Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
Jul 13, 2014 21:23:27 GMT
|
Post by Olan on Jan 10, 2020 17:07:24 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 29, 2024 14:30:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 17:08:12 GMT
I’m not a royals watcher (pardon my ignorance), but I’ve read this entire thread. After reading here that Meghan has headed back to Canada, what she and Harry have done feels like a big eff you to his family. And she got to figuratively poop and run. I understand that apparently their dissatisfaction was likely cumulative, I can’t help but wonder, why now, and in this manner? Did something particularly awful happen recently, or were they just impatient to have it over with, or....? I can’t imagine that they could have fooled themselves into thinking that this would just miraculously go smoothly. So many questions. Scratches head. I am a royal watcher. I have recently read that the Queen was threatening/thinking about taking custody of Archie. I know the gossip magazines will write anything - but more often than not there is a smidgen of truth to what they write. Thinking out loud here - but maybe this is why H&M left Archie in Canada. Cindy Wow, really? The queen is of course a well known child snatcher
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Jan 10, 2020 17:41:38 GMT
I am a non-Brit (Canadian): they are no more your royals as they are ours - we are 'ruled' exactly the same way you are. He's not just fucking off to parts unknown - if rumours are to be believed he is staying within the Commonwealth realms. Sorry, I do apologize. I class you, Australia and NZ as one of us when it comes to explaining the Monarchy.....really sorry . Really no need to apologize. I have to remind myself every once in a while that the Queen is our head of state even when she's plastered all over our money. . .
|
|
|
Post by jubejubes on Jan 10, 2020 17:54:55 GMT
I am ashamed every time I read stuff like this but it is thankfully a minority. That is a stupid thing to say, it isn't at all comparable. There's no constitutional crises because Prince Harry and Meghan have decided to live somewhere else. We don;t like it but it will be sorted and as quick as possible according to a statement from Buckingham Palace. Bet they don't even know what happened with the Duke of Windsor and Wallace Simpson unless they're very very old or a history buff. It was over 80 years ago. YES, there is a constitutional crises: “The constitutional situation is extremely complex because they're [Prince Harry and Meghan] not taking into account that he has military appointments. He has other appointments that only a member of the Royal Family can have, they’re ceremonial and they may not be his priority,” he said. “So what’s going to become of all that? What’s becoming of his role as counsellor of state? Is he saying he’s no longer going to recognize his position in the line of succession?” Berthelsen also raised the point that governments, including Canada’s, will become involved if there are changes to the line of succession or if Prince Harry were to move to Canada. “We also have a system here where the Governor General, Lieutenant Governor, represent the Queen and perform her functions here. How is it going to work if there's actually a member of the Royal Family in our midst?” he asked. “These are complicated issues that will take time to work through.” Berthelsen said it’s not a matter of whether the palace will accept Prince Harry and Meghan’s decision. “I think it's been quite clear throughout the fall that there was going to be something, something that was going to change,” he said. Berthelsen said he thinks the Royal Family understands that, but they were not expecting the couple to lay out the terms of that change in such a public manner. As for what happens next, Berthelsen said he thinks the matter is “far from over” and a lot more decisions will have to be made before Prince Harry and Meghan’s new roles within the monarchy become clear. “I think they think they can become kind of a celebrity royal couple, which is kind of very different than being a working member of the royal family,” he said. TORONTO -- As the fallout from Prince Harry and Meghan’s desire to ‘step back’ from the monarchy and Buckingham Palace’s response continues, CTV News royal commentator Richard Berthelsen reads between the lines to decipher what the royals may have meant in their extraordinary statements. ctv.ca
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Jan 10, 2020 18:09:02 GMT
I can’t read this without signing up, which I’d rather not do. Would you copy and paste please?
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jan 10, 2020 19:25:40 GMT
I think that all of the press and the people on message boards that think they know what Megan, Harry, the Queen and the rest of them are thinking are just funny. The public knows nothing, it is all nosey speculation along with some very blatant racism and hate thrown in.
The Queen chose to be Queen. Harry did not chose to be a royal he was born into it. The Queen was also born into it but no one held a gun to her head and forced her to be coronated. It was her choice to accept the obligation just as it was the Duke of Windsor's choice to abdicate.
My belief is that no one has the right to force an adult to live a life that is not of their choosing. I hope M & H get to live the life that they want to. They will make choices, good and bad, and then live with those consequences, good or bad. That is what humans do.
I do realize that I am American and have thought the Monarchy was a little silly. However, as I have aged I have come to understand how important and central the Queen is to the Brits and have actually grown quite fond of her. I think she has done and excellent job of being Queen and I do respect her.
Bottom line is we do not know what everyone in the royal family is thinking nor do we know what really has gone on behind the scenes.
That's my 2 cents but what the hell do I know?
|
|
|
Post by cindytred on Jan 10, 2020 20:02:00 GMT
I am a royal watcher. I have recently read that the Queen was threatening/thinking about taking custody of Archie. I know the gossip magazines will write anything - but more often than not there is a smidgen of truth to what they write. Thinking out loud here - but maybe this is why H&M left Archie in Canada. Cindy Wow, really? The queen is of course a well known child snatcher LOL! My post got quite a reaction! I was just sharing something I read. I know it's dumb. Cindy
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
Jul 13, 2014 21:23:27 GMT
|
Post by Olan on Jan 10, 2020 20:28:39 GMT
I can’t read this without signing up, which I’d rather not do. Would you copy and paste please? The British press has succeeded in its apparent project of hounding Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, out of Britain. The part it perhaps didn’t bargain for, however, is the loss of Prince Harry — a much loved royal and a key part of the family’s global brand — along with her. In a statement released this week, the couple said they want to “carve out a progressive new role” within the royal family and will “step back as ‘senior’ members, and work to become financially independent.” The British press reacted with surprise at the “shock move abroad,” described variously as “seismic,” “selfish,” “rogue” and “an atrocious lapse of judgment.” If the media paid more attention to Britain’s communities of color, perhaps it would find the announcement far less surprising. With a new prime minister whose track record includes overtly racist statements, some of which would make even Donald Trump blush, a Brexit project linked to native nationalism and a desire to rid Britain of large numbers of immigrants, and an ever thickening loom of imperial nostalgia, many of us are also thinking about moving. From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime — terrorism and gang activity — as well as the fact that she has been most venomously attacked for acts that attracted praise when other royals did them. Her decision to guest-edit British Vogue, for example, was roundly condemned by large parts of the British media, in stark contrast to Prince Charles’s two-time guest editorship of Country Life magazine, Prince Harry’s of a BBC program and Kate Middleton’s at Huffington Post, all of which were quietly praised at the time. Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you. In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race. The relatively few people of color — and even fewer if you count only those who have African heritage — who rise to prominent success and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be “grateful” or told to leave if we don’t like it here. The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it, and policies of recruiting people from the Caribbean and Africa into low-paid work and then discriminating against them in education and housing, is with us today: The scandal surrounding the wrongful deportation of black British people in recent years is still reverberating.
|
|
|
Post by lesserknownpea on Jan 10, 2020 21:42:58 GMT
I can’t read this without signing up, which I’d rather not do. Would you copy and paste please? The British press has succeeded in its apparent project of hounding Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, out of Britain. ... From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Thank you for, as usual, helping us to see this from another perspective, OlanIn particular, the constant comments I’ve read comparing Meghan to Catherine, using words like “classy” for Catherine, implying that of course, Meghan is not, have reminded me strongly of the comments comparing Melania to Michelle Obama. The racism is sometimes overt, and sometimes you must read between the lines, but is often there. Of course, there are lots of British people who are genuinely unprejudiced again Meghan, and reject the notion that this has been her experience. I can’t help but wonder how they ignore the unkind and racist things said and printed. Or do they buy into the criticism, not recognizing the origin? From what I see, it was a no-win situation for her, whatever she did was criticized and misinterpreted. On the media’s part, I think it was pure profit motive. Drama and nastiness sells papers, gets clicks. For the people who lapped this up, I believe racism played a large part.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Jan 10, 2020 21:45:44 GMT
Thanks Olan. It makes for very uncomfortable reading and I can’t argue against what is written as I don’t really have any knowledge of what is claimed to have been seen. I don’t read the tabloids and the social media I read is mainly in Meghan’s favour. These last few days most of the unfavourable things I have read have been to do with H&M’s finances and Meghan’s career and the couple’s disrespect to the Queen. I don’t think I have seen anyone mentioning race but I do tend to not read all the comments. The piece is right to highlight Boris Johnson’s track record; he has been criticised publically for remarks he has made in the past and it’s not what I would expect of a leader. As for Princess Michael I believe she apologised for wearing the brooch but I’m amazed no one pointed out how inappropriate it was. Generally what I have seen is people happy that we have a new member in the Royal Family and enjoying seeing Meghan. She and the Queen carried out a number of engagements together before Meghan became pregnant and they seemed to really enjoy each others company. I think it’s a damn shame that the young couple feel unwelcome.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Jan 10, 2020 21:58:47 GMT
br]Of course, there are lots of British people who are genuinely unprejudiced again Meghan, and reject the notion that this has been her experience. I can’t help but wonder how they ignore the unkind and racist things said and printed. Or do they buy into the criticism, not recognizing the origin? The vast majority do not recognise what people of colour see as racism. It’s only through reading this board that I am more understanding than I thought I was. Many would be horrified to think they were thought of as racist, it doesn’t cross their radar.
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,451
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Jan 10, 2020 22:01:16 GMT
She and the Queen carried out a number of engagements together before Meghan became pregnant and they seemed to really enjoy each others company. One thing I feel like I've seen from the Queen in the last 20 years or so is that she's increasingly allowed herself to be seen as human. She will laugh genuinely (but still genteel-ly) when she enjoys the conversation and seems to show genuine interest in the people she meets and talks with. I think she has managed to move the monarchy into the 21st century pretty well after some initial staunch tradition. I hope that makes sense - basically, I feel like she has maintained her queenly attitude while softening many of the now outdated hard edges. She strikes me as a person that you could have a genuinely good conversation with.
|
|
|
Post by belgravia on Jan 10, 2020 22:09:09 GMT
She and the Queen carried out a number of engagements together before Meghan became pregnant and they seemed to really enjoy each others company. One thing I feel like I've seen from the Queen in the last 20 years or so is that she's increasingly allowed herself to be seen as human. She will laugh genuinely (but still genteel-ly) when she enjoys the conversation and seems to show genuine interest in the people she meets and talks with. I think she has managed to move the monarchy into the 21st century pretty well after some initial staunch tradition. I hope that makes sense - basically, I feel like she has maintained her queenly attitude while softening many of the now outdated hard edges. She strikes me as a person that you could have a genuinely good conversation with. As a total aside, I have a wonderful picture of the Queen with a friend’s father laughing together at dinner. Our friend’s father was a provincial premier at the time, and the Queen was here on an official visit. It’s the coolest picture ever. They both look to be having a great time 🥰
|
|
|
Post by roundtwo on Jan 10, 2020 22:21:06 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 29, 2024 14:30:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 13:02:36 GMT
I can’t read this without signing up, which I’d rather not do. Would you copy and paste please? The British press has succeeded in its apparent project of hounding Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, out of Britain. The part it perhaps didn’t bargain for, however, is the loss of Prince Harry — a much loved royal and a key part of the family’s global brand — along with her. In a statement released this week, the couple said they want to “carve out a progressive new role” within the royal family and will “step back as ‘senior’ members, and work to become financially independent.” The British press reacted with surprise at the “shock move abroad,” described variously as “seismic,” “selfish,” “rogue” and “an atrocious lapse of judgment.” If the media paid more attention to Britain’s communities of color, perhaps it would find the announcement far less surprising. With a new prime minister whose track record includes overtly racist statements, some of which would make even Donald Trump blush, a Brexit project linked to native nationalism and a desire to rid Britain of large numbers of immigrants, and an ever thickening loom of imperial nostalgia, many of us are also thinking about moving. From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime — terrorism and gang activity — as well as the fact that she has been most venomously attacked for acts that attracted praise when other royals did them. Her decision to guest-edit British Vogue, for example, was roundly condemned by large parts of the British media, in stark contrast to Prince Charles’s two-time guest editorship of Country Life magazine, Prince Harry’s of a BBC program and Kate Middleton’s at Huffington Post, all of which were quietly praised at the time. Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you. In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race. The relatively few people of color — and even fewer if you count only those who have African heritage — who rise to prominent success and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be “grateful” or told to leave if we don’t like it here. The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it, and policies of recruiting people from the Caribbean and Africa into low-paid work and then discriminating against them in education and housing, is with us today: The scandal surrounding the wrongful deportation of black British people in recent years is still reverberating. Have you read the highlighted links for the words that this writer has used in expressing her own opinion on, Olan ? I'm guessing by posting this opinion that you seem to be suggesting that all the criticism of what the Duchess of Sussex has been faced with is based on racism. If you read the highlighted links and the articles that were written when these words were used you'll find that is not the case. It's not racism to report that she was ill advised to pay secret visits to a community kitchen who rents out space at a Mosque that the has been proved that 19 of it's members have connections to terrorism including Jihadi John and its Imam has some extreme views on his own social media. In 2016 at the beginning of their courtship the opinion of one writer in comparing the two wrote. " if they have babies the Windsor's will thicken their watery thin line blood of the Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with the rich and exotic DNA of an actress who is very easy on the eye......is that really a racism hit at Meghan or an insult to the Royal Family? The criticism of editing Vogue was pointing out that it was seen as being political, (something that the RF don't get involved or comment on) The article in Vogue was titled " Time for Change" and she chose inspirational women to highlight her message. One of whom,( amongst some others in the article) was the wife of a very rich Frenchman who owns many luxury brands that actually advertises in Vogue. The question that was brought up was what value was it to being involved with the people she highlighted - hardly pertaining to the charities and the gender equality that they/her pertaining to champion.Choosing edgier causes would have been far better. What has that article have to do with her race? Piers Morgan made a point of her constantly bleating about privacy and then points out her choice of being a guest editor on Vogue - where is the racism there? ( I have no love for PM but I think on this occasion he has a point and it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin) BBC employee the person the opinion writer pointed out was Danny Baker and the BBC immediately sacked him and strongly condemned what he said on his private twitter account - how is that a suggestion of racism by the BBC? There are many other words that she has taken out of context but I don't have the time to answer them all but I suggest that you do to understand the context that the words that were highlighted were used. Are we, as a country, not allowed to criticise her or any people of colour for whatever they do at the risk of being called racist if we do? That to me does nothing to fight the eradication of racism within any society. The author of that opinion- Afua Hirsch would be better off channelling her time and energy to something far more productive in the fight against racism than to choose, out of context words for what was probably, a paid opinion piece, that in many ways, is totally inaccurate.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,989
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jan 11, 2020 13:50:46 GMT
I don't think it's up to white people to tell black people that they are being oversensitive or misinterpreting acts which they perceive to be racist. And since there have been a shocking number of racist jabs and microaggressions against Meghan, it is not at all surprising that it colors our overall perception of how she has been treated generally and how she has been covered by the British press. Having experienced this and continuing to experience it with the Obamas here in the US, I'll just say that I have a very wary eye about plausible deniablity when it comes to questions of whether or not racism (conscious or unconscious) motivates comments, lines of inquiry, news stories, etc. Plausible deniability has been elevated to an art form over here in recent years.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
Jul 13, 2014 21:23:27 GMT
|
Post by Olan on Jan 11, 2020 14:12:56 GMT
The British press has succeeded in its apparent project of hounding Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, out of Britain. The part it perhaps didn’t bargain for, however, is the loss of Prince Harry — a much loved royal and a key part of the family’s global brand — along with her. In a statement released this week, the couple said they want to “carve out a progressive new role” within the royal family and will “step back as ‘senior’ members, and work to become financially independent.” The British press reacted with surprise at the “shock move abroad,” described variously as “seismic,” “selfish,” “rogue” and “an atrocious lapse of judgment.” If the media paid more attention to Britain’s communities of color, perhaps it would find the announcement far less surprising. With a new prime minister whose track record includes overtly racist statements, some of which would make even Donald Trump blush, a Brexit project linked to native nationalism and a desire to rid Britain of large numbers of immigrants, and an ever thickening loom of imperial nostalgia, many of us are also thinking about moving. From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime — terrorism and gang activity — as well as the fact that she has been most venomously attacked for acts that attracted praise when other royals did them. Her decision to guest-edit British Vogue, for example, was roundly condemned by large parts of the British media, in stark contrast to Prince Charles’s two-time guest editorship of Country Life magazine, Prince Harry’s of a BBC program and Kate Middleton’s at Huffington Post, all of which were quietly praised at the time. Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you. In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race. The relatively few people of color — and even fewer if you count only those who have African heritage — who rise to prominent success and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be “grateful” or told to leave if we don’t like it here. The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it, and policies of recruiting people from the Caribbean and Africa into low-paid work and then discriminating against them in education and housing, is with us today: The scandal surrounding the wrongful deportation of black British people in recent years is still reverberating. Have you read the highlighted links for the words that this writer has used in expressing her own opinion on, Olan ? I'm guessing by posting this opinion that you seem to be suggesting that all the criticism of what the Duchess of Sussex has been faced with is based on racism. If you read the highlighted links and the articles that were written when these words were used you'll find that is not the case. It's not racism to report that she was ill advised to pay secret visits to a community kitchen who rents out space at a Mosque that the has been proved that 19 of it's members have connections to terrorism including Jihadi John and its Imam has some extreme views on his own social media. In 2016 at the beginning of their courtship the opinion of one writer in comparing the two wrote. " if they have babies the Windsor's will thicken their watery thin line blood of the Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with the rich and exotic DNA of an actress who is very easy on the eye......is that really a racism hit at Meghan or an insult to the Royal Family? The criticism of editing Vogue was pointing out that it was seen as being political, (something that the RF don't get involved or comment on) The article in Vogue was titled " Time for Change" and she chose inspirational women to highlight her message. One of whom,( amongst some others in the article) was the wife of a very rich Frenchman who owns many luxury brands that actually advertises in Vogue. The question that was brought up was what value was it to being involved with the people she highlighted - hardly pertaining to the charities and the gender equality that they/her pertaining to champion.Choosing edgier causes would have been far better. What has that article have to do with her race? Piers Morgan made a point of her constantly bleating about privacy and then points out her choice of being a guest editor on Vogue - where is the racism there? ( I have no love for PM but I think on this occasion he has a point and it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin) BBC employee the person the opinion writer pointed out was Danny Baker and the BBC immediately sacked him and strongly condemned what he said on his private twitter account - how is that a suggestion of racism by the BBC? There are many other words that she has taken out of context but I don't have the time to answer them all but I suggest that you do to understand the context that the words that were highlighted were used. Are we, as a country, not allowed to criticise her or any people of colour for whatever they do at the risk of being called racist if we do? That to me does nothing to fight the eradication of racism within any society. The author of that opinion- Afua Hirsch would be better off channelling her time and energy to something far more productive in the fight against racism than to choose, out of context words for what was probably, a paid opinion piece, that in many ways, is totally inaccurate.
It isn’t about black people being above critique and you know it. Just admit it’s racism for once. How hard is it?!!! It makes you look foolish to deny what so clearly is her being harshly criticized ONLY because she is a black woman. Just like you were over in that Ukraine thread. It doesn’t even make sense to have dialogue with you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 29, 2024 14:30:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 14:18:01 GMT
I don't think it's up to white people to tell black people that they are being oversensitive or misinterpreting acts which they perceive to be racist. And since there have been a shocking number of racist jabs and microaggressions against Meghan, it is not at all surprising that it colors our overall perception of how she has been treated generally and how she has been covered by the British press. Having experienced this and continuing to experience it with the Obamas here in the US, I'll just say that I have a very wary eye about plausible deniablity when it comes to questions of whether or not racism (conscious or unconscious) motivates comments, lines of inquiry, news stories, etc. Plausible deniability has been elevated to an art form over here in recent years. I don't happen to think its up to black people to tell white people that any criticism or anything they say to a person of colour is said because one is racist either. It works both ways in many situations. I've had experience of that myself by being accused of refusing to give someone some money from their empty bank account, The accusation was that I was only refusing to do so because of their colour. When in fact I had refused two other white people money in the same situation that very same morning. Was I just expected to take being called a racist on the chin for following the corporate rules? What I'm saying is that society and that means everyone, can't define all criticism of a person of colour as always having a racist connotation to it, its not always the case.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 29, 2024 14:30:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 14:33:28 GMT
Have you read the highlighted links for the words that this writer has used in expressing her own opinion on, Olan ? I'm guessing by posting this opinion that you seem to be suggesting that all the criticism of what the Duchess of Sussex has been faced with is based on racism. If you read the highlighted links and the articles that were written when these words were used you'll find that is not the case. It's not racism to report that she was ill advised to pay secret visits to a community kitchen who rents out space at a Mosque that the has been proved that 19 of it's members have connections to terrorism including Jihadi John and its Imam has some extreme views on his own social media. In 2016 at the beginning of their courtship the opinion of one writer in comparing the two wrote. " if they have babies the Windsor's will thicken their watery thin line blood of the Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with the rich and exotic DNA of an actress who is very easy on the eye......is that really a racism hit at Meghan or an insult to the Royal Family? The criticism of editing Vogue was pointing out that it was seen as being political, (something that the RF don't get involved or comment on) The article in Vogue was titled " Time for Change" and she chose inspirational women to highlight her message. One of whom,( amongst some others in the article) was the wife of a very rich Frenchman who owns many luxury brands that actually advertises in Vogue. The question that was brought up was what value was it to being involved with the people she highlighted - hardly pertaining to the charities and the gender equality that they/her pertaining to champion.Choosing edgier causes would have been far better. What has that article have to do with her race? Piers Morgan made a point of her constantly bleating about privacy and then points out her choice of being a guest editor on Vogue - where is the racism there? ( I have no love for PM but I think on this occasion he has a point and it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin) BBC employee the person the opinion writer pointed out was Danny Baker and the BBC immediately sacked him and strongly condemned what he said on his private twitter account - how is that a suggestion of racism by the BBC? There are many other words that she has taken out of context but I don't have the time to answer them all but I suggest that you do to understand the context that the words that were highlighted were used. Are we, as a country, not allowed to criticise her or any people of colour for whatever they do at the risk of being called racist if we do? That to me does nothing to fight the eradication of racism within any society. The author of that opinion- Afua Hirsch would be better off channelling her time and energy to something far more productive in the fight against racism than to choose, out of context words for what was probably, a paid opinion piece, that in many ways, is totally inaccurate.
It isn’t about black people being above critique and you know it. Just admit it’s racism for once. How hard is it?!!! It makes you look foolish to deny what so clearly is her being harshly criticized ONLY because she is a black woman. Just like you were over in that Ukraine thread. It doesn’t even make sense to have dialogue with you. What exactly have I said on the Ukraine thread that you don't approve of? Asking someone to be sensitive to the feelings of others? Pointing out that Iran isn't the only country to shoot down a passenger plane by mistake? Pointing out the fact it could be the ground air control that made the mistake rather than the military? or suggesting that Canadians have an affinity to their own citizens that had lost their live? Which one or is it all of those made you decide that it makes no sense of having a dialogue with me? It works both ways Olan you've obviously made your mind up that everything anyone says about Meghan is based on the colour of her skin be it a positive or a negative reaction to her actions. I find that offensive to suggest that society and in particular Britain, the majority that have welcomed her warmly have to separate people out as to who has to accept criticism and shut up and who has the right to use the race card when non was intended.
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Jan 11, 2020 15:39:52 GMT
I'm of the same opinion I was when this first broke. You can't be half in. It's either duty/service to the crown or cut your losses and make your own way with your own income. You don't expect daddy to fund your royal-lite lifestyle (titles, income, housing, protection) plus cashing in on your name/title to make money. They look like petulant teenagers telling mom and dad, "You're not the boss of me!" and then asking for their allowance. I'm actually inclined to believe this is being driven more by Harry. He's been coddled his whole life and I think he thought the good will he had built up by being "fun, lovable, Harry who needs a pass because he's still suffering from his mother's death" would shield him.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jan 11, 2020 16:25:54 GMT
The British press has succeeded in its apparent project of hounding Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, out of Britain. The part it perhaps didn’t bargain for, however, is the loss of Prince Harry — a much loved royal and a key part of the family’s global brand — along with her. In a statement released this week, the couple said they want to “carve out a progressive new role” within the royal family and will “step back as ‘senior’ members, and work to become financially independent.” The British press reacted with surprise at the “shock move abroad,” described variously as “seismic,” “selfish,” “rogue” and “an atrocious lapse of judgment.” If the media paid more attention to Britain’s communities of color, perhaps it would find the announcement far less surprising. With a new prime minister whose track record includes overtly racist statements, some of which would make even Donald Trump blush, a Brexit project linked to native nationalism and a desire to rid Britain of large numbers of immigrants, and an ever thickening loom of imperial nostalgia, many of us are also thinking about moving. From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists. Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime — terrorism and gang activity — as well as the fact that she has been most venomously attacked for acts that attracted praise when other royals did them. Her decision to guest-edit British Vogue, for example, was roundly condemned by large parts of the British media, in stark contrast to Prince Charles’s two-time guest editorship of Country Life magazine, Prince Harry’s of a BBC program and Kate Middleton’s at Huffington Post, all of which were quietly praised at the time. Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you. In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race. The relatively few people of color — and even fewer if you count only those who have African heritage — who rise to prominent success and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be “grateful” or told to leave if we don’t like it here. The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it, and policies of recruiting people from the Caribbean and Africa into low-paid work and then discriminating against them in education and housing, is with us today: The scandal surrounding the wrongful deportation of black British people in recent years is still reverberating. Have you read the highlighted links for the words that this writer has used in expressing her own opinion on, Olan ? I'm guessing by posting this opinion that you seem to be suggesting that all the criticism of what the Duchess of Sussex has been faced with is based on racism. If you read the highlighted links and the articles that were written when these words were used you'll find that is not the case. It's not racism to report that she was ill advised to pay secret visits to a community kitchen who rents out space at a Mosque that the has been proved that 19 of it's members have connections to terrorism including Jihadi John and its Imam has some extreme views on his own social media. In 2016 at the beginning of their courtship the opinion of one writer in comparing the two wrote. " if they have babies the Windsor's will thicken their watery thin line blood of the Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with the rich and exotic DNA of an actress who is very easy on the eye......is that really a racism hit at Meghan or an insult to the Royal Family? The criticism of editing Vogue was pointing out that it was seen as being political, (something that the RF don't get involved or comment on) The article in Vogue was titled " Time for Change" and she chose inspirational women to highlight her message. One of whom,( amongst some others in the article) was the wife of a very rich Frenchman who owns many luxury brands that actually advertises in Vogue. The question that was brought up was what value was it to being involved with the people she highlighted - hardly pertaining to the charities and the gender equality that they/her pertaining to champion.Choosing edgier causes would have been far better. What has that article have to do with her race? Piers Morgan made a point of her constantly bleating about privacy and then points out her choice of being a guest editor on Vogue - where is the racism there? ( I have no love for PM but I think on this occasion he has a point and it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin) BBC employee the person the opinion writer pointed out was Danny Baker and the BBC immediately sacked him and strongly condemned what he said on his private twitter account - how is that a suggestion of racism by the BBC? There are many other words that she has taken out of context but I don't have the time to answer them all but I suggest that you do to understand the context that the words that were highlighted were used. Are we, as a country, not allowed to criticise her or any people of colour for whatever they do at the risk of being called racist if we do? That to me does nothing to fight the eradication of racism within any society. The author of that opinion- Afua Hirsch would be better off channelling her time and energy to something far more productive in the fight against racism than to choose, out of context words for what was probably, a paid opinion piece, that in many ways, is totally inaccurate.
I do not profess any expertise on the RF’s doings. However, I have to pipe in and say that even with my admittedly limited knowledge, the racism against Meghan was / is real. Harry himself said so, even before he and Meghan married. You may find it comforting and fair to contextualize some of these instances and that’s your choice, of course. Some non-white people such as me, on the other hand, have a well-honed sensitivity to these instances because of our experiences, not just with pervasive and overt racism but coded as well, and speaking just for myself, context means nothing to me when they do occur. Is every single instance of criticism against Meghan fueled by racism? Of course not. But many were. Now, it could very well be because of your gutter press who have no qualms about destroying people and encouraging and amplifying racism among the trolls and racists and not your respectable press. But it did happen.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jan 11, 2020 16:37:07 GMT
I'm of the same opinion I was when this first broke. You can't be half in. It's either duty/service to the crown or cut your losses and make your own way with your own income. You don't expect daddy to fund your royal-lite lifestyle (titles, income, housing, protection) plus cashing in on your name/title to make money. They look like petulant teenagers telling mom and dad, "You're not the boss of me!" and then asking for their allowance. I'm actually inclined to believe this is being driven more by Harry. He's been coddled his whole life and I think he thought the good will he had built up by being "fun, lovable, Harry who needs a pass because he's still suffering from his mother's death" would shield him. This is where I am. If they want out then let them go. But they shouldn't be allowed to cash in on their title or receive funding. I don't care one way or another if they go or stay. I do think the way they have shown disrespect to the Queen by not working out all the details privately is a huge problem for me. I dont know who is actually behind it - but Meghan not wearing her rings the other day makes me wonder if she is threatening to divorce him if things don't go her way (TOTAL speculation on my part. But she always wears her rings when doing public meetings so this seems like a calculated move on her part).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 29, 2024 14:30:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 17:44:19 GMT
Have you read the highlighted links for the words that this writer has used in expressing her own opinion on, Olan ? I'm guessing by posting this opinion that you seem to be suggesting that all the criticism of what the Duchess of Sussex has been faced with is based on racism. If you read the highlighted links and the articles that were written when these words were used you'll find that is not the case. It's not racism to report that she was ill advised to pay secret visits to a community kitchen who rents out space at a Mosque that the has been proved that 19 of it's members have connections to terrorism including Jihadi John and its Imam has some extreme views on his own social media. In 2016 at the beginning of their courtship the opinion of one writer in comparing the two wrote. " if they have babies the Windsor's will thicken their watery thin line blood of the Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with the rich and exotic DNA of an actress who is very easy on the eye......is that really a racism hit at Meghan or an insult to the Royal Family? The criticism of editing Vogue was pointing out that it was seen as being political, (something that the RF don't get involved or comment on) The article in Vogue was titled " Time for Change" and she chose inspirational women to highlight her message. One of whom,( amongst some others in the article) was the wife of a very rich Frenchman who owns many luxury brands that actually advertises in Vogue. The question that was brought up was what value was it to being involved with the people she highlighted - hardly pertaining to the charities and the gender equality that they/her pertaining to champion.Choosing edgier causes would have been far better. What has that article have to do with her race? Piers Morgan made a point of her constantly bleating about privacy and then points out her choice of being a guest editor on Vogue - where is the racism there? ( I have no love for PM but I think on this occasion he has a point and it has nothing to do with the colour of her skin) BBC employee the person the opinion writer pointed out was Danny Baker and the BBC immediately sacked him and strongly condemned what he said on his private twitter account - how is that a suggestion of racism by the BBC? There are many other words that she has taken out of context but I don't have the time to answer them all but I suggest that you do to understand the context that the words that were highlighted were used. Are we, as a country, not allowed to criticise her or any people of colour for whatever they do at the risk of being called racist if we do? That to me does nothing to fight the eradication of racism within any society. The author of that opinion- Afua Hirsch would be better off channelling her time and energy to something far more productive in the fight against racism than to choose, out of context words for what was probably, a paid opinion piece, that in many ways, is totally inaccurate.
I do not profess any expertise on the RF’s doings. However, I have to pipe in and say that even with my admittedly limited knowledge, the racism against Meghan was / is real. Harry himself said so, even before he and Meghan married. You may find it comforting and fair to contextualize some of these instances and that’s your choice, of course. Some non-white people such as me, on the other hand, have a well-honed sensitivity to these instances because of our experiences, not just with pervasive and overt racism but coded as well, and speaking just for myself, context means nothing to me when they do occur. Is every single instance of criticism against Meghan fueled by racism? Of course not. But many were. Now, it could very well be because of your gutter press who have no qualms about destroying people and encouraging and amplifying racism among the trolls and racists and not your respectable press. But it did happen. But that's my point though and I've never said that there has been ever any racism against Meghan and it most certainly not on the scale that people are accusing us of. You can also say that it's fuelled the trolls and on line comments by people like Olan who posts a controversial opinion made by the author of that article in an attempt to prove or suggest that racism is rampant in Britain when it's actually not. If you load an opinion piece with words that are taken out of context, to the original way those words were used in the original articles, they start having different meaning.Most of those words used in that article would have been used to report on anyone, they were not specifically chosen to be used on a story about Meghan. Take the " her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists." and the author links the word terrorist to an article that said she was ill advised to visit the Mosque because of it's link to terrorist.Why choose the one article that mentioned the words terrorist and ignore the reality of the wide coverage both by Newspapers and TV of the good she was doing in launching that cook-book. Why would you do that unless they were also fuelling keyboard trolls and other publications outside of Britain who took up on the story to portray Britain, as a whole, a racist country?
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,656
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Jan 11, 2020 18:16:03 GMT
I had a couple thoughts while driving yesterday.
One was that part of this deliberate snub to the Queen may have been Harry's way of paying back what happened after Diana's death. He's spoken openly in recent years about how traumatized he was when he had to walk behind Diana's casket. It make have taken him 20+ years, but what if this was his way of inflicting a deeply painful wound on the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family?
The second thought was wondering if the rest of the family knew Archie had been left behind in Canada? That would have set my radar off a bit, as why would they leave their infant son behind when they were supposed to be back from their sabbatical?
I think a lot of us are ignoring the work "senior members" of the Royal Family do. Princess Anne has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. I heard a report that she is continually one of the hardest working members of the family, despite being 14th in line for the throne (she was born 3rd in line, rose to 2nd when her mother became Queen, and has fallen ever since). By her doing her duty, it helps ease the workload for the Queen, the now retired Duke of Edinburgh, and Princes Charles and William.
With Harry essentially quitting, that's going to put a lot more work on William and Catherine, especially as the older generation dies out. It may also force George, Charlotte, and Louis to start royal duties at a much younger age that William and Harry did, as someone is going to need to do the work. It's very selfish on Harry's part.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Jan 11, 2020 18:21:36 GMT
I think that a lot of us who married into difficult families genuinely thought things would be fine, and it is often not until you have a child that things come to a head.
|
|
Olan
Pearl Clutcher
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,046
Jul 13, 2014 21:23:27 GMT
|
Post by Olan on Jan 11, 2020 19:34:20 GMT
www.socialistalternative.org/panther-black-rebellion/history-blacks-britain-slavery-rebellion/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/04/uk-windrush-generation-scandal-180418074648878.htmlgraziadaily.co.uk/life/real-life/racism-ukThe History of Blacks in Britain: From Slavery to Rebellion This article is an edited version of a talk given by Lorraine White to the Panther branch meeting in London in September 1994. The majority of Blacks and Asians in Britain today trace their origins to the labor migration from the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent which occurred after the Second World War. However, the presence of Blacks in this country dates back nearly two thousand years. These are records in the British museum which show that African officers and soldiers were part of the Roman army that occupied Britain in 300 AD. Many references to Black people in this country can also be found in the literature of the Elizabethan period. By the early eighteenth century, Britain had emerged as the biggest and most prosperous slave trading nation in the world and the number one slave carrier for European countries. For instance, in July 1757, 175 ships with cargo of tobacco, sugar and cotton docked in British ports. The cargo, worth �210 million at today’s prices is an example of the wealth accumulated by Britain through slavery and the slave trade. Many of Britain’s seaports became hugely prosperous as a result of the slave trade. While the great majority of slaves were sold in the Americas, large numbers were transported to Britain. In 1771, Liverpool sent 106 ships to Africa and came back with 28,200 slaves. Bristol sent 23 ships and returned with 8,810. The fabulous wealth generated by slavery and the trading system which thrived around it provided the capital for the development of industry and commerce, which laid the foundations for the birth of modern capitalism. The fact was that the wealth of the Western countries was built on the backs of Black slave labor is a point many historians seem to conveniently forget or ignore. The development of racism in its modern sense also traces its origins to the role slavery played in the rise of capitalism. It was during this period that all kinds of pseudo-scientific theories were put forward to justify the brutalities of slavery. These theories purported that Black people were inferior beings, that Africans were in the late stages of the evolution line, that they were half man and half ape, primitive, inferior and without intellect. The use of science to legitimize and justify slavery paved the way for racism to become a lasting tool of capitalist exploitation. The Black presence in Britain was greatly enhanced by the coming of the First World War when thousands of Black soldiers from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean were enlisted into the British army. Many were sent back after the war but significant numbers stayed. Those remaining were mainly seafarers who settled in the port towns of London, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow and Hull. Despite their relatively small numbers, many of these early Black settlers were confronted with discrimination and racist violence. In 1918 Charles Wooton was murdered by a white mob in Liverpool. This incident provoked an uprising of Blacks in almost all areas where they had settled. This set a pattern of resistance that was to characterize the Black experience in this country right up to the present day. The rebuilding of Britain’s shattered economy after the Second World War created a massive demand for labor. A Royal commission set up in 1949 estimated that 140,000 young people would have to migrate to Britain every year to solve the labor shortage. But the report also noted: quote in link But large-scale immigration was already becoming a reality despite the “concerns” of the Royal commission as certain sections of industry could not maintain production without it. They sought and found migrant labor from the colonies in the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent. During the war the cost of living had almost doubled in the West Indies and the Indian sub-continent. With large scale unemployment, no dole, no children’s allowances, no social security and active encouragement by the government and the employers to come to work in Britain, many made the journey in the hope of a better life. Most who came had illusions that with British citizenship they would be treated equally and fairly. Their initial intention was not to settle but to stay until they had enough money to return home. These illusions were quickly shattered. They were housed in slum dwellings in decaying inner city areas and although they had no difficulty in finding employment, they were given the jobs that whites did not want: work with long hours and low pay. In the late 1950s more than half of West Indian men in London had jobs which were far below their level of skill and experience. Black workers were concentrated in post offices, building, textiles, factories, railways and hospitals. They suffered terrible conditions in work and outside of work; they faced discrimination in housing, color bars in pubs and clubs and sometimes physical attacks on the streets. In Nottingham, on August 12, 1958 a fight between whites and Blacks developed into a mass racial attack as white mobs roamed the streets attacking every Black in sight. Rightwing organizations held their indoor meetings in the area distributing leaflets using slogans like “Act now to keep Britain white”. Encouraged by fascist propaganda urging that Black people be driven out of Britain, racist attacks were by 1958 a common feature of black life in Britain. On weekend evenings, gangs of teddy boys patrolled the streets looking for West Indians, Africans and Asians. Predictable, the police did little or nothing to prevent these attacks, an experience that would become familiar for Black people during these subsequent decades. In London, a second mass attack on Blacks took place in the Notting Hill area. Here, the crowds were much larger than Nottingham. Three to four thousand whites gathered chanting slogans: “We’ll kill the Blacks” and “Down with niggers”. They attacked the Blacks in their homes with knives, bottles, crowbars and razors. Black people responded by organizing escorts for Black London Transport workers on late night and early morning shifts and patrolled their areas in cars. Unfortunately the Black and Asian organizations which existed at that time were mainly cultural associations and community groups. Their major focus was not on what was happening in Britain but what was going on back home. However the events of 1958 began transforming their outlook and they began adopting a more militant stance in Britain. The politicians responded to the riots with calls for immigration controls. Although it was whites attacking Blacks, Black people were blamed for the disturbances. Two Nottingham MPs, one Labour and one Tory were among the first to call for immigration controls. They quickly gained sympathy from other MPs. Typical of the arguments used at the time was that of Labour MP for Kensington North, Mr. Rogers, who told the Times that the “immigrants” were occupying accommodation “which is needed by white people”. He also told the Daily Sketch that: Do not allow a pea to convince you of something without doing research for yourself. Myself included. History doesn’t lie. It may be an opinion piece but there is always something factual in the history of a country that will show you truth from lies.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Jan 11, 2020 19:52:17 GMT
My interpretation:
Megan has realized what she actually signed up for and isn’t as happy as she thought she’d be. She doesn’t want to play by the royal rules after all )who would) and misses having her own career and own money. Now that she’s a mother she wants to be around her own mother more.
Harry knows he’s a figure piece, not even a figure head, and his existence has little to no affect on the family business. He doesn’t enjoy the drama between his wife and family (or the rumors of it). He loves his wife and child and doesn’t really care where he lives.
This way they can live a more normal life and spend more time together.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Jan 11, 2020 20:07:40 GMT
My interpretation: Megan has realized what she actually signed up for and isn’t as happy as she thought she’d be. She doesn’t want to play by the royal rules after all )who would) and misses having her own career and own money. Now that she’s a mother she wants to be around her own mother more. Harry knows he’s a figure piece, not even a figure head, and his existence has little to no affect on the family business. He doesn’t enjoy the drama between his wife and family (or the rumors of it). He loves his wife and child and doesn’t really care where he lives. This way they can live a more normal life and spend more time together. Then why intentionally cause drama and tension? Releasing that letter before all the details were worked out was such as big dramatic mess that you could make. Anyone who was aware it was about to be put out, should have seen the nightmare this was going to be. I dont think many fault them for wanting out. Its the whole drama-fest way they have chosen (and yes, it was chosen) to do that people are raising an eye to.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Jan 11, 2020 20:12:26 GMT
I’ve only skimmed your post for now Olan as I’m at work but my understanding is that the ships bringing slaves here were, in the main, for onward transmission to the Americas and hardly any slaves remained in Britain. Some were kept as servants but I believe we were just a stop off point. It doesn’t make it any better and many of the cities by our ports were most definitely built on the profits of slavery, but I think onward transmission was the reason the slaves came here.
|
|
|
Post by scrappintoee on Jan 11, 2020 20:17:29 GMT
And if they’re financially independent, what are all those whingers going to complain about now that they can’t call them dole bludgers? I hope it's okay to jump in and say that I LOVE learning new vernacular from other countries, like the words I highlighted. I imagine them being said in an Australian or English (or other country's) accent , and it makes it even MORE fun. ** slight hijack over **
|
|