Are the royals on the rocks?

1343537394042

Comments

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited March 18
    Gwai wrote: »
    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:

    Thank you. I will admit to mixed motives: partly sincere and partly defensive.

    If I don't respond to most of your essay, it's not because I'm ignoring it but because it doesn't provoke any quarrel or knee-jerk responses from me.

    Also, for some reason I thought you were black. If in fact this thread is now a bunch of white people arguing over a black person's experience, then probably (and I mean this as a general comment) no-one should get too much on their high horse.

    My defensiveness comes from this: it seems like white posters A are questioning why people would doubt the Duchess, and some more white posters B are posting reasons why, and white posters A are acting as though those reasons are irrelevant, or merely a self-deceiving rationalisation for racism - posters B are not just wrong, but Not Even Wrong.

    Maybe they are Not Even Wrong. There is clearly a clash of comprehension somewhere, and it may well be in my head. At the same time, white posters A are not talking from their own experience; they are voicing their perception, as white people, of black people's experience.

    Here is a question that may well illustrate my lack of comprehension. To my Q2, you say:
    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.

    That sounds reasonable, in the abstract. It's the application to specific claims that I'm unsure about. E.g. the specific claim that Archie was denied a title and security because of his race - I don't think you are saying that I should give less weight to, for example, this article by a white journalist, than a similar article by a non-white journalist. Ultimately, the colour of the person in the byline tells us a lot about who the Press assign to royal duties, but not very much about the factuality of what they write.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate

    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).

    He doesn't have an automatic right to meet them.

    From the news I've heard, he's been an absolute jerk, at least since H & M got together. (Don't know about before.) And he recently said something to the effect that if he doesn't get to meet them, he's going to make some stupid publicity mess **every 30 days**.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    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.

    This is the difference between equality and equity. Illustration.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad 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!

    He could have been though. Wills could have been killed by a tram crossing Bourke St.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    NP--

    Thanks for the link to the image, and the site itself. Good stuff!
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited March 19
    I was just mulling over some of the stuff claiming there was no possible way to protect Meghan from the racist feeding-frenzy of the tabloids. If that's the case, then there is no justification for continuing to have a royal family. It cannot be a symbol of or focus for unity for the nation if it cannot reflect the nation.

    If it's not possible for the royal family to protect its members from the press unless they're white and fit within some kind of narrowish Overton window of acceptability for which the press will make bargains not to tear them apart on a whim, and if the governments of the day (due to their own Faustian pacts with the nastier end of the press) will not regulate the press to stop that kind of abusive racist behaviour, then it's not possible to have a royal family that's not institutionally racist.

    Any person of colour who joined such an institution would be being asked to put themselves and their children at unacceptable risk.

    And if that means we have to have a hideously white royal family or else Murdoch and Dacre et al will eat them for breakfast, then their traditional role is no longer tenable except to the type of folk who're fine about them being exclusively white - and that is quite definitely a species of racism which makes the continuation of their role untenable and immoral.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    There was a way to protect her, perhaps, and that is by ignoring the racist feeding frenzy of the tabloids. The way to guarantee that the racist feeding frenzy will continue is to play their game, like Diana did. Let the press office deal with the press. Make your appearances on the Telly managed by your people and on the topics you want to discuss. Don't talk about the internals of the family. Keep away from controversy. If you do invite controversy, the press will bite you over and over again, and bite your children and grandchildren. You will be the damaged darling one day, and the horrible harridan the next. I use female terms deliberately, because women are the preferred targets of this twisted industry.

    That is a tried and true strategy that works for celebrities all over the world. You give the press enough of yourself, such as happy snaps of the kids, you let the dirtsheets run their bulldust stories and use their doctored photos, and IF you respond, you do so via your paid staff with a curt denial.

    Harry and Wills copped it because of Diana. Beatrix and the other one copped it because of Fergie. Princess Anne and her first husband divorced (IIRC), but her kids didn't cop it because Anne and her hubby stuck with the family Press Management strategy. Its not too late because the Sussex's can still revert to the keeping schtum stick. But it will take a while. I hope they do.

    This is Press Management 101. I don't know why the Sussex' felt that this was not enough. The path they chose, the Diana strategy, clearly fails. I don't really have any opinion about the Duchess. I don't know any of her history. I have a good opinion of Harry because he used his celebrity to get the Veterans Games up. But now I'm worried about his judgement. Not very much worried, you understand. This controversy will be largely forgotten in a couple of months.

    (Wife down from the office, will address racism later)
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    The Monarchy has always been a racist, imperialist institution. The Australian Parliament is full of racists, but not as many as there was in 1960. Back then, the leader of our labour party infamously said, "Two Wongs don't make a White." Every country founded by Europe in the colonial period is a product of racism and imperialism.

    I hope that one day these countries and institutions will become less racist; that the direct and indirect racism will be reduced, as we work on our systems and our education. To argue that a very handy way of choosing a head of state who does not have a distinct political base of support or any capacity to act other than in specially designed and constrained ways should be changed because their implicit racism has once again been revealed to be explicit makes no sense to me. Criticise the racism. Criticise the racist. But the Monarchy is too neat a constitutional beast to kill it off.
  • Louise wrote: »
    I was just mulling over some of the stuff claiming there was no possible way to protect Meghan from the racist feeding-frenzy of the tabloids. If that's the case, then there is no justification for continuing to have a royal family. It cannot be a symbol of or focus for unity for the nation if it cannot reflect the nation.

    If it's not possible for the royal family to protect its members from the press unless they're white and fit within some kind of narrowish Overton window of acceptability for which the press will make bargains not to tear them apart on a whim, and if the governments of the day (due to their own Faustian pacts with the nastier end of the press) will not regulate the press to stop that kind of abusive racist behaviour, then it's not possible to have a royal family that's not institutionally racist.

    Any person of colour who joined such an institution would be being asked to put themselves and their children at unacceptable risk.

    And if that means we have to have a hideously white royal family or else Murdoch and Dacre et al will eat them for breakfast, then their traditional role is no longer tenable except to the type of folk who're fine about them being exclusively white - and that is quite definitely a species of racism which makes the continuation of their role untenable and immoral.

    I think this whole mess is just one straw in a very nasty wind. We have a lot of other stuff going on dragged along by the same Faustian pact:
    • the current review of the policing bill that puts statues of slavers on a higher pedestal than murdered women (link to Guardian coverage);
    • the campaign by the right-wing media when the National Trust attempted to be a bit more inclusive a few years ago - discussed on Ye Olde Shippe™ here;
    • schools being told not to use teaching material from "anti-capitalist" groups - link to Sky news coverage;
    • the hostile environment for refugees, asylum seekers and particularly anyone else with a brown skin - see Amnesty International on Windrush (link). There is a hotel locally that is housing asylum seekers during the pandemic, and it has been targeted repeatedly by the far right, most recently at the end of last month;
    • the popularity of the "herd immunity" and Great Barrington Debate ideas that would allow those who think themselves immune to Covid19 willing to sacrifice anyone else who is holding back the country's ability to go "back to normal" to quote the campaign pushing this.

    It would have been fantastic had Harry and Meghan managed to bring the Royal Family into the 20th century, and I suspect that much of the Royal Family were trying to support them to do so, but it would have taken a practically inhuman course of action from both of them, as suggested by @Simon Toad and @Leorning Cniht to force acceptance from the gutter press.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »

    If it's not possible for the royal family to protect its members from the press unless they're white and fit within some kind of narrowish Overton window of acceptability for which the press will make bargains not to tear them apart on a whim, and if the governments of the day (due to their own Faustian pacts with the nastier end of the press) will not regulate the press to stop that kind of abusive racist behaviour, then it's not possible to have a royal family that's not institutionally racist.

    I don't think it's a case of the Royals protecting its members only if they 'fit'. Traditionally, the Royal Family per se have usually protected itself - very effectively - from the press by simply not engaging with the press when it's criticized. The underlings get to say what they want (more or less) about them; and the royals can effectively, and truthfully, say 'we're in such a privileged position we don't even have to notice what the trash press is grunting about'. That way the Royals get to do their 'royaling' stuff with all the perks, and those who want to whinge about it are free to do so.*

    But Meghan's advent shakes up 'traditional'. However right or wrong either side of this issue has been in their own right, opportunities to develop, grow, modernize and work it through successfully have been missed.

    Inherent racism has always bubbled away within, below, as an undercurrent of the establishment of both empire and monarchical power, as it does, arguably, with any imperialist power in all the Western nations. It's not possible to have any Western power elite - political or otherwise - without racism. Another 'traditional' aspect of white privileged power that is being shaken up in more than once place than the UK.

    *There are some exceptions though arguably of a much more material and legal nature. Eg, Meghan sued for invasion of privacy and won. William and Kate sued a French tabloid over nude snaps and won. (Did they actually sue the Tatler, too?) Legal transgressions can and do lead to court cases. Think of Burrell and his post-Diana palaver, with the possibility of calling the Queen to witness in court. It is targeted generic groups that don't have the position, money or clout to get back at the irresponsibility of the tabloid press (or have the power to ignore them) when vilified, as many Irish people will tell you when the IRA were active on the 'mainland', or any immigrant might tell you currently. Or whoever the demonised demographic of the day happens to be for the sake of sales figures.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    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.

    thought that was the Church of England,
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Donald T. was quoted in the Times as expressing the wish that Meghan M. would run against him for the presidency, because he would 'eat her alive'. Apart from the light this throws on the ex-president's mentality, it waises the thought 'Could the Oprah Whitney interview conceivably be the first step in founding a political opening for her?'
  • Interesting posts by Louise and Curiosity killed. In short, there are massive culture wars going on, whereby everything 'woke' is attacked by the right wing. Astonishing really, that statues seem to be more protected than women in the recent policing bill. M and H are tangled up in this, and I don't see a solution. The more they object, the more the tabloids will attack. Would lying low work? Maybe, but at some cost to their own sense of worth. I was thinking about the old phrase, that a fish rots from the head, but in England there is rot from the head, the bottom and the middle.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited March 19
    Louise wrote: »
    If it's not possible for the royal family to protect its members from the press unless they're white and fit within some kind of narrowish Overton window of acceptability for which the press will make bargains not to tear them apart on a whim, and if the governments of the day (due to their own Faustian pacts with the nastier end of the press) will not regulate the press to stop that kind of abusive racist behaviour
    ...
    And if that means we have to have a hideously white royal family or else Murdoch and Dacre et al will eat them for breakfast, then their traditional role is no longer tenable except

    The other thing to bear in mind is the various online outlets that serve as right-wing out-ridders for confected outrage that can get picked up by the print media, which then drives broadcast content (if only via the 'what the papers say' style sections). The most influential of these being Guido Fawkes and the Spectators online offering.

    It often goes unremarked upon that the BBC is the biggest source of referral traffic to a blog attracting a readership so racist that the word 'Jew' had to be banned in it's comment section.

    To take an example from this week; A minister goes on TV, and the male presenter makes some remarks about the size of the flag behind him. GF goes after his co-presenter who laughs at his remarks, and who just so happens to be female and BAME. Her name is currently trending on twitter with the hashtag #DefundTheBBC, and she has become a story for the next news cycle.
  • Yes, confected outrage. How dare Naga Munchetty laugh at the Union Flag? Now you have "MPs demand action over sneering BBC presenters". And she is apologizing for liking offensive tweets. God help us.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Massive push back against civilsed, educated and humane attitudes.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    @Anselmina wrote:
    But Meghan's advent shakes up 'traditional'. However right or wrong either side of this issue has been in their own right, opportunities to develop, grow, modernize and work it through successfully have been missed.

    Not really. How long since they were married? I can't be bothered to remember, frankly. The Monarchy has been progressively shaken up throughout the present reign. But the Queen is what, 95? Very very very very old. Any day, she's going to drop. I'm mean, are there any shippies older than the Queen? And we are not exactly spring chickens.

    If there is to be reform it will come in the reign of the next Monarch, or perhaps the one after that. I suspect Chuck will make some changes though.

    One thing that Charles and the next one should not change is the traditional way that the Royals deal with the Press. The Press is poison. Be they the yellow press of the national enquirer, Ellen de Generis or her like, Oprah or whomever, anybody whose career revolves around inquiring into the personal lives of celebrity. Theirs is an acid gaze. It burned Diana and Sarah F, and it blighted the lives of their children. William and Catherine seem to understand that. The Sussex's issue need praying for.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Cross-Pond.}

    I don't understand why some UK (mostly) posters assume or deeply believe that not talking to the paparazzi will lead them to leave people alone. They make some things up entirely, and twist others. They use that to attract advertisers and fans, and that helps the companies involved to make more money.

    If they had any respect for the royals, as royals or as people, they wouldn't be so awful to them. (Same with anyone else they cover, but maybe moreso with the royals--they provide a steady source of "news".)

    So the media has a vested interest in *not* stopping. Their mistreatment of M hasn't been just one or two stories--it's all the time. That's not something a person can just ignore, and still be healthy. Someone who's grown up with that might have an easier time. But child actors and child celebs often get really messed up, and media coverage is part of that.

    Speaking up for yourself--particularly if in a quiet, calm, considered, and dignified way--may help the targets of severe harassment by the media feel and get some balance, and control over their own lives.

    The media isn't going to back off, particularly the paparazzi. But speaking up to clear the air, and to correct misinformation and purposeful disinformation can, at least, help set the record straight--and get the truth out where someone might listen to it and understand.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate

    It is
    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.
    That's an oversimplification the other way, hes not a prince because of the combination of the 1917 letters patent say he's not, and the 2012 letters not saying he is (they covered the messed up situation the original created on Williams side, when prince George might have been lady Georgina and also fixed princess Charlotte and prince louis) and there being a choice of not being a 2018 letters about harry (probably a choice made in 2012, although at the time I think there was a vague public expectation that of course there would be when the time came, they could have covered him then if they wanted)

    Of course they have to stop somewhere, it's a slippery slope to making everyone a prince.

    And the default is definitely established as being not. It would have been a deliberate and contraversial act (arguably of favouritism against the will of the pressple) to have done so again (whereas 2012 clearly fixed blatantly badly planned and mysognystic legislation).
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    {Cross-Pond.}

    I don't understand why some UK (mostly) posters assume or deeply believe that not talking to the paparazzi will lead them to leave people alone. They make some things up entirely, and twist others. They use that to attract advertisers and fans, and that helps the companies involved to make more money.

    If they had any respect for the royals, as royals or as people, they wouldn't be so awful to them. (Same with anyone else they cover, but maybe moreso with the royals--they provide a steady source of "news".)

    So the media has a vested interest in *not* stopping. Their mistreatment of M hasn't been just one or two stories--it's all the time. That's not something a person can just ignore, and still be healthy. Someone who's grown up with that might have an easier time. But child actors and child celebs often get really messed up, and media coverage is part of that.

    Speaking up for yourself--particularly if in a quiet, calm, considered, and dignified way--may help the targets of severe harassment by the media feel and get some balance, and control over their own lives.

    The media isn't going to back off, particularly the paparazzi. But speaking up to clear the air, and to correct misinformation and purposeful disinformation can, at least, help set the record straight--and get the truth out where someone might listen to it and understand.

    You're wrong. It works. Princess Anne was divorced amicably (in public). Her children were not hounded up hill and down dale. Even though divorce was still frowned upon at the time, her vilification quieted down. When she remarried, the press found out a few days prior.

    The scum papers will always rake the shit. They make it up. You just ignore it. That's what you do. Because if you engage, they destroy you.

    On the subject of reform of the Monarchy, could Prince George, third in line, marry a Catholic?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I think Zara Philips got a nasty taste of the media some years back, when she married a rugby player. But that died down. I vaguely remember some scandal, appropriately ignored.

    Have you heard from Prince Edward? Remember him? Have you heard of his children? Does he have any? I don't know. I think he's married.

    That's the point. Diana and Fergie stuffed it, and blighted the lives of their children. Now the Sussex's have made the same mistake. I hope they realise and correct it, ASAP.
  • I was brought up to stand up to bullies. Whoever they might be, however powerful they might appear. Or actually are.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I was brought up to stand up to bullies. Whoever they might be, however powerful they might appear. Or actually are.

    Yes, it's absurd to say it works, if you lie back and swallow all the shit, and don't complain.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    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.

    True. Or "police officers must have minimum height 5'8", or soldiers must wear their hair in one of these styles that are appropriate for white people's hair, but not so much for Black hair, and so on." Yes, there are plenty of rules which are in themselves discriminatory. "Great-grandchildren of the sovereign who are not children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales don't get to be princes" is not one.

  • rhubarbrhubarb Shipmate
    Until the latest hoo hah I had no idea that Meghan was biracial. She looks just as white as Harry, only whiter. Does it really matter what colour people are? My 3 children are nothing like each other and have different features and skin tones and yet they are products of the same parents. The whole issue seems to be a storm in a teacup that is being blown into the size of a hurricane.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I was brought up to stand up to bullies. Whoever they might be, however powerful they might appear. Or actually are.

    This also pertains to the current movement among women against abuse, following the murder of Sarah Everard. Arguably, English society is ill-equipped to fight against abuse, so statues now seem to be better protected than women, and rape is minimally prosecuted. The royals have also been targets themselves, as with Diana and Meghan. So don't fight back, lie low, don't complain. What you might call an abuser's charter.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    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!

    He could have been though. Wills could have been killed by a tram crossing Bourke St.

    I was once told, but have no way of verifying this, that certain authorities know where the top nine are at any given moment. Just in case.
  • Louise wrote: »
    If it's not possible for the royal family to protect its members from the press unless they're white and fit within some kind of narrowish Overton window of acceptability for which the press will make bargains not to tear them apart on a whim,

    It is not possible for the royal family to protect its members from the press whether or not they're white. As I think @TheOrganist posted earlier, the only time the royal family was mostly successful at reigning in the British press was with respect to the treatment of the royal children, and neither the royal family, nor the UK government, has any power at all over the foreign press. @Anselmina pointed out a couple of isolated incidents where royals successfully sued for invasion of privacy. These are exceptions.

    Despite the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are no longer front-line royals, I'd expect the agreement with the press to cover their children as much as it does any of the other royal children. Which means the British press shouldn't publish paparazzi shots of Archie at some Californian preschool or whatever.

    Simon Toad wrote: »
    On the subject of reform of the Monarchy, could Prince George, third in line, marry a Catholic?

    Yes. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removed the "married to a Catholic" disqualification from the line of succession. Prince George will still require the sovereign's permission to marry, and he may not become a Catholic himself without removing himself from the line of succession.
  • @Simon Toad
    The Sussexes got married on 19th May 2018 - so less than 3 years married. Their son was born on 6th May 2019.

    Don't bank of the Queen dying anytime soon: her mother, whose intake of alcohol was prodigious, was nearly 102 when she died.

    Agree with you that approach to the press shouldn't change, not even the UK press and broadcasters.

    As for the people/publications you mention - they're American so by definition can be ignored as neither home or commonwealth.
  • rhubarb wrote: »
    Until the latest hoo hah I had no idea that Meghan was biracial. She looks just as white as Harry, only whiter. Does it really matter what colour people are? My 3 children are nothing like each other and have different features and skin tones and yet they are products of the same parents. The whole issue seems to be a storm in a teacup that is being blown into the size of a hurricane.

    I voiced much the same thought about Meghan earlier on this thread, and was told that, by downplaying the fact that she is of mixed race, I was, in effect, being racist.
    :confused:

    Whatever. I just hope the storm blows over, and H & M can get on with their lives. Other storms may well occur in the future, of course...
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I was brought up to stand up to bullies. Whoever they might be, however powerful they might appear. Or actually are.

    Yes, it's absurd to say it works, if you lie back and swallow all the shit, and don't complain.

    Why does it work for Anne and not Fergie or Diana?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I was brought up to stand up to bullies. Whoever they might be, however powerful they might appear. Or actually are.

    This also pertains to the current movement among women against abuse, following the murder of Sarah Everard. Arguably, English society is ill-equipped to fight against abuse, so statues now seem to be better protected than women, and rape is minimally prosecuted. The royals have also been targets themselves, as with Diana and Meghan. So don't fight back, lie low, don't complain. What you might call an abuser's charter.

    horse shit. The abuse of women and minorities is systemic as well as individual. The abuse of Diana and her progeny is because of their celebrity. Diana tried to weaponise the media, and it bit her hard.

    Not engaging with the media on their terms is not the same as not fighting back. William fought back and won. So did Harry. They used the courts. The press office is there to be used too. They are the ones whose job it is to manage the media, and they do a good job.

    Again, explain to me why Anne and her family are mostly left alone when Anne's life could have been used as fodder for the yellow press. She was nearly bloody kidnapped! Why is she not an example of managing the press, and using them to promote her causes?
  • rhubarb wrote: »
    Until the latest hoo hah I had no idea that Meghan was biracial. She looks just as white as Harry, only whiter. Does it really matter what colour people are? My 3 children are nothing like each other and have different features and skin tones and yet they are products of the same parents. The whole issue seems to be a storm in a teacup that is being blown into the size of a hurricane.

    I voiced much the same thought about Meghan earlier on this thread, and was told that, by downplaying the fact that she is of mixed race, I was, in effect, being racist.
    :confused:

    As you bring it up again yourself; part of the problem with the kinds of statements made by rhubarb is that the implied suggestion that therefore she isn't 'black enough' to be the victim of racism.

    Plus the division of biracial people into those who 'pass' and those who don't with the norming of whiteness that that entails.

    [I'm not suggesting anyone said it on this thread; but sentiments along the lines of 'I don't see her as black, I see her as a very attractive woman' are obviously even worse when seen in this context]
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Here's the final version of the post above. I forgot I had already posted it.

    horse shit. The abuse of women and minorities is systemic as well as individual. The abuse of Diana and her progeny is because of their celebrity. Diana tried to weaponise the media, and it bit her hard.

    Meghan is different and more problematic for my position, I grant you. The racism expressed in the British Press needs to be addressed. I have a vague idea that there has been talk about it by media commentators, but haven't looked to see whether formal action has been taken. The allegation concerning the skin colour of Meghan's baby is credible, but unsurprising and the sort of thing that families have to work through. But agreeing to a celebrity interview with Oprah about personal matters was not the way to do it.

    Not engaging with the media on their terms is not the same as not fighting back. William fought back and won. So did Harry and Meghan. They used the courts. The press office is there to be used too. They are the ones whose job it is to manage the media, and they do a good job.

    Again, explain to me why Anne and her family are mostly left alone when Anne's life could have been used as fodder for the yellow press. She was nearly bloody kidnapped! Why is she not an example of managing the press, and using them to promote her causes?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 19
    rhubarb wrote: »
    Until the latest hoo hah I had no idea that Meghan was biracial. She looks just as white as Harry, only whiter. Does it really matter what colour people are? My 3 children are nothing like each other and have different features and skin tones and yet they are products of the same parents. The whole issue seems to be a storm in a teacup that is being blown into the size of a hurricane.

    I voiced much the same thought about Meghan earlier on this thread, and was told that, by downplaying the fact that she is of mixed race, I was, in effect, being racist.
    :confused:

    As you bring it up again yourself; part of the problem with the kinds of statements made by rhubarb is that the implied suggestion that therefore she isn't 'black enough' to be the victim of racism.

    Yes, you're right, and I do take the point.

    (Why can't I keep my big mouth shut ? Least said, soonest mended.)
  • Sorry, don't get that. The abuse of women is systemic, and it seems to me that Harry has been handled with kid gloves, compared to Meghan. Why has Anne been left alone? Because she is boring. I remember that as a tactic with school bullies.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 19
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?
  • Being boring is a recognized way of dealing with abuse. At school, don't look Jewish, or black, don't have freckles,or a big nose. Meghan is a classic target, female, non-white, energetic, (uppity), attractive, successful. All those envious men can hardly restrain themselves from wanking over her.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited March 19
    @Ricardus Thanks.
    I believe that as a white person it is emphatically not my job/responsibility/or ability to say how black people feel. But I do try to center black voices when relevant. I do not believe there is any point of fact where I could not find a different point of view. For instance, what do black Americans feel about Archie and racism? I do not know and admit to having very little interest in the UK monarchy generally as it does not relate to my life at all. But I am absolutely positive there are black Americans speaking, and in fact my five second google turned up some. In the end, I think that echo chambers tend to be very useless places. Even if you are all exactly my kind of liberals with all the right opinions, I will learn more from finding a more varied view. A discussion of the royals among only white people is going to innately be missing a lot considering the topic!
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?

    Yes, I recall a different version of this, as I came from a tough area, I was loud, clever, and was recommended to construct a different persona, quiet, not working class, well-spoken, blah blah. And I did it for decades, until it made me ill. If somebody wants to conform, fair enough, but if somebody doesn't, fair enough. But in England, you get punished, especially if female, see Caroline Flack.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?

    Yes, I recall a different version of this, as I came from a tough area, I was loud, clever, and was recommended to construct a different persona, quiet, not working class, well-spoken, blah blah. And I did it for decades, until it made me ill. If somebody wants to conform, fair enough, but if somebody doesn't, fair enough. But in England, you get punished, especially if female, see Caroline Flack.

    Playing footsie with the press over your private life is entirely optional. So is just getting on with your job and letting that speak for you - the Anne approach.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    But agreeing to a celebrity interview with Oprah about personal matters was not the way to do it.

    The interview with Oprah is not an attempt to 'manage' the relationship with the British Press - as you say below in the same post they already did that for a few years. They've decided the balance that they can strike with the press is not advantageous and have decided to move on to the US. This was about trailing the next set of things they'll be doing; such as their Netflix series and Harry's series with Oprah on mental health.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    But agreeing to a celebrity interview with Oprah about personal matters was not the way to do it.

    The interview with Oprah is not an attempt to 'manage' the relationship with the British Press - as you say below in the same post they already did that for a few years. They've decided the balance that they can strike with the press is not advantageous and have decided to move on to the US. This was about trailing the next set of things they'll be doing; such as their Netflix series and Harry's series with Oprah on mental health.

    Interesting thought - maybe they are indeed playing a long game...
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    But agreeing to a celebrity interview with Oprah about personal matters was not the way to do it.

    The interview with Oprah is not an attempt to 'manage' the relationship with the British Press - as you say below in the same post they already did that for a few years. They've decided the balance that they can strike with the press is not advantageous and have decided to move on to the US. This was about trailing the next set of things they'll be doing; such as their Netflix series and Harry's series with Oprah on mental health.

    Interesting thought - maybe they are indeed playing a long game...

    They have signed contracts or been involved with talks with Netflix, Spotify and Disney+, I presume that is where they expect to be busy over the next few years.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?

    Yes, I recall a different version of this, as I came from a tough area, I was loud, clever, and was recommended to construct a different persona, quiet, not working class, well-spoken, blah blah. And I did it for decades, until it made me ill. If somebody wants to conform, fair enough, but if somebody doesn't, fair enough. But in England, you get punished, especially if female, see Caroline Flack.

    Playing footsie with the press over your private life is entirely optional. So is just getting on with your job and letting that speak for you - the Anne approach.

    False dichotomy.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I was brought up to stand up to bullies. Whoever they might be, however powerful they might appear. Or actually are.

    Yes, it's absurd to say it works, if you lie back and swallow all the shit, and don't complain.

    Why does it work for Anne and not Fergie or Diana?

    The Princess Royal has always struck as me as fairly formidable. She was never beautiful or glamorous, there was never the whiff of vulnerability the media sniff for. There was no fairytale archetype for her to embody: she is if anything, the Granny Weatherwax of the RF.
  • Gwai wrote: »
    This was about trailing the next set of things they'll be doing; such as their Netflix series and Harry's series with Oprah on mental health.

    This is why they did the interview, certainly. They made the decision that they didn't want to be royals any more, and wanted to be celebrities instead.

    Celebrities can't do the "dignified silence" thing, because publicity is their currency. The royals don't really want publicity. When the Princess Royal, for example, shows up to open a new community centre, she turns up, cuts a ribbon, shakes a lot of hands, and spends some time talking to whatever people have been assembled for her to talk to. There's probably a picture in the local paper, but it isn't national news, because it's ordinary, and happens all the time.

    When the royals get "publicity" then unless someone's getting married or having a baby, it's probably for a bad reason - either someone's sick and in hospital, or someone has said or done something stupid (cf. every press mention of The Duke of York or The Duke of Edinburgh in the last decade or so.)
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I’m finding this thread difficult because I agree with everyone.

    I was bullied, badly, at work. She was jealous, I was happy, energetic and popular. So I understand exactly what @quetzalcoatl is saying.

    But I also agree with those who are saying that Diana and Meghan would have been better off not courting the press and keeping well away from any interviews.

    I’m a republican and think the royal family is the tip of an iceberg of privilege which urgently needs to change.

    But I think we should remove the Royal family after the Queen has died. She has done her best with the lot she was given.
  • I'm not sure I would entirely agree that HM the Q has *done her best*.

    If, as I think may have been suggested on this thread, she deliberately set out to turn the Royal Family into *The Firm*, then she may have done her children and grandchildren - or some of them - a disservice.

    Not that she meant to, of course, but she may be reaping what she sowed.

    Others may well say that what I've just posted is a load of shite...
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    No, I agree with you @Bishops Finger.

    That’s my problem - I agree with everyone on this thread. The Queen can ‘do her best’ and still do the wrong thing.

Sign In or Register to comment.