Janet Street Porter
Physician heal thyself, Janet
Hello dears. I would like to make it clear to all my readers that I am a diehard republican; I want to see an end to monarchies, everywhere, and the British monarchy in particular. I am not nasty about it, and I wish no member of the royal family any ill-doing. That is not my way. Please do not even attempt to post your arguments for retaining a monarchy, as I shall not approve them. Undemocratic of me? Yeah, how democratic is the monarchy? I couldn’t care less if a monarch costs less than a president (which I sincerely doubt), I believe anyone becoming head of state by accident of birth is long-outdated feudalism which has no place in modern society.
And with that rant out of the way, I hope you all understand that his article is not in defence of little Prince George because he is sometingth in line to the throne; it is to defend him as a little boy, and to speak out on someone who claims to have socialist principles using bigotry to attack him.
Prince George, son of Prince William, celebrated his second birthday on 22 July. On the woman’s magazine programme Loose Women on the UK’s ITV television channel, referring to a photo of George with his father, the panel all wished him a happy birthday. All apart from celebrity journalist (?) and TV presenter, Janet Street Porter, who downright refused to do so. Instead Porter shocked the panel by stating “Quite frankly he looks like a cross-dressing millionaire. He does, he’s a millionaire, and he’s got a girl’s blouse on! All over the country it’s other two-year-old’s birthday’s, so happy birthday commoners!”
Some republicans were no doubt agreeing with Ms Porter, but not this one. By deriding George because of his attire as “cross-dressing” and “he’s got a girl’s blouse on”, she has immediately chosen to castigate him because his attire appears feminine in her eyes. And so what if it was feminine? So what if it was a girl’s blouse? He’s two years old, for christ’s sake. How many toddlers play “dress-up” and don attire that is feminine, perhaps even girl’s clothing? Quite a large proportion I would guess. Show me the little boy who is not allowed to do so and I shall show you a child whose expression and individuality is being suppressed by ignorant, homophobic and transphobic adults.
And this is an important point. Just who do Janet Street Porter’s words help? Nobody but herself to make a cheap political point. They certainly do not help the cause against homophobia and transphobia, as she is merely reinforcing ignorant, bigoted stereotypes and abetting those who ascribe to them. She does not help LGBTQI children, as her words will be repeated by many bullies who pick on such children up and down the country. She does not help the progress of changing cishet attitudes to the LGBTQI community, far from it she merely helps to entrench bigotry.
What if Prince George did turn out to be transgender or genderqueer? Do her words help either camps? Or do they merely further abet a monarchy which for hundreds of years has made excuses and downright lied about their own LGBTQI members, when it’s been obvious to all that some kings and princes have been FABULOUS!? To this day there are apologists who try to claim that England’s King Edward II merely had a ‘loving friendship’ with his favourite, Piers Gaveston. Hmm, except that Edward dressed outrageously, gave Gaveston – who was equally fabulous – all the queen’s jewels, and would enter court with Gaveston on his arm, while the queen walked behind. And of course, we all know what goes on in the expensive fee-paying schools princes are sent to, yet the establishment and monarchists will flatly deny that any royal prince has never sought a ‘little comfort’ from another boy while at any such school.
And as long as the establishment, the monarchy and their supporters are pedalling such utter guff, they make being anything other than cishet appear abnormal. And thus accusations of cross-dressing are used to smear others by ignorant and hateful bigots – like Janet Street Porter. She does no favours to socialism, because she has actively chosen to single out a 2-year-old and treat him as different from every other toddler, which is hardly a socialist principle. Neither does she help republicanism because she has decided to target a child far too young to understand his position in the establishment.
Put Prince George in a nursery full of kids of the same age from council schemes and high-rise flats and he would no doubt play with them and make little friends (and little enemies), as any toddler would. Children that young are like that – they have no side with them.
“An old dog will always love you, though you sometimes make mistakes.
God bless the little children, while they’re still too young to hate.
Ain’t nothin’ in this world is worth a single dime,
‘cept old dogs and little children, and some watermelon wine.”
(Tom T Hall, “Watermelon Wine”)
So, seeing as she is so perfect, so holier-than-thou, I decided to do a little digging about Janet Street Porter. Seems Ms Porter isn’t short of a few bob herself, with one commentator stating that she is worth around £6 million. What we do know is that she has three homes. Oh such great socialist principles.
So Janet, dear, should you stumble upon this and are reading it, given that you have so much money, for fuck’s sake go spend some of it on decent dental work done. Not only do you look like a fucking horse every time you open your mouth, it affects your speech and you sound like you’re chewing a fucking toffee every time you talk.
And surely someone with your assets could afford a plastic surgeon? Go get a fucking nose job, for fuck’s sake. The last time I saw a nose like that was at the Museum of Flight, where I saw Concorde. I mean, really, how can you even kiss someone with that monstrosity in the way? Not that anyone would ever wish to kiss an ugly hag like you.
At least you could do something about that hair of yours. No! Dyeing it that shade of red does not help, it only makes matter worse. As for the top you were wearing on Loose Women, I am sure my mum had fibreglass curtains just like that in the 1970s. And with what appear to be jogging bottoms, showing off just how big your bum is? Really? Do humanity a favour and go see a fashion expert, because – dang!
Not nice, is it dears?
Of course, I don’t mean a word of it. But it shows that if I choose to, I can be a far bigger bitch than Janet Street Porter, and I will only use that bitchiness when I think someone deserves it.
And the huge difference is? I would never be a complete bitch to a 2-year-old toddler, no matter who their family happens to be. Unlike Janet Street Porter, I am simply not that mean.
Finally, Prince George’s his top is not a girl’s blouse – the buttons are on the right, but then it has long been commonplace, especially among the gentry, to dress their little ones in clothing which appear feminine. Indeed, 150 years ago little boys were still being dressed in dresses until they reached school age.
Oh, and he is simply adorable in that pic. But then, I’m not seeing two members of the royal family; I am only seeing a very happy wee boy, who obviously loves his daddy, and who is well-loved in return.
Belated happy birthday George, from Auntie Xandra. xx
George and William
Xandra 
You must be logged in to post a comment.