The one thing we do know about most of what goes on in and around the Royal Family is that there is rather a lot that we do not know. Sadly, that admission of limited knowledge cannot be made by the self-appointed pundits and alleged experts: their very status hinges on their knowing what we mere plebs do not. So the pretence is maintained, the impression given that they have access. Which brings us to Andrew Pierce.
Pierce most likely has no more access to Royal circles than I do. He does, admittedly, know some journalists who may be able to inform him of goings-on over at Buck House, but on the whole he bases his expertise on the speed and volume of his North and South. Hence his truly wayward take on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
“[Prince Harry] withdrawing from public life another blow for Queen after Prince Andrew's enforced departure, but a slimmed down monarchy will be more in tune with public opinion” was his first stab at understanding Hal and Meg, but it was a wrong one. There is no intention on Hal’s part to “withdraw from public life”. Then he gets worse. A lot worse.
“[Prince Harry] says he will continue to honour his duty to the Queen. Really? So why did she have to find out on TV he was quitting”. Do try and keep up. The Sussex’s had was forced by press leaks. By Pierce’s pals at the Murdoch Sun. Oh dear, now look what’s he’s claiming: “[Prince Harry] pulled off quite a feat: uniting entire dysfunctional Royal Family in anger at his cavalier announcement”. How does he know of this anger? Of course, silly me, he read it in the papers. And they didn’t know either.
But he did know, as a Daily Mail pundit, how to whip up the mob. “If Prince Harry and Meghan live in the US are you willing to put up £3million a year to pay for their security ?Shouldn’t they pay for it themselves? Join me [on LBC] from 6pm”. It’s the Duchess of Cambridge, but never the Duchess of Sussex. Why might that be?
It wouldn’t be the press smears, would it? “Most don’t care whether they go and object to £2.4m spent on their home”. Like that untrue smear. Which can only be exacerbated by such events as “Prince Charles biographer Tom Bower joins me on the Daily show on [Mail Plus] at 5pm”. As if Bower has any more access than Pierce does. And what does “Queen’s short statement mentions family 8 times. If only Harry reflected on privileges that family has brought him”. If only the press reflected on their racist bigotry, but hey ho.
Pierce was still making it up this morning, as witness “Canadian govt may pay some of security costs. If they’re going down Disney route they can afford to pay their own”. And Canadian Govt may not. What, though, is the “Disney route”? Would Pierce care to explain that? Course he wouldn’t. He’s got another TV appearance to make.
And so it came to pass that he was once again allowed on ITV Good Morning Britain to bluster “[Prince Harry] talking [on GMB] about sadness for Queen, 93, that he wants to become part of showbiz world. He will sink without trace”. On what basis does he make the “showbiz world” claim? Making it up, smearing, whipping up the even more ignorant against someone about whom he can’t be arsed finding out the most basic of facts.
That’s Andrew Pierce: totally ignorant, malicious with it, and without any semblance of a conscience as to the consequences. Which makes him ideal Daily Mail material.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
3 comments:
Far right Pierce?
A tenth rate corrupt untalented Rothermere catamite with an equal part of Uriah Heep.
Nobody else except Murdoch would employ him.
Pierce and his ilk should stick to advising us on which fork to use for the soup when in the company of minor royals.
Dead right, your analysis are spot on - it’s called gutter journalism
Post a Comment