Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thomas Markle coming to UK for jubilee

461 replies

Flopbopandpop · 25/04/2022 22:29

So Thomas has announcement on GB news just now, they are going to pay to help bring him to the UK for the queen's jubilee and would love to meet Charles and Harry / Megan if they turn up, should be intesting. He would dearly love to meet anyone from the royal family as he feels they have much to discuss. I hope it goes well for him.

OP posts:
Serenster · 07/06/2022 09:16

What a ridiculous post, Mosuma. I could think of 10 examples in the time it took me to write this post (and could back that up with plenty more in no time). Four of them are Dames too, which presumably proves their solid popularity.

movemyshed · 07/06/2022 09:34

Mosmuma

You've never watched Strictly Come Dancing then!

Forinara · 07/06/2022 09:40

Never mind. Next? 😂

LaMarschallin · 07/06/2022 17:15

Skiptheheartsandflowers · 07/06/2022 09:16

Nicola Adams
Kelly Holmes
Jessica Ennis Hill
Alison Hammond
..just off the top of my head

None of that stops racism existing, or means that these women haven't experienced it either. But it helps not to make absurd statements. It is not impossible for a black or mixed race woman to enjoy public popularity. Meghan herself has many fans. I'm not one, but they do exist.

It is a bit of an extreme statement and I don't agree that no black or mixed race women are liked in the UK. However, I think I prefer people's opinions being openly stated, as Mosmuma's is here, to all the coy "You don't like Meghan, then? Hmm... I wonder why that is? 🤔".
(Fwiw, I don't like Meghan and Harry's behaviour and I don't believe I'm a racist.)

LaMarschallin · 07/06/2022 17:31

(Fwiw, I don't like Meghan and Harry's behaviour and I don't believe I'm a racist.)

Should have put "some of M & H's behaviour" there.

JemimaPuddlegoose · 07/06/2022 20:37

Putting Alison Hammond + Mumsnet into google brings up numerous threads about how awful she is and that she's shit at her job. Hardly a good example.

The disparity between Meghan and someone like Jessica Ennis Hill is an excellent example of "stay in your lane" racism.

A black or biracial woman excelling in a field that is traditionally associated with working class people and/or people of colour simply does not trigger racists as much as the sight of a black woman "invading" a posh white space. There's a real ignorance of racial coding, history, and stereotypes at play here.

A black woman who's able to run extremely fast does not challenge racist perceptions and racial stereotypes in the way a black woman excelling in an intellectual arena does, or a black woman dominating upper class society.

There are plenty of other black or biracial public figures who draw a disproportionate amount of bile, and what they all have in common is that they occupy spaces that historically have been white and usually either middle class or upper class.

Just look at acting. When black actors play maids or slaves, there are few complaints because those roles reinforce racist stereotypes. When black actors play heroes or historical figures or even just roles that traditionally were played by white actors, it triggers racists (eg the outpouring of racial abuse over Moses Ingram being cast in Star Wars, and John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran before her; the RSC being attacked for casting black actors in a Shakespeare play; and the recent West End production of Grease that had to issue a press statement complaining about racism because the production and cast had received racial abuse and goady articles in the tabloids just because some of the supporting characters were played by black actors).

Why2why · 07/06/2022 21:38

Look at Serena and Venus Williams when they veered out of their lane and dared to win at Wimbledon. Oh my word!!!!

Lewis Hamilton also. How dare he! Tiger Woods too. The abuse they received when they first “invaded” these white spaces. Makes me smile. It must be very hard for racists.

Skiptheheartsandflowers · 07/06/2022 21:50

JemimaPuddlegoose · 07/06/2022 20:37

Putting Alison Hammond + Mumsnet into google brings up numerous threads about how awful she is and that she's shit at her job. Hardly a good example.

The disparity between Meghan and someone like Jessica Ennis Hill is an excellent example of "stay in your lane" racism.

A black or biracial woman excelling in a field that is traditionally associated with working class people and/or people of colour simply does not trigger racists as much as the sight of a black woman "invading" a posh white space. There's a real ignorance of racial coding, history, and stereotypes at play here.

A black woman who's able to run extremely fast does not challenge racist perceptions and racial stereotypes in the way a black woman excelling in an intellectual arena does, or a black woman dominating upper class society.

There are plenty of other black or biracial public figures who draw a disproportionate amount of bile, and what they all have in common is that they occupy spaces that historically have been white and usually either middle class or upper class.

Just look at acting. When black actors play maids or slaves, there are few complaints because those roles reinforce racist stereotypes. When black actors play heroes or historical figures or even just roles that traditionally were played by white actors, it triggers racists (eg the outpouring of racial abuse over Moses Ingram being cast in Star Wars, and John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran before her; the RSC being attacked for casting black actors in a Shakespeare play; and the recent West End production of Grease that had to issue a press statement complaining about racism because the production and cast had received racial abuse and goady articles in the tabloids just because some of the supporting characters were played by black actors).

Jemima, I think you should reread the bit of my post that says

None of that stops racism existing, or means that these women haven't experienced it either.

I also agree that racism is a complex thing that intersects with class, gender etc. However, in your eagerness to discuss 'ignorance' you've overlooked that the examples here were in response to the assertion 'name a black or mixed race woman who is liked'. Your reply to the effect of 'well, I did a search on one of these popular women, on one specific website, and some people dislike her too!' is not exactly enhancing the level of that argument, or presenting brand new information. You've chosen to overlook the fatuousness of that comment to pursue an 'aha, gotcha!' that doesn't work.

Shame because lots of the other points are interesting. Acting is an interesting area where lots has stayed the same but there are also signs of change - look how popular Bridgerton has been for example. (You don't need to tell me that it's also been controversial and that some people don't like it and that some people are racist about it. I know.)

JemimaPuddlegoose · 07/06/2022 22:10

What a condescending post.

on one specific website

Not on one specific website. On this specific website, the website where racism is constantly denied and negated, and where black posters are regularly gaslighted, told they are wrong about whether something is racist or not and accused of being oversensitive and "playing the race card".

On the specific website where the whole "but some black women are popular ergo the dislike of Meghan can't be due to racism just look at Alison Hammond" argument was first made. It's perfectly reasonable to point out the hypocrisy of a poster on a forum choosing to pick a black woman who's been highly criticised on that same forum as an example of popular black women.

Bringing up Alison Hammond and Jessica Ennis on a thread about whether the hate towards Meghan is partially seeded in racism or not is pretty much a perfect example of a fatuous "ah, gotcha!" moment.

Mosmuma · 08/06/2022 01:04

No I don't watch British TV anymore - I watch the news sometimes and that's about it. I have never watched Strictly.
The people you mentioned, are these people who openly support Black Lives Matter for instance?
I notice anyone who supports this is met with such contempt. Someone mentioned Lewis Hamilton.
I will also echo Serena Williams, Venus Williams, recently Naomi Osaka - even piers and that other white female news anchor from the US took the opportunity to take jibes at her.
Sloane Stephens - there was an article here in the UK about how she was horrible to Emma Radacanu, anyone who watched the match knows none of what was written happened. Another opportunity to bring a successful black woman down!
In addition to this just about anyone popular in the UK who chooses to date or marry someone black receives such bad press. Let's look at Adele for example who was loved by the UK for as long as I can remember. Prior to her problems with her tour she got so much bad press after she announced her relationship.
Beyonce, Kelly Rowland (weren't there issues when she was working here?), Rihanna, JayZ, majority of articles have negative comments. There's that Alexandra Burke as well.

Sortilege · 08/06/2022 02:35

Port1aCastis · 06/06/2022 13:33

Well it's not as if Meghan picked her nose in St Paul's so all the nasty nitpicking is a bit odd. I thought she looked lovely and she's bought her children to see their great grandmother which was cool

Why is the emphasis always on the great gran and not on their actual grandparent (Charles)? It seems to be a pattern.

StartupRepair · 08/06/2022 03:34

I think it takes a long time for Kate and William to really trust someone and let them in their inner circle. They could see that Harry was rushing in and tried to advise him to take a bit more time. This was construed as not being welcoming. A bit more time would have allowed Harry to meet Tom and for Meghan to get a more realistic understanding of what the actual deal was.

Andouillette · 08/06/2022 09:35

Sortilege · 08/06/2022 02:35

Why is the emphasis always on the great gran and not on their actual grandparent (Charles)? It seems to be a pattern.

Oooh, I dunno, maybe because HMQ is 1) very old and 2) not very well?

MaulPerton · 08/06/2022 17:36

LilythePunk · 06/06/2022 06:32

What a fiasco. All that way and that that expense for a couple of hours. Why didn’t they attend the other events? Things must be really be frosty.

The door has closed, probably forever, because they transgressed the first and foremost survival principle of the hereditary upper classes, namely that their wealth, and their lifestyle, whispers. Diana did the same and was cast out. Diana did it knowingly (she knew the rules but went ahead regardless) while these two did it unknowingly. Unlike talented new money with genuine skills such as musicians or sportspeople, who can shout about their wealth from the rooftops but can always make more if it's taken away from them, hereditary wealth is preserved according to different criteria. Harry and Meghan mixed the two up and got it very badly wrong.

JemimaPuddlegoose · 08/06/2022 17:46

The Queen did a public broadcast next to a gold piano!

Her hat gets its own car.

The royals absolutely scream their wealth at a thousand decibels.

MaulPerton · 08/06/2022 18:15

JemimaPuddlegoose · 08/06/2022 17:46

The Queen did a public broadcast next to a gold piano!

Her hat gets its own car.

The royals absolutely scream their wealth at a thousand decibels.

Incorrect. Here, 'wealth' does not refer only to material, physical wealth - it also includes associated mannerisms, understanding, and euphemisms that go along with the lifestyle. Royals are very, very careful to curate only those aspects of their life that they want the public to see. An unwritten rule, if you like. Certain windows onto the lifestyle are absolutely fine. A gold piano with historical significance in a sitting room of possibly the most famous royal family on the planet does not scream undue wealth, particularly if it is framed as only being looked after by the proper custodians of the piece. It whispers expected wealth. However, trashy public exposure of the 'common' parts of this lifestyle is verboten. The whole thing is highly nuanced.

JemimaPuddlegoose · 09/06/2022 14:16

What an ignorant, snobbish post - clearly not something that would ever be expressed by someone from an upper class background.

The royals are trashy and vulgar, and need to stop whinging and complaining and leaking non-stop, not to mention overtly displaying their wealth in such tacky and trashy ways.

Good for Harry and Meghan for exposing the whole nasty toxic farce.

MaulPerton · 09/06/2022 14:54

JemimaPuddlegoose · 09/06/2022 14:16

What an ignorant, snobbish post - clearly not something that would ever be expressed by someone from an upper class background.

The royals are trashy and vulgar, and need to stop whinging and complaining and leaking non-stop, not to mention overtly displaying their wealth in such tacky and trashy ways.

Good for Harry and Meghan for exposing the whole nasty toxic farce.

Of course it's a nasty, toxic farce. You don't think that a system designed to privilege the very few off the backs of the many is going to be nice and pleasant, do you?

Harry and Meghan will be crushed because they turned the spotlight inwards instead of projecting it outwards and keeping the game going. Same as Diana, although they did it for different reasons. It's the one thing you don't do when you are royal. If commoners get an unedited peek inside, all hell breaks loose, and could bring about their downfall. Just the right amount of wealth, just the right amount of 'common', just the right amount of politics - but they must control the narrative. Diana did it to hurt. They did it to expose and then profit off the exposure. We all saw the closing of ranks including from the wealthy classes in the US. They protect each other. Bad, bad move.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 09/06/2022 16:44

Wise words indeed, MaulPerton, especially about the expectations and attitudes among this sort of lifestyle

While not admiring this, I'd have thought it possible that even Harry would see the likely consequences of trying to thwart it, but apparently not.
Shame, really, when it could all have been done so much better

MaulPerton · 09/06/2022 21:28

Puzzledandpissedoff · 09/06/2022 16:44

Wise words indeed, MaulPerton, especially about the expectations and attitudes among this sort of lifestyle

While not admiring this, I'd have thought it possible that even Harry would see the likely consequences of trying to thwart it, but apparently not.
Shame, really, when it could all have been done so much better

Harry's behaviour in all of this is fascinating. We know why Meghan did it - the royal family exposé was her product to monetise. The Oprah interview was the 'skill' (apropos my previous comments) that would launch her onto the world stage as an entity in her own right that she could profit from. But Harry? He didn't need the money, the fame, the attention. He'd been schooled in the ways of the royal since birth. I don't have a satisfactory answer for him. Even Diana is easily explainable. Harry is a puzzle. More than a touch of pathos about the whole thing, for sure.

StartupRepair · 09/06/2022 22:12

Meghan's choice to be photographed for the engagement in a 60,000 dress was not a good start in terms of understanding the RF relationship with money or the public.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/06/2022 07:22

Harry? He didn't need the money, the fame, the attention

No, but he appeared to want a wife/family, and for whatever reasons his previous partners didn't want the job ... whether because of him, the RF or anything else we can't know

I'm honestly not suggesting a return to those days, but at least when they all married various sprigs of other royalty they all knew what the deal was; as we've seen time and again, dragging an institution like this into a century where normal people expect something more from their spouses is often doomed to failure

MaulPerton · 10/06/2022 09:32

StartupRepair · 09/06/2022 22:12

Meghan's choice to be photographed for the engagement in a 60,000 dress was not a good start in terms of understanding the RF relationship with money or the public.

She was in the 'money talks' mode and hadn't quite got to the 'but wealth whispers' part. Had she bided her time observing, delayed her gratification or taken advice, she would have understood that, in exchange for opening a care home wearing Zara or H&M, she would have been eventually rewarded with a Bagshot, wardrobes of couture and diamonds galore (all behind closed doors, of course). The royals have worked out that the public are remarkably tolerant to wealth being taken from them as long as this process is kept out of sight. An occasional, well-choreographed glimpse of excess is fine, indeed, expected, but no more than that.

TequilaSunriseforme · 10/06/2022 15:59

MaulPerton · 08/06/2022 18:15

Incorrect. Here, 'wealth' does not refer only to material, physical wealth - it also includes associated mannerisms, understanding, and euphemisms that go along with the lifestyle. Royals are very, very careful to curate only those aspects of their life that they want the public to see. An unwritten rule, if you like. Certain windows onto the lifestyle are absolutely fine. A gold piano with historical significance in a sitting room of possibly the most famous royal family on the planet does not scream undue wealth, particularly if it is framed as only being looked after by the proper custodians of the piece. It whispers expected wealth. However, trashy public exposure of the 'common' parts of this lifestyle is verboten. The whole thing is highly nuanced.

Yes, exactly right. There is a difference between wealth which is not theirs per se, but comes as part of a package with expectations and rules attached to it. It isn't money they can blow on their own personal lifestyles in general. The crown and the jewels are to be passed down the generations. They are custodians.

TequilaSunriseforme · 10/06/2022 16:08

MaulPerton · 09/06/2022 21:28

Harry's behaviour in all of this is fascinating. We know why Meghan did it - the royal family exposé was her product to monetise. The Oprah interview was the 'skill' (apropos my previous comments) that would launch her onto the world stage as an entity in her own right that she could profit from. But Harry? He didn't need the money, the fame, the attention. He'd been schooled in the ways of the royal since birth. I don't have a satisfactory answer for him. Even Diana is easily explainable. Harry is a puzzle. More than a touch of pathos about the whole thing, for sure.

I think Harry has just gone along with whatever she wants because he desperately desperately wanted a home and family of his own. She is a bit older, seemed experienced in the ways of the world, and appeared to think he was absolutely wonderful. Most importantly, she was prepared to embrace the lifestyle and restrictions associated with being his wife, in fact she seemed eager and excited to do so. Unlike his previous girlfriends. Unfortunately he didn't understand that really she was dazzled by the prospect of being a Princess , and imagined she would have far more clout than she actually had. She also isn't a team player and extremely self centred.

Eventually he's going to wake up and realised he has given up everything that really matters in order to have the home and family. He has got the home and family he craved, but the price has been huge. There isn't any way back now. The family will never trust or forgive him , and Meghan would never want to be close to them anyway.

He wanted to live in Africa and work on projects that did genuine good in the world. Instead he is living in opulent luxury in LA of all places, desperately trying to find a way to make a buck doing anything he's asked to do.

Swipe left for the next trending thread