Its simply I do not care about these people I do not know.
Why have you never mentioned this before?
Because it really is the most important thing in the world at the moment, isn’t it?
If only it was possible to pay attention to more than one thing. Oh wait....
at a time in history when so many poor people are dying
See above.
Lordy tjagain you do manage to tie yourself in knots sometimes
His view seems pretty clear to me, you just maybe don't agree, that's life.
Don't get me wrong the focus on this in the news is ridiculously OTT and it is a distraction from more important issues but that's an issue with our terrible press, which is a different thread. They were already ignoring coronavirus deaths and printing dreadful pro government propaganda before any of this stuff blew up.
with our terrible press
...which Harry made quite clear is complicit in the promotion and relative success of the Royal family.
So I watched the 2nd half - just became clearer that both of them unfortunately have suffered mental health issues in the recent past, and Harry has never come to terms with what happened with his Mum/Dad. The family have fallen out, family cuts ties including money. Doesn't sound dissimilar to lots of families. Two sides to every story.
The press bit does appear to be ott though. But they didnt need to bring the family in to that.
Still think the thread titled stands.
Bang on point article in the Guardian, Meg and Harry doing what armed revolution failed to fully finish off. It confirms the way the interview was seen in the Netherlands.
Hewitt, who contrasted the silence of the Queen on the Windrush scandal with how she had “spoken out” against Scottish independence.
“There are many among us who consider this sentiment to be a reflection of the broader British society and the Brexit discussions, which reveal a British preoccupation with their ‘specialness’ does not help.”
After the broadcast, the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, cited it as another reason for the country to sever its constitutional ties to the British monarchy.
The Aussies think we're racist 😀
Owned.
Just when you think the UK couldn't fall any further down the international popularity rank, queeny goes and ****s it up as well.
2021-22 is going to make for epic gammon baiting.
with our terrible press
…which Harry made quite clear is complicit in the promotion and relative success of the Royal family.
Only relatively successful? Imagine if they were really successful. 😀
After two days of not very much thought, I've decided that I don't need to join Team Royal or Team Megan because I really don't much care for either party.
The Royal Family is another one of those things you couldn't invent now, it's only our sad love of the past and past glories that mean we keep them. Am I surprised that there are unpleasant members of the extended Royal Family? Hell no, can you imagine the arrogance from being born with all that privilege and being told it's your Birth right because you've a special person right down to your DNA. Some of them are only a generation behind Nazi Sympathisers and SS Officers and we're supposed to wonder if one of them dared to questioned the skin tone of their baby, if that was the worst of it I'm amazed.
As for Harry and Megan, sounds they had a shit time of things, the rough side of 'normal' royal life is pretty rough, couple that will being non-white amongst an extended family of people who believe their 'blood' is special and all the Nazism can't have been easy. I don't doubt she became depressed, I know depression all too well and support from your friends and family is worth it's weight in gold. The press were savage in their unveiled hatred of her, was it her Ethnicity, her Nationality, her Job, I think it was all those things, she wasn't the blushing, English Rose like Harry's Mum and SIL and that wouldn't do. Still, being as about 5 people still read newspapers these days, they're easy to avoid. I haven't read a newspaper in a decade.
So they decided to leave, good for them, made a bit more of a fuss about that than was strictly needed though, but I'm sure raising awareness of the dangers of marrying into the Royal Family will no doubt benefit millions of youngsters out there, and the Royals deserve it. They took their millions of pounds (her Earned, his Inherited) and pissed off abroad, it's a shame they took your security detail off you, it must be hard to travel as a muggle when you're used to Johnny English and James Bond watching your every move. Anyway, welcomed with open arms in the secure gated community of their $10m LA home. Congratulations, you've made it, you've retired to a live of privilege and wealth in your 30s. All you've got to do now, it keep your head down for a few years and even The Mail and Hello will stop caring so much about you.
Turns out that wasn't the plan though was it? Vanity, or greed, who knows, but there's an opportunity to build a hell of a brand, forget Stacy Soloman and Joe Swash, they're going after Jay-Z and Beyoncé! A PR Stunt you couldn't buy with money, an exclusive 2 hour interview with the Grandmother of them all Oprah with pre-arranged questions for maximum impact, and best of all, because the Royals have to maintain the swindle of 'Majesty' they know it'll be entirely one-sided. The 'Royal Household' response is way shorter than this rambling diatribe.
There are no winners or losers in this, just two parties of incredibly privileged people sticking the knife into each other the best way they know how.
My thoughts exactly 🙂
The side by side comparisons of her treatment and Kate Middleton’s treatment by the press make for disturbing reading, and it’s obscenely naive – or incredibly disingenuous – to pretend there isn’t a racial element to that. There are also lashings, of course, of prejudice against Americans and divorcees in the whole “she’s not good enough for *our* royal family” narrative, but race is a large part of it.
Saying the tabloid press is racist is a bit like saying a serial killer is racist because all their victims are of the same race. (In fact if you look at press victims, there is a pretty good mix there, including many not wealthy enough to defend themselves.)
Commercially, the decision to cast nee Markle as a villain was a good one, it has generated a well of content that will continue to make money for the press (if you are into following the $$$$, those are the ones to follow). It was a good decision because the readership would not have put up with nee Markle as a fairytale princess (the other way of inventing a story out of it). The reasons for that are complex but I think more to do with the fact that nee Markle is an independent and independently wealth woman who would take a public stance on issues likely to be contrary to what the readership* wanted. Unlike nee Middleton who may hold the same views but keeps her trap shut.
* To an extent they are led by editorial decisions, but it is a two-way street, the readership can only be led so far.
I agree with what @Pondo said up there:
I don’t see them “whinging” about money or asking for sympathy, what I see are two people relentlessly hounded by a toxic and openly aggressive press and given zero support (and in some cases racism and fairly open hostility) from the family and very network that’s literally there to help them, who decided to step away from their roles to minimise the heat and found it got turned up to 11.
I'd describe myself as fairly ambivalent about the royal family, but after seeing both Harry and Meghan become targets for the gutter press, especially after what happened to his mother, and now becoming a father himself, meant that I understood their decision to "resign" from the Royal family and do their own thing. "Good-on-them" I thought.
As for going on Oprah...... hmmmmmmm. Will this make things "better" or "worse" for them? More publicity/controversy is good if you are looking to launch a new celebrity brand, but bad if what you're looking for is for the press to leave you alone. So it's either genius or monumentally stupid, depending on their objective. If it's "genius" then it feels pretty mercenary given some of the subject matter.
I did want to ask STW about the "how dark will the baby be?" controversy - I haven't watched the interview, just read a couple of articles about it: Was any kind of context for that comment given? Of course, it shouldn't matter in the slightest - but I would imagine that there was a whole group of people tasked with understanding and managing how the British press dealt with both Meghan and now Archie's ethnicity, for whom this would be a somewhat valid question.
*ducks below parapet*
but I would imagine that there was a whole group of people tasked with understanding and managing how the British press dealt with both Meghan and now Archie’s ethnicity
The very subtle context was that Megan and the baby’s status for Royal protection was to be diminished outside of precedence for some “unknown” reason. It was a bit implied tbh.
Either way, it shouldn’t matter, and shouldn’t have needed to be “dealt with”.
Either way, it shouldn’t matter, and shouldn’t have needed to be “dealt with”.
Agreed. But in the real world, unfortunately it’s necessary
There are no winners or losers in this, just two parties of incredibly privileged people sticking the knife into each other the best way they know how.
The 12 year old Harry likes his revenge served ice-cold.
But in the real world, unfortunately it’s necessary
No it isn't. No one has ever ask me how brown my kids are/might be, ever. And if you're alluding to the fact its "necessary" within the Royal context, that is then a circular question which points back to the question as to why its being raised in and in what context.
And if you’re alluding to the fact its “necessary” within the Royal context, that is then a circular question which points back to the question as to why its being raised in and in what context.
Yes..... that was my question. I think the answer is that we don’t know the context.
No it isn’t. No one has ever ask me how brown my kids are/might be, ever
Do you Have a press department? Are you hounded by the tabloids?
I think we are talking with mixed context Batfink.
You meant it was necessary because of the tabloid intrusion as "real world" for them, not as an everyday occurrence in the real world for all of us?
You meant it was necessary because of the tabloid intrusion as “real world” for them, not as an everyday occurrence in the real world for all of us?
Yes, apologies for not being clear. The reality is that having the first (to my knowledge?) mixed race members of the royal family is significant, because of how they will be viewed by the public (a percentage of which is either overtly or unconsciously racist), and treated by the tabloid press who play to this racism to sell papers/clicks
As part of the many discussions had about how to manage this - it wouldn’t surprise me if this question had been asked.
However, I suspect it was Charles.
No one has ever ask me how brown my kids are/might be, ever.
No but I bet you will have got shit like this if you actually have mixed race kids:
"Oh they don't look like you"
"Oh they have very Asiany eyes"
Etc
Or when it comes to the topic of your wife
"Oh, so you have an Asian fetish then"
No one has ever ask me how brown my kids are/might be, ever
Here in Glasgow its a case of, are they Green or Blue 😕 😆
@oakleymuppet - I do have mixed race kids. an actually the only comment I've heard is "look at his eyes!" in the perspective my son has extremely light brown eyes.
Oh, so you have an
AsianBlack fetish then.
Yep, I get (well, when we call all go out to the pub) this out with my mates (my wife is of course Black), its become a private joke, to which my comment is that its always inappropriate and stop typecasting me or "**** off" after a few pints.
“Oh, so you have an Asian fetish then”
Really? I have lived a safe and sheltered life but I would be prepared to ditch/ghost anyone talking like that about my family.
What I find fascinating about the interview was not the interview itself but the reaction. Many people have pointed out they didn't get paid without asking why they did it. I can't imagine it was good therapy do there must be some other reason. Revenge, as a warning to anyone else thinking of marrying into the firm? Actors don't get paid for going on talk shows but it increases their brand, sells more tickets to their latest film etc.
I actually had a great deal of sympathy for the issues about mental health. The rest was a mix. Mentioning Archie wouldn't be a prince or get protection was a red herring. They would have known he wouldn't, until the Queen and Phil pop their clogs that's the protocol. Andys and Edwards kids don't either. Nose out of joint because Wills kids are princes and princesses and Meghan isn't a princess, duchess,Marquis etc? The racism thing was her lived experience but doesn't make it true. A royal saying that they are concerned that there may be a lot of stick coming their way if Archie is obviously mixed race vs we are concerned how it will look if Archie is mixed race are 2 very different things that could easily be experienced the same way.
Plus she is an actress trying to rebuild her career.
It's interesting that a lot of people seem to take what was said at face value because it was said, but because the firm haven't given media interviews they are automatically judged to have behaved as alleged.
Plus she is an actress trying to rebuild her career.
It’s interesting that a lot of people seem to take what was said at face value
You seem to infer that, like Piers Morgan, you think she's lying?
She, like Diana was towards the end, is very media literate. I suspect there is nothing unconsidered in that 'interview'. I suspect the questions asked were certainly within pre agreed guidelines.
You seem to infer that, like Piers Morgan, you think she’s lying?
Or possibly, that as an actress, she is capable of acting?
Mentioning Archie wouldn’t be a prince or get protection was a red herring. They would have known he wouldn’t, until the Queen and Phil pop their clogs that’s the protocol
Like - I don't know a lot about this, but how come princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses?
Or possibly, that as an actress, she is capable of acting?
How do you confirm that, with a suicidal person? "Go on, then"?
So playing a part, ie not telling the truth? Amounts to the same thing, doesn’t it?
I don’t know a lot about this, but how come princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses?
google says
they are daughters of second (?) son of queen. in the same way harry and whatsisface are sons of other son of queen.
i.e. grandkids are, great-grandkids are not automagically, one exception, first born son of first in line male grandchild - says google.
How do you find that out, with a suicidal person?
you'd best be clear where you're going with that one, I would say?
as to my post, suicidal has squat to do with the fact that she has gone on telly and fibbed about the automatic prince-ifying of her son
Like – I don’t know a lot about this, but how come princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses?
They weren't supposed to be but Andrew kicked off big time. Maybe a lesson the Queen learned from that was to stick rigidly to protocol in future. The 'Firm' couldn't win whatever they did on some of the points, makes the kids prince and princesses, yet more royal hangers on, follow protocol and have it turned into a race issue, continue paying for protection when they flounced off to another country and stated they would do no more royal work, get attacked for the waste of public money being wasted on 'parasites', withdraw the protection and be accused of leaving them to be murdered.
The racism thing was her lived experience but doesn’t make it true.
A very pertinent point, especially coupled with
a lot of people seem to take what was said at face value
I'd have expected a lot of voices on here laying into 'The Firm' to apply much more critical thinking when it came to assessing the obviously stage managed interview and considering the underlying motivations for it. Neither side has come out of this well, the whole deference thing of the royals is out of date, but Meghan and Harry have come out of this as entitled and whiney as well.
It’s all a bit Jeremy Kyle though isn’t it?
Grubby, dirty & seedy - leaving a bad taste in the mouth.
I don’t envy her marrying into the Royals. They are fkd up family which just about everyone on the planet realised by now - a touch of caveat emptor I think. In essence I think it’s a sh1te sandwich which all are going to have to take a bite of. Nobody comes out of it well.
Hmmm, middle age white blokes deciding when its appropriate for mixed race woman to be feel she's been racially abused or subject to racial profiling or not....
^^^ This. See also "all lives matter" and "not all men", etc etc.
fibbed about the automatic prince-ifying of her son
She didn't fib, she said the precedent was set elsewhere, and her concern was of the removal of security protection of her an her children due to the resulting status change. She then said that she's never received an answer as to why the precedent didn't apply to her or her kids yet it did for others.
I don't know what the precedent is.
Hmmm, middle age white blokes deciding when its appropriate for mixed race woman to be feel she’s been racially abused or subject to racial profiling or not….
Quite.
The racism thing was her lived experience but doesn’t make it true.
Hmmm, middle age white blokes deciding when its appropriate for mixed race woman to be feel she’s been racially abused or subject to racial profiling or not….
One of the best things said for the last 5 pages.
The racism thing was her lived experience but doesn’t make it true.
It makes it true for her. How you gonna tell someone their experience of racism is wrong. Especially when its coming from white people who have likely NEVER experienced racism in their life.
My first thought on who was the rf member who commented on Archie's colour was Princess Anne.
Why didn't they get any money for the interview? The TV company must have made a mint selling it round the world. Why wouldn't they want a piece of that action?
How much did Diana leave him do you reckon? And where did she get millions from?
Hmmm, middle age white blokes deciding when its appropriate for mixed race woman to be feel she’s been racially abused or subject to racial profiling or not….
Some of it comes down to not thinking she would have been treated any differently if she'd been a white, divorced, American tv actress. Many people, me included, would have no idea she was mixed race without being told as she has the same skin tone as many other white American actresses.
And where did she get millions from?
UK courts are generally generous to single mothers in divorce proceedings, so Charles Saxe-Coburg provided the cash.
Not just white middle class men think that Kryton.
My mixed race wife thinks some of the interview was off. (East African dad and Irish mother)
It was my wife who commented that pretty much everyone we know asked us about what skin colour we expect our kids would have. None meant it in a racist way, it was just interest. Even we discussed it.
I don’t read tabloids so no idea how bad / racist the press has treated Meghan. Any examples? (Not being argumentative just honestly haven’t seen the treatment she has received)
Would also have been good if there was detail in the interview, it felt like gossip. I believe so far there has been two items considered to be incorrect, one being the marriage 3 days before, from what I’ve seen this would have been illegal (they said only three people were at their wedding and this included the Archbishop)
She also said “ He won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title," Again this is untrue, Archie is an Earl.
The discussion about security not being given due to the baby’s colour, again in my opinion this is not based in fact. It’s gossip.
Interesting article in the spectator and you’ll see if stolen some quotes from here....
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-s-incendiary-accusations
For the suicide issue, she should name names. Who rebuffed her, but this didn’t happen. I’ll be honest, I believe she was very depressed and may even have been suicidal, but why the lack of detail?
Ps if anyone is interested in the curiosity of genetics, we have one darker skinned daughter, dark hair and brown eyes, the other is blonde, very fair skinned and blue eyes. (I’m Welsh / Irish ancestry)
We have a house in Florida, wife and her folks would take kids out there while I was working, they’d always get stopped at customs and questioned about the blonde one!
My first thought on who was the rf member who commented on Archie’s colour was Princess Anne.
Not prince Philip ?
“If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed”
“You can’t have been here that long, you haven’t got pot belly”
“It looks as if it was put in by an Indian” (referring to an old-fashioned fuse box in a factory near Edinburgh).
“Still throwing spears?” (question put to an Aboriginal Australian during a visit).
“There’s a lot of your family in tonight” (after looking at the name badge of businessman Atul Patel at a Palace reception for British Indians).
I though he would have been suspect No1.
“How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test” (to a Scottish driving instructor). I wouldn't class this as racism though, probably an acute observation.
As goes for this
"I would like to go to Russia very much, although the bastards murdered half my family,"
I though he would have been suspect No1.
He would have been, if Harry hadn't explicitly said it wasn't either him or the queen.
How you gonna tell someone their experience of racism is wrong.
I'm not. Neither am I going to say that their perception of an event is the actual fact of the event. Those who experience something once might have their perception coloured by it forever. To some degree perception is a choice. Maybe what was said was racist, maybe it wasnt but she perceived it to be. Either way her experience of it was the same. One way it actually was, one wasn't.
