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

This is hilariously daft.

Talk TV presenter, JJ Anisiobi (one of Piers Morgan's colleagues) has just said the royal in question is neither Catherine or Charles.

He claims to have an impeccable source (someone who works with the Queen and who is friends with Charles) and has spoken with them today. He knows the name of the person. He says after Oprah was aired, all the royals were upset about being implicated, and for two or 3 weeks were talking amongst each other about who it could be. They pinpointed that one person asked a particular question. JJA does not know if the question was asked innocently or in a racist way - but he does know the person asking the question was neither Charles nor Catherine.

JJ is pretty anti royalist and really does not like the PoW, so he's not protecting her or Charles. He thinks OS has made up the second person.

I saw that clip. Throw away comment about A looking like M, then both of them waxing lyrical about L looking like Diana with her "blue, blue, blue eyes".

She should read some Toni Morrison: The Bluest Eye.

Afterwards Princess Anne said it was her who asked the racist question.

yep, and it seems to be ok to discuss characteristics of white/black as long as it's that way around.

did she? Do you know what she claimed to have said?

Yes, Harry said on Stephen Colbert that he wondered if his ginger genes would stand up to Meghan's. Sounds a bit biased - unconsciously, of course.

Neither of them talking about Doria's pretty features being a hoped for characteristic in their kids.

I don't believe for one minute either Harry or Meghan accused Charles or Kate of remarks about potential skin colour of their child

I believe that they were probably extremely vague. Probably because who it was wouldn't have created much of a stir. Possibly a minor royal or a Lady in Waiting.

I can believe OS deliberately named Charles and Kate for sensationalism. Let's face it the publicity for the book is now sky high.

As he's always claimed zero contribution from Harry or Meghan and said they'll never name the (ahem) 'Royal Racist' there's no backlash for them and so just increased sales for him.

Wow, do any of you lot have any compassion?

They cannot be happy because their child looks like a mother that H sadly lost at a very young age?

Many of you have said upthread oh it's ok to talk about what the child might look like, his coloring etc because it's curiosity and not at all racist, but the parents aren't allowed to comment that their child that they named after a grandmother has one of her features?

it has nothing to do with compassion.
It can't be both ways - if it's not OK for someone to comment on the possible colour of the baby's skin, then it's equally not OK to be delighted at how blue eyed their daughter is.
The point being, both are actually OK, if there was no malice in either

Don't be obtuse. It is absolutely NOT the same.

The baby was born- she had blue eyes- like her grandmother. Her parents can comment all they like.

People discussing the coloring BEFORE the baby was born- possibly hoping it wouldn't be too dark, how is that the same?

The point being, both are actually OK, if there was no malice in either

This.

Where is there any evidence that anyone was "possibly hoping it wouldn't be too dark"?

@Roussette thanks - that was the hope - ignoring my grammatical errors of course was also a hope.
I’m not sure of the capacity of just taking a moment to imagine another perspective, or dare I say even consideration.

Agreed - In my mind's eye I see that arrogant, philandering buffoon (also a puffed up, greedy, pink cheeked, mendacious, devious, fake, shiny, repulsive twat, as above) , Johnson swanning around in Buck House . . .

You look at a nation which has Blair, Thatcher, Cameron and Johnson among its PM's and say that?

They must be VERY good friends if they are still speaking to you! That's awful!

I'm sure their baby will be gorgeous whoever she takes after.

Well if a President turns out to be bad then we can vote them out. That is the beauty of a republic with democratic voting system. Whereas if you get someone like Andrew as King you are stuck with him for the rest of his life.

I concede the point.

<bows head in acknowledgement>

They’re PMs not presidents.

Yes. HTH @Charlingspont

I don't understand these kinds of comments.

Just because your family wouldn't speculate about such a thing does not make it abnormal or racist.

Here's Trevor Phillips who says quite clearly that it's entirely normal and usual to have that in black families, and it would be unusual not to have experienced that rowing up in a black family in the UK.

Presumably he is not a fake black Mumsnetter as apparently all the people on the thread who have said the same thing are.

Now, whether or not you think he is right about why MM commented the way she did, I think it is fair to say he is an actual real British black person who has quite a lot of experience of black families, both African families and in the Caribbean, and he's not lived his life in some kind of white bubble, and isn't a racist.

My extended family is also very mixed, with quite a variety of different physical manifestations, and they talk about it a lot.

If some people don't like it they are entitled to their opinion, but this bizarre attempt to claim that it doesn't happen in mixed race families is bizarre. It does, and people know it does because they see it personally. A lot of people now, especially in cities, have mixed families, and often for a few generations.

1

^ I don't suppose I get off scot free here, because this is my third comment on this thread and I keep coming back to it - but I'm astounded at how invested some posters are in these people! Utterly, utterly committed to the idea that this or that one is the absolute villain and the other the suffering victim. It's..... eye-opening.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/30/inquiry-naming-king-charles-catherine-duchess-sussex-kate-royal-book-race-harry-meghan?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Interesting article in The Guardian- Scobie contradicts himself yet again and is now claiming a different slant on the story. Apparently, he wasn't interested in who said it, he was investigating why H and M raised it as a conversation about 'concerns' over Archie's possible skin colour and then backed off and said it was unconscious bias and never pursued it. He wants to know why they didn't pursue it.

Furthermore, Scobie says he never wrote a version of the book that included the names and although he has known the names for a long time anyway lots of journalists knew the names- implying one of them may have written it? On Monday he was claiming it was a member of the Royal family and a member of the Royal Household - now he knew who it was all along.

And he isn't upset the names have been published because he's 'been operating in a bubble of no emotion for the last 10 days' (Whatever that means).

What a nasty, sly, disingenuous piece of work he is. Not upset to have published a book naming two people as racists because he's 'been in an emotionless bubble'. Narcissist.