The "Royal Racist"

[GrimDamnFanjo]

The discussion is still rumbling on...
Over on the Daily Mail site there's yet another article about whether H&M will name names.
This I found was interestingly written as it only seems to mention one other family member...

@Dbank

If we want to tackle racism, we have to be clear about any accusations and be prepared to say X say Y.

I believe M&H's vague statements were intended to be divisive and garner sympathy, without there being any tangible substance that they could be called out on.

They have had countless opportunities to set the record straight but have failed to do so.

Victims of racism do not 'owe' anyone any statements or anything @Dbank .

If we want to tackle racism, we have to be clear about any accusations and be prepared to say X say Y.

I think this is where the division is, amongst the general public, on this one issue. I agree, that it needs to be clear. Vague accusations and not naming people, isn't tackling racisim to me.

Some people feel it's enough to say there's racisim and people don't need to be specific.

And people who sit on either side of that, will constantly disagree, in the case of this interview.

Being a grandma doesn't excuse grandma's bad behaviour

I thought H&M had no issue with the Queens behaviour?

I don’t understand why they don’t name the alleged racist instead of being coy .
Because as Dbank says,
M&H's vague statements were intended to be divisive and garner sympathy, without there being any tangible substance that they could be called out on.

I think it was an advisor, not a family member; and I'm inclined to think it was a somewhat clumsy but not intentionally racist question.
I think H & M are deliberately being vague to throw shade on/whip up speculation about the whole RF.
I'm no royalist and I think the institution of the RF is rotten; but I think H & M are behaving very badly and I have little sympathy, TBH.

They are the ones that said they cared deeply about grandma
It’s from the horse’s mouth !
Her husband was in hospital and Meghan sent a heartfelt wreath
So that is why the interview timing was so off

You” say “you care deeply
Then “show” you don’t

Most relatives would want to drop everything and be there to support the couple they purport to care for

There is a disconnect in actions and words

Victims of racism do not 'owe' anyone any statements or anything @Dbank

So long as they're happy with the status quo....

SamiReed1
“she was back on duty in 2 weeks, she certainly didn't waste much time getting back to work did she!)”

How long would have been appropriate in your view ?

I found this reminder about what was said on the Sky News website (forgive me).

Meghan:
_

"They didn't want him to be a prince or princess, not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol, and (said) that he wasn't going to receive security," Meghan said.

"In those months when I was pregnant... we have in tandem the conversation of, you won't be given security, not gonna be given a title and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born."

She declined to name who expressed those concerns, saying: "I think that would be very damaging to them."

Asked if she was bothered her son was not going to be given the title 'prince' she said:

"All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment I don't personally have.

"I have been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess, and I've always just been Meghan.

"The most important title I will ever have is Mom but the idea of our son not being safe and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be was...."

Harry:
_

"That conversation, I am never going to share. At the time it was awkward, I was a bit shocked."

He said he was "not comfortable" sharing the question he was asked by the unnamed person, but said it happened "right at the beginning" of his relationship with Meghan.

Sorry it's not an exact transcript ^^

....and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born."

So still not the words that were used, it's meaningless and vague.

Victims of racism do not ‘owe’ anyone statements or anything

Victims of racism don’t owe any statements to or about anyone, who has racially abused them. True. However, those who accuses or cast aspersions on innocent people, become persecutors rather than a victims.

Ever heard of the Karpman drama triangle? It’s a method of control. The ‘recollections may vary’ is an attempt to calm the situation and not be drawn into the triangle, to prevent enmeshment especially if Jeremy Clarkson is correct and it wasn’t the family at all.

The words chosen weren’t to belittle H&M or insinuate what they said wasn’t taken seriously. The final message was we will never stop loving you.

@SamiReed1 of course grandmas can be unpleasant and selfish and generally not very nice. As can anyone. But Harry and indeed Meghan have always been at pains to say how much they love and respect the Queen and also quick to point out that she was not the source of the racist comment. Also how many times they zoomed her with Archie and the lovely presents she sent him.

Nobody thinks Harry's grandparents made any racist remarks, he has made it clear it wasn't either of them. However the question of the baby's skin tone was said to them a couple of times by - they don't say and I'm not saying again.

It's not like saying, "I wonder who the baby will look like? Will he or she have red hair like Harry?".

I agree that context is everything and some people are stupid but this person has been around long enough to have known better.

Going off the point a bit but late last night I was browsing and came across a programme about the media and celebrities (it was on last night but I watched on catch up). I knew how the tabloids etc lie but this was laid it all out for everyone to see. I honestly don't believe any rumours, 'sources close to', etc, they are outrageous. It's a fact that the royal family have become 'celebs' now and need to learn how to use the media to their advantage.

My goodness I am so glad not to be famous.

It's not like saying, "I wonder who the baby will look like? Will he or she have red hair like Harry?".

But we don't know what was said, so we can't say what it was or wasn't like.

I agree that context is everything and some people are stupid but this person has been around long enough to have known better.

Again, we don't know who "this person" is.

SpindleWhorl That's interesting, they really could be referring to a courtier or a RF member. Hmm.

I will say that if and of course that's a big if, the infamous conversation was with a courtier and not a RF member, then Harry will look like a total piece of shit for deliberately letting the world believe it was a family member, especially while the queen is mourning her husband.

On balance, I still think it was likely a family member mostly because I think the palace courtiers are so loyal that they would have spoken out publicly to clarify it was them on order to protect the RF's reputation. I could be wrong of course but in the case of Jeremy Clarkson being right (about anything ever), I agree that Harry will never reveal the person's identity.

I think Clarkson is mates with a certain David Cameron. Maybe they've been gossiping over the garden fence like Cissie and Ada.

@SpindleWhorl

I think Clarkson is mates with a certain David Cameron. Maybe they've been gossiping over the garden fence like Cissie and Ada.

They also have homes in the Cotswolds, along with Anne and Charles. Someone might have had too much fizz at a drinks party, and spilled the beans!

Again, we don't know who "this person" is

We don't, and Harry says it will NEVER be revealed. That is their truth however the RF's recollection may differ.

Who are we to believe?

Meghan said this comment was made when she was heavily pregnant, she implied the two conversations about Archie not receiving the title 'Prince' and his skin colour ran concurrently.

She alluded to the fact that he didn't get a title because he is mixed race and his security was also withdrawn because if this (and Harry's security too).

However, we know that Harry's children are not eligible for these titles until Charles becomes king - that's not a new development (someone should've told Meghan though!?)

They also lost their security when they stepped down from royal duties, Eugenie & Beatrice don't have security either, they are not serving royals. (someone should've told Meghan though!?)

Harry says this comment was made, very early in in their relationship / engagement and he only mentioned it to Meghan later on.

Meghan says this conversations happened much later on (even though she didn't witness it firsthand)

It's all a bit blurry, and words have been twisted, timelines altered etc. Just enough truth to make the untruths undetectable,

It's a very clever play on words and conversations where the other party cannot defend themselves. Very very clever. Meghan is an absolute genius, she has won the American people over, she gas achieved it all, she has won and she's set her Prince free from his gilded cage.

You may not like her, but you have to admire her, she played a blinder with the cards she was dealt!

@summercupcake
I agree there has been a lot of word play. The conversations in tandem imo were between her and Harry during the pregnancy on a historic comment and perhaps tandem conversations with others in relation to the title. But I don’t agree she’s set Harry free. If this is how Meghan operates, I don’t think she’s set him free at all. Rather just swapped from one gilded cage to another.

A very tactical play on words, everyone thinks it’s one particular person, Meghan and Harry want everyone to believe its that person , even if they turn out to be not.

Maybe more hints will come out after today’s ofcom statement .

What did Harry mean by 'at the beginning' though? He never himself elaborated on that, did he? (I might have missed it, I admit.)

The beginning of what?

It's assumed he meant the relationship.

But it must have been surely at the beginning of something more significant. An intention to marry, for instance.

Well of course it was after he expressed his intention of marrying Meghan.
Whoever said that must truly regret it by now, and not meant in a racist tone I think,

When you only socialise, live , interact with people form your own class who all have lived a very similar upbringing , you all tend to think a like.
I really can’t explain it, it’s very similar to when Diana was going out with Hasnat and then Dodi, there where concerns that she might have a child with a dark Muslim who will be the half brother of the future king of England, still raciest Tone but perhaps meant more as in "not one of us dear".

I think he said about it being right at the beginning when there was also a suggestion from the family that she could/should continue acting.

So it sounds like it would have been around the time they got engaged and were working though what role, in the family, she would play. She started working as part of the family before the wedding, I think? So at a guess it would be sometime around the engagment.

My assumption, has always been that much of that is already worked out before the engagements are announced. But that's could just be my assumption and wrong.

@SamiReed1

They clearly TRIED discussing it in private. Because the stories about them were public, they had little choice but to go public.

What is this based on? I've seen nothing indicating that either of them ever tried to discuss the supposedly racist statement with the person who made it, or with anyone else in the family prior to telling Oprah all about it. It seems they didn't attempt to discuss the title issue with anyone, or even with each other, because Meghan just got that flat wrong. Even Harry would have known that his children weren't going to be princes while his grandmother was still alive.

And even if they had tried to discuss it privately, I don't see how lingering hurt feelings about a private comment meant they "had" to go public.

@SpindleWhorl

I found this reminder about what was said on the Sky News website (forgive me).

Meghan:
_

"They didn't want him to be a prince or princess, not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol, and (said) that he wasn't going to receive security," Meghan said.

"In those months when I was pregnant... we have in tandem the conversation of, you won't be given security, not gonna be given a title and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born."

She declined to name who expressed those concerns, saying: "I think that would be very damaging to them."

Asked if she was bothered her son was not going to be given the title 'prince' she said:

"All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment I don't personally have.

"I have been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess, and I've always just been Meghan.

"The most important title I will ever have is Mom but the idea of our son not being safe and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be was...."

And this a good example,of the way they are prepared to twist the truth even if not telling an outright lie.

The fact Archie did not get a title at birth is nothing to do with Meghan and nothing to do with the colour of his skin. Harry would certainly know this. She’s been “muddled” and unclear enough in what she’s said that I’m unsure whether she’s talking about getting a title at birth or even in the future.

But even if she was talking about Archie possibly not getting a title when Charles becomes king again Charles has been talking for years about slimming down the monarchy. So I think he’s been thinking about changing the patent for some time.

Archie is his generation’s equivalent of Beatrice and Eugenie. Neither of whom get security. Yes they are both “Princess” but it seems Charles wishes they weren’t.