“British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents – decency, tolerance and respect,” a Downing Street spokesman told the BBC. “It is wrong for the president to have done this.”

Predictably, Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Theresa May, telling her, “don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine,” Trump claimed.

Yet in his haste to defend getting caught spreading fascist propaganda, Trump inadvertently tweeted his reply at somebody other than the Prime Minister.

The Metropolitan Police has faced a backlash from London mayor Sadiq Khan after it arrested an alleged rape victim over her immigration status.

The unnamed woman, in her 20s, attended a police station in London to report being kidnapped and abused during time she spent in Germany, before arriving in the UK.

While giving a victim statement, she told officers she had entered Britain illegally before being taken to a centre for rape survivors.

She was then arrested on suspicion of illegal entry into the UK and taken into custody.

Almost two decades ago, during the heady first months of the new millennium, an unruly baroness named Kate Gavron made a shocking suggestion. Prince Charles, she said, should have married someone black. It would be, she imagined, a powerful symbol of the monarchy’s commitment to racial integration and multiculturalism.

Gavron’s comments were not well received at the time. As is so often the case with race and the royals, far more interesting than these remarks themselves, were the media reactions to them. Some suspected this was merely a clandestine attempt at “getting rid” of the monarchy, erasing their heritage through interracial marriages. Not so much revolution, as racial dilution.
----------------------------
But we live in times defined also by identity. In recent years, the question of what it means to be British has been weaponised and politicised in new ways. Markle is, on one side of her family, directly descended from the plantation slavery of America’s Deep South - a history with which all of Britain’s powerful families, including the royals, are inextricably linked. He may not have realised it at the time, but by condemning the press reaction to his relationships with Markle, Prince Harry was aligning himself with those still dealing with the fallout of that history, and its very real legacy today.

If Prince Harry had wanted to find a way to make his role more relevant in modern Britain, he could have done a lot worse. And so while neither the reaction to his engagement to Markle, nor the reaction to the reaction, could ever have been planned, if engagements are meant to bring people together, this one is doing just that.

In an extensive interview with the Guardian, actress Susan Sarandon reaffirmed her belief that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton posed a greater threat to the country than President Donald Trump, stating, ” I think she was very dangerous.”

Sarandon, who has taken heat for her previous comments both before the election and after Trump won in 2016, was unapologetic despite what has transpired under the Republican president.

“Well, I knew that New York was going to go [for Hillary]. It was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein. Bringing attention to working-class issues is not a luxury,” Sarandon explained. “People are really hurting; that’s how this guy got in. What we should be discussing is not the election, but how we got to the point where Trump was the answer.”

Asked about her comment before the election that Clinton was more dangerous than Trump and if she stood by it, Sarandon said she was misquoted but wasn’t bothered by the sentiment.

“Not exactly, but I don’t mind that quote,” she stated. “I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.”