one best qualified to discern these changes. Indeed, he may have done more damage since his detractors have rallied behind the crown.

While his assertions hold a great deal of emotional weight and probable truth for many, I think his financial and emotional circumstances are colouring every comment he’s made, adding to the sensationalism of this all. To make a strange link here, I would refer to the famous Brit Stephen Fry, who has said of his own autobiographies that as much as they are an examination of his life at a certain period, they are reflective too of who he was when he wrote them. I believe if Prince Harry had written this book a few years earlier, it’d be much different. And it’s very possible that in a couple of years’ time, he’ll regret this course of action. Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Patti Davis (who penned a tell-all in the 80s) has spoken of how she regretted her decision and has since taken her book out of publication. In a recent interview, she commented on how there’s more to this than just “your truth”. There’s others’ too. Of course, we all know (as well as Harry) that we’re unlikely to get a Will, Kate, Camilla, or Charles’ memoir anytime soon.

Time will tell whether Harry’s controversial accounts will effect change that’s actually needed with royal-press relations or whether it just drags him down further on the road of meme iconography and social media slander / praise. For now, it’s all speculation because there’s so much flotsam here that it’s hard to see the horizon.

Toxic Fandom

Reviews for the new Amazon Prime series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power have been delayed by Amazon for up to 72 hours amid concerns of review bombing and trolling. Reports of racist and sexist attacks against the cast has ignited the usual Twitter foray of “forced diversity”, “wokeism”, and other tired generalisations pertaining to modern entertainment, with no nuance to be spared. But while these remarks have thankfully been denounced, a broader discourse on the nature of “toxic fandom” has emerged which adds an unfortunate but very much discernible crinkle to what one might expect of this subject.

This idea of “toxic fandom” has become prevalent in recent years, mostly due to the nature of social media amplifying the voice of ~~disturbed~~ passionate fans. Where the extremist fans were once left to toil away with their posters and toy collections, they now have an avenue for embracing their fellow comrades in arms and turning on them at the slightest criticism of the IP they love. We’ve seen this most notably with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where the fandom has become divided over the old era output and more recent Phase 4 material. Perhaps a brief list of talking points will illustrate where the fandom gets imbued with toxicity:

Yeah, I love Marvel but these new series (She Hulk, Ms Marvel) aren’t doing it for me.
Your sexism is showing.
Well, the stories just aren’t as good.
It’s them building up to another Avengers. You’ve gotta give them time.
That twerking scene with Megan Thee Stallion was such a low.
I bet if it was Tony Stark doing it you’d love it.
Why is Harry Styles in the MCU? He can’t act.
Harry’s talented. You’re just jelly.
Ugh… Marvel’s gone so woke.
Tell me you’re sexist without telling me you’re sexist.
That election was stolen off Trump! F- the MCU.
Wait, what?

These ~~idiots~~ kind of fans can usually be found on Twitter, where vitriol runs rampant more than any other social media but the discourse feeds into entertainment news too and colours the greater picture of toxic fandom. Now, to be fair, there are actual bigots criticising these shows and movies (as evidenced by the comments on Rings of Power and House of the Dragon) but in the chaos of the comments’ section, it becomes a lot easier to paint any criticism of these IPs with the broad stroke of toxicity, which brings us back to Tolkien.

Having watched three episodes of The Rings of Power, I deem it decent without being exceptional. The nature of my criticism may raise an eyebrow or two though because while I feel it is visually stunning, the characters are mostly dull and without personality. Especially the Elves. Now, because one of the leads is a female and because people on social media refuse context and reading beyond click bait headlines, this crictism could be rejected with a comment like “oh of course the man doesn’t like Galadriel doing everything Aragorn could” or something akin to that. It would even give me pause for thought because let’s face it, bigotry is embedded deep within our subconscious from an early age, in one way or another. Maybe there is a case to be made for traditional fans of fantasy (men, mostly white) having a blind-spot and actively trying to gate-keep a genre, without even releasing the extent of what they’re doing. It is genuinely a valid concern.

The question then arises as to where that leaves us however. We shouldn’t accept inferior art just because it promotes diversity or a particular ideology. That’s woefully condescending and allows any creators to invalidate criticisms without anything more than the label of “toxic fandom”. But we must also acknowledge that while not all modern criticisms lean towards toxicity, a fair number still do. We’ve seen this through review bombing of movies, books, and TV shows yet to even be released, like Star Wars: The Force Awakens (when the trailer showed a Black stormtrooper), Captain Marvel and She Hulk. We’ve seen this in the way fans of certain singers (Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Harry Styles) react whenever someone criticises them in the mildest fashion (e.g. 24 writers credited to a recent Beyoncé song- you just don’t get it- Queen B knows what she’s doing). We see this through cult of personalities springing up around certain celebrities like Johnny Depp (and yes I know, Amber Heard was toxic but fans were willing to overlook every single dodgy thing Johnny did or sad with freakish devotion).

Toxic fandom is a thing; it’s just not everything though. And by denouncing large portions of a fan base, I don’t think Marvel or Disney or Prime will be doing themselves any favours. Rather, an open discussion is needed in order to articulate where valid criticisms differ from petty, tribalistic ones. Amazon can continue spending all the money in the world but it can’t buy the respect and devotion deservedly earned by JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson before. (But look, I’ll keep watching.)

The 90s vs. Today: Liberal & Cultural Shifts

Millenials and Gen Z are often put at loggerheads with Boomers over a variety of socio and economic issues, primarily revolving around what’s been lost in privilege and ambition. To an extent however, our experiences parallel those of the youth in the 1960s when cultural revolutions stirred fresh bouts of hope and vigour for civil rights and a new quasi-enlightenment. Now, if we travel back to the 1990s, we can see quite a juxtaposition in the cultural values and liberal ideals espoused then, by the rising Gen X, against what’s promoted today.

In the 1990s, a new world was born from the metaphorical ashes of the Cold War. What was important in the 1980s became promptly unimportant in the 1990s. George H.W. Bush’s policies no longer reflected America as they had done four short years before and in 1992, the people were ready for a new kind of leader and Democrat (and you may interpret that “kind of” as you please) in Bill Clinton; a fresh young face of 40-something. In the meanwhile, the gaudy, glitz of 80s popular culture was eviscerated and torn a part by the ushering in of a more natural, albeit pessimistic dress sense and music scene. Nirvana rose to prominence in glorious fashion, even if it was against their singer’s instincts. Bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden followed suit, undoubtedly talented and unique in their own way, though far from what one could have imagined ten years before, occupying the mainstream Skateboarding took on a whole new dimension of popularity. Indie, auteur filmmakers emerged as the exciting current in cinema. The Simpsons undercut the idealistic family-centric tendencies of 80s television and the attitude which dominated youth culture got drawn as one of indifferences and cynicism.

It was a time buoyed by economic growth and hopeful prospects in America but, alas, the spirit of the 1940s, 50s, 60s, or even 70s wasn’t there. Perhaps this can be attributed to the age-old truth that successive generations will go against what their parents did before (or at least go in a different directions). Perhaps, a new attitude was born as a reaction to the overt-commercialisation and rightward trend of 1980s politics. It’s difficult to determine any one specific truth, especially when covering a subject as broad as generational divide. It’s fascinating, more so, when we reflect on these cultural values in light of what we see today.

A good case study for this cultural shift can be found in the Bill Clinton scandal. The Monica Lewinsky one. Today, we look back on it as an abuse of power and a classic case of sexism dictating media. We acknowledge that Lewinsky was treated unfairly, especially with the hindsight of the toll it took on her mental health. This wasn’t the popular perspective of the time however. People were certainly outraged that Clinton had acted the way he had but more so because he lied about it under oath and because of the headache the ensuing impeachment hearings caused (which eventually yielded a positive upswing for him in the polls, when people felt the Republicans were pushing it). Lewinsky, meanwhile, was subjected to a barrage of late-night jokes and dismissed by many as a silly, immature home-wrecker.

Was it a case of people back then lacking empathy? Well, the treatment Lewinsky was given by the media was cutthroat and cruel but for many, Clinton too had been given merciless scrutiny from the get-go; like no other president before. And for the most part, Democrats were happy with his performance. What was this scandal in light of the greater issues at hand then? Of course, today, this scandal still comes to the forefront of any profile on the 42nd president, which suggests perhaps that we take these work-relationship dynamics more seriously and/or have lost perspective on what’s actually important, feeding the outrage machine further.

This conveys that people were somewhat looser with political correctness in the 1990s. The decade before had been a PC one, in its own sense, albeit of a right-wing, religious kind; apparent notably via the relatively safe-handed approach taken to TV sitcoms and movies. Where the ’70s had reflected a Vietnam-era, mistrust in authority attitude (with the likes of Taxi Driver and Serpico), often with morally ambiguous protagonists, the 1980s saw the rise of a more capitalistic, spectacle type of entertainment. The good guys were once again the good guys.

Artists of the 90s sough to separate themselves from the 80s by creating less formulaic, hero-first works, by returning (in part) to the ethos of a now-nostalgic 70s. Quentin Tarantino was at the forefront of a new kind of cinema; a fantastic of 70s films, he instilled his with references to the greats, morally-ambivalent characters, and violence. Indie darling Richard Linklater meanwhile, made movies like Slacker, Dazed and Confused, and Before Sunrise about clever, if somewhat aimless characters just trying to figure their way out in the world. Plot wasn’t even a concern in these cases. Kevin Smith’s Clerks followed suit. And in these movies and TV shows of the time, what emerged was a prevailing sense of disillusionment with the ways of old, a “whatever, man”, middle-finger approach to the world.

Some of that independent spirit can still be found in movies today, though it rarely makes the mainstream or a cultural footprint as it did back in the 90s. And where many 90s shows (e.g. Seinfeld) couldn’t have given a damn about pertaining a moral message, today we’re seeing politics enter the narrative of even Marvel TV shows. The politically incorrect, apolitical tone of the 90s (and 00s’ media) is no longer cute but irresponsible. Critics and social media hounds are always ready to pounce if something “problematic” should arise.

This kind of activism really divides the cultural outlook of today against the 90s. Between social media, regular media, and the arts, everything feels politically-driven today. It’s easy to decry this but within the vortex of political correctness and cancel culture, one could argue that we at least try to care a bit more. “Woke” culture may lead to some seriously cringe Twitter posts by “allies” but at its essence, it demonstrates an active effort to diversify and better the prospects of others. Such thinking wasn’t necessarily disparaged in the 90s but authenticity was key to credibility in such instances (i.e. they had much a more acute BS radar). To sell out and commercialise yourself (or play to the masses) was just about the worst thing you could do as an artist. (Nowadays, musicians make songs for food delivery services.) With that said, the 90s seemed to glorify dangerous trends such as the ultra-skinny heroin chic look which showed that maybe there was simply just another orthodoxy to follow (bringing into question the idea of authenticity).

In so far as a narrative is concerned, history will often find fashion trends fading and returning. This applies to cultural outlooks too, in broad strokes. Just as we look back on the 90s and early 00s with rose-tinted glasses, so too did people in the 90s look back on the 70s (Dazed and Confused), and people in the 70s looked back on the 50s (American Grafitti). The lesson here is similarly broad but pertinent, given the self-righteousness of some liberals today: you’re not necessarily right about everything. So as heroin chic was seen to be a psychologically damaging trend, maybe too will we see the current body-positivity movement to be fraught with complications, sidelining health issues. Maybe Clinton’s neo-liberalism set the Democrats back progressively but maybe today’s progressives are undermining the electoral credibility of their party? History has to move on and we should not be apathetic about our cultural values but we shouldn’t arrogantly assume that we’ve reached the nadir of enlightenment either. Every generation could be marked out for its mistakes and embarrassing philosophies. I’m sure ours will be just another one.

Confident Leadership Isn’t Competent Leadership

The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.—Bertrand Russell

In our culture, confidence is heralded as an important attribute in defining success. With presentations, interviews, press conferences, and more, we feel most assured when whoever’s addressing us is able to project strength in vision, even if they’re unable to answer all our questions; the age-old mythos that the alpha must lead the pack. But action and rhetoric are so often at the helm of stupidity. Coming out of the Trump and Johnson eras, it is important that we examine the nature of such leadership, for it often undermines our best interests.

Let’s begin by taking a trip down memory lane to the 1980 election. It was Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan. The peanut farmer vs the Hollywood actor. The detail-oriented micro-manger v the guy who fell asleep in meetings. Now, the Carter administration had a host of problems that arose in part from his decision-making to adverse world conditions (inflation, Iran, etc.) but to most people looking in, Carter was clearly the smarter, more even hand. But because things weren’t going so well and because he projected such charisma and confidence on the campaign trail, Reagan was able to make issues (like energy sustainability) far less important than they should have been. He knew the key to victory was presenting himself as the stronger leader. Similarly in the 2000 election, Al Gore’s apparent weakness as a viable “strong” leader undermined his chances against the (shall we call it) broad-stroked George W. Bush.

Indeed, with increasing frequency since the dawn of the TV age and televised debates (starting in 1960), marketability has become the most crucial factor in determining such elections. Where substantive debate is needed in tackling the major but (popularly) uninteresting issues of health care, economics, and more, we find that quick, quipy responses and a “trust me” demeanour most beneficial to the candidate running. As clickbait articles and social media have exasperated this problem sevenfold, so have we seen the rise of a new order of woefully incompetent, if tragically confident leaders. I speak of course of Donald J. Trump.

Now, I could talk about that administration at nauseam but let’s face it, there would be no point. Everyone should know by now that he was a con-man whose interest in the job extended only so far as the reach of his power. The details and long-term projections of departments established previously (such as a pandemic response team) were gutted for the simple gain of “playing the part” and conveying himself as the man who would accept no waste, i.e. strong, confident, decisive leadership.

Politics shouldn’t be reduced to such rampant bravado and ego-pleasing rhetoric. The great works of our time haven’t been accomplished by mindless leaders. The Affordable Care Act became a reality as a result of decades-long campaigning, adjustments and compromise, detail-oriented legislation, and perhaps most crucially, hours of bland, administrative work. The accomplishment of getting a man on the moon didn’t come to pass because John F. Kennedy said it must be so but because the work was put in by scientists at NASA, albeit with the backing of Cold War capital. The reality of historic achievements is far less dramatic and entertaining than you would believe. Just watch Lincoln.

For effective leadership, confidence must be backed by credibility. The act isn’t enough. As shown in the series The Dropout, biotech entrepreneur and founder of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes made her fortune and name off of the back of inaccurate blood-testing data and fraud with investors (who included Ruper Murdoch, the Walton family, and the DeVos family). With further associations she managed to sway and charm such as Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, she legitimised herself (even though her company was publishing what wasn’t there and bypassing the ethics of proper scientific procedure). A fan of Steve Jobs, she understood the importance of selling an image and in 2015, made Time’s “100 most influential people” list. Of course, when the whole charade was exposed, things changed and in 2016, she joined Fortune’s list of “World’s 19 Most Disappointing Leaders”. Karma, at its finest. Except for the people whose lives she played with.

The important lesson to be gained here is that need to be more critical in our thinking and to stop taking images of success at face value. Influencers on social media aren’t necessarily as rich or successful as they purport to be in their calculated, often staged photo ops. Not every rapper has a host of women following them to parties or a yacht. Not every entrepreneur is brilliant or the next Steve Jobs. Heck, even Steve Jobs wasn’t Steve Jobs. Unfortunately, the “fake it till you make it” mantra has become popularised and ingrained in the American ethos. The Jordan Belforts of this world thereby get rich while gambling the fortunes of those less well off, who also think they may have the shortcut to success. Confidence may hold merit in some circumstances but it’s not as important as a healthy dose of doubt, close analysis, and competent thinking.

Rating The Royals

Another decade has passed which means another jubilee! Yes, unless you’ve been hiding away at a Pizza Express, you’ll be aware that the Queen is now in her 70th year as the head of state. Quite a remarkable feat. But you now, it’s not all been easy. Indeed, she’s had to witness the general decline of the British Empire in the latter half of the 20th century and put up with a bunch of dodgy characters, both inside and outside the palace walls.

For this occasion, we thought it would be quite fetching to take a look at some of those characters within. And here to help us, is our Belfast correspondent and conspiracy enthusiast, Belle. Together, we’ll run through the main players of the monarchy’s stage and rate them on four important factors:

1. Their Suitability To Their Role
2. Their Associations
3. Their Entertainment Value
4. And… The Rogue Factor

So, without further ado, let’s get to it:

Queen Elizabeth II, 96, Single

Suitability (8.5/10)

Belle: “Begrudgingly impressed she has held on for so long. All hail the lizard queen (shoot me)” 8/10

Andy (Washington Walrus): “Quite dignified in comparison to others. Generally apolitical.” 9/10

Associations (8/10)

Belle: “Who knows? Mystery. Lizard people. Freemasons.” 8/10

Andy: “She doesn’t seem to care for many besides her dogs. Also, Prince Andrew is her fave. But when you have that sh#*^ show to contend with…” 8/10

Entertainment (3/10)

Belle: “Yawn, she could take tips from her (alleged) autistic paedophile son”. 1/10

Andy: “I do enjoy how unimpressed she seems by everything.” 5/10

Rogue Element (5/10)

Belle: “Lobbied so that she wouldn’t have to hire immigrants, married a man who was not only her 3rd cousin but her 4th from the other side of the family. No wonder her children turned out the way they did! I hold this woman in the utmost contempt.” 6/10

Andy: “Very stoic but maybe she has a wicked sense of humour? Who knows? I’ll go by the points above, though compared to the rest of the family, I hold her in higher regard.” 4/10

TOTAL: 24.5 / 40

Prince Charles, picky eater

Belle: The poster boy for why you must never sleep with your cousin.

Suitability (6/10)

Belle: “Appropriately inbred but he just seems kind of weak, like he’d blow away in strong winds.” 6/10

Andy: “He brought Diana into a loveless marriage whilst pining after another woman. That took guts. England needs guts.” 6/10

Associations (3.5/10)

Belle: “My nan met him once but aside from that.” 2/10

Andy: “Stephen Fry likes him. That’s about all I know.” 5/10

Entertainment (2/10)

Andy: “He holds the Prince’s Trust each year.” 2/10

Rogue (5/10)

Belle: “Whacking your ex-wife who was pregnant is pretty rogue by most standards but maybe not by royal standards.” 5/10

TOTAL: 16.5 / 40

Prince Andrew, honoured veteran

Belle: The medical miracle himself. The nonce who could not sweat. The Queen’s favourite, albeit the bar is in hell. A man so inbred he sticks out from even this sorry lot.

Suitability (10/10)

Belle: “Straight back to the Dark Ages. I like it. Very medieval.” 10/10

Associations (9/10)

Belle: “The sex trafficking ring barely scratches the surface of his associations I’m sure.” 10/10

Andy: “Sketchy to say the least.” 10/10

Entertainment (10/10)

Belle: “That interview was ICONIC”. 10/10

Andy: “It took guts to tell so many strange lies. The royal family needs guts.” 10/10

Rogue (10/10)

Belle: “Prior to the minor indiscretion of being found to be associated with a sex-trafficking ring, Andrew was already well known for his eccentricities, including but not limited to a teddy bear collection of 70, mostly dressed in sailor suits, arranged in a very specific way by his maid or else he would throw a tantrum (bearing in mind he was an adult, this was after he came back from serving in the Falklands.) Anyways, imagine my shock when he turned out to actually be an (alleged) paedophile”. 10/10

Andy: “Rogue or just loyal to old friends? I think we all know the answer here. Rogue.” 10/10

TOTAL: 40/40

Prince William, Douche of Cambridge

Suitability (6/10)

Belle: “Oh, he is so dull. Pass. Despite being the heir to the throne, I keep forgetting he exists.” 6/10

Andy: “In the case of not rocking the boat, I suppose he is suited to the role.” 6/10

Associations (4/10)

Belle: “Not exciting. He should take a leaf out of his Uncle Andrew’s book. Haha just joking.” 4/10

Entertainment (2/10)

Andy: “I am not entertained.” 2/10

Rogue (0/10)

Belle: 0/10

Andy: Agreed.

TOTAL: 12/40

Prince Harry, great at costume parties

Suitability (2/10)

Belle: “Honestly neither weird or inbred enough. Glad he got out of there.” 2/10

Andy: “He’s gone too woke for me. I need my royals regressive.” 2/10

Associations (1/10)

Belle: “He seems to have fallen in with a rough crowd since his Nazi days. James Corden. Yikes.” 2/10

Andy: “He’s gone very Hollywood and the news that he arranges playdates with James Corden is very disturbing. Such associations make Prince Andrew look all that much better.” 0/10

Entertainment (8/10)

Belle: “Nazi garb” 10/10

Andy: “I miss the old Harry, partying in Vegas and just being the wild card in general. Alas, he’s become a total beta in recent years.” 6/10

Rogue (8/5/10)

Belle: “My personal favourite out of the Royals. Notorious for his transgressions even prior to marrying a divorced, annoying American D-list actress. But to be honest, if my Mum was whacked by my Dad’s family, I’d probably act out a bit as well. Besides, who among us hasn’t impersonated a Nazi in a fit of teenage angst.” 10/10

Andy: “Hmm an interesting one. Rogue in recent years, certainly- though one wonders if that’s just the work of Wicked Meghan pulling the strings? Rogue in his party days. But.. he was also in the army, which is not so rogue.” 7/10

TOTAL: 19.5/40

Kate Middleton, presumed neighbourhood watch founder

Suitability

Belle: “Good looking. Maybe she would install a soft dictatorship.” 5/10

Associations

Belle: “Her sister’s bum is famous.” 7/10

Entertainment

Belle: Perhaps the least entertaining of the lot”. 0/10

Rogue

Belle: “If beige wallpaper could smile and wave politely. Has anyone actually heard her speak before?” 0/10

TOTAL: 12/40

Meghan Markle, Margery Tyrell of the Royal Family

Suitability

Andy: “Well, she wasn’t exactly a star before but she’s certainly good at putting on a performance. And that’s a part of being a Royal. On the other hand, as Belle’s pointed out, the inbred factor is important and she’s simply not close enough to the… source, shall we call it?” 4/10

Associates

Andy: I know Harry’s close with James Corden. Not so sure about Meghan. I’ll give her a partial pass but again to be in that radius… Hmmm… Anyways, she’s thatched herself on to the Hollywood elite and keeps the family at far range (or some of them are toxic or something, I don’t know). 4/10

Entertainment

Andy: The only performance I’ve seen of hers was that tabloid interview with Oprah. Oh, and she has a brief role in Horrible Bosses. 5/10

Rogue

Andy: Well, she disturbed the order. So that’s something. On a socio-political level though, she plays by modern morals and standards. And I’m not having that. Not in this family. 5/10

TOTAL: 18/40

Prince George

Belle: “All hail George! Future overlord! May he have a long and tyrannical rule.”

No categories needed, TOTAL: 100/10

Honourable mention: the late Prince Philip, gone but never forgotten

And now the rankings…

Kate- 12
Will- 12
Charles- 16.5
Meghan- 18
Harry- 19.5
Queen- 24.5
Andrew- 40
George- 100

Well, that quickly went dodgy. Perhaps, these weren’t the proper categories for rating the Royal Family at all but there you have it, the young George has much to live up to but is already surpassing the powerhouse that is the Pizza Express enthusiast, Prince Andrew.

Happy Platinum Jubilee celebrations all!

The Washington Walrus

Uncompromising ~ Thorough ~ Contemporary