That is a good question, Julia, because anyone who knew Drudge knew the result. I suspect it was an anti-royalist in the vein Issodhos represented earlier, who would not want the royals to gain credibility by showing that he actually served (unlike our current President) in combat, and with distinction. All in all, pretty tawdry and petty, as can be expected from Drudge who has the ethics of an alleycat.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich