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

So is this an attempt to deny racism?
To deny the racist memes that were circulating on social media about Archie?
To deny a radio presenter Danny baker was sacked for retweeting a racist meme about Archie?
MN should take this post down. I can see your pathetic attempt to deny racism.

I think the intention is to say that 'common' genes injecting into the royal gene pool, are a good thing. To me the intention isn't anti Kate, although the wording is not particularly sensitive. It could easily be misconstrued as classist.

In just the same way that the notorious article saying Meghan had 'exotic' genes, was intended to (and did say) it was a good thing to counteract the ginger pallid skin of Harry, but it was remarkably crass and open to accusations of racism.

Of the two articles the latter was much more easily seen as offensive bearing in mind the focus on race that was particularly relevant at the time (BLM).

Journalists have to accept we live in an age where offence is often taken, and write more carefully.

I suppose you could just say it's being aware that there are sensitivities around race and being respectful of the recipient of the comments.

It's sad we notice race and skin colour, but we do. We're programmed to notice differences in other people. In the stone age it meant survival.

How is anyone in todays society using the term 'commoner'. It is deeply offensive and degrading?

Also the article is classist not racist. The only people who are likely to think it is the same as the Meghan discussion are the uniformed, race traitors or non black and brown people.

We are not in the Stone Ages anymore, as much as we are not in slavery times.

That second line on the post should also have read :

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

Saying someone looks exotic because they have Italian/Spanish blood, is not othering, because no one is gaining from white supremacy over those nations. Totally different.

It's so obvious MN does not understand racism at all.

Great minimising of journalists responsibilities going forward.

That’s a very silly article. I assume the muppet who wrote it has never heard of Sophie Rhys-Jones, Sarah Ferguson, Tony Armstrong-Jones or Mike Tyndall?

It's not offence taken or sensitivities. It is about racism.
I often feel on here that many people do not recognise any but the most blatant racism.
It's like men who do not recognise most sexism.

odd that someone would dig out a 10 year old article. whats the point? Kate is white, she has never been subjected to racism. is it to make it sound like she has been treated the same as Meghan? if so she has not.

Yes it is to pretend there was no racism as both babies had speculation about their skin colour. To prove this OP dug out one obscure article about George.
She ignores the racist memes anyone could see on twitter. Twitter took them down, but for a period it up was a bit like whack a mole. I reported loads.

To be clear, the racist memes about Archie.

The bit I thought was funny was Kate being described as having "olive" skin 🤣 Uh yes, if by olive you mean very white 🤣🤣🤣
This thread is weird, OP have you not got any friends to pass the time with that you're digging up articles that are 10 years old??

The words darker and commoner are not offensive ones.

They are descriptions. I can not see offence in the article just discussion like one discusses odds of any event happening - like how a race horse handles track conditions, or how likely it will be for a child to inherit it's father's bow legs, curley hair, singing voice or albino eyes.

Commoner is a classist insult. There was a lot of classism aimed at Kate and her family. Total snobbery

Commoner is a classist insult.

What about "Commons" as in House of"?

Don't be disingenuous.
What about off Asian the fish has gone off.

As in not Asian

Lady Diana was the daughter of a peer (hence "lady") but not a peer herself, therefore a commoner.

The late Duke of Edinburgh renounced his European titles before his wedding (and was not created a Prince until well into the 1950s) so he was technically a commoner when he married too.

I'm having trouble thinking who was the last senior royal to marry a either peer or another royal (not counting Princess Margaret, as her husband was ennobled because of the marriage, he wasn't of aristocratic background or in line for a peerage by birth)

I'm having trouble thinking who was the last senior royal to marry a either peer or another royal

I think you have to go back as far as the Duke of Kent (present Duke's father) who married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark in 1932. Prior to that, his sister Princess Mary, Princess Royal married Viscount Lascelles, who later became Earl of Harewood, but Lascelles was technically a commoner at the time of the marriage as his title was a courtesy one and he was not yet a peer.

Thank you @CarolinaInTheMorning - I checked the Gloucesters but not the Kents!

Looks like the last time every Prince and Princess married a peer/royal was Queen Victoria's children, and so that was also the last generation when an heir married a princess (Alexandra)

George V married a Princess - Mary of Teck. But I've a feeling she wasn't an HRH as her father was the result of a morgamatic (?sp) marriage. So just Highness, or Serene Highness or some other category of Highness. There were all sorts of graduations back in the day 😂

Yes, Mary of Teck was a Serene Highness. There was also a "His/Her Highness" (without the "Royal") at one time in the past.

I have two close friends ( in the USA and Canada) who have bi racial children. They have both said it was the most natural thing in the world for them and family to speculate on what colour a child would be. I also lived in countries with highest % pop black for 15 years and there is so much awareness within those communities of whether a child was red or bright.

Sorry, but she was a commoner - it’s royalty or commoner - she was an aristocrat, so not royalty; therefore a commoner.

Anyone who was alive and remembers her and Charles marrying can well remember the (media) furore over the fact she was a commoner.