To think that if the only black adult in your family says they have experienced racism...

[Overcastcloudy]

... it's counterproductive to send a white man out to say, We're very much not racist?

That just is never going to end well. Ask Ian Murray how it worked out for him.

I couldn't care much either way about the Royal Family. Just baffled at the headline of William saying this.

Why are some people so desperate for everything to be about skin colour. Dare to disagree with Meghan and you are racist 🤦‍♀️

The basic facts are the facts. Things have changed and are changing in the royal family. All that started before Meghan. Someone should have warned her before marriage (Harry). Harry would only become a direct heir if Harry arranges a mass assassination. Kate has provided an heir, a spare and another spare.

@Firstbellini

The sacraments are part of the ceremonies and rituals of the church - baptism, confirmation, marriage, eucharist etc. Can't remember which ones CoE recognises, but marriage is an important ceremony/ritual nonetheless.

To you of course they have inward meaning, to me they are just rituals.

@Marmaladeagain I would say people who fight to stamp out racism are the ones who have goodness in their hearts. People who think it's ok to be racist are heartless, soulless and lack humanity. It's the good guys vs the bad guys.

@Smallonesaremorejuicy

To say ‘ she passes for white ‘ is racist...implying that white is the best . By the way she doesn’t you can clearly see she is mixed race .

I agree that "passes for white" is a racist term, but I don't agree that Meghan is obviously mixed race. I didn't know that until it was revealed that her character on Suits was mixed race.

Why are some people so desperate for everything to be about skin colour.

Did you bother to read the title and OP of the thread?

Why is a discussion about Meghan about race I wonder?

@Tzigane

The long gone mumsnet way of admitting you are wrong

Rather ironic given that I corrected your post with facts that are easily googable. The rest is just waffle and smileys.

You corrected with fact but the facts showed you are wrong. Like I said you clearly don't understand

The C of E recognises all of them.

Of course lots of people don’t recognise the divinity in them. Why would they? Plenty of people belong to other religions entirely and get married according to their own beliefs.

Meghan Markle isn’t of another religion.

Marriage is a sacrament throughout the whole marriage not just during a ceremony.

You corrected with fact but the facts showed you are wrong. Like I said you clearly don't understand

Feel free to correct the facts in my post:

1. Harry will be son of a king [ie when Charles takes the throne]
2. Eugenie and Beatrice's protection was cut in 2011 when they were both still at uni not when they first started working as you claimed.

@Tzigane

You corrected with fact but the facts showed you are wrong. Like I said you clearly don't understand

Feel free to correct the facts in my post:

1. Harry will be son of a king [ie when Charles takes the throne]
2. Eugenie and Beatrice's protection was cut in 2011 when they were both still at uni not when they first started working as you claimed.

I already have go back and read🙄

But not an American and British cultural divide. It is a divide between people who belong to sacramental churches and people who don’t.

I think it’s both @Firstbellini

Oh God you are going into petty details because you are wrong aren't you

Right the at uni or starting work is not the point here. Though that when they start work was the official decision and how it in fact went down is irrelevant.

The fact is they were much youth than Harry and money was cut off for security. Like him they are the queens grandchildren. Also never going to be the heir.

@Tzigane

But you didn’t make any reference to the payroll... and none of the royals you referenced receive official public funding anyway. (How much of their income comes from the Queen’s funds is a different issue.)

I rather assumed acquaintance with the issues of slimming down of the monarchy.

Eugenie and Beatrice received royal protection until 2011. They could have become working royals and received a sovergeign grant once they left uni, which is what Andrew wanted for then, but Charles overruled that. In 2016 Andrew wrote to the queen requesting that but was turned down.

P & P Michael had a grace and favour apartment at Kensington palace that was withdrawn as part of the slimming down operation.

I KNOW all of this. My point was, Archie will be at the equivalent level to where Beatrice and Eugenie are now W hen Charles reaches the throne. You described them as ‘extraneous princesses’ who they should ‘get rid of’. Why do you want them to have less but Archie to have more?

@Firstbellini

It's not simply about belonging to other religions, some people are spiritual but not religious. In fact that's very much the way spirituality is evolving. Many Christians live good lives without being invested in dogma or going to church much.

I've no idea what religion Meghan is - as she's Californian she must be part hippy.

@Tzigane

But changing the established plan because the children would have mixed heritage would be racist

No, not changing the established plan. Changing the change to the established plan. By the established plan, Archie would have become prince when Charles became monarch.

Only someone very ignorant of racial issues could call that racist.

No. It has long been very clear that PC was intent on slimming down the monarchy and this would mean those not in the direct line wouldn’t be HRH. This has already started to happen. His youngest brother’s children don’t use HRH.

You suggested he should have reconsidered making planned changes since the children affected by the change would have mixed heritage. To do that would have been racist.

Well the good news is in America there is now more coverage of the garden chairs from the interview and where to buy them.

Apparently the chairs which were designed by an actor from the Brady Bunch have sold out everywhere ❤

Re different accusations that keep coming up on different threads of things being “petty” , I agree that fights over flower girl dresses (that go on for three years) and whether a wedding is a wedding or blessing or something else sound petty.

However, it’s obvious that these things are just the small incidents through which big questions of truth, prejudice, honesty & racism are being perceived and examined.

So it’s getting a bit daft for posters on all sides to keep calling “petty”. It’s all petty, and none of it is petty.

*...the chairs which were designed by an actor from the Brady Bunch...”

How LA is that?

“However, it’s obvious that these things are just the small incidents through which big questions of truth, prejudice, honesty & racism are being perceived and examined.

So it’s getting a bit daft for posters on all sides to keep calling “petty”. It’s all petty, and none of it is petty.”

I think the petty stuff is brought up by people who want to undermine and side step.
Instead of talking about emotional distress from personal experiences of bullying, racism and misogyny, The detractors focus on trivia to discredit and detach from the real narrative and build one of their own that minimises and sidelines the key issues

If a woman faced horrific domestic abuse and said my husband attacked me with a knife, would we be trying to discredit her by questioning whether it was a kitchen knife or a hunting knife or a machete?

And then make it all about the characteristics of different types of knives?

You know, she is lying because she said knife when it was clearly a machete 🙄

@StillCoughingandLaughing

I KNOW all of this. My point was, Archie will be at the equivalent level to where Beatrice and Eugenie are now W hen Charles reaches the throne. You described them as ‘extraneous princesses’ who they should ‘get rid of’. Why do you want them to have less but Archie to have more?

Right. Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses and Archie will not be. That's the point.

They are extraneous as in not working royals thus don't need protection or the sovereign grant, they're princesses nonetheless.

If you go back to my original point it was not about what I think Archie should have - I don't care one way or another - it was that Charles was not wise to distinguish between 2 brothers like that. If there had been 4 siblings and only the heir's children were made to be princes - that could not be seen as personal. But the way Charles has done it has caused offence, has seemed personal to Harry, particularly in the context that Harry's wife is foreign and not white. I can see why Harry would be offended.

And to what end? The upshot is PR disaster, crisis for the monarchy - Harry leaving the country and a TV interview on Oprah. It has been a massive own goal on Charles' part.

@PinkTonic

To do that would have been racist

Some people on here have no idea what racism is.

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum

Oh God you are going into petty details because you are wrong aren't you

You were the one who was wrong. 😂

You made some incorrect claims. When I corrected them, you then claimed they're petty. Of course.

[quote Tzigane]@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum

Oh God you are going into petty details because you are wrong aren't you

You were the one who was wrong. 😂

You made some incorrect claims. When I corrected them, you then claimed they're petty. Of course.[/quote]
Desperately clutching at straws aren't you

[quote Tzigane]@PinkTonic

To do that would have been racist

Some people on here have no idea what racism is.[/quote]
Oh I think a fair few of us do

Don't worry about it, I'm not holding your general nonsense against you.