 |
| Meghan Markle is becoming a driving force in the Royal Family (Image: USA Network) |
One of the most over-used words in recent years is "change". Politicians who aren't in power use it constantly as a way of showing that their version of change is a good thing, and therefore, we should embrace it. Change is something I encourage for sure, so long as it's at a healthy pace and it progresses in a way where many of us benefit.
In society, a decision to change is based on a blend of personal choice and economics. If the economy is doing well locally, people are bound to opt for the status quo. Only if it suits us, of course. There are certain things that must never change, particularly when it comes to roles of certain women in power. For instance, how very dare Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex - and Prince Harry - want to raise their child and handle their marital affairs behind closed doors.
People were aghast upon discovering the christening of baby Archie, currently seventh in line to the throne, took place privately. Only 25 guests attended, including his godparents whose identities intend to be kept a secret. All we were treated to was a couple of snaps. However this act, according to royal commentators, is a snub to the British public.
Apparently, we've been treated badly by the couple multiple times now. When Archie was born two months ago, many weren't pleased by the fact Harry and Meghan wanted this to be an intimate moment. The Sussexes didn't want a media frenzy outside the same London hospital where Princess Diana gave birth to Harry and William, and Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, gave birth to her three children.
These two moments are mere examples to the negative reactions targeted at both Harry and Meghan in recent months. There are two reasons for this - first, it is argued that because they, as Royal Family members, live on UK taxpayers' money, we should know their every step and hold them to account should anything go awry (like we've questioned their decision to spend £2.4 million on renovating their house); and secondly, it is Royal tradition for the couple to do things a certain way, such as making their every step public.
When people come up with these arguments against the couple, I can't help but laugh. More than 30 million Brits pay taxes, does every single one of us give a damn about what they get up to? Is it really in the public interest? I'm all for them visiting charities and organising posh dinners for those who have done good deeds, but the shoving this at our faces everyday won't change our perceptions of the family.
I must confess that I am pro-Meghan. She is a breath of fresh air. While I wish to avoid a comparison between her and Princess Diana, it's hard not to. They are seen as outsiders, breaking boundaries and setting their own traditions within the royal realm. And of course, they're not the only royal family members to change family routines. Henry VIII did so by changing the religion his people should follow. Elizabeth II's children married divorcees, previously seen as a taboo. They are trend-setters and, believe it or not, progressive. If they did something out of the ordinary, people would follow.
You could only imagine how the Daily Express and the like would feel about our future royals, and see how their commentators react to a King or Queen who happens to be part of the LGBT+ community, or decide to reside in a terraced house in Burnley rather than Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. Whatever happens, Meghan Markle will take the blame.
 |
| Obama with US team. Rapinoe is on the right (Image: npr.org) |
Megan Rapinoe was one of the standout players of the World Cup and deserves the plaudits for her incredible performances. She is a proven match winner and for her to be in the same room as Trump, would be seen as a PR win for the President. But that was dashed when Rapinoe admitted that she won't be accepting a White House invite. This was praised by those who are anti-Trump, but on the flip side, she's been accused of being unpatriotic, something she strongly denies.
For a football star to hold public political views during their playing career is rare. So for Rapinoe to come out this way is undoubtedly a surprise. But the criticisms aimed at her are laughable. How can you be unpatriotic towards a country you win countless amount of trophies for? The climate over the past decade or so has been heating up towards boiling point. Before, elections in the States and UK were largely decided by parties who won resounding victories, with the exception of George W Bush and Al Gore in 2000. There was little reason to dispute the credentials of such victors. Trump versus Hillary Clinton in 2016 was an election where the winner didn't receive the most public votes, and during that campaign, it appeared everyone had an opinion, particularly celebrities. Rapinoe is simply continuing this trend and who are we to remove her freedom of speech?
Rapinoe is doing something she loves and expresses things she is passionate about, while being respectful, dignified and inoffensive. Talking of women who do also this, I'd like to raise Claudia Winkleman, Vanessa Feltz and Zoe Ball. Why - because they are on the list of among the highest paid BBC personalities. Every year, the broadcaster is obliged to release the salaries of their presenters. Previously, the Corporation was criticised for not paying their female presenters enough. Now with three women in the top ten most paid, people are still up in arms.
 |
| Zoe Ball (l) with Vanessa Feltz (Image: BBC) |
The aim for giving the likes of Feltz, Winkleman and Ball pay rises was to ensure the gender pay gap at the BBC was shortened. Some of the male presenters, including Huw Edwards, Jeremy Vine and John Humphrys took the decision to have their pay cut, in order to contribute the gap closure. Of course, Gary Lineker took a beating by being paid nearly £2 million over the past 12 months. But with the focus on giving more female presenters a pay rise, this has resulted in reports that we, as TV licence payers, contribute to paying such a heftier wage bill to the BBC. And with this coinciding with the recent announcement that many pensioners would now need to pay for a TV licence, when they didn't previously, you can imagine the outrage.
There is a part of me that understands why members of the public aren't happy with how much a presenter is paid. However, is there really a justification for all eyes to be on the three women - and Lineker? This, I find, hard to stomach. The BBC is genuinely trying to close the gender pay gap, and, like any employer, will offer a pay rise to the talents they wish to retain every year. So I don't see the problem in the actual salary figures revealed. Feltz, Winkleman and Ball have been BBC presenters for many years and are bloody good at their jobs. They're bound to receive more money every year, as does Lineker.
From learning about the five women I mention here, we discover they are true firecrackers. Underestimate them at your peril. And trust me, when people are quick to say something is racist or sexist, for example, I tend to wait and read all sides of the story before making such bold conclusion. I don't think it's sexist for there to more men than women in any board of directors of major organisations. But I cannot help myself to believing that an element of sexism aimed at those women, in the spotlight, who want to change tiring traditions, have opinions or be paid a lot.
If we want change, allow it to come from all corners. Meghan Markle isn't changing traditions dramatically or out of spite - and she isn't doing it singlehandedly. Megan Rapinoe views aren't unique, yet they are allowing her to be herself, even during her highly publicised career. Vanessa Feltz, Claudia Winkleman and Zoe Ball are ambitious broadcasters and even though the older generation may have to cough up for a TV licence (which I do disagree with the BBC on), it isn't their fault - neither is it Gary Lineker's. Women have platforms and want things done their way, best we all embrace it.
Comments
Post a Comment