Veiled insult, faux pas or not a big deal?

[MissionItsPossible]

Came across this article in the Mirror just now (Sorry, it's another Meghan one) where she says Prince Michael of Kent wore a 'racist' brooch when meeting her.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-greeted-racist-jewellery-11736477

General consensus from the comments suggest she knew exactly what she was doing. I don't know anything about her to know if it's suspect but it seems an odd thing to own let alone wear in public. What's the jury?

Also, is Michael an actual name for a woman, I've never heard of it before

The British approach is really old-fashioned and sexist (of course one could argue that the whole notion of inherited titles is old-fashioned and sexist). The Scandinavian royals allow princesses by marriage to be Princess Firstname. And in Sweden, the children of Princess Madeleine are prince and princess, even though she married a commoner.

I think the way the Swedish King has done things with his children, especially Madeleine's children being titled even though their father declined a title, is partly down to how long he had to wait to marry, but also down to the relative sadness around the relationship of Prince Bertil and Princess Lillian and what they gave up because of rules and protocol. They weren't always modern like they are now, one generation ago Madeleine would have lost her title, and Victoria and Daniel would have caused an issue because she too could have lost her place without some rule changing when she married a commoner.

They weren't always modern like they are now

Indeed. Carl Gustav had to wait until his grandfather died to marry Sylvia.

Indeed. Carl Gustav had to wait until his grandfather died to marry Sylvia.

Can't imagine Daniel, Sofia or Chris would have made the grade under those rules! It's no surprise really that they were in such trouble Bertil couldn't marry until Carl Gustav had children with rules as tight as they were.

I had the same exact thought, lala when watching Carl Philip and Sofia's wedding and getting a glimpse of her tatoo under her veil.

Oh Seneca I imagine there were a few Bernadotte ancestors turning in graves.

I did read a thing once where someone was having a rant about Victoria. They were bumping their gums about how the rules had been changed to make her Crown Princess and how she'd tainted everything by marrying a personal trainer. I do wonder what they'd have made of CP's choice of bride!

If you look at photos of Queen Silvia as a young woman she looks very much like Sofia. So CP has basically married his mother!

I have never doubts it was entirely intentional and she is a snobby minor royal but for fears of being absolutely crucified by everyone I saw the photo of the brooch and am I totally alone in not finding it racist??? It's a brooch of a prince, albeit of Colour, but he's regal, how is that insulting exactly? Think it was all for effect personally to eat her noticed and if everyone is up in arms then she's got her way.

I don't think it is a prince Rebecca. Jewelry of it's type usually depicted rich men's slaves, who would be lavishly dressed to show off their owner's wealth.

Rebecca, pretty much alone, yes! Even the DM is shocked and outraged and has dubbed it racist.

The brooch is from a style in which black people (servants, slaves...) were dressed up as ornaments. Paraded as decorative pets.

Look up blackamoor jewellery.

Bloody woman. Actually, although I suspect that in her mind and heart, she would be capable of deciding to be racist to and about her extended family, the truth is she was probably just so obliviously ignorant, insensitive and crass that she didn't think.

Rebecca563 Google 'blackamoor jewellery' if you haven't found the racist undertones from a quick glance at the item first time around.

I thought I was pretty much unshockable but this thread has managed it twice. Firstly because PM of K somehow thought it was ok to wear the piece of jewellery at all, let alone to a function that she knew MM was attending. I was beginning to get over that and then my attention was drawn to Sofia H's wedding photos and that tattoo. For some reason I find the idea of a tattooed princess infinitely more surprising than the idea of a mixed race princess and hopefully, eventually, more mixed race little royals. (something I never thought I would live to see and which gives me great hope for the future.)

Loonoonow The tattoos (she has several, the one on her back being the most visible) were pretty much small fry compared to the other issues people had with Sofia H. I don't reckon there's a chance in hell that Prince Harry would have been allowed to marry Sofia H. And there's certainly no way William would have been allowed to marry a single mother like Haakon of Norway was.

I was impressed that Sofia didn't cover her back tattoo at her wedding.

It was deliberate. Princess Michael is an odious individual - has for decades freeloaded of taxpayers money living ‘grace and favour’ (she might have had eventually been forced to pay (not market rate) rent under the tax review of the royals if I recall correctly). More than once she has directly been racially offensive, like Prince Philip.
Her husband is a big mason too - parading around in his pinny.
I’m no royalist _ but Meghan has earned her living doing a proper job, unlike the vast majority of the royal family.

I think that the placing of the brooch was rather odd. Who wears a brooch on their shoulder? Well unless they want it to be very clearly visible when being driven somewhere.

That was a deliberate snub. No "lady" would ever make such a vulgar, nasty and unforgivable gesture. Some princess! Dirty old bitch.

I need to Google the origins of the term "blackamoor", but isn't that in itself incredibly racist? If "moor" = black person (as in Othello) then "blackamoor" must be like saying "blackie black black".

It's hard to believe that even the most insular and cosseted person would be blissfully unaware of how the broach would be perceived. So yes, I think deliberate too.
In the interests of historical accuracy, a PP ( sorry can't remember who) said something along the lines of " black people didn't enslave white people". Yes, they did. Approximately 1 million were enslaved by North Africans, Google Barbary Corsairs, and Circassian and Georgian women were sold off to the Ottomans and to Zanzibar.
The first slaves in the Americas were white. OK, it was called indentured labour, but they could be brought and sold, couldn't own property, couldn't marry without permission and if they died ( as they usually did) before the indenture was served, it passed on to the wife and children, so, yes, slaves.
Black people also enslaved black people - modern day Mauritania only made it illegal in 2009 and it's estimated up to 20% of the population are still slaves.
There are approximately 45m people in modern day slavery as we speak.
I think PMOK was deliberately rude and offensive, but there are probably worse issues than her museum piece jewellery to worry about.

That was in no way intended to excuse or deny the transatlantic slave trade by the way, before anyone starts, but people are living in slavery today and that is sometimes overlooked.

My surname progenitor was an indentured servant, from age 7 or 8, in ~1648. Most really weren't like slaves.. they had legal rights, a limited service term (usually to age 21), their masters had legal obligations to give them a trade. Mine did very well, became pillar of the community & begat the thousands of us.

The other important attempt at slavery was of native Americans: but they kept escaping, so soon indigenous captives were shipped to West Indies & West Indies slaves (African origin) got shipped back to the colonies. Most African Americans have a lot of native American heritage for many reasons.

I never heard of Blackamoors before this thread/outcry. The broaches can be beautiful. PrincessM apologised & I think that should be end of the matter.

I find that brooch very offensive whoever is wearing it. Just why? I think it was a deliberate insult.

lijkk it worked out for your ancestor by the sound of things, but many were tricked or abducted. They didn't receive training, land or anything else they were promised.
They died in huge numbers, were treated appallingly and had years added to their indenture for any minor transgression.Most didn't live to see the end of their indenture or were cheated when they did.
Rights were very much notional for the most part.

I'm not finding reliable sources to back up the suggestion that the majority of indentured servants were treated that badly, tbh. It's key that Most went into it willingly, unlike the indigenous Americans & Africans. I guess that tells us just how terrible conditions were in England at the time.

I don't disagree, ( other than the street kids that were rounded up and deported).
But what that signed up for was not necessarily what they got.

Indentured servitude existed in many areas, I was specifically referring to the early American colonies especially the Virginias.