The Widow Spider Effect: The Psychology Behind Meghan Markle’s Hold on Harry

THE ALTERNATIVE By Reno Omokri

To put it mildly, Meghan Markle is probably the most dishonest person to have ever been interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.
She told many obvious lies during her now-famous interview and of her husband (some say wife) Harry. Suppose Harry sits down again to watch that interview, without his boss (sorry, wife) by his side, he may begin to see how he and the general public have been manipulated, especially with regards to the claims Meghan made before he joined her and Oprah. Even then, she kept on interjecting and guiding her husband with leading statements.

Most notably, Meghan’s bombshell statement regarding her shock that the “idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be” is just a classic case of the very clickbait journalism that she complained about throughout the interview.

As I have previously noted, her son Archie, is not a grandchild of the Queen. He is a great-grandchild of the Queen. And he is not the first great-grandchild not to have a title.

The children of Princess Eugenie (daughter of the Queen’s son, Prince Andrew), and Zara Tindall (daughter of the Queen’s daughter, Princess Anne), do not have titles and are not princes and princesses, as Meghan knows, but does not want you to know.
That is why she claimed ‘it was not their right to take away.’ The truth is that there was no right, and you can’t take away what never existed, as Meghan also very well knows but does not want you to know.

The only great-grandchildren who got royal titles are the children of the direct male heir, Prince William, in line with the existing royal protocols.

In fact, the children of Prince Edward, the last son of Queen Elizabeth II, who are themselves grandchildren, and not great-grandchildren, like Archie, do not even have princely titles. Please research this.

So, in truth, it was not a case that they (the Royal Family) did not want Archie ‘titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be’, it was more of a case that Meghan wanted her son to be given a royal title against existing royal protocols. When that did not happen, she decided to blackmail them.

She worked on the mostly correct assumption that (sadly) most people of Black origin will emote, rather than reason, once she brings up the race card. She did not care that it had the potential to destroy the family she and her husband claim they love.

And speaking of racism, tomorrow, Meghan could deny that she ever accused the Royal Family of racism. What she said was that there were questions asked about how her baby would look. And when prompted by Oprah about whether those questions related to him being too brown, she noted that, that would be a “safe assumption”.

And based on this assumption, literally millions of people are willing to overlook the facts of the long years of service that the Royal Family have done to promote racial equality and accuse them of racism.

Meanwhile, both Meghan and Harry, refused to name the royal who asked the question, on which they based their assumption.

To me, this was their intention. To name no one, so that everyone could be guilty.

Look at the facts:

Her son, Archie, was not born a prince. This is as a result of a 1917 law, and not as a result of racism.

Year after year (and please Google this), Princess Anne, has been the hardest working royal. Yet, she spurns publicity and the media. Her children, though born great, do not have a royal title, and they are the Grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II. Her daughter, Zara Tindall, is a silver medalist Olympian. You do not see her whingeing about not getting a title or security.

This whole idea of poor Meghan and Harry (as the media refers to them, not Harry and Meghan), is just silly. These are two millionaires who sat down with a billionaire to complain about how their privileged lives were so bad.

On the issue of suicide, I sympathise with Meghan. However, if the British press is driving you to suicide, there is very little the Queen could have done. Great Britain has a free press.

If the Queen had power over the British press, why did she not use that power to protect her son, Prince Andrew from them, after reports linking him to Jeffrey Epstein emerged?

The British media excoriated Prince Andrew over the Epstein link, to the extent that his mother threw him under the bus.

Other than highly emotional people with easily excitable nerves, most serious-minded people, and I believe most fair people, will accept that the Queen of England does not have a button to press to gag the media.

People seem to forget that this very same British press turned on the Queen herself after Diana died. The big question is if she cannot protect herself from the media, is it Meghan and Harry she will protect? How? By suing the British press? That will be the beginning of the end for her as the head of the British Commonwealth. Let us be realistic.

If you follow British politics and their press, you would know that it is not the Queen that pays for senior royals’ security. It is the taxpayer. And every year, the British public has been expressing sentiments that the Royal Family costs them too much money. Please, I urge my readers to research this themselves.

There is a very strong Republic movement in The UK calling for the scrapping of the monarchy due to the huge costs of maintaining them. Every taxpayer penny spent on them is a matter of public record and is scrutinised.

The security cost of Meghan and Harry’s wedding alone was £20 million pounds. Please Google it.

As a result of pressure from Republic groups who want the monarchy scrapped for being too expensive, Queen Elizabeth II began voluntarily paying tax every year since 1992, even though she is not legally bound to pay tax.

It cost the British taxpayers £69 million pounds to maintain the royal family in 2020.

Now, amidst this rising tension with republicans calling for a scrapping of the monarchy, and with the British taxpayers grumbling about the already high cost to them of funding the Royal Family, how does any reasonable person expect the Queen to give in to Meghan and Harry’s demands for round-the-clock security, at taxpayers’ expense, even when they “voluntarily” stepped back from their royal duties?

To put it in perspective, that would be like resigning from your job, and still expect your “firm” (as Meghan flippantly put it) to keep on paying for your perks and privileges. Even if the board of such a company allows it, their shareholders will vote them out.

Look, let us look at this unemotionally. The reason Meghan and Harry have had a lot of media attention since stepping down as senior royals is because they have courted publicity. Publicity has not gone to them. They ran to it.

They unnecessarily release public statements of their intentions. They sign mega deals and make it public. They befriend major Hollywood celebrities and are an ever-present commodity at their parties and premieres.

If they had wanted a quiet life after leaving the Royal Family, they could have had it. The reason they have not had it is because they do not want a quiet life.

The thing about it is that when an older, more sophisticated female targets and marries a younger, naive high-profile male, the only thing that can save the male’s family is God’s intervention. She will manipulate him and split him from family and do it in a way that makes her look like the victim.

It is elementary psychology that when a man loses his mother before he is fully mature, he is more likely to marry an older, more sophisticated woman. And when he marries her, he often unconsciously makes her his mother figure. And when she spots that weakness, she may isolate and separate him from his family, by feeding his weakness, which is his need for maternal affirmation.

In public, she will play the victim and even attempt to project herself as the peacemaker, wanting to reconcile the man with his family, but behind closed doors, she knows the right mummy bears strings to pull to sustain the family feud that keeps her in control of her man and his considerable influence and finances.

It is an all too familiar tale. According to psychologytoday .com, such men are drawn to such women because these women perform the role their mother would have performed in boosting their level of self-confidence and self-esteem. We have seen it in high society here in Nigeria, in England, and we will continue to see it around the world, as long as Christ tarries.

Look at such men dispassionately. Three elements are always present in their lives. The first is that they lost their mums at a tender age. The second is that they married older, more sophisticated women. The third and final disastrous element is that after the marriage, they become alienated from their blood family, because they believe that their blood families have not bent over backwards enough to accommodate the whims and caprices of their spouses.