Megan pregnant with third?

[Chickenruns]

Recent photos, she's walking with friends and she's so slim but definitely looks just like my sister did when she was about 6/7months pregnant - she's wearing black but I'm sure I can see a bump that isn't her usual figure!

Might just be the angle but it would explain why she didn't attend the Coronation and why Harry flew back so quickly. I appreciate he had Archie's birthday too but it would be another reason.

The Royal Family section is in the main about Meghan and Harry. This thread for instance is bonkers. Even MNet founder Justine Roberts said posters are so strongly anti-Meghan we’ve had to do what we did with Madeleine McCann and cobbleit into one topic because it seems slightly deranged

Meghan is the only descendant of African slaves to marry into the UK royal family that, historically, benefitted greatly from that trade.

She is the only person of colour in a family that claims that the head of state of several overseas realms and Commonwealth countries (all of them former colonies in which black people were considered second class citizens) must be the first born child from a white family chosen by God, and God here means the God of the Church of England. Her children are the only persons in history who are descended from African slaves while also being descended from several kings and queens.

It is a remarkable story, and you would have to be pretty unimaginative not to see that from all perspectives, hers and Harry's is a story layered with meaning. Her entry into the Royal Family, and her departure interests all sort of academics, from historians to sociologists. Add in the existence of online hate against her, including the endlessly threads on Mumsnet and you have an embarassment of riches. Toss in the conspiracy theories that are meant to remove two slave descended toddlers from the line of succession (theories repeated in this very thread) and the conspiracy theories associating her and her mother with criminal activity for no reason than their blackness and you have several academics' wet dreams.

From the University of Warwick, a discussion before the wedding in which four academics did a short piece on the four perspectives around it (historical, business, etc)
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/knowledgecentre/society/sociology/royalwedding/

Two academics wrote a book looking at Meghan from the lens of systemic racism.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revealing-Britains-Systemic-Racism-Meghan/dp/0367765411

An academic from Goldsmisths wrote this piece.

https://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/latest-news/2018/may/a-hostile-environment/

There is also a lot of work around the being done in media studies, especially around misinformation, the influence of the tabloids, and the role of Internet forums in spreading online hate. Look up Meghan Markle, disinformation, sociology, hate groups.

My particular interest is the online hate from middle-aged white women like Sadie Quinlan and Samantha Markle, women who spread conspiracy theories while monetising their obsession on YouTube. It's a fascinating model of hate for profit.

More on Sadie Quinlan here. https://www.britsoc.co.uk/about/latest-news/2018/may/a-hostile-environment/

This is just what I found in 5 minutes, there is a lot more.

Enjoy.

A quick perusal this morning indicates that most of the royal family section topics are about William and Charles - understandable following the Coronation. That weekend there were a lot of anti Camilla threads and the vitriol was just awful. There seems to exist a very powerful Diana lobby on MN. I've also seen some very offensive posts about Kate. Around the time of Spare, Harry seemed to dominate, same when H&M did the Netflix and other high profile media events.

Link to Sadie Quinlan story here.

https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/information-war/harry-and-meghan-netflix-documentary-disinformation/

@MrsMaxDeWinter - isn't it ridiculous that people think that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet could be taken out of the line of succession! Such nonsense. The principal of hereditary Monarchy is lost on some people (whether you agree with it or not).
Meghan and Harry correctly said that those titles are their children's birthrights. Prince and Princess they are and were always going to be.

It is ridiculous theory but it is nonetheless a subject of interest as to why people are spreading the theory that the children of the only mixed race family member are "fake" and therefore the only mixed race member of the family has committed fraud, and criminally inserted kids into the family who don't belong.

This is more than racism, it is attempts at erasure, deliberate erasure. Unfortunately these theories are given credence because people considered "credible" like Angela Levin and Sarah Vine follow some of the more batshit theorists, and indeed, Angel Levin is on record as retweeting some of these conspiracy theories.

People here are in the main, uninterested in discussing this obvious racism because Meghan wore Diana's watch on a hike, and so she deserves everything that comes to her.

But it's nice to see that more and more people get it and nicer still to see in the real world, people putting academic resources into figuring all this out.

And Kate Middleton descended from poor coal miners on her mother's side, what is the relevance of who descended from whom? Imagine if she kept going on telly to complain that the unfair scrutiny in the early days was all classist crap.

Surely it is the behaviour or said descendants in the current day that counts, no?

I think it's become more complicated because of Harry, and because of the nature of how and why they left and all the attendant nonsense. Fortunately conspiracy theorists are rare, although the Cult of St Diana the Martyr has a worrying amount of support on the anti Camilla threads. That Archie and Lilibet aren't in the line of succession or won't have privileges associated with royal titles is nonsense and the fevered imagination of a certain fringe.

Yes but couldn't we argue that a prince and princess need to be resident in the UK ,in order to be prince and princess?

You can't just go to America, and still want your children to be prince and princess of the UK

I know. Some folk have absolutely no idea how the Monarchy works. You can't vote folk in or out based on popularity like a cheesy reality show

Have to say I’m laughing at the ‘royal toddlers descended from slaves’ - so bloody what! You think six generations later 2 wealthy children being raised in an LA mansion are somehow oppressed?! Give me a break. We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors and no one is oppressed just because their ancestors were.

Also no one forced Meghan, a bi-racial woman, to marry into a family that once upon a time benefited from slavery. You could probably say the same for most American white people she mingles with. She willingly went in and married a man who’d been racist himself. Clearly didn’t bother her that much.

Also the Commonwealth is not the British Empire and counties choose to be part of the Commonwealth, it benefits them greatly. HTH.

Also pretty offensive to say Archie and Lillibet are the first royals ever to descend from slavery. Are you aware that there is more than one RF in the world?

I sometimes think about Carole Middleton, @Janiie , who grew up in a council flat, and her grandson will be a monarch! So strange.
Also, the fact that Mrs Middleton's surname was Goldsmith has led to some vile antisemitic comments as well.
The heady combination of a keyboard and anonymity leads to some pretty awful stuff on all sides.

Yes the anti Camilla posts are creepy and weird, the Diana sycophants are very prevalent here.

And I agree re Catherine - there was a post only a few days ago describing her as average looking! I bet the person posting wasn’t half as attractive as Catherine is

If they are descended from slaves so what.

It wasn't the slaves fault that they were slaves back then. People have oppressed and bullied each other at many points in history.

You could also say that the uk royal family are descended from poeple that oppressed and bullied other people.

I still think that Lillibet is an awful name

Residency is immaterial. Those are their titles. Their parents have chosen to have them styled as such. Their choice.

They are but many of us are baffled that when they persistently voice their hate for the ‘institution’ and literally quit the RF and moved half way across the world, why they would then want to do desperately give them titles

Actually I don’t know why I’ve said that. It’s not baffling at all. They live in Hollywood and need a USP in place of a distinct lack of talent. That’s how Hollywood works, it’s what they’ve bought into. It’s cut throat and they have to stay relevant somehow.

Im honestly surprised that they wanted royal titles for the children, I would have thought it would benefit Archie & Lillibet (?) more to be styled as Lady Louise & her brother are.

They are still prince & princess but not in a way that burdens them IYSWIM. Anyway that’s my twopence worth.

Yes and you would think one would give the white privileged descendant of a rf that benefited from the slave trade a very wide berth if you had strong principles about what happened centuries ago.

I disagree that residency is immaterial.

It's a bit stupid to have a prince Archie of the UK in California.

It's the first time it's ever been done.

I feel like when Harry decided he didn't want to be a working royal anymore and left to live in the USA, then it should also affect his children.

Oh, I absolutely agree, @YouWonJayne . I thought when it was announced that they were "master" and "miss" that Harry and Meghan were going down a different route and rejecting it. They were entitled to Lord/Earl and Lady from birth. It's an interesting development.

No, @Mooshamoo - I understand your point, but mine is just about technicality! Princess Eugenie could live anywhere and still be a princess. I'm not saying it's not strange but I'm just saying it's a legal technicality. Also contradicts what they told Oprah, but hey ho.

Eugenie is an awful name isn't it

I don’t think it’s awful but what sits uncomfortably with me is that they named her after a woman who they slagged off relentlessly. And whilst they’ve always fawned over the Queen even on their interviews (they’ve been v clever that way as slagging off the Queen would be a major own goal) they ripped to shreds the very institution she was head of. Saying “Institution” doesn’t make it any less Queen Elizabeth II. It’s an institution the Queen crafted herself over many decades!

I also don’t like they named her that because it’s clearly for the same reasons they still have their titles - for the Hollywood USP and to remind people that she is descended from the most famous woman in the world. A bit gross to do that to a child.