02 August 2019
The new royal couple, Harry and Meghan, have been at the centre of a number of controversies this year.
From writing messages of ‘empowerment’ on bananas to support sex workers, to spending £2.4m of taxpayer money on home-refurbishment, Harry and Meghan have not been shy about turning traditions upside down since their marriage in 2018.
This time, however, it is Harry in the eye of the storm as he revealed that he would want ‘two kids maximum’, because of climate change.
Speaking to conservationist, Jane Goodall, Harry confessed: “Two, kids, maximum. I’ve always thought this place in borrowed. And, surely, being as intelligent as we all are, or as evolved as we all are supposed to be, we should be able to leave something behind for the next generation. We are the frog in the water and it’s already been brought to the boil. Which is terrifying.”
Larger families are not sustainable?
Harry’s views appear to be in stark contrast to the actions of his brother, William. Since their marriage in 2011, William and Kate have welcomed three children, despite being branded by climate change-family planning activists, to have ‘set a bad example’ and urged never to reproduce again, in order to help save the planet.
In 2017, Having Kids, an environmentally concerned family planning charity wrote to the royal couple, ‘respectfully urging’ them to ‘forgo having a third child’.
The letter said: “Dear Prince William and Duchess Kate, we read with interest your statements about having more children. Larger families are not sustainable. As degraded as the world’s environment is today, none of us can imagine what the world would be like if fertility rates had not been halved in the 20th Century, below 3 children per woman. Rather than having a third or more children, consider forgoing another child and taking part of the substantial resources saved to help a different family plan a fair start in life for their child.”
Despite the astonishing assertion that forsaking the family is a climate friendly choice, such views have helped to form a contemporary trend. The concept of forgoing children for the climate has stormed social media platform, Twitter, and it appears to have won over Meghan and Harry also.
Are Meghan’s anti-life views seeping out?
The interview, where Harry’s controversial climate comments were made, was a contribution made for his wife, Meghan’s, September edition of Vogue Magazine.
Meghan is currently guest editing Vogue’s September edition, but has decided to withdraw her image from the cover, fearing it would look ‘boastful’ and instead has selected 15 privileged women who according to Meghan Markle are ‘breaking barriers.’
Meghan’s choices included Laverne Cox, a male who identifies as female, and actress Jameela Jamil, who has recently expressed her outrage at the prospect of mothers not being able to kill unborn humans in the state of Alabama or Georgia.
The actress chosen by Meghan Markle for her abilities in apparently ‘breaking barriers’, released a series of tweets in May 2019, in response to certain American states safeguarding unborn humans from the violent threat of abortion. Jamil branded the notion of being unable to kill unborn humans as ‘inhumane’ and ‘truly disgusting.’
One of Jamil’s disturbing tweets stated: “I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn’t want…So many children will end up in foster homes. So many lives ruined. So very cruel.”
Sadly, this is not the first instance that has suggested that Meghan Markle is anti-life. After meeting Meghan, in a quickly deleted tweet, Catherine Noone, a Fine Gael Senator, claimed that Meghan and herself had ‘chatted’ about the Irish abortion referendum. Noone stated in the tweet that Meghan informed her that she was ‘pleased’ with the referendum result, which repealed the Eight Amendment and permitted the killing of unborn humans.
Despite the expectation that British royals remain politically neutral, it appears that with Meghan Markle on the scene, political opinions of an anti-life kind can be aired without question by those in privileged positions.