Are the royals on the rocks?

1333436383942

Comments

  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    The Sussexes had a right to tell their side of the story, but it was almost inevitable that many people would react negatively--not because they're royal but because this type of interview invariably produces a lot of negative response. It is naive to expect everyone to accept the story as you told it and sympathize.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    While William and Harry were at Eton they used to go to see granny for tea most weekends and (we know this from William) explained to them both about the monarchy. To an observer it is interesting to see that while one grandson seems to have absorbed the lesson that it's not about them personally, the other hasn't.

    I don't see why the one who was never going to be the monarch should give a shit!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    Look, either call her a liar, or accept her account as more accurate than you like to accept. Either she is a major asshole or her account is right. She can't possibly be wrong, and I think the huge rush to doubt her is pretty damn racist.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.
  • CruntCrunt Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    While William and Harry were at Eton they used to go to see granny for tea most weekends and (we know this from William) explained to them both about the monarchy. To an observer it is interesting to see that while one grandson seems to have absorbed the lesson that it's not about them personally, the other hasn't.

    I don't see why the one who was never going to be the monarch should give a shit!

    It's not unknown for the second son to ascend to the throne because of the death or abdication of the first.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?
  • Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    Look, either call her a liar, or accept her account as more accurate than you like to accept. Either she is a major asshole or her account is right. She can't possibly be wrong, and I think the huge rush to doubt her is pretty damn racist.

    That's my take and the general understanding that anyone I've talked to locally. The Ship has more cheer leaders for monarchy.

    I've no doubt that some specific factual details of what she said could be disputed. But this wasn't an evidence gathering interview, it was a personal experience interview: how she felt, what the interactions with the royal people were like, what she was told.

    On one point. Do handlers of royals take the keys, passports and related and "handle" them in controlling ways ? This is probably true. Having been myself on a bus tour in Europe where they did such things to register our rooms.

    Another one. The facts about her son. Apparently the knowledgeable know the rules re titles and protection, and she has the facts wrong. Perchance she knew or didn't those facts and also had the egregious race related conversations. Which info might be burnt into her brain more strongly?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    How should I, as a white person, respond if a black woman is describing her experiences, and some aspect of those experiences is demonstrably a misunderstanding at best?

    How should I, as a white person, respond if another white person is using that black woman's testimony to make a point about a wider issue? (Which is largely what I'm seeing on this thread.)
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Gwai I don't think that there are many people on this side of the Atlantic who believe that the Duchess of Sussex was deliberately lying. Much has been made of the supposed racists comments. Her accounts of these may not be entirely accurate, as she herself was not present, but was relying upon what she was told by someone else. She was almost certainly not lying when she told us how she understood, what she was told by that other person, but that doesn't mean that the person who made the alleged racist remarks meant them as such.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    Gwai I don't think that there are many people on this side of the Atlantic who believe that the Duchess of Sussex was deliberately lying.

    At least two on this thread.
  • Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    The truth, or falsehood, of some of the factual claims made by the Duchess have nothing at all to do with either her race or mine, or anyone else's. Archie is not a prince because of the 1917 Letters Patent that we have discussed ad nauseam. This is a fact.

    In all likelihood, Prince Harry's children were probably never going to be princes, even when the Prince of Wales becomes King. This was being hinted at by various people commenting on slimming down the monarchy (of which the Prince of Wales is known to be a fan) long before Harry met Meghan, while he was running around with one or other of his long-term white blonde girlfriends. So the suggestion that this somehow came out of nowhere because the Duchess is black is false.

    The Duchess's reported statements are a mix of claims of fact that can be independently checked, reports of personal interactions that are difficult to check, and opinions and feelings.

    On the subject of her opinions and feelings, then you're right - she can't be "wrong". She's either reporting how she feels honestly, or she's lying, and I have no reason to believe she isn't honestly reporting how she feels.

    On the reports of personal interactions (that can't be independently verified, because all you have are the reports of the parties involved in the interaction, and they sometimes differ), there are more possibilities. It's possible for her to be completely accurate, to get some details wrong, but get the general tenor of the discussion correct, to be accurately reporting how she interpreted the interaction, but the other party's report differs because they weren't communicating well, to have mis-remembered significantly, or even to be a malicious liar. There's a whole range of viable possibilities that includes some ground that you'd describe as "being wrong".

    On the factual claims, it has been demonstrated (on this thread and elsewhere) that some of her claims of fact are wrong. And of course she can be wrong about claims of fact - lots of people are wrong about factual claims on a regular basis. Black women are not somehow exempt from this - they're just as likely as anyone else to get some factual claim wrong.

    The only part of this discussion that is contingent on anyone's race is the entirely valid claim that black people are more likely to recognize racism than white people, which means that the Duchess is likely a better judge than some random white observer about whether particular people's attitudes towards her are coloured by racism.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    Look, either call her a liar, or accept her account as more accurate than you like to accept. Either she is a major asshole or her account is right. She can't possibly be wrong, and I think the huge rush to doubt her is pretty damn racist.

    Bascially what Gwai said. If some of the pro-monarchists on this thread want to make royalism look like a racist fan club they could not do a better job. There's not much sign of taking the hurt of Black people on board and saying 'how do we listen to this and change this?' rather than 'how do we attack and discredit Meghan?'

    It's the biggest fans who do the most damage.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I thought part of the point was to justify privilege and hierarchy. For various reasons, the English have revelled in this, and enjoy fawning. Well, some of the English. Anyone who rebels gets a ton of shit thrown at them. Coupled with misogyny and racism, you have a fairly pungent brew.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I thought part of the point was to justify privilege and hierarchy. For various reasons, the English have revelled in this, and enjoy fawning. Well, some of the English.

    Well this is what I was getting at. Why the desire to fawn?

  • @Curiosity killed The agreement with the British press was reached affer Diana's death and was to last until they finished school. Charles negotiated an extension for William while he was at St Andrew's.
    Uncle Edward pooped on that one.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I thought part of the point was to justify privilege and hierarchy. For various reasons, the English have revelled in this, and enjoy fawning. Well, some of the English.

    Well this is what I was getting at. Why the desire to fawn?

    I thought that a sycophant hopes some of the royal gloss is rubbed off on them, if they fawn. But I'm not sure if there is a fantasy of being a prince/princess, or pleasure in being humiliated by them, or being their friend, or something else. My family had both fawners, and anti-monarchists.
  • Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    Look, either call her a liar, or accept her account as more accurate than you like to accept. Either she is a major asshole or her account is right. She can't possibly be wrong, and I think the huge rush to doubt her is pretty damn racist.

    This.

    I still haven't heard an explanation from the Royal Fan Club as to why they seem to be taking it all so personally.

    To paraphrase Samuel Crossman:

    Why, what hath Meghan done?
    What makes this rage and spite?
  • One of our shipmates has found Prince Alasdair of Connaught-- to add to the details of his untimely death in Ottawa, the rumour at the time was that he was gay and his alcoholism was ascribed to this. A quick call to a former colleague who is a reference in local gay history confirms this, telling me that it was unclear if this was the reason why he was sent to Ottawa in the first place, and that closeted gays have been known to deal with their conflicts by drinking too much. He also noted that the Windsors have African blood already, but that for him a real test will be if one of the HRHs marries a person of the same sex (digression about legitimacy of any children under Canadian law omitted so that shipmates may go about their days occupied in productive labour).

    Thanks for this, @Augustine the Aleut. I've not heard this rumour before but it would certainly explain a number of things about him. I've always wondered why he ended up in Ottawa during WW2. It always felt to me that he was being kept in seclusion for some reason. But actual information about him has always been hard to find.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I have one too. Its "Mr." Some of my friends are "Dr," or "Father" or "Sister." Or even "My Lord" for my UK bishop.
    Titles are just things in front of names. They do not mean that I have to feel inferior to them.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I have one too. Its "Mr." Some of my friends are "Dr," or "Father" or "Sister." Or even "My Lord" for my UK bishop.
    Titles are just things in front of names. They do not mean that I have to feel inferior to them.

    So why have them? These Dukes, Earls, Princes? What is it meant to mean?
  • The truth, or falsehood, of some of the factual claims made by the Duchess have nothing at all to do with either her race or mine, or anyone else's. Archie is not a prince because of the 1917 Letters Patent that we have discussed ad nauseam. This is a fact.
    Racism has to do with everything, and in particular the factual claims. She lived as a biracial person among the group which is this family. Everything she experienced was filtred through this lens for her. This is part of what is called structural racism, speaks to issues of equality versus equity.
  • Louise wrote: »
    Bascially what Gwai said. If some of the pro-monarchists on this thread want to make royalism look like a racist fan club they could not do a better job. There's not much sign of taking the hurt of Black people on board and saying 'how do we listen to this and change this?' rather than 'how do we attack and discredit Meghan?'

    Nobody commentating on this thread has the power to change either how the royal family operates or how the press operates. The press commentators, at least collectively, have the power to change how they operate, but they won't, because they're a pile of muck-raking bastards looking for controversy to sell tabloids.

    Our power is entirely limited to discussing the extent to which the various claims made by the Duke and Duchess seem like fair comments. We have no a priori reason to assume that they are either more or less honest than anyone else involved.

    It is completely clear from her comments that the Duchess has never really understood how the Monarchy works. The strong impression I have is that she saw the similarities between the royal family and US celebrities, and didn't understand the differences. The Duke really wasn't of any help to her, because he doesn't understand it either. This has nothing whatsoever to do with her race, and everything to do with her being an American actor.

    To what extent this was a failure of the palace machine to teach the Duchess properly, and to what extent this was a failure of the Duchess to be willing to learn and adapt is an open question. I don't think anyone commentating is likely to have access to enough information to make a determination about that.

    It seems clear that the Duchess felt unsupported when she was criticized in the tabloid press. She believes, probably correctly, that much of this criticism had a racial aspect, and feels that the Palace should have loudly intervened in her defence. The Palace has traditionally seen reticence and ignoring the media to be a better way of handling the muck-rakers than engaging with them. It usually takes the line that a dignified silence is better than rising to whatever bait the tabloids are presenting.

    One could reasonably make the case that this might be a sensible response to personal attacks, but not a sensible response to racial attacks, which brings us back to the question of to what extent different people view(ed) race as a motivating factor. Very little of the criticism of the Duchess was overtly racist. The Duchess clearly identified a lot of it as racist, saying something like "the media were rude to Kate but racist to me, and racism is worse"; it's not clear how well she was able to communicate this to the white, and probably largely racially oblivious, palace establishment.

    But like I've said before, the easy thing to judge are the claims of fact, and on the facts, many of the factual claims that the Duchess made are false. It is neither spiteful nor angry to note this, nor is it either spiteful or angry to suggest that her inaccuracy on some of these claims brings her ability to be accurate on similar claims in to question.

    As far as "How do we listen to this and change this?" - what is there to actually do? The Duke and Duchess made the choice to withdraw from royal life, so they're no longer an issue. I think that's a shame - I think they could have been a real asset to the royal family - but it's a done deal. The question becomes moot until the next royal marries someone black (or has a gay marriage - thanks for the suggestion, @Augustine the Aleut). The Wessex kids are probably irrelevant as far as this goes - there's likely no intention that they will ever become working royals - which means that the next chance for this to be an issue is with one of the Cambridge kids, who are probably at least a couple of decades away from that possibility.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    The only part of this discussion that is contingent on anyone's race is the entirely valid claim that black people are more likely to recognize racism than white people, which means that the Duchess is likely a better judge than some random white observer about whether particular people's attitudes towards her are coloured by racism.

    Like Louise's, my social media was lit up with Black people, especially Black women, calling out the racism. If a Black woman says there was racism and a whole bunch of other Black people say the same, I'd be a fool to disbelieve them. Or a racist myself.
    From the link given by @TheOrganist above, Meghan and Harry want the Press to stop printing untrue stories about them.

    That's not what I read. Gayle King is quoted as saying, "all they wanted all along was for the royals to intervene and tell the press to stop with the unfair, inaccurate, false stories that definitely have a racial slant." The royal family didn't push back against the press because that's not how they handle these things. I guess they didn't consider the possibility that the racism in the press coverage would merit a different course of action.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I have one too. Its "Mr." Some of my friends are "Dr," or "Father" or "Sister." Or even "My Lord" for my UK bishop.
    Titles are just things in front of names. They do not mean that I have to feel inferior to them.

    So why have them? These Dukes, Earls, Princes? What is it meant to mean?

    Its just a historical relic. The country is littered with old buildings too. Its just a part of our history that has survived, a part of the distinctiveness of the UK, and other monarchies.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    The truth, or falsehood, of some of the factual claims made by the Duchess have nothing at all to do with either her race or mine, or anyone else's. Archie is not a prince because of the 1917 Letters Patent that we have discussed ad nauseam. This is a fact.
    Racism has to do with everything, and in particular the factual claims. She lived as a biracial person among the group which is this family. Everything she experienced was filtred through this lens for her. This is part of what is called structural racism, speaks to issues of equality versus equity.

    Does race change facts?
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I have one too. Its "Mr." Some of my friends are "Dr," or "Father" or "Sister." Or even "My Lord" for my UK bishop.
    Titles are just things in front of names. They do not mean that I have to feel inferior to them.

    So why have them? These Dukes, Earls, Princes? What is it meant to mean?

    Its just a historical relic. The country is littered with old buildings too. Its just a part of our history that has survived, a part of the distinctiveness of the UK, and other monarchies.

    Plus snobbery.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I have one too. Its "Mr." Some of my friends are "Dr," or "Father" or "Sister." Or even "My Lord" for my UK bishop.
    Titles are just things in front of names. They do not mean that I have to feel inferior to them.

    So why have them? These Dukes, Earls, Princes? What is it meant to mean?

    Its just a historical relic. The country is littered with old buildings too. Its just a part of our history that has survived, a part of the distinctiveness of the UK, and other monarchies.

    Plus snobbery.

    OK, if you are sensitive to that sort of thing.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »
    Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    Look, either call her a liar, or accept her account as more accurate than you like to accept. Either she is a major asshole or her account is right. She can't possibly be wrong, and I think the huge rush to doubt her is pretty damn racist.

    Bascially what Gwai said. If some of the pro-monarchists on this thread want to make royalism look like a racist fan club they could not do a better job. There's not much sign of taking the hurt of Black people on board and saying 'how do we listen to this and change this?' rather than 'how do we attack and discredit Meghan?'

    I repeat the questions I asked Gwai here.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I just sigh and shake my head. So much pointless bollocks. Princes, Earls, Dukes, Kings, Queens - haven't we grown out of this crap yet? Why not? Do people feel a need to have other people they feel inferior to or something?

    I in no way feel inferior to someone because of their title.

    So what's the point?

    I have one too. Its "Mr." Some of my friends are "Dr," or "Father" or "Sister." Or even "My Lord" for my UK bishop.
    Titles are just things in front of names. They do not mean that I have to feel inferior to them.

    So why have them? These Dukes, Earls, Princes? What is it meant to mean?

    Its just a historical relic. The country is littered with old buildings too. Its just a part of our history that has survived, a part of the distinctiveness of the UK, and other monarchies.

    Plus snobbery.

    OK, if you are sensitive to that sort of thing.

    I thought the whole edifice rests on snobbery, so presumably quite a lot of people love it.
  • The monarchy is the focus of ultimate celebrity cult isn
    Alan29 wrote: »
    The truth, or falsehood, of some of the factual claims made by the Duchess have nothing at all to do with either her race or mine, or anyone else's. Archie is not a prince because of the 1917 Letters Patent that we have discussed ad nauseam. This is a fact.
    Racism has to do with everything, and in particular the factual claims. She lived as a biracial person among the group which is this family. Everything she experienced was filtred through this lens for her. This is part of what is called structural racism, speaks to issues of equality versus equity.

    Does race change facts?
    It may change perception of them. example: police are there to enforce the law (fact), they racially profile people like me and are likely to mistreat me (perception derived from race).
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Like Louise's, my social media was lit up with Black people, especially Black women, calling out the racism. If a Black woman says there was racism and a whole bunch of other Black people say the same, I'd be a fool to disbelieve them. Or a racist myself.

    Sure, but it depends exactly what the claim is. If a Black woman says she got a racist vibe when talking to someone, there's good odds that she's right, and there was racism involved. And, as you mention, lots of other Black people are able to tell stories about how they've had similar interactions, and the account sounds realistic to them.

    If, on the other hand, a Black woman says "I didn't get X because of racism" then that's a more specific claim that bears more detailed examination. In this case, the claim "Archie isn't a prince because of racism" is demonstrably false - Archie isn't a prince, because the 1917 Letters Patent say so. This doesn't mean that the person who told the Duchess this can't have been racist, or might not have been glad that the Black woman's kid wasn't going to be a prince: those things are possible, although I have no information either way about whether they might be true.

    So this specific claim is demonstrably false, and it's completely irrelevant how many Black commentators on social media are saying that this is obviously racist. They're all wrong. Unless they think George V had a time machine.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited March 18
    Ricardus wrote: »
    How should I, as a white person, respond if a black woman is describing her experiences, and some aspect of those experiences is demonstrably a misunderstanding at best?

    How should I, as a white person, respond if another white person is using that black woman's testimony to make a point about a wider issue? (Which is largely what I'm seeing on this thread.)
    Hoping you actually wanted the answers to these because here's my essay:

    Re the first question:

    Start by asking yourself what she knows that you don't. You already know what you know that she doesn't, but the reverse is important. Maybe you are right about X but wrong that X is relevant. Maybe X is true for but you but she has already dismissed X because racism makes X impractical for her. And so forth and so forth. I think a lot of accidental racism is caused by people assuming other people's experiences match theirs. So start by realizing maybe it's a you problem. If I am right and you are white like me, you probably just skimmed past this paragraph as not applicable. Go back and actually read it. Ask yourself those questions.

    Now, what if you really do know an X that she doesn't know and is relevant. Does it matter? Would your knowledge of X change the situation if you did share it? Because there are almost certainly a lot of white people dismissing her, and maybe you will just come across as one more despite your actual piece of relevant knowledge. If what you have to say is relevant, share it. But respect her as your equal or your better-than, if she is perhaps an expert in her field where you are not. We as white people can't make it all about us and constantly take the spotlight away from people of color.*

    Re the second question:

    I would respond by trying to center black voices. For instance, Ben Carson is an obnoxious in our political scene who also happens to be a black man. He is often wrong in the opinion of not just me but the smart black writers I like to read and follow. So if I want to prove Ben Carson wrong, I will probably quote one of them. They have thought more about the field than I have and probably wrote better than I do. They are, after all, paid to be smart, well-written, experts. And if you don't know any black experts in the fields that interest you? Find some. Because that used to be my problem, and that was a me problem not a black people problem.

    *or BaME if that is the polite term where you are from
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    Gwai wrote: »
    How impressive to hear a bunch of white people who weren't there doubting a black woman who was there. Obviously everyone here knows better than she in all of our deep white wisdom.

    Look, either call her a liar, or accept her account as more accurate than you like to accept. Either she is a major asshole or her account is right. She can't possibly be wrong, and I think the huge rush to doubt her is pretty damn racist.

    Bascially what Gwai said. If some of the pro-monarchists on this thread want to make royalism look like a racist fan club they could not do a better job. There's not much sign of taking the hurt of Black people on board and saying 'how do we listen to this and change this?' rather than 'how do we attack and discredit Meghan?'

    I repeat the questions I asked Gwai here.

    Why would someone be dependent on what white voices say here, if they have Black women around them and in their timeline who can be listened to directly and see what they are saying? If you don't, then maybe wonder why.

    If you don't have Black women around you and aren't listening to their experience 'demonstrably a misunderstanding at best' is really questionable. If it's that clear and 'demonstrable' the Black people around you would be saying the same thing.

    What do the Black people around you say?


  • Ruth wrote: »
    The only part of this discussion that is contingent on anyone's race is the entirely valid claim that black people are more likely to recognize racism than white people, which means that the Duchess is likely a better judge than some random white observer about whether particular people's attitudes towards her are coloured by racism.

    Like Louise's, my social media was lit up with Black people, especially Black women, calling out the racism. If a Black woman says there was racism and a whole bunch of other Black people say the same, I'd be a fool to disbelieve them. Or a racist myself.
    From the link given by @TheOrganist above, Meghan and Harry want the Press to stop printing untrue stories about them.

    That's not what I read. Gayle King is quoted as saying, "all they wanted all along was for the royals to intervene and tell the press to stop with the unfair, inaccurate, false stories that definitely have a racial slant." The royal family didn't push back against the press because that's not how they handle these things. I guess they didn't consider the possibility that the racism in the press coverage would merit a different course of action.

    That's how I read it too, but I'm not sure what powers they thought the Royals have to intervene with the Press in this country. That's what I was trying to point out when I said that Prince Charles requested that the tabloids left Princes William and Harry alone while they were at school, which was a huge thing at the time, even reported in the NYT (link) and only partially achieved.

    Our Press is not in a good way at the moment: too much from the Murdoch Press, the Government on the war path against the BBC, tabloids campaigning against wokeness and pushing agenda that benefit their fatcat owners, and to add to the chaos, Boris Johnson in his infinite lack of wisdom is poised to appoint Paul Dacre, once editor of the Daily Mail when it led the way into the gutter as the worst example of the gutter press, as the chair of Ofcom, the body that deals with press complaints - Guardian link, but it's all over everywhere. I'm really not sure what the Palace could have done or said against the racist coverage of Meghan, without creating even worse headlines.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Doesn’t the palace have a group of friendly reporters it uses to leak favorable stories? They could have spread some bullshit stories about how the queen gets along famously with her grandson’s new wife.
  • They do, they did. But the gutter press preferred their stories of conflicts.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Doesn’t the palace have a group of friendly reporters it uses to leak favorable stories?

    Well, they have a press office, and a bunch of strange 'royal correspondents' who appear to have a kind of parasocial dependency on the royals.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    In this case, the claim "Archie isn't a prince because of racism" is demonstrably false - Archie isn't a prince, because the 1917 Letters Patent say so.

    I haven't watched the whole interview, so maybe I missed something, but in what I did see, Meghan Markle said:
    So we have in tandem the conversation of, you won't be given security, he's not gonna be given a title, and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born.

    In this she didn't make a cause-and-effect claim. The nuance matters.
  • Louise wrote: »
    If you don't have Black women around you and aren't listening to their experience 'demonstrably a misunderstanding at best' is really questionable. If it's that clear and 'demonstrable' the Black people around you would be saying the same thing.

    This is nonsense. I live in America. I don't do social media much, but the actual physical Black people around me don't know anything about the minutiae of royal protocol, because they're Americans. There's no reason for them to do so.

    In fact, one of them asked me about the prince thing (because I'm the Brit she knows best, and so therefore her source of information for all things obscure and British) and I told her the same thing that I said here - that Archie isn't a prince because George V said so in 1917. She had been under the impression that the son of a prince would automatically be a prince, because it seemed like a reasonable assumption to her.

    This statement is absolute fact. That the Duchess of Sussex thinks differently is an error. It's probably a misunderstanding, rather than anything more sinister. No number of commentators, Black or otherwise, can alter the truth of this statement. If a particular commentator thinks that this statement is false, then they are wrong. It's that simple.

    I also remain of the opinion that it was always unlikely that Prince Harry's children would become princes when Prince Charles succeeded to the throne, because of Charles's desire to slim down the monarchy. And this statement was as true when Prince Harry was running around with Cressida Bonas, or the other long-term blonde whose name I've forgotten, as it was after he married the Duchess of Sussex.

    This last paragraph is my opinion. It's not fact. I believe it to be true, based on the ensemble of commentary that I've heard over the years, but people are entitled to hold different opinions.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Doesn’t the palace have a group of friendly reporters it uses to leak favorable stories? They could have spread some bullshit stories about how the queen gets along famously with her grandson’s new wife.

    Not really. Most of the old-school fawning royal correspondents are long retired and/or dead. In any case, newspaper proprietors have realised that if conflict sells, royal conflict sells even better.

    The other issue is that the late Princess of Wales manipulated chosen reporters: at first quite skilfully but latterly not so well. The watershed was the denials about the Morton book: when they realised they'd been lied to the press gave up and just decided to follow their own agenda. The realisation after Diana's death (when details of her many extra-marital flings finally emerged) that they'd been duped again and again over the years put the lid on it. In fact Harry's protestations quoting his mother is more likely to make matters worse.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 18
    Ruth wrote: »
    That's not what I read. Gayle King is quoted as saying, "all they wanted all along was for the royals to intervene and tell the press to stop with the unfair, inaccurate, false stories that definitely have a racial slant." The royal family didn't push back against the press because that's not how they handle these things. I guess they didn't consider the possibility that the racism in the press coverage would merit a different course of action.

    Do you think it would have worked - given some of our press have now set up bits of their website as “war on woke” a palace statement telling the Daily Express to be less racist would result in what ? My guess is that the result would have been howls of outrage, a metric ton of stories claiming that Meghan Markle was politicising the royal family, and the digging up of every racist incident with any member of the royal family (especially Harry) to be rehashed daily on the tabloid front pages. Most of which would not be legally actionable.
  • My opinion is that the thing that would have "worked" would be for the royal family to affirm to the Duchess, in private, that the press are arseholes, and that they support her. And also to say exactly what you say here - that confronting the press about their racism is likely to be counterproductive. And that the best thing for the Duchess to to would be to ignore the nonsense in the press, knuckle down, and do the job of a working royal. Once she'd been doing that for a decade or so, it's likely that public opinion would be strongly in her favour.

    Oh, and never, ever comment about anything any of the ridiculous members of the Markle family say to the press.

    But that's a lot to ask of someone in the Duchess's position.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    do the job of a working royal.
    Every time I read a phrase like this I’m reminded of John Oliver’s warning:
    “I mean, they’re an emotionally stunted group of fundamentally flawed people doing a very silly pseudo-job,” he grumbled. “That’s what she’s marrying into. So I hope she likes it. It’s going to be weird for her.”

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited March 18
    Thirty six pages of opinion on Someone Else's family! They are nothing to do with us.



    Thanking the good Lord above that my own extended family fall outs ( and there have been Many!) have been far far away from the public gaze.


    Try reading this all through?
    It s not a pretty read.

  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Thirty six pages of opinion on Someone Else's family! They are nothing to do with us.

    When they aren't the biggest landowner in the UK and when conversation doesn't revolve around whether or not a party leader will bow to them, that will be true. Until then.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Thinking this is about the 'minutiae of royal protocol' is part of the problem here. Someone might have a Jedi master level grip on a political party's arcane procedures but if a minority are being traumatised by how they are treated and fleeing the party in droves as a result, some white bloke who's no idea what those experiences are like telling them 'Ah well comrade but under rule 34 subsection c you'll find you weren't discriminated against at all - problem solved!' is just a form of racist gaslighting.

  • My opinion is that the thing that would have "worked" would be for the royal family to affirm to the Duchess, in private, that the press are arseholes, and that they support her. And also to say exactly what you say here - that confronting the press about their racism is likely to be counterproductive.
    And we now know from what has happened over the past 2 weeks that any such conversation would have been leaked to Meghan's "friends".
    And that the best thing for the Duchess to to would be to ignore the nonsense in the press, knuckle down, and do the job of a working royal.
    Good luck with that. In her brief period as a working royal she managed to walk out on a UN sponsored project (she didn't "accept" its approach) and fit in something like 8 private trips abroad in less than 6 months.
    Once she'd been doing that for a decade or so, it's likely that public opinion would be strongly in her favour.

    Oh, and never, ever comment about anything any of the ridiculous members of the Markle family say to the press.

    But that's a lot to ask of someone in the Duchess's position.

    I think it's pretty certain her father, at least, isn't going to go away until he's at least met her husband and his grandchild(ren).
  • Louise wrote: »
    Thinking this is about the 'minutiae of royal protocol' is part of the problem here.

    "This" is a whole lot of things. It's clear that the Duchess was very unhappy under what felt like continuous racial abuse, and it's clear from what she has said that she didn't feel adequately supported by the royal family.

    But there's a difference between "you have experienced racism" and "everything you have experienced is because of racism".

    So if rule 34 subsection c lays out the standard of treatment that a person in your position gets, regardless of race, and rule 34 subsection c is applied to you, in the same way as it would be applied to anyone of any race in your position, you can't reasonably claim that the application of rule 34 subsection c is racist.

    This doesn't mean that other actions aren't racist - just that that one isn't.




  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 18
    Louise wrote: »
    Thinking this is about the 'minutiae of royal protocol' is part of the problem here.

    "This" is a whole lot of things. It's clear that the Duchess was very unhappy under what felt like continuous racial abuse, and it's clear from what she has said that she didn't feel adequately supported by the royal family.

    But there's a difference between "you have experienced racism" and "everything you have experienced is because of racism".

    So if rule 34 subsection c lays out the standard of treatment that a person in your position gets, regardless of race, and rule 34 subsection c is applied to you, in the same way as it would be applied to anyone of any race in your position, you can't reasonably claim that the application of rule 34 subsection c is racist.

    This doesn't mean that other actions aren't racist - just that that one isn't.




    Depends if rule 34 subsection c says "anyone darker than this manilla envelope must use the bottom half of the swimming pool"

    Thing is "the same rule applies to everyone" can be very discriminatory. A rule saying "everyone must run a 5k race once a year" would be very discriminatory against Karlts.
Sign In or Register to comment.