Korat-Farang.com

Harry and Megan - was that question racial ?

Roger · 20 · 561

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
An understandable chorus of criticism following their 'Oprah' appearance    8)

Regarding the interest in whether Archie would be 'of colour' to some degree - it's natural enough to 'wonder' about it and I expect that many people did. But surely, it's only 'racial' if you particularly want the baby to be white and are going to be disappointed if it turns out 'black', (or vice versa).

The PC and 'woke' crowd pounce and whoever asked the admittedly tactless question is accused and 'convicted' of being 'racist' immediately but maybe he/she was just interested, without a prejudicial interest.

Although it's denied, I could envisage one particular Great Grandad popping that one, (btw come on Philip and get well soon !)

Hullabaloo on hullabaloo  :o  More to come on all this we suspect   ;)
« Last Edit: March 09, 2021, 03:20:17 PM by Roger »
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Coolkorat

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Sage
  • *****
    • Posts: 1258
  • Whichever way you throw, it will stand
    • Pix Isaan
Although it's denied, I could envisage one particular Great Grandad popping that one, (btw come on Philip and get well soon !)

Which of the royals is well-known as being tactless and insensitive.... Think you are spot-on Roger!

Every time this kind of thing happens it spells the death knell of the monarchy. In many ways I admire what Harry and Megan have done - a bit of realism that if they want to lead their own lives they need to get out of the gilded cage. They still have a gilded life, and always will.


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
Hi CK. I couldn't disagree with you more old Chap  8)  "Every time this kind of thing happens it spells the death knell of the monarchy. In many ways I admire what Harry and Megan have done".

IMO, as a mild leftie, I think and hope the Monarchy WILL survive this . . . . but without these two   ;)

The response from the Palace will be interesting.

 
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Coolkorat

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Sage
  • *****
    • Posts: 1258
  • Whichever way you throw, it will stand
    • Pix Isaan
Roger, I don't think the 'future' royals are nearly as popular. The Queen is beloved in the same way the late King was beloved and she earned it through hard work and diligence. I look at the current crop and cannot think any will ever earn public affection, and the antics of Andrew have a toxic effect on public confidence. I would not be sorry to see the lot of them consigned to history as soon as the Queen is no longer with us.

The Commonwealth is the only aspect with royal connections that should be preserved, developed and enhanced.


Online dam12641

  • Member
    • Posts: 214
It's perfectly understandable for the Royals to be concerned over how the baby will look.

After all, nobody wants another ginger in their family.


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
Hi CK - thanks for reply - these shenanigans certainly won't help, as you say.

Dam - very good   ;)   but we now have you down as a 'gingerist"   :-\
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
Reuters . . . Meghan's father says the British royals are not racist. Tue March 9, 2021

LONDON (Reuters) - "Meghan's father Thomas Markle said on Tuesday that he did not think the British royal family was racist, and hoped that an alleged remark from a family member about the darkness of the skin of Meghan's son was just a "dumb question".

Meghan said that her son Archie, now aged one, had been denied the title of prince because there were concerns within the royal family about "about how dark his skin might be when he's born". "I have great respect for the royals, and I don't think the British royal family are racist at all. I don't think the British are racist, I think Los Angeles is racist, California is a racist, but I don't think the Brits are," Markle told ITV.

"The thing about what colour will the baby be or how dark will the baby be; I'm guessing and hoping it's just a dumb question from somebody ... It could be somebody asked a stupid question. Rather than being a total racist." "This whole thing about colour and how dark the baby is is bullshit," Markle said. He thought that the comment should be investigated
."

The most sensible thing said by a 'Markle' for some time . . . . .
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2207
I suspect this odious publicity seeking couple are banking on the Royal Family to just ignore the interview ever happened. I can imagine that back at the Palace, they are scouring through the paperwork to see just what Archie was offered.

I feel sad for Harry, who clearly doesn't wear the trousers in his household (oh deary me, how sexist is that?). He has gone from being one of the most popular Royals, some might say a 'national treasure', being involved with and instigating some truly  good initiatives, to a pariah Royal and in such a short space of time. Ever since he met and married, erm........ 


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2207

Meghan said that her son Archie, now aged one, had been denied the title of prince because there were concerns within the royal family about "about how dark his skin might be when he's born".

Ah, found the answer now. It's Royal protocol. Wee Archie is not the son or grandson of a reigning monarch. Seems the rules were changed for Williams kids as he is 2nd in line to the throne and if anything happened to Charles before he became King, his eldest will become heir to the throne.

Archie will become a Prince automatically when Charles becomes King.


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
 "The Sussexes have failed to learn from the mistakes, or the strengths, of the late princess - Did Meghan see a Diana-shaped hole in the monarchy and try to fill it?

There was a sense of déjà vu, don’t you think, about Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey? At least for those of us who can remember Diana, Princess of Wales, baring her soul to Martin Bashir in 1995. For a man who says that he fears that history is repeating itself in respect of his mother and his wife, Prince Harry went out of his way to make the same mistakes as Diana. She regretted (though never repudiated) her Panorama interview, but here we are with Oprah, Harry and Meghan: the same again, only more so.

Indeed, Harry observed in the interview that his mother would be “angry and sad” that he felt he had to leave the Royal family, but he “felt her presence” and observed that “she saw it coming”. Actually, I’m not sure that she could have foreseen quite how completely her son would be dominated by an American wife who has, remarkably, tried to replicate the Diana story. That is to say: neglect by the Royal family, cruelty on the part of the Prince of Wales and cold shouldering by the Palace establishment. There was, in fact, something uncanny about the way in which Meghan presented herself in the same light as her husband’s mother, though Diana never quite got around to comparing herself with the Little Mermaid.

Actually, a useful preparation for the Oprah interview would have been a viewing of the brilliant documentary, Diana: In Her Own Words, on Netflix, in which the princess speaks of her experiences in a series of secret tape recordings made in 1991 to help the journalist Andrew Morton write her biography.

It makes you wonder: did Meghan see a Diana-shaped hole in the monarchy and try to fill it? Is that what Prince Harry wanted? His elder brother plainly recognised that he needed emotional stability – and Kate, with her solid middle-class family, provided it – but Harry sought out a woman as emotionally needy as his mother. Does he see himself as “saving” his wife because he was not able to protect his mother?

Harry does seem to replicate his mother in his impulsiveness – evident in the whole Megxit drama – and his willingness to act first and rationalise his actions later. At 36, he is now the same age as she was when she died. Like Diana, he has problems with Prince Charles (though it is a little rich for this extravagant pair to complain about him cutting off financial support). Like her, he has an easy, popular touch. Like her, he wants to be outside the Royal family but remain somehow royal, and to create his own idea of public service. It’s possible, in fact, that Prince Harry was already primed to replicate his mother’s divorce from the Royal family, but as he admitted to Oprah, it is unlikely to have happened without his wife.

For her part, Meghan is now creating herself in Diana’s image of the emotionally fragile outsider – except with an added race component – and selling her reverse fairy tale, in which she “rescues” her prince from his family, to the US audience at which the Oprah interview was squarely directed. Certainly, the couple want to be free of the constraints of royalty, but like Diana, they do not want to be ignored.

However – how to put this? – what came across from Diana’s account of herself (admittedly when she was at a low ebb), is that she was truthful in saying how badly, or insensitively, she was treated. Her aloneness prior to her wedding, her husband’s undemonstrativeness, brusqueness and infidelity, her steep learning curve in the position in which she found herself so soon after her 20th birthday, her self-harm and emotional fragility; all that rang true because it was true.

Much of her daughter-in-law’s account of her victim status to Oprah does not. We may feel sympathy for her assertion that she felt suicidal, but many of Meghan’s crises appear to have happened mostly inside her own head. What’s evident is that there was a curious clash of her expectations about royal life with the reality for which she seemed almost wilfully unprepared.

Granted, no one can possibly be prepared for the avalanche of publicity that greets a beautiful and photogenic woman marrying into the Royal family, and social media amplifies every criticism to a level unimaginable in Diana’s day, but it doesn’t quite wash that Meghan was not offered support had she been willing to take it, or that the Royal family had learnt nothing from the experience with Diana.

What was evident even on the outside, was that the Queen did her best to make her grandson’s wife welcome, as did other members of the family. Alas, no one appears to have pointed out to Meghan the difference between marrying the heir and marrying the spare. It was not Diana’s role she was inheriting, it was Fergie’s.

But the great difference between Diana and her son and his wife – apart from the obvious, that as an earl’s daughter, she talked the same language as the Royal family – is that Diana ultimately had the good of that family at heart. That remark about Charles and William being trapped inside the institution is that of a man who doesn’t really mind what damage he causes it.

What would Diana have made of her son’s wife? She may not have been academic but she was intelligent and shrewd, with an intuitive understanding of people. I fancy she would have taken the measure of Meghan at a hundred paces; certainly she would have recognised a ruthlessness and manipulativeness that escaped her son. In Diana, Meghan would have met her match.

There’s another parallel between Diana and Harry. After the Panorama interview, the nation was divided between Team Di and Team Charles – and I should say that on the grounds of his affair with Camilla, I found myself on Diana’s side. It was a cultural divide, between those like Nicholas Soames, a friend of Charles, who more or less thought Diana unhinged, and those on the princess’s side who saw her as an inspiring woman who had taken her life into her own hands, on her own terms.

Now it has happened again… the country split between those who think Harry and Meghan are narcissistic, self-regarding, extravagant and ungrateful, and those who feel that they are victims of racism and snobbery and deserve praise for their emotional literacy and frankness. As a friend observed, the couple are like a national Sorting Hat, dividing everyone by house and by temperament. There’s a strong generational element, and maybe a racial element, too. Inevitably the divide has a political component… liberal papers are inclined to take a lenient view of the couple. It’s not quite the national unity the Queen might have hoped for.

After Diana’s bombshell interview, things were never quite the same. And this will be true now. No family, no relationship, is improved by sharing grievances with several million others; after this, the distance between the Sussexes and Harry’s family may be greater than the physical space of the Atlantic Ocean. Prince Harry is his mother’s son all right, but has not learnt either from her mistakes or from her strengths
."

I agree with this almost entirely. Spot on analysis from the DT. CK? Caller? TW?

Sorry no link . . . . DT


''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Thaiwolf

  • KFers in Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 1868
Playing the victim has become a worldwide pastime.  It's all the fault of us successful white males who just get on with their lives.
This woke nonsense is going to end in big tears.


Online Coolkorat

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Sage
  • *****
    • Posts: 1258
  • Whichever way you throw, it will stand
    • Pix Isaan
Roger, I agree with the DT article. Harry and Megan could have exited the royal family quietly, but the reality is they (perhaps she) craves attention and are seriously annoyed not to get the bells and whistles they feel entitled to.

TW - I completely agree with that!

I saw this meme yesterday. Sometimes these things are rubbish, but this one has an element of truth:

0oy7tvl-BWQ2-PIjs-LN9-I0p-Yru-FHOQ9n-Ve2h6-YZN-wn-SM" border="0


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2207
I saw this meme yesterday. Sometimes these things are rubbish, but this one has an element of truth:

Doesn't have any truth as far as I can tell and comparing white supremists from the Southern States to the Royal Family is simply ludicrous. 


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
Caller I agree but in defence of the Poster, I think he was showing an example of how ridiculous the 'accusation' is, whilst there's always an element of truth . . . . .

I picked this up from a poster, not me, on the TUFC Forum - fair insight IMO . . . .

"The allegation of racism was the most serious thing to come out of the interview but whether it was racist all depends on context and the couple whilst throwing in this hand grenade were unwilling to provide any detail.

My immediate thoughts were that it was not necessarily racist as I felt that having a discussion about the possible colour of the unborn baby would be a normal topic of discussion in a mixed race family. I remembered the days when I was producing babies (with quite alarming regularity) and as the sex was not known before birth in those days we discussed the two possible genders of the unborn baby (there were only two in those days!). The gender and how the baby may look are points of interest for the family, and I am sure the same sort of discussion takes place in families where one parent has black hair and the other has ginger hair.

Not being in a mixed race relationship myself I checked with two mixed race couples I know. Both families agreed and said that they had definitely discussed possible colour of the unborn baby and that it was a perfectly normal conversation. I also spoke to a black family who are friends and they did not see it as racist.

I appreciate that for statistical analysis purposes 3 families are not a sufficient sample, and there is also the danger that as friends they could have just said what they thought I wanted to hear, although knowing them all well I doubt that is the case as they are all intelligent and open to informed debate on any subject.

Context is the key. It could have been a racist remark, but to throw it into the interview and then not give any detail was of little use to anybody.....and Oprah must take most responsibility for that.
"

All good stuff - take care Harry   8)




''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online Coolkorat

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Sage
  • *****
    • Posts: 1258
  • Whichever way you throw, it will stand
    • Pix Isaan
Roger & caller: exactly that. The meme is clearly absurd and outrageous.

But the truthful element is the belief that birthright (the DNA) gives superiority over others; the god given right to rule. We, as outsiders, all think this is a load of rubbish and believe they 'rule' because it's tradition and a bit of fun, and think they think that too. We let them 'rule'.

However they think they are given this power through divine means. God has made them royal. They are superior because god says they are. That's the part we don't see, and that's the part that blindsided Diana and now Megan. It's all Disney until the bubble bursts and you see it's Deliverance with a tiara.


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
Extracted from the DT, this truck some chords . . . .

"Certain claims were instantly uncredible; such as the suggestion Archie was denied the title “Prince” because he was mixed-race, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury performed an official wedding ceremony in their garden, days before the global spectacle of their Windsor nuptials. Many of the headlines used to illustrate the couple’s ‘mistreatment’ by the UK media were at best, taken out of context – at worst, outrageously misappropriated. All told, the Sussexes’ ‘truth’ bears more than a passing resemblance to Trump’s ‘alternative facts’.

Very little of this seems to matter, however, in a world where ‘lived experience’ can, and often does, supersede objective reality. Questioning individuals may expect to be accused of racism, downplaying mental health, or both. “Believe her, no matter what”, seems to be the demand – even when it doesn’t make sense. “I wasn’t interested in grandeur”, cries the woman in the $4500 dress. Like Alice through the looking glass, we are required to believe impossible things before breakfast. We must trust that an intelligent modern woman neglected to perform even a cursory google of her future husband – a prince no less – before their first date. We must lionise a couple who insist they are being kind and respectful, even as they carelessly cast suspicion around their relatives and compound the Queen’s anxieties at a traumatic time. We are expected to agree that people who are richer than Croesus, wielding vast cultural influence, are unambiguous victims."


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/11/living-meghans-truth-now/
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2207
Roger & caller: exactly that. The meme is clearly absurd and outrageous.

But the truthful element is the belief that birthright (the DNA) gives superiority over others; the god given right to rule. We, as outsiders, all think this is a load of rubbish and believe they 'rule' because it's tradition and a bit of fun, and think they think that too. We let them 'rule'.

However they think they are given this power through divine means. God has made them royal. They are superior because god says they are. That's the part we don't see, and that's the part that blindsided Diana and now Megan. It's all Disney until the bubble bursts and you see it's Deliverance with a tiara.

I don't really understand what you are saying. The history of Royalty in the UK is pretty well documented from day 1. That explains to everyone all they need to know.  But you are really claiming they believe  they were given powers by divine means and they are superior because God say's they are? Really, when has he said that?


Online Coolkorat

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Sage
  • *****
    • Posts: 1258
  • Whichever way you throw, it will stand
    • Pix Isaan
But you are really claiming they believe they were given powers by divine means and they are superior because God says they are?

That is exactly what I am saying! The divine right of kings: see here


Online caller

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Forum Wizard
  • *****
    • Posts: 2207
That is exactly what I am saying! The divine right of kings: see here

There is no doubt that applied a few centuries or so ago. But not now, not in the West in any case. The wiki article is of history, not 21st century Britain.


Online Roger

  • KFers beyond Korat
  • Wisdom in Forum
  • *****
    • Posts: 4679
Caller, CK, TW and Dam thanks for the discussion.

Quoting Dam - "It's perfectly understandable for the Royals to be concerned over how the baby will look. After all, nobody wants another ginger in their family" - I guess we all had a chuckle at that but that joke made a clear point about the ridiculous presumption of racism arising from the alleged question from the alleged questioner   8)

How in the hell was that 'racist' in itself ? The comments from the poster in TUFC redoubled the idea that the question was a natural point of interest. The blessed Markle and Oprah made the worst of it for sure.

Sticking to the question please - does anyone on the Forum think that the enquiry WAS 'racial' ? Have we missed an angle ?

Unfortunately I watched a few minutes of the 'Markle show' - she speaks in a very measured and careful way and is quite an impressive personality - a prime example of the 'woke' and self obsessed and she knows how to look the part. A consummate actress. What do this weird pair get up to next I wonder ?
''If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'' - Albert Einstein