While some of the press have put the deepening crisis for the Iranian Government over the downing of a Ukrainian airliner earlier in the week on their front pages, most of our free and fearless press have been sticking to the less demanding stuff, which means ranting about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their decision to step back from being front-line Royals. This kind of story is meat and drink to the tabloids.
No need to do any actual journalism, no shortage of pundits ready and willing to rant ad infinitum - and, indeed, ad nauseam - about what is happening Chez Windsor, no shortage of punters ready to buy more of those papers. Everybody, bar the subject of the copy, wins. And one wannabe winner is former Screws and Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, who has gone totally OTT almost to the point of self-combustion over the news.
Using his platform at Mail Online, Morgan has told anyone not yet asleep “Why the Queen must FIRE Their Royal Hustlers: Deluded Meghan and Harry should be stripped of their titles before this pair of grasping, selfish, scheming Kardashian-wannabes bring down the Monarchy”. Parking ticket, was it? Failed to blag a table at the Chiltern Firehouse?
The remainder of the rant is on a scale to satisfy the most discerning rant connoisseur: “two deluded clowns … staggeringly pompous … they want to be super-woke celebrities … hectoring hypocrisy … pathetic joke … two fearless eco-warriors … giant hypocritical carbon footprint … new Kardashians … absolutely appalling … repulsively rude indignity … spoiled brat … scheming, selfish D-list actress wife”. Nor does he make much sense.
We are told that “Harry and Meghan going rogue like this is an earthquake that will shake the very foundations of the Royal Family to the core”, but later “The biggest royal star is the Queen - followed by her son and heir Prince Charles and then his eldest son and heir Prince William. They are the constitutional future of the Monarchy, not Meghan and Harry”.
If Brenda, Brian and Wills (plus Wills’ son George) are the future of the Monarchy, then why should Hal and Megs stepping back be an “earthquake”. Oh, hang on, here we go with the false equivalence: “she [Brenda] is only Queen because her own uncle, Edward VIII, also fell under the romantic clutches of another American woman, Wallis Simpson”.
Edward was King. Harry is sixth in line. Spot the difference. And while Mail Online is at it, try being factually accurate: the photo caption “Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson at Château de Candé in France at their wedding in June 1937” is wrong. By that time, Edward had abdicated and was Duke of Windsor. But back to Morgan. What’s his real problem?
It’s all a bit obvious. “I've made no secret of my dislike for, and distrust of Meghan. We were friends for a while, or I thought we were. She certainly told the world we were in publicly posted tweets (now deleted) before most people in Britain had ever heard of her, and while she was asking me in my local pub for media advice”. That’s his real problem.
Piers Morgan must have thought he’d have the ear of the Duchess of Sussex in the same way that he did with Diana, Princess of Wales. Except she was clearly wise to him. So now an embittered Morgan is ranting to no effect every time she displeases him.
Sadly, no-one else cares. When it comes to fame, Piers Morgan doesn’t have any.
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