21 minute read
Comment
from Palatinate 852
by Palatinate
PALATINATE | Wednesday 28th September 2022
9
Advertisement
Comment
Why can't the Brits warm to Meghan Markle?
Caleb Tu
In a recent interview with The Cut, Meghan Markle stated that, when visiting the cast of the 2019 film The Lion King, she was told by a South African actor that they celebrated her royal wedding as they did the release of Nelson Mandela. This anecdote is made all the more press-worthy when the only South African actor in the cast revealed, in the wake of Meghan’s sensational interview, that he does not actually recall meeting her at all. So what remains is now a supposedly fabricated story, the onslaught of UK newspaper articles with the familiar loaded language, and the return of the debate as to whether Meghan Markle is a selfindulgent career celebrity or rather a misunderstood mother who has faced undue and persistent hardship from the public.
To gauge public opinion, I asked the regulars at the pub in which I work for their thoughts on the Duchess of Sussex. Now, I appreciate a low-brow boozer is not exactly a beacon of inclusivity and sympathy, but the responses I received were nothing short of emphatic, bordering on the outwardly unkind, and probably unfit for publication.
Surprisingly, many of the regulars had actually mentioned their excitement for the Sussexes’ 2018 royal wedding. Harry has always been viewed favourably by the British public, whether it be due to his military service, his boozy lads holidays of youth plastered to the tabloid front pages, or the national shock with the untimely death of his mother. So why have the Sussexes’ fortunes waned so catastrophically?. One answer is the price that comes with living as royalty: the abdication of activism and acting upon free thought.
Meghan’s parents separated when she was young. She also faced abuse on the basis of her mixed-racial identity as well as the unpleasantly commonplace sexism experienced by young girls. It is thus no wonder that her activism on racial issues and gender equality has been an important aspect of her life given her tough experiences. However, a empting to juggle this advocacy alongside a place in the royal family is a task made virtually impossible.
The British constitution is laden with convention. Political involvement from the royals is deemed improper. There can be no confusion between the dignified and the efficient elements of our constitution and, If there is, constitutional crisis could ensue. Conversely, American politics is defined by the discussion of key debates at the highest level of society. Their head of state is, by profession, political. The thought that Meghan Markle could somehow impart this American a itude on a deeply entrenched British institution seemed outlandish. The monarchy has a history with American involvement with the family. Wallis Simpson’s influence resulted in the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII, the only abdication of the crown to date.
And this is perhaps what the public fears the most. This humdrum British scepticism was triggered when Meghan’s a raction to politics did not give way. Her nationality, her outspoken nature, and her u erances on Trump and Brexit added fuel to the proverbial fire. Whilst she was expected to marry into the family and accept her constitutionallyordained fate, her Californian brand of progress through action created an impasse and soured her relationship with the extended royal family. The royals in this country are often appreciated not for what they do, but what they do not. The scandals surrounding Prince Andrew, Prince Philip, and now the Sussexes show that the constant that the royals provide is often cherished more by the public than the customary duties they perform. The fact that Meghan could not change for the royal family, nor have it change
So why have the Sussexes' fortunes waned so catastrophically? Meghan's Californian brand of progress through action created an impasse
Rosie Bromiley
for her, has led us here. Whilst her intentions are almost always demonstrative of social progress and a genuine desire to improve the world in which we live, the somewhat callow assumption that this can be done from within the royal family has stoked a dislike for Meghan and, whilst these views are perhaps not always justified, they nonetheless run deep.
Interviews like those with The Cut or Oprah Winfrey typify an antithesis to British modesty, passivity, and humourous selfdeprecation. Whilst they certainly do not make Meghan a bad person, what they do is highlight the incongruence between her and large swathes of the British public. And whilst these British a itudes should not be taken as a “holierthan-thou” set of standards for all in public life, they do act as judge, jury, and executioner for even the most admired of British figureheads.
The life and legacy of Queen Elizabeth II
Olivia Kemp
Elizabeth II was the figurehead of our system: a powerful unifying force. Her vast arc of service and the full magnitude of what she did for us all is almost impossible to comprehend. She was globally trusted; she was the embodiment of history and continuity.
With indomitable spirit she guided us through the darkest of days and - with radiance — dedicated her life to an extraordinary 70 years of serving, giving and loving.
Although the succession has already seamlessly taken place, the Queen’s passing has removed a force that King Charles III will perhaps struggle to replicate.
Elizabeth II will always be remembered by us as the Queen; the best this world has to offer. (Rosie Bromiley)
Hannah Ferguson
Atrailblazer and champion for women’s achievements, the Queen inspirationally excelled in academia. Becoming fluent in French, well acquainted with constitutional history, religion and law, and even visiting Saint Mary’s College in 1947.
Beyond the intellectual side, Elizabeth II became the first female full-time royal member of the Armed Forces, as a mechanic in the Auxiliary Territorial Service.
As well as her own achievements, she also encouraged other women: holding Buckingham Palace’s first all-female event in 2004. She welcomed female British icons to celebrate their work at the “Women of Achievement” luncheon.
Her Majesty will be remembered both for her own triumphs, and for her pride in those of her people. God save the King’: a haunting end to Liz Truss’s speech on the day of the Queen’s death, and one of the first declarations of our new national anthem; a staunch reminder of the Crown's passing.
It is a harrowing mixture of life and death, of grief and stoicism. The crown may symbolise a fulfilment of destiny, yet is an omen, passed to each successor, unachievable without the loss of a parent.
It is an experience of both heightened emotions and being forced to subdue them, for Charles is denied the human experience of mourning, particularly a loss so personal as his mother’s, instead maintaining the care of public duty, sharing his loss with the nation.
Perhaps this is the strength of the monarch, and through striving to uphold her legacy, he can mourn through action.
Elif Karakaya Caleb Tu
Leaving this second Elizabethan age compels us to reflect on the Queen’s reign. Above the quotidian details of the job, her reign was characterised more by the constant that she provided.
As the nation modernised, as politics persisted, and as events shaped the nation’s identity, the Queen remained constitutionally passive and yet a present public servant.
Monarchist or republican, all can understand that she personified the nation. What is left to question now is, with this constant suddenly gone, whether people will look upon the monarchy not with the nostalgia the Queen represented but rather with a contemporary scrutiny that the royal family has recently a racted?
A look into Liz Truss's cabinet
Lily Pra
Content warning: this article contains discussion of transphobia and abortion.
As the ice from Boris Johnson’s long winter finally thawed, Westminster became flooded with power hungry politicians. Victorious among those in her party was Liz Truss, who, on Monday 5th September 2022, was elected Britain’s third female Prime Minister.
Soon after beating opponent Rishi Sunak, Truss appointed a strikingly diverse cabinet which, terrifyingly, seems to be saturated with staunch loyalists and admirers of empiricism. Certain members of her cabinet, such as Suella Braverman (Home Secretary), can be seen to herald a deep reverence for empire – the cruel underbelly of British history is regarded by the Home Secretary to have been “a force for good.” Yet, it is the Health Secretary, Therese Coffey, who I find holds the most disturbingly antiquated and poisonous ideas, similar to that of the abhorrent Jacob Rees-Mogg (Business Secretary). In 2013, it is recorded that she voted against same-sex marriage and in 2019 Coffey voted against the marriage rights of samesex couples in Northern Ireland.
In a 2020 interview for Sky News, she said: “I took the view at the time, and I still hold to that, I have a strong faith background about what is a legal partnership and what is marriage”. Faith and the state, in my opinion, are two pillars of society which should stand separate; faith is not, and cannot, become a means to influence political thought and policy. I find it incredibly alarming that Britain has a Health Secretary whose beliefs colour her thoughts surrounding the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the abortion rights of women. It is said that Coffey opposes, but does not condemn, those who have had abortions, yet she voted against abortion rights being extended within Northern Ireland. It is despicable that our Health Secretary should disagree with a paramount human right — the right to one’s own body, and continue a precedent that abortion is something which can be challenged. Her appointment should be met with revulsion, ‘modern Britain’ will no doubt become corrupted by her insidious ideas like oil polluting a pond.
The seediness of Truss’ cabinet cannot be understated. Nadhim Zahawi, for example, is another sordid figure who illustrates the continued degrading treatment towards women by men in power. In January 2018, Zahawi was an a endee of a President’s Club dinner at the Dorchester Hotel, where female hostesses were sexually assaulted and harassed by the a endees. Whilst Zahawai was said to have had no involvement in the harassment and swore to never
a end such an event again, he had a ended several such dinners in the past. This is rendered even more disturbing by his position as Minister for Children and Families at the time, a ending an event where young women were told to wear short skirts which is both sickening and perverse.
Transphobia also pervades the cabinet and I find it horrific that this has garnered li le to no media a ention. When asked if “a trans woman is a woman” Truss stridently replied “No!”. Braverman stated that “I want to make it clear that it is possible, within the law, for schools to refuse to use the preferred opposite-sex pronouns of a child” and Kemi Badenoch (International Trade Secretary) was reported by Vice News to having mocked trans women as “men”. When your words are kind and just, to speak your mind with conviction is noble. Yet when hatred dictates your speech, it is something altogether quite evil. That is why I find the beliefs of the members within Truss’ cabinet to be inherently vile and predict that pure political debate will again become disfigured by corrosive opinions.
It is unfair to label all of Liz Truss’ cabinet homophobic. Among others, Penny Mordaunt (Leader of the Commons) and Chloe Smith (Work and Pensions Secretary) support same-sex marriage and convey more socially progressive opinions. Perhaps Truss’s saving grace is her cabinet’s loyalty, yet with the treachery of Theresa May and Boris Johnson still thick in the air, I would advise Truss on hiding all of the knives in Downing Street, so as to protect her back. (UK Prime Minister via Wikimedia Commons)
Liz Truss: a dive into her inaugural PMQs
Josie Sherman
7th September 2022 became a critical day in the UK’s world of politics, as Liz Truss made her debut in the House of Commons as our new Prime Minister. Given the current political and economic climate, all eyes were fixed upon Truss as she began her first Prime Minister’s Questions.
Straight away Truss’s performance radiated a cool, calm and collected manner as she stood strong in her navy suit. Regardless of the varying personal opinions towards Truss, I found it hard to deny her impressive ability to create a PMQs where we actually got answers. It was incredibly refreshing to witness a female politician, in a position of such power, hold her own and give people the “certainty” we need.
In comparison to her previous speech outside 10 Downing Street, which I felt lacked any sort of charisma and character, I found myself being able to view Truss as a li le more human and emotive in her dialect. Truss’s inaugural speech on 6th September matched the dreary, grey weather covering London and was largely filled with empty headline worthy phrases for the newspapers to grab hold of and an outline of her aims and three major policies. However, this starkly contrasts the impression she left in the House of Commons.
Finally, we saw a policy versus policy debate between Truss and Keir Starmer. One where both parties kept level-headed, polite and concise. Perhaps gone are the days of the PMQs entailing personality performances and a acks on individuals?
Fortunate enough to be in the hub of all the action at Westminster during PMQs, I spied Keir Starmer strolling through Portcullis House and approached to ask his view on how his a empt at grilling Truss went. Starmer was quick to agree with my opinion of the event being “orderly”, stating that “it was very different to Boris Johnson." Starmer revealed to me how his main objective was to discover how Truss was planning on funding the energy price cap, which she did in fact answer! It is clear Starmer will have to head back to his drawing board and brainstorm some new tactics for facing Truss in future PMQs, as she remains unphased after their first encounter, with many more sure to come.
Finally, we saw a policy versus policy debate
Throughout the questioning, I found Truss remained succinct and direct in her language – at times simply replying “yes”, causing politicians to erupt into laughter at this unheard-of response. Although at times the House of Commons descended into what can only be compared to rowdy schoolboys, Truss maintained her composure and held her own in an a empt to sway the public in her favour, or at least gain some respect. Theresa May also made a surprise appearance as she popped up, unexpectedly, welcoming Truss and shedding light on how “all three female Prime ministers have been Conservative." In response, Truss praised May on her “fantastic question," using it to segue into a stab towards the Labour party and (Herry Lawford via Wikimedia Commons)
their consistent history of leaders from North London. Clearly Truss has done a 180 on her view of Leeds, now using it as a positive that differentiates her from other political leaders, despite recently severely criticising Roundhay School in Leeds. Whilst Truss clearly cannot quite escape the characteristic of hypocrisy that haunts political members, when merely glancing at her appointed Cabinet a flourish of diversity in race and gender is apparent – so some things are heading in the right direction.
After spending the day surrounded by important figures in politics and finding myself discussing PMQs in a candid manner with the likes of Andrew Marr, Sir Ian Duncan Smith, and Theresa Villiers, it became clear the general consensus of Truss’s first session was largely positive — a resoundingly solid performance. Despite being considerably less charismatic and boisterous than Boris, perhaps Truss is the calm figure we need to ride out this 'storm.' Ultimately, it is essential that the Conservative party unite together to guide our country through this turbulent economic climate. Time is too precious to be wasted on personal a acks and sending empty, snide remarks flying to one another childishly in Parliament. We can only hope this solid start is the beginning of a successful and helpful series of Prime Minister's Questions.
(Alexander Popov via Unsplash)
How can Durham start to adequately prioritise students' mental wellbeing?
Chloe Hares
Content warning: this article contains discussion of suicide.
Students who hold a place at Durham University feel a particular sense of pride in their studies and status as a member of such a prestigious institution. Nonetheless, this can result in incomprehensible levels of stress which are often left undiscussed due to the nature of Durham. It is expected that as well as being a gifted intellectual, one must also have limited emotional capacity in order to mechanically deal with the competitive, draining and unbalanced student lifestyle at a Russell Group University.
What is more, a recent Palatinate article reported that Durham is amongst the majority of universities within the United Kingdom who do not record student suicide rates, nor how these students die by suicide. Joe Rossiter’s report entails some frightening statistics, ones we would not necessarily have figured off of our own backs. Upon reading, you can’t help wondering why an establishment such as Durham University, known for its challenging academia, has yet to take any big steps forward in preventing suicide amongst its student population. Instead, it has continued with its Victorian
a itude in not addressing the issue in hopes others won’t notice and anyone who is directly affected must just repress such feelings in hopes they will dissipate.
So, what ought Durham to do? Firstly, an acknowledgement of students’ very real mental health ba les which have in fact led to loss of life, and in showing remorse a vow to change. By change, I mean abandoning a system of understanding which has been present in Durham since 1832 — an understanding that so long as there is a spectacle, how it happens may remain a clandestine operation.
In other words, the quality of work at the University cannot take priority over a student’s physical and mental wellbeing for the sake of living up to a historic expectation. Acknowledging this huge problem among students is the first step to de-stigmatising it.
Then, in dismantling an outdated system of understanding, students do not impose upon themselves a self-fulfilling prophecy that they must meet certain standards in their essays, exams, and seminars or else they are not worthy of their place at the University. Such a mindset is not healthy and can be (and has been) responsible for a downward spiralling of mental health.
From conversations with other students, it seems widely apparent that Durham’s lecturers and tutors do not offer a huge amount of praise for students, so they themselves also downplay their achievements in assessments because they are so blinded by this culture of perfection being a requirement, although the energy it takes to a ain such is exhausting.
This needs to be changed for the sake of students and respectability of the university; with Twi er pages such as “has Durham University had a scandal today”, I feel the University should be trying to claw at every chance they have to be er themselves, starting with the wellbeing of students seeming most apt.
Dismantling an outdated system of understanding
(David Martin via Wikimedia Commons)
Is sexual assault at Durham University a product of elitism?
Josie Lockwood
Content warning: this article contains discussion of sexual assault.
The ‘Posh Lad’ group chat. If like me, you were a fresher in the year of 2020, this story is one you will remember well.
The summer before I joined university was an unusual one as it took place at home during lockdown, where much of my time was spent on social media. I eagerly followed anything Durham-related, excited to start the next chapter of my life. This eventually led to me joining group chats started by other students who were part of my cohort, college, and subject. I was hugely grateful for these platforms; it made starting university far less daunting, and through them I got in touch with many individuals who would end up becoming my closest friends today.
However, some of these group chats were less focused on fostering friendships, and a few became far more sinister. One day, a student in my college group chat sent the message: “have I told you about the posh lads competing on fucking the poorest girl”. I remember how my stomach dropped, and the other members of our group chat reacted with appropriate horror. Later that day, screenshots from the chat were leaked. The phrases ‘can’t get enough since girls don’t put out’, ‘so many people get accused of rape… I’m always worried about it after having sex with a girl’, and ‘snitches get stitches’ swam around on my phone screen. The next day, these photos were plastered across the national press.
As a young woman about to leave home for the first time, reading these messages was terrifying. Even as the headlines faded and were slowly forgo en, the anxieties lingered long after in my mind. I remember many of the girls I became close with discussing withdrawing their places at Durham, fearful of being in an environment where threats against women were normalised. Even though the student who wrote most of the messages lost his place, there were still others allowed to a end the university. I remember being on a night out in second year and recognising one of the boys who had been in the group chat. He was stood in the smoking area, discussing the group chat, laughing it off and claiming it was “bullshit” that himself and others had been “ostracised" and punished for "harmless banter”.
This is precisely my issue with the culture at Durham University. Even when students are admonished for their behaviour, there is li le shift in their mindset. They disregard their reprimands as a product of toxic feminism, and do not see the damage that their a itudes cause. Every week I read posts on the infamous Facebook page, Overheard at Durham Uni, in which students bravely speak out about their experiences with sexual assault. This is never directed at the perpetrator, but instead in the hope that they can protect others from suffering in the same way.
This signals a fundamental flaw not just in how Durham handles sexual assault, but society more broadly. It is something that we expect and accept. When we go to a club or walk home from a lecture in the dark — or frankly, even just leave the house — we know that sexual harassment is a possible outcome regardless of our height, strength, or gender.
In 2021, Durham University was ranked sixth in the UK for the number of testimonies received pertaining towards sexual violence. Admi edly, the university has since made steps forward. They have doubled the amount of counselling available to students, improved welfare support, and hired specialist investigators.
Although it is promising that the university is increasingly concerned about sexual misconduct, it has also been documented that disciplinary action is still lacking. Alleged assault investigations are frequently dismissed, and the few punishments that are dished out are sometimes revoked. No ma er how much welfare support the university chooses to offer, does this truly achieve anything in reducing the number of allegations made? I find it unlikely. The university should worry less about dealing with the consequences, and more about preventing their need in the first place. I believe that the sexual assault culture at Durham stems largely from its reputation as an elitist university. The fact that the group chat debacle was deemed as the work of ‘posh lads’ corroborates this. Overt classism is an innate part of Durham’s public image. As a prestigious university, we a ract students from privileged backgrounds who are used to ge ing what they want. At times, this goes hand in hand with sexist, racist, and classist values.
Perhaps it is time for the university to shift this reputation. In addition to adopting a zero-tolerance policy on sexual assault, the university needs to be perceived as an ambassador for diversity.
Following Rod Liddle’s appearance at the now infamous South College formal, many branded the students who walked out as ‘snowflakes’. Had the university be er defended these students against public criticism, and genuinely tried to encourage ‘wokeness’, perhaps prospective students would not shy away from the university in fear of becoming victims to classism and sexual assault, and instead would be drawn to its more progressive nature.
It is not too late for this vision to manifest. To achieve this, the University needs to publicly support students rather than remain silent. The action they have taken, like increased welfare support, happens quietly, behind closed doors. It is now time for the university to become as vocal as its students.
