Buckingham Palace Under Pressure To Investigate Meghan And Harry’s Claims Of Racism.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/buckingham-palace-under-pressure-to-investigate-meghan-and-harrys-claims-of-racism_n_60462b8ac5b69078ac6cef6e

They investigate Meghan for supposed rudeness to her staff, but silence statutory rape allegations against Prince Andrew?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenews.com.pk/amp/800020-palace-blasted-for-probing-meghan-markle-and-not-prince-andrew

It reminds me of the abusive MORmON CULT I was born into, that I witnessed in numerous cases, where victims were blamed, shamed and silenced, while child rapist were protected, in the interest of ‘Protecting the good name of the church’. I’ve seen MORmON parents disown their own kids to protect the abusive CULT they were born into, and protect the rapists who raped their own children. I gave deposition in one of those cases and told the attorney representing my childhood friends my experience with witnessing this with my own eyes and he said he has won numerous lawsuits against the Catholic Church and the Mormon church and he’s seen a real difference between the two. When a Catholic comes forward with allegations of sexual abuse they suffered as a child at the hands of a Priest, their families rally around them and turn against the church. Just the opposite is true in almost every case with Mormons, who turn on their own children and defend the church tooth and nail.
My best friend and his Brother were both raped over a 4year period by our Mormon Scout Master, who was a known pedophile before they made him our scout master for 4yrs. When they both came forward with their own stories of having been raped as children, their parents threatened them with being disowned if they participated in the massive lawsuit our mutual friend brought against the church. LDS INC flew a team of lawyers out to WA State to silence anybody involved with the suit or contemplating joining it. It worked in my best friend’s case. He refused to cooperate and turned on our mutual friend. As a result, our mutual friend has been a retired multi millionaire for the past 20yrs and my best friend is still a broke working stiff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 02:53PM by schrodingerscat.

Lots of mixed race families in the UK and this drama is the same as what happens in other families in both Britain and America.

"What will the kids look like? What kind of hair? Can they go to grandma's house? Is the sister-in-law saying bad things? This is just going to hurt grandpa, it's revenge, etc."


The only difference that it's on television for all of us to see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 02:22PM by anybody.

Yep. Racism is alive and well in the UK and in the US.
Who knew that the British Monarchy, which financed the slave trade and subjugated and exploited black and brown people all over the globe, would still be racist in the 21st Century?

John Oliver called it 3 years ago.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-oliver-warning-meghan-markle_n_604635e5c5b60208556074b8



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 05:24PM by schrodingerscat.

The slave trade is much older than 400 years and certainly was not started by Britain or the Crown.

Your two posts in this thread are correct, but don't expect any learning curve by OP. He speaks in sweeping and inaccurate generalizations.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The slave trade is much older than 400 years and
> certainly was not started by Britain or the Crown.

True, that's something I just heard, but didn't verify. I corrected it, which doesn't change my main point one iota, racism should come as no surprise in such a deeply racist outdated institution.

Evidence please of its racism or are you just taking MM's word at face value. As to being outdated you are entitled to your opinion but I think the British public largely think otherwise.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evidence please of its racism or are you just
> taking MM's word at face value. As to being
> outdated you are entitled to your opinion but I
> think the British public largely think otherwise.

Did you watch the interview?

'Royalty is not a shield from the despair of racism'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56320101

British royal family plunged into crisis after Harry and Meghan allege racism

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/uk/oprah-harry-meghan-interview-monday-gbr-scli-intl/index.html

Harry and Meghan accuse British royal family of racism

https://www.axios.com/harry-meghan-accuse-british-royal-family-racism-a406fec1-ef71-4a1c-aece-a36e3f43a6f5.html

That would be a "yes, I'm 'just taking MM's word at face value.'"

So the only evidence you have is MM's claim. Got it.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the only evidence you have is MM's claim. Got
> it.
Harry made the same claims against his own family. I believe the victims, typically, not the perpetrators.

The only evidence of racism I heard of was the one family member who wondered about the baby's possible skin color. I took that to probably be an older and more distant family member such as Princess Michael of Kent. Apart from that, the only other item with a question mark was the refusal to give Archie a title and the accompanying privileges. Since that title would have to be approved by the Queen, whom they otherwise esteem, my guess is that there were other reasons for that.

I have no doubt that racism had at least some part in the treatment of Meghan by the press, but if she didn't expect that going in, she was rather naive.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only evidence of racism I heard of was the one
> family member who wondered about the baby's
> possible skin color. I took that to probably be an
> older and more distant family member such as
> Princess Michael of Kent.

I agree with most of your post but think this is incorrect. A distant family member would not have any involvement in these matters. Moreover, if it were such a character Meghan and Harry would have said explicitly that the person/people involved were not in the royal family. What they said, however, was it wasn't the queen or Phillip. In other words, it was Charles or Camilla or Andrew or Anne or William or Kate or some combination of the above.

Meghan was given a chance to exonerate anyone she wanted and was thereafter afforded a long pause in which to expand upon her answer. She and Harry, who was the person involved, refrained from exonerating anyone but the queen and Phillip.

Eh, I think Meghan just has a gripe against all of them (Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, etc.,) and was willing to throw them under the bus by not exonerating them in this matter. I don't know, but my best guess is that they saw signs of Meghan rebelling against the program early on, and that affected their relationships. Also, I think Meghan held them responsible for something that was beyond their control -- how the press treated her. What Meghan did not take into account is that they've all taken their lumps from the press, even Harry.

Princess Michael of Kent is a royal and has a history of being clueless and insensitive about racial matters. That's why she's my pick. They do all see each other at family gatherings, weddings, and other social events.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2021 12:07AM by summer.

A few observations.

First, concern about the child's skin color would not be a topic that arose at a scripted social event. It is, rather, a matter that the insiders would be worried about. I think you are also overlooking Meghan's relatively generous statements about Kate. Meghan was fairly precise in her comments about people.

Second, recall that the RF feeds stories to the tabloids. How, for instance, did the press learn that the RF is conducting an investigation of whether Meghan was rude to servants? Why not, for that matter, investigate Prince Andrew's alleged sex with underage girls; or Charles, who is famous for throwing things at people, for boorish behavior to his servants?

The notion that the RF is above the fray here is inaccurate. They hold parties for the tabloid reporters; they leak information; they spin things. The same thing happened to Diana.

I state again that I don't think Meghan could ever have succeeded in that family. No one outside of a narrow range of social circles stands a chance. Harry made a big mistake, or Meghan did, or they both did. I am not absolving them of responsibility for this debacle, but the RF and/or their representatives have gone to the press about Meghan more than once; and Harry and she did not receive a settlement like Diana's.

If they are going to marry commoners or, as a Royal watcher said, a woman "five clicks up from trailer trash," then the RF have to have a system for managing their exits. The lack of forethought in that regard may doom the monarchy.

.. Just by their stupidity at exercising it. I've never been a monarchist (which is reasonably rare among Brits) but I do wish M & H well because I know the viciousness of the British tabloid and the fact that the mob who read them consider that they OWN Harry. He's quite right to want to get out. Otherwise neither he nor his wife and family will have a decent life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 03:17PM by Soft Machine.

I’m not a Royal Watcher either, but I am glad to see targets of blatant racism speaking out against the royal hypocrisy of it and drag the outdated Imperialists into the 21st Century kicking and screening, 21 years after the fact.

I'm going to bet that it wasn't anyone in Queen Elizabeth's direct line who made that remark. My bet is on Princess Michael of Kent, who was the royal family member who wore the blackamoor broach to a lunch with Megan. Or it could have been someone else equally clueless in the older generation of the extended family.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/princess-apologizes-after-wearing-brooch-deemed-racist-lunch-meghan-markle-n832211

As for being cut off financially (another complaint that was made by the Duke,) you would also be cut off financially if you quit your job. He is off of the Sovereign List because he is no longer performing royal duties. However, with a reported net worth of at least $10 million, and up to $40 million plus, mostly from a bequest by his mother, I'm not going to feel sorry for him. The Duchess came to the marriage with her own net worth in the millions as well. They put $5 million down on their house in Montecito, and inked a $100 million deal with Netflix. They are not in danger of having the lights shut off for lack of payment.

I do believe what they said about the British press and its propensity to make up stories and conflicts where they don't exist. I have no doubt that it was very difficult for them both, and is difficult for any newcomer to the royal family.

I do feel that the earlier decision to not give baby Archie a royal title (with the resulting security) does need to be examined for possible bias.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 05:33PM by summer.

Re: Archie not receiving the title of "Prince" at birth, that decision follows protocol set out in the Letters Patent issued by George V in 1917.

According to the Letters Patent, the children of the reigning monarch are titled Prince and Princess. Following that, the grandchildren of the reigning monarch who descend from any SONS of the monarch receive titles. Hence, all of the Queen's grandchildren with the exception of Princess Anne's two children are designated and entitled to be called Prince and Princess.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent,in the generation of great grandchildren, only George as the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales is entitled to be titled a Prince, as he is in the direct line of succession (Elizabeth-Charles-William-George). However, once Charles takes the throne, ALL of his grandchildren will have the title of Prince or Princess.

In 2012, the Queen issued Letters Patent modifying the 1917 Letters before George's birth, stating that all of William's children would be titled at birth. This was because under the 1917 protocol, only the oldest son of William would have been eligible to be a Prince at birth, and had the baby been a girl she would have been a "Lady" until Charles took the throne. That would apparently not have been appropriate. It was a way of ensuring that whoever was born first would be an HRH right off the bat.

I don't think there is any evidence of bias in the case of Archie's lack of title, and I kind of think Meghan was in the process of explaining that to Oprah last night, but maybe Oprah didn't hear her clearly because she went on to ask the question about whether the dark skin was a factor, or something like that.

Sorry, this was a little wordier than I anticipated!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 07:23PM by looking in.

Thanks for the explanation. I think the Queen changed it because now the monarch is the first born in the line regardless of sex.

Also, I believe Archie could have been given one of Harry's subsidiary titles.

I can see which side you chose to believe. That said, can you explain why a supposedly racist monarchy, with the kind of power you attribute to it, was not sufficiently powerful enough to stop the marriage in the first place if they objected on racial grounds?

Britain certainly played a part in the slave slave trade but it was also the first major player in recognizing the error of slavery and used its might in efforts to stamp it out, often at the risk of minor wars and military actions. All this 30 years b efore the US came to its senses on the issue and that very much against the will of numerous states that profited heavily from it.

>>I can see which side you chose to believe. That said, can you explain why a supposedly racist monarchy, with the kind of power you attribute to it, was not sufficiently powerful enough to stop the marriage in the first place if they objected on racial grounds?

Exactly. The Queen approved the marriage to a woman who was not only of mixed racial ancestry, but who also had a problematic family, was divorced, and who worked as an actor. She approved the both of them stepping away from royal duties and moving to California. Perhaps the Queen didn't do everything that she possibly could have, but she did a lot.

Meghan may not even be the first biracial member of the British royal family. Many belief that Queen Charlotte was biracial as well.

Let me state for the record that I am a monarchist. If it ends that will be the choice of the people of the UK. The entity of the Crown, I believe, is more about the institution and its place in the system than it is about the individual who wears it. The entity of the Crown is the heart and soul of the the nation with a living embodiment in the person sitting on the throne, and in no less a way than the Constitution is to the United States. The monarch exercises very little power in and of themselves but its value is very much in the power that is denied to others whose ambition, political power, and greed can be corrupted. Her position places her above all that. When people bow to the Queen it is a demonstration of respect to the nation she embodies as much as it is to her personally. I believe it is very easy to snipe and criticize the Queen especially since her position does not allow her to respond in the ways most of would respond.

From across the pond, I support the monarchy in Great Britain as well. I think it gives a steadying influence that rises above politics. However it is always up to the British people if it's something they wish to perpetuate.

Agreed.

Although I think the Queen has managed spectacularly for a very long time, I'm not sure the younger generations have anywhere near her level of competence and character. Charles is an entitled brat, Andrew very possibly a child molester. And the job itself is a huge lifelong burden, so people leaving seems increasingly probable.

I wouldn't have said this two years ago, but I wonder if the monarchy will survive much longer. This Meghan-gate may one day be seen retrospectively as a turning point. That's not a value judgment--while recognizing the importance of the institution, I'm agnostic about it--just a political observation.

MM also, SPECIFICALLY, that it was not the Queen, nor her husband that said this. She and Harry, wanted it known that it was someone else.

Yep.

I have been a supporter of the institution of Monarchy, any Monarchy, since I learned to curtsey.

Long live Queen Elizabeth! (Big Fan!!)

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/basenji-ballerina-dog-1053146390

But drag queens? We'll save that for another thread.

Archie is not the first to receive no titles. Princess Anne’s and Prince Edward’s children are not Prince or Princess. They seem to have turned out fine.

It ain’t just the titles, it’s questioning Archie’s skin tone and how it will look in photos. I always thought of them as out of touch with reality, naturally, but disparaging a kid for his skin tone before he is even born, when he’s 3/4 white and we are all 99.9% genetically identical anyways?
I have no problem checking the African box when my ancestors came from there not so long ago. And all of us came from Africa ultimately. I mean the .1% that accounts for all the genetic diversity on the planet is nothing compared to the 99.9% that makes us the same kind, kin, which ought to make us more kind to one another.
You’d think superficial distinctions, like skin color, would be reason to celebrate that genetic diversity, ESPECIALLY, in that horse faced inbred idiot royal family.
That and they refused to allow Meagan to see a counselor when she was suicidal from the bullying and racism, because it wouldn’t be good optics.
To hell with optics.
It was a matter of life or death and they’d rather have a dead princess than a tarnished image in the press.
Now look at them with egg on their faces.
A laughing stock all over the world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 07:45PM by Tevai.

                                       que droll

To hell &with paragraphs
coherence
God=Lambda +/- 1
Einstein
E=MCHammer^2
John Oliver and Bill Oscar Maher Wieners
Eat S***
internet rando
Lamdba bless yous and yours.

Now ageing balsa wood owe Gladys a nickel.



ETA: Sam Harris


ETA: New Athe-tao-ists



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 10:23PM by Lot's Wife.

 

Why yes, Jesus, I do!

You should try it; it's cathartic!

Now I understand why you named your son Laotzu Logos de Tyson Sagan!

>>That and they refused to allow Meagan to see a counselor when she was suicidal

Diana saw a counselor, so that doesn't quite add up to me.

I have no doubt that it can be very difficult for a non-royal to adapt to the royal way of life, but my feeling after watching the interview is that it was presenting one point of view only. It might be interesting to get William and Kate's point of view about the situation, but we never will.

When Meghan talked about feeling isolated after sitting at home for months, I was thinking, what do you think the rest of us have been doing during the pandemic? It made her seem a little spoiled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2021 11:35PM by summer.

No decision was made to deny Archie the title of prince. It is part of protocol established many years ago. I call baloney on the racism charge. No context was given on the supposed comment and Harry and Megan could not agree when the comment was supposedly made. I think they are two people casting about for reasons to substantiate their decision to move on. I have no problem with that but neither the RF and by extension the country's system deserve that. They made their choice and should just move on.

I agree on the racism charge. It's too easy to scream 'racism' whenever a comment is made referencing someone's colour or ancestry. I doubt there's anyone in the RF who is anti-Meghan on the basis of her skin colour.

She is American and a 'commoner' and is clearly not interested in being Royal. Her skin colour would be a fourth order issue.

First, let's get this out of the way.

A lot of the "Princess Pushy" stuff seems to be result of misconception or miscommunication.

Meghan said that she only wanted security for her child, title or no title because of racist abuse. If ennobling the child would be the only way to do that, she asked that an exception be made.


Second, there is a cultural insensitivity problem. Americans have more of a cultural history dealing with race and racism than most Brits do. Americans know what it is but don't know or can't decide on what to do about it. Although there have been black people in Britain since medieval (and even Roman times) there were relatively very few of them and most people in Britain really didn't come into contact with black people until during and after WW2. Brits tend to be more subtle about things and if they want to be racist, they'll do it without really saying they are doing it.


Third, Americans are not used to the rigid class system, court protocol, or the royal pecking order -- which was even more strict in continental Europe. There's a famous story about a native king from a German colony who was invited to a state dinner with the Kaiser. When some of the other nobles complained about having a black man seated closer to the Kaiser than they were, the Kaiser reportedly told them something like "n-word or not, he is a king and you are duke."


My take on this is that they -- the couriers and the royal establishment and "society" -- i.e. snobs -- didn't another Diana on their hands. Being a mixed race American just made it worse. Hence the "ignore your black half" and "how dark will the child be" comments. By the way, Lichtenstein has a young black prince by the way -- son of the second in line to the throne and his Afro-Panamanian American wife.


I say this because logically, the common sense thing to do would be to have them tour the ex-colonial Commonwealth countries as representatives of a modern "in-touch," inclusive nobility. That didn't happen. Why? Instead, Meghan became a prisoner in her own home. The fake tabloid "Kate vs. Meghan" stories were ridiculous. I'd leave too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2021 09:39AM by anybody.

>..Americans are not used to the rigid class system, court protocol, or the royal pecking order

I think this is a big part of how difficult it can be for non-Brits to join "The Firm" and make a smooth transition from their former life to the new one. In the case of Diana, Harry's mother, even being considered part of the aristocracy, she was not prepared, apparently, for the realities involved in being a main member of the Royal Family. It would be much stranger to anyone not aware of the history and protocol and expectations that would suddenly be pressing on every aspect of their life and will.

In the interview with Meghan, Oprah said something to the effect of "you obviously would have done a ton of research before marrying into the British Royal Family". Meghan said "No, I didn't do any research".

This would likely seem strange to many, that Meghan would have made such a momentous and life-changing decision to move to England and marry a royal prince, grandson of the reigning monarch, and become a representative of the Crown alongside Prince Harry without having any idea of what that entails and not thinking to look into it before making such a commitment. (By merely marrying Harry she seemed to outsiders and likely to the Royals to have accepted the role she was expected to adopt).

It seems like a massive communication fail to me. Likely both sides should have done more to prepare. In retrospect, it seems that Meghan just thought she was marrying Harry, the man she loved. He was obviously smitten and may not have thought beyond the immediate either. Perhaps a lot of assumptions were made, by the Royals and British society, that Meghan would know beforehand what she was getting into, and by Meghan that it was a question of getting married, period. We don't know what she was expecting but obviously it wasn't what the role turned out to be. Perhaps high up on the list was that her life would change in major ways, chief among them that she wouldn't be in the same situation as she was before meeting Harry or during their courtship and engagement periods.

When you're in the first blush of romantic love you can feel that all things are possible and don't see looming pitfalls at all.

One example of Meghan's lack of knowledge about the realities of becoming part of the Royal Family is her disclosure about the time Harry said to her that they were going to "meet my grandmother". That translates into you are going to be introduced to the Queen of the United Kingdom. Maybe it didn't sound like that to her. Until Harry said "You'll have to curtsy". "What?" was her response, according to my recollection of her description to Oprah of this event. Meghan seemed to indicate, if she didn't outright state, that she had NO CLUE this was the case (that QEII's children and their children and everybody in the circle and the courtiers and even politicians curtsy upon coming into the Queen's presence). She also looked shocked at the recollection and I think she said she didn't even know what a curtsy was. As a Canadian, living in a Commonwealth country (meaning QEII is our Head of State) this is bizarre. Harry had to demonstrate for her and she apparently ended up making a very deep curtsy when finally in the Queen's presence. Harry and Meghan smiled at that memory.

That is a teeny example of the absolute diametrically different reality in the UK and her new life there compared to having lived for years in North America as an independent, rich, American woman who was known as a TV star. Suddenly, she finds herself in a vastly different world, in a role she seemed to have no prior knowledge about, with a resulting loss of independence and familiarity, without the immediate solace of family and friends and suddenly being unable to make her own independent decisions. Shock ensued.

One of the shockers I didn't expect was that apparently she had to surrender her passport and other personal items. So she wouldn't have been free to travel of her own free will without being able to regain possession of her passport and other ID.

I was born in England and all my maternal and paternal relatives were left behind when my parents moved my sister and myself as very young children to Canada. We kept in close touch through the years with grandparents and uncles and aunts. We visited several times through the years. Still, it would be a huge undertaking now for me to move there, even with close relatives around and about. It is such a different place from Canada, even though we are in the Commonwealth, hear plenty of news about the Queen et al and are familiar with the whole monarchy thing. There was certainly saturating coverage of Harry's mom, Princess Diana. I try to visualize an American moving there without being familiar with the place and then embarking on a completely different lifestyle, especially one where their own preferences and wishes are subsumed and their "duty" is chosen for them. It's likely a near complete withdrawal from one's entire former life.

Then add in the toxic British tabloids.

Recipe for disaster.

I admired Prince Harry for mentioning his mental health challenges while they were still in England. Not an easy thing for anyone to do. And it totally resonated with me when he said recently (prior to the Oprah interview) that they had moved to North America because he was "afraid of history repeating itself", meaning I assumed, that he and/or his family (Meghan and Archie) would somehow suffer a similar fate to his mother's (being hounded by the press that ultimately directly resulted in her very sad premature death). That completely resonated with me and I felt deep sympathy for them. Zero freedom and lurking danger from death threats and a rabid unrelenting press pack every time they ventured outside.

I admired his mother greatly for her charity work. I still recall vividly the photos of Diana sitting on the bed of an AIDS patient in the '80s when even medical personnel were afraid of close contact (due to the disease not being well understood at that time). I was amazed at her courage and grace and at how she could make people feel her warmth and regard for them, which was a boon to many. She could never go out and about spontaneously and enjoy a quick shopping trip or a bite to eat in a cute cafe. The press and many people felt they owned her and she owed them.

I could totally relate to Harry's concern and felt a lot of concern and compassion for him and his new little family.

Unfortunately, all too many people think they have a right to comment on people's motivations that they have no way of knowing about for sure and view them as spoiled, entitled, empty-headed people who have no right to "complain" or ask for privacy or consideration. When Harry used the word 'trapped' to describe how he felt, I can easily see how that is the case. Born into a system and a family that allows for little in the way of personal expression (see how vilified they are by many for merely speaking out on their own behalf) or choices (his destiny is mapped out for him before birth and he is expected to fully comply).

I also didn't realize until Harry mentioned it (I haven't actually been following the entire saga but did want to see this latest interview) that all his patronages have been removed from him. Translation: All the charities of which he was patron. I'm sure they will sadly miss his support and involvement. I especially admired his creation of the Invictus Games that helps wounded warriors. I suppose he has to also give up his personal involvement in that.

I find Harry to be a quiet, thoughtful, respectful well-spoken man who was courageous as a member of the British Armed Services and creative, generous and kind. A great loss to the family, in short, if things don't improve between them. I can almost feel the pain he still feels deeply at the loss of his mom who was close to her boys. It was heartbreaking to see that little boy, Harry, out amongst the mourning crowds after his mother's tragic death, looking at the flowers and greeting the people. Doing his duty, iow. Even at that young age and in those dark circumstances.

As for the racism allegations, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised, as others have said. Again, the tabloids and shrill talk show hosts are screaming about Meghan and Harry supposedly "accusing the royal family of racism". I didn't hear them say that. I thought they spoke more of a single person who made the most egregious remarks (I could be wrong). Perhaps it's a case of the family/the firm being seen as racist due to not taking action on Meghan's behalf, according to Meghan and Harry.

If folks feel so inclined, it's crucial to understand and respect how Meghan felt, how she experienced events and perceived comments rather than finding excuses for slights and lapses and perhaps outright racism and lack of needed support. It's so easy to dismiss things when they're not directed at oneself. And imagine the ferocity of a mother bear protecting her cubs - same instincts that a human mother has for her children, even before birth. If someone queried the worth of your child based on their skin colour, of course you would defend them with your entire being. Obviously the issue of Archie not having a title bit deep but maybe that is based on a misunderstanding (see info in another post on this thread about the way titles are dispensed).

It is an explosive situation for the Royal Family and hopefully they can mend rifts, privately as they have announced, as most families try to do. For sure the tabloids will only make things much worse.

People can gripe about how the royals are rich and privileged. Yeah. They are. But like all of us, they had no choice about the family they were born into. So thinking they should just sit down and shut up isn't helpful or realistic at this point.

I hope it turns out as best possible for all concerned. And I find it very sad.

I was stunned that Meghan didn't do any research about the royal lifestyle. The information is out there. Yes, there are certain things that you won't know until you are in it. But she could have gotten a very good idea of what she was in for.

I was reading comments by Sophie, Duchess of Wessex (Prince Edwards' wife.) She took five years to get to know Edward and to adapt to the royal lifestyle. Kate Middleton took something like ten years. Sophie commented that she felt that a long time period to adapt to royal life was essential. Sophie even lived in Buckingham Palace for a period of time prior to her marriage. Meghan, by contrast, had only two years. And she did not appear to use those two years to her advantage.

One point -- since she is an American citizen, there was no need for Meghan to curtsy to the Queen or to any other royal. The joke is, we fought a war over that. She may have felt the desire to do so has Harry's girlfriend, but there was never any requirement to do so prior to her marriage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2021 07:13PM by summer.

>>Meghan said that she only wanted security for her child, title or no title because of racist abuse. If ennobling the child would be the only way to do that, she asked that an exception be made.

Harry and Meghan combined are worth a minimum of $12 million dollars. The figure may be as much as $50 million or even more. They can afford all of the security that they want. I found her claims to be disingenuous. Plus, there are other royals whose children and grandchildren do not have royal titles and do not get security. Somehow, they have managed.

Upon her departure from the RF, Princess Diana received a one-time payment of 17 million pounds, which would be around 25 or 30 million in today's terms; plus an annual stipend of 400,000 pounds, which would today be around 700,000 or 800,000. Translating those into dollar terms, her initial settlement was 30-40 million with an additional stipend of a ballpark one million every year.

I do not think Harry and Meghan are being treated comparably.

That was part of a divorce settlement, though. That wouldn't apply to Harry and Meghan.

It was a divorce, certainly, but it was also the dissolution of a business venture. If you want people to be loyal after such a separation, you must make sure they are secure. What we see, however, is the RF forcing H&M to negotiate their settlement in public. That is a mistake.

I also suggest that you go back and watch Diana's interview after she left. Her statements are remarkably similar to what Meghan claims, which raises the question why Meghan's assertions are being taken less seriously than her predecessor's.

Look, I think the monarchy has some fine points. I doubt the Allies could have beaten Hitler without the institution. I also think the RF puts the nation above the state, which would have been nice for the US over the last four abortive years. So I understand and respect Kentish's view. But there is an additional question regarding the institution's survival in a more modern and more democratic age. That's the conundrum I am contemplating.

Clearly, on a personal level life as a Royal is extremely difficult, requiring considerable self-abnegation as well as bureaucratic skills. Charles hated it, as is well known; and Diana was nearly destroyed by it. Harry had difficulty both because of what happened to his mother and the impositions on his personal life. The Queen's sense of institutional responsibility is greater than that of the others, and perhaps an unrealistic expectation for later generations.

What this means is that the RF must have a system for letting people out, and yet they do not. So family problems become national problems and the institution looks increasingly corrupt and anachronistic. H&M are a symptom of the illness, not the disease itself. I think that should be borne in mind when considering what they say.

Yeah, I read that it's $50M. Harry got at least $14M from his mom when he turned 30. Meghan reportedly had millions from her acting.

It still begs the question of why the marriage was "allowed" to happen in the first place if race was an issue.

and it's the the 21st Century. I remember reading about changing the 12th century law about the heir to the throne having to marry a virgin (i.e. Diana), can't marry a Catholic or someone who is divorced, etc. Bit hard to do all that nowadays.

I don't know a ton about the Royals. I've decided the whole concept of such a position by birth is distasteful to me.

I didn't see the interview, but all this made me question myself. I remember back when I was pregnant wondering which relatives the baby might look like. I have old family pictures. Would the baby get Grandma X's cankles? Would the baby have Grandma Y's high waist or Grandpa X's long torso and short legs? Would the baby have blue eyes or green?

And here is the question I wondered about that is relevant: Would my baby inherit the olive complexion from some relatives or possibly the red freckled genes from a different side of the family? Would my baby have my straight hair or hubby's wavy hair? It didn't matter to me of course but now I'm wondering if I would be considered racist for speculating how my child might look. Obviously the the Royal conversation probably included more but it made me think about how people might interpret things.

It depends on context. It could be just a matter of curiosity as you mentioned -- or it could be colourism as in "oh god, please don't let the baby be too dark." There is a famous painting about this from Brazil ironically named "The Redemption Of Ham."

https://www.npr.org/2013/09/19/224152635/skin-color-still-plays-big-role-in-ethnically-diverse-brazil


In the painting the grandmother is rejoicing that her mixed race daughter's baby doesn't look black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham%27s_Redemption



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2021 02:34PM by anybody.

Yikes. That's a notch above worrying about cankle genes.

This whole incident is just a distraction from the mess the world is in.

Totally anon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole incident is just a distraction from the
> mess the world is in.
We brought it all upon ourselves.
Shoulda listened to MLK 50yrs ago.
Instead we killed him.
Shoulda listened to the story the human genome,
That proved we were all 99.9% genetically identical.
The same kind.
Kin, literally.
Meaning we should have been kind to one another.
All along.
But instead, we focused on that 0.1% that makes us different.
1/10th of 1% is the difference between the blackest African and the most White Anglo Saxon. The 99.9% beneath the superficial layer, is identical.
The 9.1% is all the genetic diversity in the world.
Without that 0.1% of genetic diversity,
We would all die from the first disease that killed one of us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2021 09:22PM by schrodingerscat.

So what's your solution?

Do what works
and forget everything else.

Listen to what our DNA tells us.
If we did, it would debunk the myth that whites are superior to any other race.
If you look at test scores, it ain't white people at the top of every standardized test.
It's Asians.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/12/01/sat-math-scores-mirror-and-maintain-racial-inequity/
Harvard is getting sued because it discriminates against Asians because if it were a meritocracy Harvard would be 85% Asian and they can't do that.
So why don't the rest of us raise our kids the way Asians raise their kids?
Educate students in math, science especially computers and genetics these days. The Genetic Revolution happening right now, thanks to CRISPr is going to be bigger than the technological revolution, according to Walter Issacson, who just published The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race, about the scientist who won the Nobel Prize for developing CRISPR.
https://www.amazon.com/Code-Breaker-Jennifer-Doudna-Editing/dp/1982115858/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA1pyCBhCtARIsAHaY_5csR1yzW0-ljv1qIoC8BaRprmQJL-3WmjpibZcovbQ3z2l5wLjo0IUaAh9CEALw_wcB&hvadid=499794809262&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9033511&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11508889226375074358&hvtargid=kwd-1244754272157&hydadcr=22128_10167285&keywords=code+breaker+walter+isaacson&qid=1615347538&sr=8-2

At this point, every kid should learn in kindergarten about how closely related we are as humans, and how closely humans are related to Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and that they're 50% genetically identical to a banana and they shouldn't let them move on to first grade until they learned that and behaved accordingly.
We mapped the human genome. That should have dealt a fatal blow to racism the day the Human Genome Project published the map of the human genome, proving we're 99.9% genetically identical.
Why didn't it?
WTF is keeping racism alive and well?
Get to the bottom of that and root it out and cut it's head off.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2021 10:44PM by schrodingerscat.

That's a $200 pair of Nikes right there.

I think we can all agree that what the schools are supposed to teach is pretty good stuff. I did not learn anything pro or con in any public school classroom with regard to the idea that the color of skin was an indicator of any kind.

Out on the school playground...that was another thing.

And the kids who were doing the negative teaching, where did they learn what they were trying to impart?

Not having been raised by Asian parents, I did not have either the inclination or the ability to raise my five kids in whatever fashion "Asians" use. (And of course, you mean 'foreign' Asians, not the homegrown who raise theirs just as I was reared.


I think you're grand-standing with your:

> Why didn't it?
> WTF is keeping racism
> alive and well?
> Get to the bottom of
> that and root it out
> and cut it's(sic) head off.


Racism has built-in motivation. Humans will pretty much always root for the home team. Green Bay Packer fans pretty much raise Green Bay Packer fans.

If you've conquered your racism, good for you. You're pretty much done all you can, other than to do the best job you can when you cast your vote. But of course, roughly 45% of voters think the other 45% voting block are total air-heads.

And again, what does this all have to do with Recovery from Mormonism? I think you're just showing off, and it's a dreadful show!

What does it NOT have to do with the racist CULT we were born into and indoctrinated to believe?
We grew up in a church that actively discriminated against black people by denying them entry into the temple, just because they were black. And we were ok with that. Our whole families didn't see any problem with that.
Women were never required to have the priesthood to enter a temple, so why deny black women entry? What's the ONLY difference?
The color of their skin.
That's the definition of racial discrimination, pure racism and if you press Mormons on it, they are usually quite proud of the blatant racism practiced by their forefathers.
That's the exact opposite of Christ's main commandment, to love our fellow man as ourselves. That constitutes a sin, right?
So the most of the so-called Mormon "Prophets" sinned against Christ and God, by leading 5 generations astray, away from keeping God's main commandment and continue to do so today.
By keeping the most racist white supremacist books ever to be confused for 'revelation' in print and distributed daily around the world by the world's biggest standing army of missionaries over the past 180 years.
Kind of a huge admission to make, which is why Mormons can't answer that question honestly.
Which is what makes it so great to ask them and watch them lie through their teeth to defend sinning against Christ's main commandment.
At that point, they lose the moral high ground and have no place telling anybody they're better than them because of their fake 'morals' and 'family values'.
And that's without even getting into the sexism, the homophobia or the sexual abuse that's still alive and well in Mormonism.