www.owohrod.com.

  So, no, I do not think that it would be justified for Harry and Meghan to continue to sacrifice themselves and suffer a mentally torturous life, so that HRH the Queen, is not discomfited.  Especially when she is the one person above all others who could have prevented her grandson and his wife from having to suffer as much pain as they have had to endure. And what of Prince Charles, Harry's father? Should Harry and Meghan have not bailed out and go public, and thereby spare Prince Charles the further embarrassment he will have had to also endure?  Had he done as much as he could have done, as opposed to what he might have felt himself limited to do?  Well, based on what Harry had said and not said in the interview with Oprah.   It is not clear that Harry's dad had done as much as he might or wanted to have done.  But it is definitely that he had not done as much as his son expected him to have done.  Yes, it is true that children, even adult ones, can drive their parents to d

  But now is now. We are living in the time and space of the 21st Century.  We have become adults and have developed our intellect.   Our knowledge and our understanding of the world have increased.  To the extent where we, us humans, are demonstrably more powerful than any of the imaginary the gods.  We are more powerful than even Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, of the Jewish people.   Who have succeeded in becoming what we might call the Paramount God.  But still powerless when compared with the achievements of us humans. Why, then, should we continue to accept as a reality, the ancient assertion we have inherited from our ancestors?  The assertion that a sentient being, a God, had, in the distant past, spent 7 days creating our ancestors and the world, and the observable and unobservable Cosmos?  Why should we persist in appearing to accept this unproven account, as if it were a demonstrable fact?  Albeit a fact which has been driven into the subconscious and the conscious minds

  They, as the agency having official responsibility for and direct contact with children and families.  who are at risk of harm, or requiring safeguarding.   Know that they, after the perpetrator of any crime, will be the first to be blames and pushed under the proverbial bus.  Their practice will be subjected to thorough scrutiny.  When did they last visited the family? Did they see the child? Did they see the child on his/her own and examined the child?  Were they aware of any conflict between the parents?  Were they being too gullible about what the parents were telling them?  Were they being vigilant and thorough enough in their practice?  When did they last liaise with other relevent agencies having direct contact with the child and/or her family?  For team managers, there are questions such as: When did you last supervised the social worker?  When did you last examine the social worker's case files, and were they upto date?  In many cases they are unlikely to be upto date. U

  But HRH the Queen, for whatever reasons, had not done so, because, if she had, we would not have been hearing about the dysfunctional management of the Monarchy from the Court of Oprah.  And so, in our moment of lucidity and logical thinking, we could argue that.   With the Queen having failed to do her duty to her family and the Monarchy.   And with other senior members of the Royal Household and Monarchy having also failed in their duty.  Harry and Meghan had no likely effective option, but to resort to seemingly extreme and desperate measure of going public in a big way. I mean, what are they, Harry and Meghan to do? Stay put and suffer and go mad in silence? If so, to whose benefit? Certainly not theirs or their immediate family.  Are they to immerse themselves in their ascribed roles, become robotised and continue to perform their Royal roles like trained monkeys or parrots?  Like probably so many other Royals before and currently are doing and having to do?  If so, again, why;

  As the adage or old story goes, one should not wash dirty linen or clothes in public. Why?  Because that is your and your family's business. If a family has problems or wants to tear itself apart, that is their private business; let them solve it themselves or keep destroying themselves. So, it is not surprising that many, probably tens of millions of people, including myself, had or still have serious misgivings about whether or not Prince Harry, and his wife,  Meghan, should have contracted with Oprah Winfrey, to publicly air their account of what appears to have been a miserable and forlorn couple of years as members of the British Royal Family.  Some people will ask, why should they not have done so? Others will be quite category in asserting that they were justified in doing what they have done and how they did it. So, what reasons might we cite, in arguing that Harry and Megan should not have washed the Royal Family's dirty linen in public?  Might we argue that in doing

  The opportunity for them to cross the proverbial rubicon, and to rethink, re-set and pursue their own path/s.  And cease to servilely and obediently trod behind behind the United States along the 'Americana path or trail.'  Countries like Russia, which has had to pursue the path of greater self-reliance, following the continuing maintenance of sanctions against the Russian people.  Countries like France and Germany, which, although seemingly over-reliant on the 'American-umbrella.'   Despite its precondition that the tie themselves up, hands and feet, and eschew their autonomy.  Have, with the onset of Trumpianism, become aware that the cost of doing so, is no longer tenable for or befitting a self-respecting nation.  Countries like China, which has remained steadfast in pursuing its own worldview.  Irrespective of the hostility and cost its detractors have and are trying to subject it to. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which, while it was, under the machiavellianist

  But, of course, it would not have been massively difficult for Kazaliwa to rationalise away.   Any apparent incongruence  in him wanting, even insisting on having the freedom to do his own thing, be his own man.  While still having to rely on his parents supporting him with the essentials of life, including providing him with a roof over his head and food for his belly.  That, after all, is the defacto expectation that probably all children, in times of need, have of their parents.  It is, at times, perceived by the 'child' as a prerogative of theirs, which is not or should not be conditional on them accepting limits on their freedom. And so it was, that, not having considered how their demands on Kazaliwa's self-perceived right to live his life.   His parents laid down demands which were certain to cause tensions in their relationship with their son.  Even though they were not demands which were put in place to make Kazaliwa's life difficult.  To be continued!