2 racist royals?

[drowninginjelly]

So who are the 2 royals who commented on Archie's skin now that Piers Morgan has named them on live tv

One thing is for sure - Rachel really doesn't like Catherine.

Jealousy is never a good look.

What did her own father do except support her through life until she became a bit successful on a TV programme and dumped him? The nonsense with the suit fittings etc happened long after she'd dropped him. Many on here go NC but do they cut all their family?

I would kind of love it if Kate just said ' Yeah I did it, she was a b@#£%%%%h and I didn't want her to marry Harry!'

I don't know why the press give this any room at all. It is all so boring and old hat. We gave probably all speculated about a child's colouring, looks etc when they are in vitro. It is natural curiosity, not necessarily racism. H & M trotting all this stuff out time and time again because they don't get the reactions they want is getting tedious. They wanted their freedom, why don't they just enjoy it instead of trying to wreck the institution because they can't get their own way.

If you’d speculated in a neutral way about what colouring the baby might inherit I don’t see why anyone would be offended. But that “as long as” made all the difference. They now know what you’ll think of their red headed baby girl, if that’s what they get. Not kind.

There are at least 3 threads on this on Mumsnet alone. The press don't give a shit about the Royal Family as long as they provide material for them to sell ad revenue. That is why this is going on. The oress print it and the public lap it up. That's it.

When you say women, did the secretary have witnesses to back her up then? I haven't seen that before if so.

As far as I know, there was a row about her not working the hours she was meant to, she resigned and then claimed constructive dismissal on the grounds of sexual and racial discrimination. The panel heard the evidence and found that not to be the case. I can't make the leap from there to Charles is a racist. Not that it means he isn't either, it doesn't tell us one way or the other.

@NonPlayerCharacter
The social conduct is so sterile now, I have no idea sometimes what is acceptable. When we had our kids my in laws always made comments hoping the kids looked like me. Look at your husband they said, we want our grandkids to look different! (My husband is very stereotypically Jewish with a weird ginger beard).

Well one thing I know is, if anyone had directed genuine racism towards my baby I would not wish to have one single thing more to do with them. So no titles, no titles for my children, no invites to Sandringham for Christmas, no attending high profile royal occasions - jubilees etc and I would have come straight out and told the world why I was leaving and who was responsible and in what context. Are we expected to infantilise M & H so much that a similar robust and straightforward response cannot be expected from them? How people can defend their behaviour around this and not see it for the clear grift that it is is beyond me.

Scobie is either their attack dog or he went off piste with exaggerated details made more colourful by resentment, that they’d probably shared over a few martinis. I have to wonder if they’re looking on paralysed with fear because if they deny or distance themselves then Scobie will completely blow the lid off, but if they don’t then any meaningful attachment to the RF is finished. What a dilemma.

@Hughs I did not say the court case showed Charles was a racist. I said the woman's allegations about racism were about the staffing culture of racist jokes, not just one member of staff.

My view is there are two main tracks but unless the principals involved ever actually make a clear full explanation of what happened, we will never really know.

It's obviously not made up by just Scobie because it was brought up in the Oprah interview as an incident/incidents.

So it's either:

Option 1: Something really bad was said with an intentional context that was shocking and harmful by one or more specific people and either

• Harry and Meghan didn't want the names exposed to protect future family relationships but needed the incident information out there to explain their upset and exit.

or

• They were holding the names back as potential leverage

Option 2: Something innocent or clumsy was said along the lines lots of people have speculated so far and either

• The person that told Harry about the conversation misrepresented it in some way

or

• Harry misunderstood or misremembered the conversation and conveyed it to Meghan in a way that made it sound worse

or

• In the midst of all the other emotions and issues that were flying around this was mistakenly connected to misunderstandings about titles and security issues and it became a mountain out of a molehill which now things have calmed down M&H are seeing it differently and are embarrassed about making such a fuss about this particular thing but had forgotten in their initial anger they had told various people a lot of indiscrete detail.

all these posts. no one except the people passing the comments will know what is said.
there is a shed load of difference in the parents discussing it, and a couple of randoms discussing it when the mother is not part of the conversation.

I know we are talking about the new Book but let's not absolve Harry of his past racism just because he married a Black woman.

Rachel isn't black.

Sorry, mixed race. Or African American.

Harry needs to look in the mirror if he is looking for a Royal Racist

I find this quite interesting and a possible explanation for how a conversation was either misunderstood or weaponised.

Meghan seems to align the ‘concerns’ over skin colour with the fact that the baby would get neither an HRH title or security. She talks about the two things as if they are linked in the Oprah interview.

As @LuluBlakey1 has said he would not get a title as he was not the grandchild of the reigning monarch (at the time of his birth) and no security either as not entitled according to the rules of the royal family.

Could it be that Charles was concerned about the optics of an obviously mixed race child not getting those things and the general public misunderstanding (which to be fair is almost what’s happened) and was talking about how to proceed with that?

And Meghan has either genuinely or wilfully misunderstood in order to weaponise the conversation?

Wow! What a super intelligent response..

It does happen. This article is from 2013 before George was born and speculates on eye colour and skin colour.

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

Absolutely agree. The majority of people just dont care what was or wasnt said. It's all getting boring. Really boring. But whilst H & M can earn a few more dollars out of the story, they'll carry on.

'Meghan seems to align the ‘concerns’ over skin colour with the fact that the baby would get neither an HRH title or security. She talks about the two things as if they are linked in the Oprah interview.'

It is documented that Meghan faced 'disgusting and very real' security threats when she married into the family; due mainly to right wing extremists she was at least as much, maybe more, at risk than any other member of the RF. So of course she & Harry would be worried about the risk to their son.

Why would the family begrudge him that protection? Shouldn't such decisions be made on the basis of risks to individuals, rather than their status? Of course we don't know how security is managed for RF members, or the costs of it to taxpayers - because it is all kept a secret from us.

Ah, well. Makes a change from Laurence Fox ... 😂

I named Highgrove in fact:

His own father had a secretary who took Highgrove to tribunal for experiencing racial abuse from staff.

If you’re trying to claim that Charles secretary repeatedly lied to a tribunal about the racism she experienced, then say so. Otherwise the claim there is “nothing actually there” is simply dismissing a legitimate complaint.

A person characterising their interpretation as “facts” will inevitably draw skepticism.

As to your bemusement - you asked, the others didn’t.

Indeed the outgoing Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, Neil Basu, commented that the threats were “disgusting and very real”, for which people were prosecuted. He also commented that he’d understand if Meghan had felt "under threat all the time".

I understand the problem of funding security in the US but I also understand why the couple felt security was needed.

has anyone mentioned how delighted MM is when she says her daughter has blue eyes?