Camilla not the Royal Harry said made racist comments

[antelopevalley]

After the revelation that Camilla allegedly said it would be funny if Harry and Meghan's baby had a "ginger afro", one "highly placed source told Page Six: “Camilla is not racist — I can tell you categorically she is not the royal who Harry and Meghan were talking about.”"

pagesix.com/2022/07/22/camilla-parker-bowles-is-not-the-racist-royal-insiders-say/

If true this is worse. It would mean that Camilla says racist jokes, but that another member of the Royal Family had said more damning racist remarks.

Is it the sort of thing you'd say about a relatives baby, mocking and laughing at their appearance?

As I pointed out on the other thread on this topic the OP started an then didn’t come back to, the alleged comment was a “Ginger Afro” not just an “Afro”. And yes, I believe that if anyone in the public eye had a baby with tightly curled red hair, then all sorts of jokes would be being made. I pointed out that Prince Harry, the son of the Prince of Wales, has faced jokes and mockery about his red hair his whole life. As anyone with curly red hair can tell you, it is seen as a perfectly acceptable target for humour (and abuse!) in Britain.

Ginger Afro comments are not ok, nor is hanging a picture of an African child in service to greet the Obamas.

None or this is ok. Why are people tying themselves in knots to justify either?

So what you are saying then is that we should whitewash historically accurate depictions of ethnic minorities in art in order to avoid causing (imaginary, int his case) offence?

Because everything in the media is always 100% correct?

You are having a laugh.
Of course the Cambridges should choose from an extensive art collection every painting to hang in their living room that might be racist or offensive to avoid whitewashing historically accurate paintings.
There must be some paintings of lynchings they could hang up?
Maybe paintings featuring the enacting of Jim Crow laws?

Great. Another Cambridge bashing thread disguised under a Camilla title.

Wonderful.

Another could have, would have, should have, maybe, what if, perhaps!

Because, rather inconveniently for the human race, nothing is universally pre-defined for us before we define it ourselves - and that's the sticking point. A beautiful work of art to one is not to another.

Oh I know. It's exhausting and I'm a fool for getting involved. I don't know what punishment people expect William and Catherine to receive for hanging this picture on their wall.

Punishment? No one is talking about hanging and flogging them you know.
What I want is for the Royal Family to at least privately acknowledge their racism, and get training and advice to address it.

I mean the idea of paintings of lynchings is utterly grim - and surely would be offensive, not to mention very weird.

Is the painting in question actually offensive? From what PPs have said, it isn't. So it's the word negro?

Why is the OP so obsessed with bashing the RF?

I can just imagine them all. 😂

Antelope - are you in fact Meghan?

Do you know you have all lost the argument when you just start flinging mud?

Whatever you all say, The Royal Family, including Camilla, will get a hard time from younger people if they do not address their racism. It will not just be excused as many here have.

Mud flinging?

‘Them that smelt it dealt it’ springs to mind.

What’s beauty got to do with it.

It’s the depiction of an African child in service at issue, not how good the brushstroke is.

What is racist here? The subject matter of a young black man leading two horses or just the title? There is nothing offensive about the painting itself, in my opinion, unless you assume that all black people were enslaved and that no living black person wants to see artwork depicting black people from that era.

One definition you can find online of page is “a boy being trained to be a knight in the Middle Ages.” A young man being trained for this position is certainly not an offensive concept.

The title would have been in Dutch when painted and then translated to English. It would have been translated at a time when that word was not considered offensive by black people.

“From the 18th century to the late 1960s, negro (later capitalized) was considered to be the proper English-language term for people of black African origin.”

We still have organizations in the US that use that term in the name. United Negro College Fund, for example. It is not a word we use today, of course. There is a debate about retitling art works with outdated, now offensive terminology included.

According to articles online, an aid saw the name plate and removed it then placed the lamp there to cover the mark on the frame where the plate had been removed.

According to articles online, an aid saw the name plate and removed it then placed the lamp there to cover the mark on the frame where the plate had been removed.

As if that was the only problem with choosing a picture of an African child in service to have on show for the Obamas!

Do you mean like the racism courses Harry went on?

They obviously didn’t work as he laughed at the hair comment.

@Lolliesareonme Are you saying the Royal Families racism can not be addressed successfully?

I am saying that courses didn’t work for Harry.

It’s also so incredibly reductive to say depiction of “an African child in service” = racist. For many black historians and art historians these images are hugely important as they enable them to challenge the (quite popular among certain sectors of society) views that at this point in history, Europe was wholly white, rather than ethnically diverse. Art works featuring black people are often a springboard for discussion and discovery about the actual lives of the people depicted.

(Also, in the 1640s, all but a tiny minority of the population had to work in order to live. Pictures from the past, unless they are just a portrait of aristocrats, will generally show people who are employed/working for someone else simply because that was the reality for most people).

The Dutch entered the slave trade in the early 17th century, the likelihood of a African boy in 1652 not being enslaved is fairly slim.

Paintings are often important historically. As you know nobody has said otherwise. I have already agreed with you on that point.
What you continually ignore is the context of a painting chosen from an extensive art collection, to hang in Catherine and William's living room, where the most important guests will be received.
Is it appropriate for a painting with a title that has a racial slur to be displayed in this context?

I have posted an article that says the Guardians conclusion makes no sense. They actually talk about the horses and say they clearly are not the kind horses that would be owned for this purpose.