Page 19 | Megan pregnant with third?

Chickenruns · 2023-05-08T06:29:25+00:00

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.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 19:19

I suspect it to change long before William takes over. Especially if there is no formal acknowledgement by Charles of the legacy of colonialism etc. This is one issue that can't be pomp and circumstanced away.

By the way, I have just discovered The Windsors on Netflix. Charles and Camilla are brilliant. Such fun.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 19:29

@derxa We were talking of metonyms earlier: England is a frequently used colloquial shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But yes, absolutely, there is no King of England. Mind you, George may well be King of Just England. All going well, William will likely be king in 2043 or so, and George in 2083 or so, a long time in which anything could happen.

I see on the horizon a United Republic of Ireland, an independent Scotland, and an independent Wales :)

notanotheroneagain · 13/05/2023 19:35

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 18:02

There appears to be some often confusion between the overseas realms like Barbados (and now it looks like Jamaica and St Kitts are next) wanting to be republics, and the independent republics that are part of the Commonwealth voluntarily.

One is a constitutional state of affairs, the other a voluntary choice.

What is likely to change is not Commonwealth membership but the constitutional status of some of the overseas realms. They are all saying they will be happy to remain part of the Commonwealth: it is a voluntary club of nations that were (for the most part) former British colonies. Being a Commonwealth member nation is a different kettle of fish from your country having the monarch as head of state. Just like in the UK, in Jamaica for instance royal assent is needed for legislation passed by parliament to enter into law. It is for this reasons that there is a resident governor-general who represents the monarch in the overseas realms.

I think it is a bit much to have Charles as head of state of a Caribbean overseas realm when the people of that realm still need a visa to go to the country in which their head of state resides (but citizens from the white majority Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada can travel visa free) This is one of the issues highlighted in the Ashcroft report.

That visa thing is so strange to me. I have friends from cw countries who are constantly hassled with it. What is the point?

Also my suspicions are that the African Union only took off around 2 decades ago, and therefore is not yet established enough for people to have that much trust or even knowledge of it as a bonafide Union. People like a unity, yes like EU (well, except for the UK), but a former colleague works with them and says they are gaining ground.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 19:45

Would be thrilled to have a conversation about the AU any time as I used to work in Addis. It has gone in the opposite direction of the EU which was first an economic and then political union. Only now, through the AFCFTA is the AU, which started life as the OAU, finally becoming an economic union. Maybe we take this to the black Mumsnetters board as I could talk all day about it but suspect this is not the place for it :)

derxa · 13/05/2023 20:18

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 19:29

@derxa We were talking of metonyms earlier: England is a frequently used colloquial shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But yes, absolutely, there is no King of England. Mind you, George may well be King of Just England. All going well, William will likely be king in 2043 or so, and George in 2083 or so, a long time in which anything could happen.

I see on the horizon a United Republic of Ireland, an independent Scotland, and an independent Wales :)

We were talking of metonyms earlier: England is a frequently used colloquial shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
Only by people who don't know any better. It's on the same level as calling the USA America and the Netherlands Holland. I'm not sure it's a good example of a metonym either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metonyms
If you think that we are going to get an independent Scotland with this current lot in charge (on either side of the border) then I have a bridge to sell you 😂

List of metonyms - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metonyms

Trixibella · 13/05/2023 20:35

Inkanta · 10/05/2023 08:26

Yes I saw that thanks on Chat and AIBU.On this The Royal Family section there was nothing much on the Coronation at all. I have realized that this Royal Family section is about something quite different. A large part of it is big smear campaign against Harry and Meghan.

Show quote history

I was delighted in the lead up to the Coronation that there was no mention of the Sussexes in the top few threads. I screenshotted this momentous occasion then forgot about it.

Maireas · 13/05/2023 20:40

There were several very unpleasant threads about Camilla , and a few on Charles and William, so sadly the standard wasn't raised.

Trixibella · 13/05/2023 20:44

No, it wasn’t an improvement, merely some variation. They all get it in the neck somewhere.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 20:51

If you think that we are going to get an independent Scotland with this current lot in charge (on either side of the border) then I have a bridge to sell you

I specifically referred to a period of time 60 years from now, so I don't believe the current lot has anything to do with my prediction. Not even Hamza and Sturgeon can fuck things up from the grave.

Colloquial shorthand terms, including metonyms, are precisely that -- they are a form of shorthand and they are colloquial or informal. Obviously you would use the formal and official names, not colloquial terms, in formal contexts, like passport or visa applications.

MrsFinkelstein · 13/05/2023 20:57

"If you think that we are going to get an independent Scotland with this current lot in charge (on either side of the border) then I have a bridge to sell you 😂"

As a fed up fellow Scot I'm hoping there isn't going to be a functioning SNP/Nationalism party after this bunch of incompetent cockwombles have done their worst. 🤞🤞

derxa · 13/05/2023 21:17

MrsFinkelstein · 13/05/2023 20:57

"If you think that we are going to get an independent Scotland with this current lot in charge (on either side of the border) then I have a bridge to sell you 😂"

As a fed up fellow Scot I'm hoping there isn't going to be a functioning SNP/Nationalism party after this bunch of incompetent cockwombles have done their worst. 🤞🤞

👏

Morestrangerthings · 13/05/2023 23:21

Yes it does seem to have had it's day and tbh what does it actually do for us in this country anyway? Some people forever bleat on about Empire 2 which is bollocks. Just leave them all to their republics imo.

My country is a member of the commonwealth and we are of course trading partners with Britain. We also have military alliances, a couple with Britain - and we are told by both govts how important it is to peace in our region, but also to keep major trading routes, used by many nations, open. UK sells more to us, than we do to you,(You can source this in wiki) ). Nevertheless, we are big trading partners with the UK at any rate, so there’s that. There is an on going discussion in my country on whether to become a republic or not (and people who felt strongly in favour of the late Queen are less in favour of Charles, it seems). There is no discussion of leaving the commonwealth. Britain is a long standing trading system partner, albeit not one of our biggest. But plenty of discussion bout becoming a republic.

Sagharbor · 15/05/2023 13:10

MrsMaxDeWinter · 13/05/2023 07:52

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.

Show quote history

To add onto your list of academics trying to assess the root cause of the hate directed at Meghan and Harry, is a professor from Columbia in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

Sagharbor · 15/05/2023 13:34

YouWonJayne · 13/05/2023 08:15

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.

Of course, no one forced Meghan to marry into the royal family.

While I think she knew there will be intense scrutiny and critique, I highly doubt she knew that most of the hate would be centered around her identity as a biracial woman.

Though she may have known about the link between the RF and slavery, I do not think she, as most other people of color, live their social lives on this basis. It'd be paralyzing.

Sagharbor · 15/05/2023 13:42

YouWonJayne · 13/05/2023 10:16

And yet you think using your (faux)intellectual snobbery to avoid perfectly valid questions is any better 😂

Show quote history

@YouWonJayne

IMO, "intellectual snobbery" faux or not is definitely better than most conspiracy theories.

At least @MrsMaxDeWinter cites her academic sources.

KattyJo · 15/05/2023 14:06

While I think she knew there will be intense scrutiny and critique, I highly doubt she knew that most of the hate would be centered around her identity as a biracial woman.

Do you seriously believe this? 🙄

polkadotdalmation · 15/05/2023 14:30

KattyJo · 15/05/2023 14:06

While I think she knew there will be intense scrutiny and critique, I highly doubt she knew that most of the hate would be centered around her identity as a biracial woman.

Do you seriously believe this? 🙄

Sadly, they do!

MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/05/2023 14:55

Sagharbor · 15/05/2023 13:10

To add onto your list of academics trying to assess the root cause of the hate directed at Meghan and Harry, is a professor from Columbia in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html

Show quote history

Thanks so much @Sagharbor for the reminder of Zeynep's work. She had a brilliant thread on twitter last year.

What's really interesting about academics like Zeynep and a few others is that they are people for whom the RF was not normally on their radar, but something in the press and social media response to Meghan, especially as a woman of colour, has intrigued them.

I have come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theories about the kids are related to race. If the children can be removed from the line of succession, then it removes any "taint", and it also justifies the idea that there is something criminal about her, playing in to racial tropes. It's quite telling that there have been attempts, including here on Mumsnet, to smear Doria as a convict while absolving the ghastly Markles ...

polkadotdalmation · 15/05/2023 19:05

I think if we looked we could find many learned articles regarding the monarchy in a modern society. In fact we can find research articles on any number of ridiculous unimportant subjects. Researchers will research anything...

Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time..... does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?(Cyberpsychology and Behavior)...
Are full or empty beer bottles sturdier and does their fracture-threshold suffice to break the human skull?(Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine) ....The nature of navel fluff. (Medical Hypotheses)

So the number and variety of research papers on MM isn't such a surprise. I'm sure there are far more on prince/King Charles.

Happyvalleyfan · 15/05/2023 20:59

polkadotdalmation · 15/05/2023 19:05

I think if we looked we could find many learned articles regarding the monarchy in a modern society. In fact we can find research articles on any number of ridiculous unimportant subjects. Researchers will research anything...

Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time..... does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?(Cyberpsychology and Behavior)...
Are full or empty beer bottles sturdier and does their fracture-threshold suffice to break the human skull?(Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine) ....The nature of navel fluff. (Medical Hypotheses)

So the number and variety of research papers on MM isn't such a surprise. I'm sure there are far more on prince/King Charles.

Why does you it annoy you so much that some people are interested in social discourse papers published on MM?

The paper on fellatio in fruit bats is actually quite interesting 😉- if you open up your mind on how it helps biologists understand animal (including human) behaviour and it’s origin.

polkadotdalmation · 15/05/2023 21:02

@Happyvalleyfan It doesn't annoy me in the slightest.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/05/2023 21:24

@Happyvalleyfan

Why does you it annoy you so much that some people are interested in social discourse papers published on MM?

People tend to sneer at stuff they don't understand!

Sagharbor · 15/05/2023 23:04

KattyJo · 15/05/2023 14:06

While I think she knew there will be intense scrutiny and critique, I highly doubt she knew that most of the hate would be centered around her identity as a biracial woman.

Do you seriously believe this? 🙄

@KattyJo @polkadotdalmation

I'm I missing something?

Do you know something that we don't know?

Do you think Meghan knew most of the criticism she'd get will be focused on her identity? Or do you disagree because you do not think the criticism is based on her identify?

Sagharbor · 15/05/2023 23:28

MrsMaxDeWinter · 15/05/2023 14:55

Thanks so much @Sagharbor for the reminder of Zeynep's work. She had a brilliant thread on twitter last year.

What's really interesting about academics like Zeynep and a few others is that they are people for whom the RF was not normally on their radar, but something in the press and social media response to Meghan, especially as a woman of colour, has intrigued them.

I have come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theories about the kids are related to race. If the children can be removed from the line of succession, then it removes any "taint", and it also justifies the idea that there is something criminal about her, playing in to racial tropes. It's quite telling that there have been attempts, including here on Mumsnet, to smear Doria as a convict while absolving the ghastly Markles ...

Show quote history

@MrsMaxDeWinter

I agree re your take on the conspiracy theories about the kids. It is an attempt to delegitimize them so as to exclude them.

The attack on Meghan's mum is just bizarre and cruel and of course well rooted in racist thinking.

Cam22 · 16/05/2023 18:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.