Joanna Williams | The Spectator columnists & writers

Harry and Meghan have played a blinder

If bouquets and Bollinger were winging their way to Montecito last night they were well deserved. When Harry and Meghan met Oprah, the trio turned in the performance of their lives. From dramatic pauses, wiping away tears, hand-holding, Diana-reminiscent eye make-up, the English country garden-style backdrop interspersed with scenes from the chicken coup and shots of little Archie running along a Californian beach, to accusations and big reveals – everything was performed with absolute perfection. The build-up was justified. This did not disappoint. For Harry and Meghan, no doubt poring over press coverage, the success of their interview will be measured not in advertising revenue, or in viewing figures, but in public sympathy.

The stage-managed world of Harry and Meghan

Congratulations Meghan and Harry! Another baby. How lovely! You both look so happy and relaxed: all bare-foot, belly-cradling, fondly-gazing into each other’s eyes. It’s just adorable to hear that Archie can’t wait to become a big brother. And that the Queen and Prince Philip are delighted by the news of their tenth great grandchild; or eleventh if Zara gets there first. And so thoughtful to give a nod to Harry’s mum, Princess Diana, who also made a Valentine’s Day pregnancy announcement. I bet you were relieved to have that pesky case against the Mail on Sunday settled in time to break the news! Baby news! “We can confirm that Archie is going to be a big brother,” says a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan. “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are overjoyed to be expecting their second child.

Prince Harry should dial down his eco-alarmism

‘What if every single one of us was a raindrop?' I have no idea what goes into the Californian drinking water, but the Duke formerly known as Prince Harry seems to have been knocking it back. We are fortunate indeed that, despite having fled State-side to secure greater privacy, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex continue to send us regular character-improving missives. This week sees Harry return to a favourite theme: climate change. Speaking at an online event to mark the launch of WaterBear, a new subscription television platform for environmental and conservation documentaries, Harry pondered: ‘Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every single one of us was a raindrop, and if every single one of us cared?’ The ground in my little corner of Kent is far from parched right now, but I guess the fact I am also not a raindrop indicates that Harry is not speaking literally.

Don’t censor the anti-vaxxers

Pfizer has come up trumps. Now that a vaccine for Covid-19 is more than just a possibility, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief. But before we relax too much, a new problem arises: will people actually take it? A third of people in the UK – and half of people in the United States – say they are either uncertain or unlikely to agree to be vaccinated against coronavirus, according to research from the Royal Society and the British Academy. It’s easy to scorn anti-vaxxers. They are the tin-foil hat wearing idiots who set fire to 5G phone masts at the start of the ‘plandemic’. They are the 'reckless, 'shameful' and irresponsible parents who are happy to put their children at risk if it means getting one over on Big Pharma or the Tech Giants.

How the ‘diploma divide’ helps explain the US election result

If the US election was a television drama, the drum-roll end credits of the penultimate episode played this week and we are now waiting for the denouement. Only, there was never supposed to be a cliffhanger. An exhausted nation should have chosen boredom. Biden was meant to have been the clear victor and the political clock reset to a pre-2016 normality. But, in a plot twist that is by now so familiar we have no excuse for not anticipating it, opinion polls and commentators alike called it wrong. It’s not just in the US. All around the world, elections have become more difficult to predict. Traditional party loyalties have been shattered and old certainties have given way to new divisions in voting patterns.

Where have all the male teachers gone?

Should it matter whether a teacher is male or female? Research out on Monday from the Education Policy Institute shows that teaching is becoming an overwhelmingly female-dominated profession. Men are far less likely than women to become teachers in the first place and those that do take the plunge are much more likely to quit the classroom than their female colleagues. Primary schools have long been dominated by women. For the past five years the proportion of male primary teachers has remained constant at around 14 per cent of the workforce. But it is the ‘exodus of male teachers’ from secondary schools that is raising concern. The proportion of men in secondary schools has fallen year on year since 2010 and now stands at just 35.

The rise of the shy lockdown sceptic

‘Coronavirus could kill half a million Britons and infect 80 per cent of the UK population.’ ‘The number of coronavirus cases in England is doubling each week.’ ‘At least six English NHS trusts could be overwhelmed this winter.’ ‘Long-term effects of coronavirus include damage to heart, liver, kidneys.’ ‘Don’t kill your gran by catching coronavirus and then passing it on. And you can pass it on before you’ve had any symptoms at all.’ ‘Thank you for taking the time to complete our survey, Mrs Smith. My final question: do you support the government’s new lockdown rules?’ ‘Yes. I do. In fact, I don’t think they go far enough.’ If there was a public examination in coronavirus, the nation would score an A+. After six long months, we know all the right answers.

Why is the UN preaching about Covid and patriarchy?

Who can we blame for Covid-19? Over in the US, Trump is still desperately trying to make ‘the China virus’ and ‘the Wuhan flu’ stick. There can be no doubt where his finger is pointing. The United Nations, on the other hand, has a different target. The UN’s Twitter account notified the world yesterday that, ‘The #COVID19 pandemic is demonstrating what we all know: millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture which damages everyone – women, men, girls & boys.’ So, forget China. Coronavirus is an opportunity to bash the patriarchy. Trump’s China-blaming may have a basis in reality, though he no doubt welcomes any excuse to turn the spotlight abroad. But the patriarchy? Back in March, Michael Gove told us that ‘coronavirus does not discriminate’.

What’s galling about the Sussexes’ Netflix announcement

All year, the nation has been gripped by one mystery. Exactly how will Harry and Meghan fund the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed? How on earth will they pay for the Californian mansion (£11 million), the security detail (£5 million a year) and the costs of the Frogmore Cottage refurbishment (£2.4 million)? Well, now we know. The couple have signed up to a multi-million pound deal with Netflix that will see them producing ‘inspirational’ children’s programmes and documentaries. Hoping to follow in the footsteps of the Obamas, they will reportedly receive an exclusivity fee of £3.7m, up to £1.5m each year as a retainer, as well as fees for each show produced. A nature documentary and an animated series on inspirational women are already said to be in the pipeline.

In defence of Netflix’s ‘Cuties’

Somewhere on my coffee table lurks a recent Boden catalogue. It shows pictures of beautiful, healthy, impressively clean – and, of course, very well dressed – children. They spend their time cavorting on sunny beaches or striding down iconic London streets. This week, images of children have provided a rare moment of consensus in our ongoing culture war. Promotional material for a new film coming to Netflix, Cuties (or Mignonnes in the French original) has sparked widespread condemnation for portraying a sexualised image of young girls. The publicity campaign shows the film’s scantily-clad child stars in a provocative twerking pose. Following a social media backlash and a petition, Netflix has now apologised for ‘inappropriate artwork’ and removed the picture.

The myth of a ‘privacy loving’ Harry and Meghan

Is there anything we do not know about Harry and Meghan? They might have ‘stepped back’ as senior royals in order to avoid the media spotlight. They might have a habit of suing newspapers and photographers for breaching their privacy and a fondness for elaborate screens and fences around their various homes. But with the publication of Finding Freedom, there is surely no intimate detail of this apparently privacy-loving couple’s life that has not been made public. We now know, word for word, the advice big brother William offered Harry when his relationship with Meghan first seemed to be getting serious – and, of course, we know exactly what Harry thought of this ‘snobby’ intervention. We know about their first date: ‘it was as if Harry was in a trance’; we know that Meghan performed a ‘perfect’ yoga pose after discussing marriage with Harry; that she FaceTimed a friend from her bath to discuss her father; we know the exact meal Harry ate with the Queen before their final meeting at Windsor.

Could the Domestic Abuse Bill backfire against women?

The Domestic Abuse Bill, championed by Theresa May, could easily have fallen foul of Brexit, Boris Johnson, the suspension of Parliament, a new government or coronavirus. But the Bill has beat the odds: it was passed by the House of Commons this week and is currently making its way to the Lords. It’s pure coincidence that this Bill should be in the news at the very point the nation is emerging from lockdown and, collectively, beginning to take stock of the damage wreaked, not just by Covid-19, but the confining of people to their homes. One sadly predictable result of lockdown is that rates of domestic abuse are likely to have risen. Charities report a huge increase in calls to helplines and traffic to their websites.

Is this really the time for Harry and Meghan to continue their war on the tabloids?

Hats off to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. It’s hard to get the world’s attention in the middle of a global pandemic but the couple’s perseverance has finally paid off. When news of their plan to launch a charity, Archewell, was met by a collective sigh of ‘please, not now,’ they did not give up. Instead they spent time delivering food parcels to the Californian poor, Zooming the families of seriously ill children and recording a podcast praising volunteers for helping those in need. Hopefully, the charities Harry and Meghan have been working with, Project Angel Food and WellChild, have received some additional donations. And, as an added bonus, snaps of the couple wearing masks and carrying packages of food have been widely circulated.

Britain’s volunteer army shatters the #Covidiots myth

On Tuesday, the call went out for 250,000 volunteers to support the NHS in helping vulnerable people ‘stay safe and well at home’ during the coronavirus pandemic. In just one day, more than double that number had come forward to offer their services. So far, much of the discussion around Covid-19 has been dominated by a sneering cynicism of ordinary people. News coverage, amplifying views found all too readily on social media, has provided one long hectoring tirade against those who must shop, get to work, or have simply felt the need to sit in a park or walk on a beach. The 504,303 individuals who immediately volunteered their services challenges the contemptuous labelling of Britain as a nation of #Covidiots. I’ll confess: I’m not a huge fan of the militaristic rhetoric accompanying the call for a ‘volunteer army’.

Mhairi Black’s drag queen stunt has backfired spectacularly

Sometimes a politician displays such spectacularly bad judgement their only option is to lash out at their critics. This appears to explain how the SNP’s Mhairi Black has spent much of the past 24 hours. Black has never knowingly shied away from publicity. Perhaps then we shouldn’t be too surprised at her decision to pop along to a primary school for a reading session with a drag queen in tow. And not just any old drag queen but one with a penchant for sharing sexually explicit posts on social media. Children have always loved story time. Throwing drag queens into the mix is a far more recent development. Drag queen story hour took off in the US as anxious parents sought to tick off both a visit to the local library and lessons in gender fluidity in one trip.

Mhairi Black’s drag queen stunt has backfired spectacularly

Pharmacists shouldn’t be telling customers to lose weight

I’ve had a number of embarrassing run-ins with pharmacists. I discovered my daughter had headlice three days into our holiday in Pisa and was forced to mime both insects hopping and head-scratching for the benefit of an apparently drunk Italian chemist who claimed not to know a single word of English. This was nothing on having to shout about my need for the morning after pill for the benefit of a hearing-impaired teenager in a white coat and a lengthy queue of customers listening intently. But never has a pharmacist commented on my weight. This might be about to change. Under new guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), chemists are being urged to chat to customers about diet, alcohol consumption and smoking.

Harry and Meghan just can’t handle criticism

‘Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so.’ Back in 2017, when Meghan Markle was 'girlfriend' and not yet 'Duchess of Sussex,' Prince Harry was already expressing doubts about his future role. In a lengthy interview with US magazine Newsweek Harry explained, ‘I sometimes still feel I am living in a goldfish bowl,’ and described longing to be 'something other than Prince Harry.’ Since the announcement of their resignation from the royal firm, much attention has focused on Meghan. To some (well, perhaps just Eamonn Holmes) she’s ‘weak, manipulative and spoilt’. To others, she’s the perfect role model for young women everywhere. Meghan may be villain or victim but Harry is rarely portrayed as anything other than her puppet.

Prince Harry’s misguided attack on the press

It had all been going so well. Coverage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s tour to South Africa kicked off with footage of them dancing, before moving on to feature their work promoting the importance of gender equality in education and the horror of violence against women. We’ve been treated to rare pictures of baby Archie being introduced to Archbishop Desmond Tutu. And who doesn’t love a cute baby – especially one dressed in £14.99 chain store dungarees? So right on, but so relatable. We know all this because the press have been there, dutifully on message, diligently recording every royal smile. And the reward for this slick, glossy loyalty? Prince Harry has now made a no-holds barred attack on ‘this specific press pack’.

Morgan Freeman and the troubling direction of #MeToo

The film awards season is over and Cannes has been handed back to wealthy holiday-makers, yet the #MeToo movement shows no signs of slowing down. Morgan Freeman is the most recent addition to the ignominious list of film producers, directors and actors who have had accusations of sexual harassment made against them since #MeToo took off in October last year. Allegations against the 80 year-old Freeman, star of The Shawshank Redemption, emerged last week on the day before Harvey Weinstein handed himself into police in New York on charges of rape. The charges against Weinstein are serious; he should stand trial and, if found guilty, face a lengthy prison sentence. Yet the #MeToo label puts Freeman and Weinstein into the same category: both have abused their power in order to sexually harass women.

Is sex too messy for millennials?

They may have perfected the sexy selfie and a nonchalance about internet porn but millennials are just not that into sex. The guilty secret behind today’s swipe-right hookup culture is not promiscuity but abstinence. Research out this week suggests that one in eight 26-year-olds have never had sex, up from one in 20 a generation ago. According to Steve McKay, professor in social research at Lincoln University, the true figure may be even higher; if those who refused to answer the question were also virgins then the number of abstainers rises to 16.4 per cent, or one in six. Last year’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles revealed a similar story, showing that 23 per cent of 16-24 year-olds had not had sex in the past year.

Giving millennials £10,000 won’t tackle the generation gap

David Willetts, one time minister of state for universities and science turned chief spokesperson for baby boomer self-flagellation, is clearly troubled by the year of his birth. Since his 2010 book, The Pinch: How the baby boomers took their children’s future and why they should give it back, he’s been desperately seeking atonement for the privileges that happy date accrued. Now, thanks to a report from the Resolution Foundation, we know the precise cost of easing Willetts’s conscience: £10,000 – to be made payable to every 25 year old. A cheque for £10,000 landing on the doormat will no doubt make hitting the quarter of a century milestone a little sweeter for Britain’s put-upon millennials. But the assumptions of the report’s authors, the Intergenerational Commission led by Willetts, may well leave a bitter aftertaste.

Pilot Tammie Jo Shults sets an example for young women everywhere

School girls have a new heroine this week. Tammie Jo Shults was the pilot onboard Tuesday’s ill-fated flight from New York to Dallas. She safely negotiated an emergency landing after one of the aeroplane’s engines broke up, throwing debris into the fuselage. One passenger died after being partially sucked through a broken window. This could so easily have been a much bigger tragedy. That no one else on board that plane died is thanks to the skill and bravery of Shults. The audio of her calmly informing air traffic controllers, ‘We are single engine. Descending,’ followed by: ‘There is a hole and someone went out,’ is astonishing to hear. Her name should be echoing around assembly halls and her image adorning classroom posters.

Sex education now means whatever schools want it to mean

I’ve never shied away from discussing sex with my children and they’ve always been precocious enough to ask probing questions, usually in public. So when the letter came home from school announcing sex education classes for my then ten-year-old, I was relaxed. And when I later asked him, ‘Did you learn anything you didn’t already know?’, I expected a bored ‘no’. In fact, he said, ‘Yes. Oral sex and masturbation.’ Clearly sex education has moved on since I was at school. Schools have traditionally covered reproduction in science lessons and, since the 1960s, sex education as a discrete subject has dealt with contraception, sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancy. David Perks, head of East London Science School, began teaching in the mid-1980s.

Tackling the gender pay gap could leave us all worse off

It's International Women’s Day. As feminists rush to detail the many disadvantages still facing women (yes, all women, everywhere) we’ll no doubt hear a great deal about the gender pay gap. In that regard, International Women’s Day is a bit like every other day of the year. But let’s go with it. According to the Office for National Statistics, the gap between the median hourly earnings of men and women working full time is 9.1 per cent. The Fawcett Society prefers the mean figure of 14.1 per cent. Actually, they’d like us to focus on the gap between the total average earnings of men compared to women – about 18.4 per cent. Whatever. When we compare the pay of men and women doing the same jobs, at the same level, for the same number of hours the pay gap shrinks into insignificance.

Maternity leave isn’t all good news for business

The never-ending churn of stories explaining why it is awful to be a woman has a new focus. A survey of workplace ‘decision-makers’ published this week has exposed the shocking news that some employers think maternity leave can be a bit inconvenient. That’s right: some sexist and uncaring bosses do not feel delight when mum-to-be announces her plans but instead worry about the impact on the bottom line. A poll conducted for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has revealed that almost 60 per cent of employers think a woman applying for a job should disclose whether she is pregnant. Of the 1,106 male and female 'decision-makers' surveyed, 46 per cent think it is reasonable, during a recruitment process, to ask women if they have young children and 36 per cent think they should be able to ask if she plans to start a family.

Modern feminists aren’t a patch on the suffragettes

Today's centenary of the Representation of the People Act is in danger of becoming a rose-tinted celebration of votes for women. But it’s worth us remembering this historic legislation with more clarity, so that the anniversary does not get used as an excuse for curtailing democracy once more. For a start, the Act only extended the franchise to some women – those over the age of thirty, who were occupiers of property or married to occupiers. Younger women still had to wait another decade before they could enjoy the same rights. What’s largely forgotten today is that the 1918 Act newly enfranchised more than five million men, mainly working-class men without property. As a result, the electorate tripled from 7.7 million to 21.

The ‘new suffragettes’ are nothing of the sort

As surely everyone must by now know, 2018 marks the centenary of women securing the vote in Britain. This monumental event represented a giant leap forward for sexual equality and is truly deserving of commemoration. There will, rightly, be television programmes, books column inches and tea towels marking the anniversary. Everyone should know about Sylvia Pankhurst, Emily Davison, Millicent Fawcett and their comrades. But there is a danger with every national commemoration that history is rewritten: in the retelling, some facts are conveniently forgotten and others distorted. We forget that 1918 also marks the first year that all men were able to vote and that suffrage was only granted to a proportion of women over the age of 30, those who owned property or were married to a property owner.

Feminism is holding women back

It’s easy to see why the online dictionary Merriam-Webster chose ‘feminism’ as their word of the year. 2017 kicked off with women across the globe marching against Donald Trump and ended with Time magazine heralding the #MeToo ‘silence breakers’ as their person of the year. Every glossy double-page spread further established feminism as this year’s fashion. Head cheerleader Jessica Valenti, writing in the Guardian (naturally) is cock-a-hoop about feminism’s resurgence: ‘Now we just have to continue to make it the movement of the year (and next year, and the next) until women can start to feel safe in their own country.’ Which would make perfect sense if Valenti was referring to women in Darfur or Yemen or Rohingya women fleeing Burma.