Media speculation of royal baby’s skin colour

[MamoruHisaishi]

It's a CNN article discussing what Prince George’s skin colour would be, based on his ‘commoner’ mother’s genes. So I guess it isn't just the British media that's racist/classist:

Whatever happens, this baby might stand out genetically among royals because his mother is the first commoner to marry into the royal family since the 17th century.

“It’s very good that they’re bringing in new genes,” said Dr. Anand Saggar, a consultant in the South West Thames Regional Genetics Department at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London. “It freshens up the gene pool.”

Catherine’s commoner genes might lead to a somewhat darker-skinned baby, Saggar said.
The royals, he explained, are pretty pale.

Catherine’s skin has a considerably more olive tone, and the baby will likely be somewhere between the two – but more like Catherine because her genes are dominant over lighter ones.

“The odds are the child will have darker skin color than the royals might be used to,” Saggar said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/health/royal-baby-appearance/index.html

It's a silly bit of fluff asking what colour hair, eyes, skin the baby might have. It seems from your title that you're looking for racism.

This shows what a silly article it is - other commoners married into the royal family.
Whatever happens, this baby might stand out genetically among royals because his mother is the first commoner to marry into the royal family since the 17th century.

Before this Camilla married Charles and she was a commoner. Edward married Sophie, Andrew married Fergie...

Kate, Mike Tindall - more commoners.

Definitely click and look at the actual article. The OP is only a small tidbit of the overall article. The article is not race baiting like the OP is.

The part that the OP included is absolutely offensive though. 'Darker skin' and 'common'. This would be hugely offensive if it related to Meghan and it's offensive in relation to Kate. I'm surprised that this article wasn't raised earlier and a bit surprised at the comments brushing it off.

Who cares

Exactly. If this had been Meghan that the article had speculated on, it's definitely guaranteed that it would be deemed as racist. The pro Meghan and Harry defenders can't seem to see that though. Just like the issue with Harry defending Lady Hussey or his racist behaviour even as a child to adulthood, they're all minimized and downplayed. To all those minimizing this article, what’s the difference between this silly article discussing a royal baby’s skin tone and harry and Meghan claiming that someone from the royal family had discussed about their child’s skin tone?

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Diana Spencer were also commoners.

Really? You don't see why that's different 🤨😳🙄 I can only assume this is a goady thread. Perhaps find a hobby 🤔

I am not minimizing this article, nor am I saying it isn't offensive. I dont see a single reason why an article like this needs to exist to be honest. I am just saying that the OP pulled out a small snippet of a larger article about genetics and then sneered about it being a racist US article.

The passage quoted was made by Dr. Anand Saggar, (a consultant in the South West Thames Regional Genetics Department at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London) HE is the one who mentioned skin color and he is responsible for most of what is quoted above.

This article is ten years old and quotes a London consultant.

@CarolinaInTheMorning
"Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Diana Spencer were also commoners."

No, Not sure about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, But Diana Spencer was NOT a commoner, she was an aristocrat, whose father was Earl Spencer, and a member of the British nobility!

Please do explain. This article didn't raise any controversy previously, but shouldn't there have been outrage for speculating on a baby’s skin colour or that the mother was deemed a ‘commoner’? Where's the outrage that the American media was being offensive and racist?

CNN published this article therefore it is an American article even if the person who was quoted was from the UK. This is similar to when the daily mail published the article Straight outta Compton. It was used as an example of British racism even though most British people would not know where Compton is or its connotation. Regardless if I just quoted a snippet, it doesn't change the overall point that there was speculation on the baby’s physical appearance including the baby’s skin colour, and the mother’s commoner status.

I'm interested in how you stumbled across this ten year old article OP?

yes, it certainly was racist to raise skin colour in regard to a mixed race child. As you clearly agree, given your concerns about this article. I imagine you must have started a similar thread when the discussion occurred with regard to Meghan's baby. I'll have a quick search for that, it will probably have some similar discussion.

Lol at that consultant calling fake tan 'olive-toned'. Bit reaching to say the least.

Do you know what a commoner is, OP? Why would anyone be outraged that Catherine was called a commoner. She was a commoner prior to her marriage. It means someone who is not Royal or the possessor of a noble title like an earldom.

Yeah I did, but it wasn't in this forum. So not sure what your point is?

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (later the Queen Mother) and Diana Spencer were daughters of earls. They were aristocrats but still commoners. Their fathers, being peers, were not commoners.

Catherine’s commoner genes might lead to a somewhat darker-skinned baby, Saggar said.
The royals, he explained, are pretty pale.

So you don't this is offensive? Linking someone’s commoner status to their skin colour?

I'm American, OP. The article is really silly, but in the US I don't think it is generally considered racist to talk about different skin tones of white people. But it is definitely problematical to speculate about skin color of biracial children.

I remember when they got married it was mentioned that it was a good thing that some ‘Mediterranean colouring’ was being added to the royal gene pool. It seems acceptable to be negative about very pale skin.

Let me try and explain.

You are digging up a 10 year old article to try and minimise and/or dismiss any criticism of Meghan. You are playing one woman against the other, all to try and prove that Meghan didn't have it so bad and why the outrage on speculating about baby's skin colour, when look! I've managed to dig up an article about Kate and her baby! There is one big difference between Kate and Meghan you know...

I'll tell you why there wasn't outrage on MN .... 10 years ago, the Royal threads on here were dormant to the point of being non existent. They caught fire when Meghan came on the scene. I mean really caught fire...

Just to make sure my memory was serving me correctly, I went and looked at the Royal Family threads between 1st May and 1st Oct 2013, the six months straddling the birth of George (your article is dated June 2013).

There were eight threads in that period, yes just EIGHT. The biggest thread was a live birth thread that got to 500 replies.

Four of the eight threads had under 5 replies! Even the one speculating on the baby's name had just 3 replies! No one was interested in the RF. And along comes Meghan and whoooosh.... the RF topic is the busiest on MN.

You have picked the worst bits of the article out... it also talks of height, eye and hair colour... the Americans were very excited about a new Royal baby! . The commoner aspect was mean and ridiculous and if I had been on threads at the time that linked this article I would have said so.

So to answer your question in trying to dismiss anything that happened to Meghan compared to Kate ... ANY articles like this are wrong but no one was interested in the RF until Meghan came along, and no one knew about it, till you've dug it up now to knock Meghan and set one woman against another.

Speculation on appearance of baby with white parents = excited about the baby

Speculation on appearance of baby with one white parent and one bi-racial parent automatically = racism

🤦‍♀️