Main Edition
US
FR
"I just love rescuing," says Meghan Markle. Credit: Harpo Productions/Joe Pugliese via Getty Images
America has always had a mixed fascination with royalty. The world’s monarchies are at once romantic and exotic, fantastically glamorous but also a little bit weird. The manners, and the manors, and the hats â good lord, the hats â seem like something out of fiction, otherworldly and governed by a system as inscrutable as it is foreign. The difference between royalty and nobility and between nobility and landed gentry is hard to parse in a republic where the wealthiest folks are the great grandkids of tycoons and industrialists, where we have oil barons but no baron-barons. If a successful American wanted to live as lord of a sprawling Downton-esque estate, he’d have to buy one or build it himself, a business proposition rather than a birthright. (Not that this stopped people like the Rockefellers from doing exactly that, and good for them: their mansion are museums now, and they’re fabulous.)
But when it comes to our complex relationship with the royals, nothing illustrates it better than the American Cinderella story: a kind of modern riff on the original fairytale with, usually, a feminist twist. From The Prince & Me to A Christmas Prince to The Princess Switch, these fictional fantasies centre on an ordinary girl who falls in love with a prince, usually to the horror of his family, but also often to her own distress. She’s a farm girl! She doesn’t know how to curtsy or what fork to use! She hardly even bathes â and she doesn’t want to!
The American Cinderella is independent, hard-working, and as uninterested in a royal marriage as she is unqualified for one. But love will not be denied, and in these stories, a compromise is inevitably reached: the princess-to-be teaches her stuck-up in-laws that it’s okay to embrace change, but she herself also develops a new appreciation for stodgy royal values like tradition, duty, and service. And they get married and live happily ever after, the end.
But in real life, the wedding is only the beginning.
*
Oprah’s tell-all interview with the stateside Sussexes reminds us just how much the fairytale once seemed real. Meghan Markle was the glamorous true-life realisation of that empowered princess, and her marriage to Prince Harry the stuff that modern fairytales were made of. There was the transcontinental romance, the lavish wedding, an incoming Duchess who was not just American but a mixed-race divorcee with an impressive education and a career of her own â and no, she didn’t know how to curtsy.
Granted, it wasn’t exactly like the movies; there were whispered suggestions in the gossip pages that Markle had strategically placed herself in Harry’s orbit in a way that was more wicked stepsister than Cinderella. But it was close enough. Watching from the US, there was a sense not just that Markle was living the dream, but that she was irritating to all the right people (yes, especially the racist ones) in a way that was profoundly, even historically, American. 1776 was a long time ago, but don’t we still get a little thrill out of that irreverent contempt for authority â especially if it is wearing a crown?
Fast forward to the big twist a year ago, when Harry and Meghan announced that they would be stepping back from royal life. Even not knowing exactly what it meant, it certainly seemed like a win. A win for Meghan, who was being abused by the British tabloids (not to mention, allegedly, certain less-enlightened members of her new extended family), and also for American values, for freedom itself. From across the pond, Megxit seemed like a second, more intimate iteration of our original Revolution, complete with its own Declaration of Independence (this one announced on Instagram along with the couple’s new brand-to-be, Sussex Royal).
There was even the particularly delicious irony of Harry having appeared at a 2018 benefit performance of Hamilton â a musical about his ancestors getting kicked out of America. Harry even sang a couple lines from the song in which a grossly overconfident King George proclaims his intentions never to relinquish the nation to autonomous rule. The lyrics depict a ruler in the grips of pompous delusion, in the style of a needy lover:
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhatever.
Professional victim uses the race card to earn herself some money. What else is new?
My feelings exactly.
They have used Winfrey – in a pity party two years in the planning – as a conduit to air all their dirty laundry, so now it’s all aired what do they winge about and play the victim about from now on ?
At least it was’nt Jerry Springer
Jerry Springer would have been a real hoot.
He might have asked her about her relatives
She’s used them. They look like a bunch of numbskulls and Oprah got the scoop.
The interview, actual not what was shown, was apparently 3 hours long. I wonder what Winfrey decided not to broadcast.
Interesting, that you should reference this. It is often said that the real story lies on the cutting room floor.
Winfrey was delighted to do this interview. She used them as much as they used her. This is her speciality, getting people to speak âtheirâ truth rather than âtheâ truth. But racism charges live forever, the Sussexes will dine out on this for years if not decades. They are now permanent victims.
They are now pathetic, whinging losers. One hopes the Royal Family removes all of their titles and Harry from the line of succession. They wanted to be independent, well, let them be.
Totally agree.
Removing their titles would be just but it would be counter-productive. In propaganda terms, Markle would use it to prove her case.
Yep! It would be an opening to ‘prove’ how bad the monarchy is although I agree with shutting down al favours to the pathetic couple. I felt an acute nausea looking at such a smugg woman who wrapped a pretty impulsive and ignorant prince around her manipulative finger.
Yes, you are right. Why give the silly woman more ammunition?
honestly the RF’s only hope is that one of the staff secretly recorded her being nasty and somehow it finds daylight in the press.
Winfrey has sold it it To 70 Countries..So now A pandemic of Victimhood awaits us later in 2021
When it all dies down and Americans have something else to hold their attention, then the ex-royals will be cast into the wilderness. What will the Markles do then?
You forgot to mention “horsey”
they can milk this for awhile until they see how little talent she has.
What about the book and the tv repeats? Ah, I see what you mean!
Winfrey must be close to Worst interviewer on TV,never challenging ‘Victimhood answers’ bring on Chris Morris or jeremy Paxman for A PROPER analysis of Prince & Princess of Woke!
Yes but there is method in this…she gets all the scoops from all the âright people â because she does just that…..no real challenge!
CBS paid around $7-$9 million to Oprah Winfrey’s production house Harpo Productions.
For a real taste of the interrogative interview, Andrew “Brillopad” Neil would have reduced these two charlatans to mush!
Sheâs doubtless conjuring up her script for the next bellyful of tears.
Who didn’t suspect that this was where it would end up.
I blame Hewitt. Genes will out
Latest prediction, divorce in 18 months
Whilst one Royal was commenting on the baby’s skin colour, I was wondering if he would have ginger hair. Is that racist?
Self-centred, self-aggrandising, self-indulgent and playing the race card for money.
Khardashians without a crown.
Sapping its credibility does not help the anti-racist cause. It is just greedy.
It is so sad that people use a race card these days to get what they can’t get in an honest and genuine manner.
I am so proud of them both. They took the dignified route of washing all their dirty linen in public instead of succumbing to the temptation to be trashy and vulgar and maintain their privacy.
So, true. Who needs to be dignified when you can make money trashing your in-laws.
Oprah was a soft interview. No questions about her father, who paid for college, why she only had her mother at the wedding and no other family. The infamous returning her wedding bands via fedex to her first(?) husband…..
This was meant to show Meghan in the best light possible
No intention of watching this – bad enough already! but if they did an interview with Piers Morgan ? – that I would watch !
I’m just longing for the Ali G interview. Gotta be like soon innit!
Is it because you is black?
It wouldn’t last ten minutes let alone two hours. One question they didn’t like and they would be off.
It wasn’t an interview, it was a platform.
Were you watching a different interview from the rest of the world? There was no “trashing” of the in-laws. The interview claimed that the Family’s “civil service” were not supportive in the face of intrusion by a hostile press, or even when the Duchess was suicidal – and the family did not override this inaction. There were also allegations of questions to Harry from an unnamed member of the family, that were at best insensitive.
Not quite “tossing a lit match over her shoulder” as Ms Rosenfield (and perhaps Piers Morgan) would have it.
Easily convinced aren’t you? If you conduct a discursive analysis of the dialogue the underlying theme is the gentle almost apologetic “we really don’t want to do this…” but highly effective character assassination of Harry’s family and The Firm’s administrative infrastructure. Not the sin of commission but one of carefully constructed ‘omission’. Their egregious behaviour has richly earned them contempt and villification. I despise them both!
Are you for real?
You win first prize for comment of the day! Brilliant
You are being ”Ironic”?…
can we not refer to someone who had a career beforehand as Cinderella. It’s obnoxious, almost as obnoxious as this:
Watching from the US, there was a sense not just that Markle was living the dream, but that she was irritating to all the right people (yes, especially the racist ones) in a way that was profoundly, even historically, American.
The only people infatuated with her race were/are the woke racists. She looks a bit like me, so I assumed a mix of some sort. I never thought black until that pointed out and once it was, “okay, and?” was the typical response. It did not stop her from getting acting jobs or much of anything else. To call a working actor an “underdog” is an insult to underdogs everywhere, and it appears that in the interview, she decided to be who she’s always been and who people like the writer have made her – the perpetual put upon victim. Woe is me.
She isn’t any darker skinned than I am and I’m white British with a quarter dash of Italian. Black my @rse. A manipulative, trashy, gold digging, narcissist. Utterly contemptible. As for that tw@t that Hewitt sired on Dianna – utterly brainless. How could he go on TV and talk about his ‘father’ like that? Let’s be clear about something; I’m no fan of royalty. I’d like to see a republic, but the disloyalty of this pair of fools to the family is monstrous.
Of course the uber-narcissist Markle was already estranged from a number of members of her own family, so she is just carrying on as normal.
he looks nothing like hewitt, he looks almost exactly like charles the older he gets.
Narcissism never wins. It slowly destroys everything it comes into contact with.
Being as Harry has now well and truly flipped the bird and ‘exited’ centre stage whilst burning every bridge behind him, will HM Govt get back all the public cash spent on the ungrateful Prince?
âThe ungrateful Princeâ
Thatâs quite a term, isnât it
Only if such as this brain-dead, obedient ‘dog’ patiently awaiting more strokes, has any intelligent concept of gratitude. Suspect he does not.
On the subject of the completely eclipsed Prince, he doesn’t look happy, does he? He looks blotchy, cross, dead eyed and miserable. I suspect he’s begun to realise what being hitched to his wife actually involves – a non-stop resentathon designed to screw money and status out of his family by means of blackmailing them with increased levels of scandal.
It appears she’s much cleverer than he is and this is just dawning on him.
Not sure about being more clever. More devious – absolutely.
Oh she is clever alright. She went from b-list actress to duchess of montecito
Yep! And since money grabbing is pretty hard these days, she is looking for other ways, well old ways actually; bad acting!
But she can’t resist boasting about how she got married before she got married, with just Harry, the Archbishop and her. If anyone can bear to rewind to that part, you will notice Harry’s incredulous face at the fairy tale she dared to tell. He must be beyond caring.
yes, saying such easily disprovable things is always a mistake.
There were a number of occasions when Meghan’s utterances rang hollow, but this one stood out – in the UK, it’s not possible to “get married” with just a priest (even the Archbishop of Canterbury) present to officiate – the law requires witnesses, and banns to be published. Seems from subsequent investigation that *if it happened* it was merely an exchange of vows. Demonstrates that Meghan has a very approximate use of words when it suits her – but a *very* specific form of words similarly (the elegantly phrased allusion to racism in respect of her offspring’s potential skin colour, designed to imply the worst without being specific enough for its veracity to be tested. Bear in mind she admitted that she wasn’t even present for the alleged offensive remark).
Possibly because Harry, and the Archbishop, knew the Windsor Castle ceremony would have been illegal under British Law, and the first was purely an exchange of vows.
manipulative &cunning does NOT equal =Clever.. she might have read ‘Machiavelli’ thinking he wore suits”? Geditt!! Prince harry has said at least 3 times since his Afghanistan Tours he hates Britain,Probably finish up in Canada,in an igloo?..
she is clever without being intelligent; they don’t have a shred of wisdom between them.
Children’s story.
‘Ungrateful Prince’, yes, apt. It might be improved by putting the word ‘stupid’ in front of it.
HMG has seen the Royal Bank of Sussex renamed and the disappearance from our high streets of the familiar symbol of Prince Andrew’s Cross. Whatever next in these exciting times??
Especially the part of wanting to restore his relation with dad and brother implicate not only that he is ungrateful but that he is also very selfcentred and slow in uptake of his consequences.
You seem… angry with the couple, for some reason. Is the tabloid groupthink really so irresistible?
Maybe if you want to undo everything related to Harry you’d like to kill any of the people he saved on rescue missions in Afghanistan, recovering injured troops?
The level of vitriol against this couple is truly appalling. Why not find something serious to get outraged by – like the massacres in the Yemen, or the military coup in Myanmar, or China’s repression in Hong Kong and of the Uighur people in their own country?
The vitriol might be connected to two of the world’s most privileged people and multi millionaires spending two hours whining about their hard life to a billionaire (who could presumably understand their pain) when back on planet earth people are dieing in drovesand other lose friends, relatives and livelihoods in the worst crisis the world has seen since the second world war. Getting estranged from one family, if not a tragedy, might be regarded as unfortunate alienating two might be considered more than a coincidence.
You’re off-topic, guano pate!
Who beyond the usual metro bubbles will believe what that plastic PR product, “Meghan Markle”, has got to say? And given the vagueness and paucity of her “accusations”, who will care? The only problem is that, backed by the Hollywood / Woke tendency, with tendrils of infiltration all over the world, the wretched woman will be able to snipe at the crown for some time to come – and since the monarchy is so central to Britain, that is unfortunate. To those who say, OK then – abolish the monarchy, the only reply can be: don’t be so stupid. You saw what happened when Blair ripped apart the office of Lord Chancellor – admin chaos for ages. Multiply that by a factor of one thousand when it comes to plucking down the throne. If the monarchy goes, it should not be done under Yankee / PC pressures like this. Indeed, the clear moves being made against it should inspire resistance on the grand scale. The only question is: where is “Boris” Johnson in all this? Why has he left the Queen to twirl in the storm unprotected? Why doesn’t he come out fighting on her behalf? Or is he skulking in his wind powered fridge?
The question about Boris recalls what Burke said about Marie-Antoinette. Boris is an archetype of a politician.. Without convictions, he goes with the wind. He tossed a coin at the time of Brexist and gave up “leave”. He could have gone the other way. He will leave the Queen to fend for herself.
Spot on. Although his type of politician is – or used to be – far less common in Britain than in other countries. He recalls the men of the later third republic in France: transient opinions? check. Rackety private life, plus mistress? Check. Willingness to dish his former allies? Check, check, check. Total absence of spine? Certainly. Ability to puff himself out in the semblance of a principled man to take in a crowd of habitual voters? Of course. We used to do rather better than that, did we not?
Yes, we did.
Absolutely. Well said.
And the scary thing is that he was the best option as PM at the last election. Voted for the Tory & thus mr. moral vacuum because the alternatives were (a) incapable of changing their mind or (b) overwhelmed by delusions of grandeur.
Same here. It’s a parody of democracy – not, what vision of the future do you support, but which clown / crook / cretin do you wish to keep out? And FPTP offers all of them a prop to this low argument. On the other hand, PR rapidly degenerates into horse-trading and permanent liberalism – but I’m beginning to think it’s a better bet…
PR would be good as long as local accountability is maintained – list based PR just makes cronyism worse by rewarding following of the party line.
Moving the Lords to a PR basis (still appointed rather than elected) would be a good compromise, enabling shonky legislation to be blocked.
Lords need Abolishing &replaced with Two term 200 Senate with As Many independents as possible..Same Paid mayors,GLA,Welsh Assembly,Scottish All regional asemblies set up by major &Blair
Take it from me, living in New Zealand, it isn’t. Be careful what you wish for. Our world famous prime minister was put into office by a man whose party won 7% of the vote, and had a grudge against the party that won the most votes. If you think that is a recipe for good government, think again.
In retrospect it’s not clear you made the right choice. I’d say “we” except that the Tories didn’t bother to field a candidate where I live.
I fear the quality of the politicians of the Victorian and post-Victorian age are gone.
Agree. But who can really stand up for the Queen and monarchy? I mean, effectively? Markle is a nobody next to Diana, who really did put her compassion and her life on the line in her campaign against land mines and who may have paid for her commitment with her own life (she was due to address a major international conference just weeks after her own demise; very convenient, to say the least, for those who didn’t want to hear anymore about landmines). I might take Markle seriously if she actually picked up the baton that Diana dropped and got out there to see for heself and bring internatinal attention to children injured by landmines, or to the bombing and starvation of children in Yemen—just a couple of ideas for her handlers . . .
But to get back to the main point, ironically, the person best-placed to defend the monarchy was Diana. Charles really blew that one. Maybe Wills and Kate can kind of make it work, but not so sure, despite the obvious grooming of Kate (from what I see on the covers of supermarket weeklies here in the States) to be a kind of Diana clone, but with even more babies (shades of Victoria). The nation’s mom . . . ? To me her face looks suburban and hard and not destined to age regally, but I’m sure she is a nice girl. Just as clever at snagging her man as Markle was!! More power to her for that!
Markle met and married Harry in less than 2 years.
Kate and William knew each other at Uni, and she waited 9 years before saying ‘Yes’. A sensible woman who made sure that not only did she understand her duties, but that she was able to carry them out. Unlike Meghan who, it would seem, was after marrying Harry as quickly as she could.
But so right that Diana walked the talk, over AIDS, landmines and so much more, and most of the AIDS work was done quietly, below the radar.
All I have seen of H and M is self pity and talk.
Are you joking? Diana’s
workwas donequietly, below the radar? Diana was determined to present herself as the sad victim of Charles and the royal system. Harry and his horrible wife are just continuing her playbook, with the added unsubstantiated allegations of racism. DI loved being photographed and courted the press non stop. Her ‘work’ was secondary to that. And don’t be riduculous, she was in no danger in the (cleared) landmine zone.Perhaps you don’t know (don’t want to know) that Diana had been visiting the Lighthouse centre un-announced at night, with no photographers present. That didn’t come out until later.
As for the landmines. There is no such thing as ‘cleared’ areas. Some are still left – and whether you like her or not her actions got the world aware and doing something about it.
What exactly has Meghan done to warrant her claim to compassion?
Yes – I’m no fan of royalty, but that is true. I also know someone with a severely disabled child that she used to visit quietly and below the radar.
Congratulations on damning with faint praise.
Boris has become hostage to his own woke princess…
Who definitely needs reining in.
who elected Carrie simmonds?/.with A ”Green” taste for spending ÂŁ200,000 of taxpayers money on Yet another refurbishment of Number 11, cameron spent ÂŁ70,000 on a new kitchen for number 11…
Does Johnson have anything to gain by supporting OUR Queen? If not, he will remain silent.
I assume he thinks the woman is beneath contempt and certainly not worth an official reply by himself or the palace. I’d agree. If the interview has gone down well in the US, I’m surprised. I doubt it will here.
It will go down with the sort of whiny leftist professional victim type. With everyone else, not so much.
There should be no reply by anyone. None of it was worth replying to. It speaks for itself.
Yes – I heard the loathsome Diane Abbot whining on about the foul racism of this country this morning on Radio 4. I had to turn it off (again).
The country is so racist that we probably have more mixed race marriages and partnerships than any other country in the world.
They were vague, I suggest, on the advice of her, CBS’s and Winfrey’s lawyers lest they be faced with either litigation or a factual rebuttal.
Boris Johnson has said that will not involve himself …unless the BBC or opinion polls demand that he should, then he will do a U turn.
One of the problems with Woke is that it gives no allowance for humanity. Had I or one of my siblings married someone of colour. our parents, uncles and aunts would have joked about what shade the offspring would show.
Quite. It’s a generational thing. I can’t help wondering whether the anonymous member of the royal family was dear old Edinburgh himself – and that she daren’t finger the old boy just now because he’s been so ill. At any event, to call such speculations “racist”, to maunder on as if they equated with some brutal mugging – as carried out by “BLM” or so-called “Anti-fa”, for example, is nothing but self-serving disproportion and hysteria. I almost look forward to our Sino-Islamic future; it will be better than the miserable, cynical, distorted, unbalanced, unreal world of the declining west.
It is within families of color that the speculations are the most lively.
Oh, come on! That’s BS, and you know it! You know nothing about “families of colour.” LOL!
Do I not?
Not in mine. English, Italian, Pakistani, Irish and Russian. That is just my immediate family.
In the natural course of vents “Dear old Edinburgh” will pass on quite soon and she can legally libel the dead with impunity. Just wait for it.
Oh, I’ve no doubt she’ll put the boot in any way she can, aided and abetted by our media class, natch…
Another problem is that the woke only see group status. It’s curious how her white half, very much like Hallie Berry’s or Alicia Keys’ or Barack Obama’s, is dismissed, not even a footnote. The worst part, however, is the wokeltarian’s inability to acknowledge that society has changed; what might have been notable in the 60s barely generates a blip today, which the woke cannot tolerate. By god, you will notice and you will be made to care.
Sounds just like a colonizer.
It’s 2021. You may want to adjust your calendar.
Dismantle the Commonwealth.
You are apparently not aware it is voluntary to join.
And countries have joined that were not part of the empire.
South Africa rejoined under Mandela after being kicked out in the apartheid era.
Not kicked out- but SAfrica chose to leave- after a referendum for a republic in which only the ‘white’ electorate could vote.
True – I was too lazy to look it up to confirm!
Mozambique joined because it admired British Democracy after a sojourn with Marxism
Donât tell the First Nation tribes this.
Kindly mind your own business. The Commonwealth countries have CHOSEN their own designation. Enough petty interference.
singe King Phillips beard again…Sir francis Drake
It is the Monarch as Head of State that some ex-colonies/protectorates are discussing, not the Commonwealth which is what it says on the tin.
You’re saying that as if there was anything wrong with being a coloniser.
Have you ever asked yourself what the Romans did for us?
Yes, Obama has never talked much about his white half tho’ they brought him up and paid for his education. Admittedly, the black side shows more.
What does Obama have to do with Meghan?
Both are white. As well as black.
They seem to have their whiteness an useless attribute to be kept secret.
Yes I have noticed this about ethnic minorities…..I would like to ask them/someone why everyone of them who are mixed race defend the black side and donât acknowledge their white roots…….i
If you watch any interview etc there appears to be a lot more resentment of white people from mixed race than from fully ethnic people. (Apologies if that is the wrong terminology).
Oh I don’t know. Those British mixed race kids like Dame Kelly Holmes always seem to orientate towards the white side of their ethnicity for the simple reason that most of their black fathers deserted them when they were babies and they were brought up by their white mum and her white family.
Yep Dame Kelly is also estranged from her father…
Because identifying as âblackâ is trendy. 20 years ago it would have been deeply insulting to a mixed race person to be called black when they were clearly biracial. Now it is deemed insulting to correctly & politely state that they are not black if they have one white parent. Which, incidentally, nobody cares about in the first place. Absolutely crazy. The desperate need to find offence and to be included in the âvictim of discrimination chartâ has reached epic levels. These people are deeply asinine and damaging because cases of true racial discrimination then get thrown in the same pot as the âperpetually offendedâ. HOW is this helpful in building a better,fairer, kinder world? âPeter and the Wolfâ should really be compulsory reading for these SJW.
Well said.
Michaela thank you for your response…. I can fully see where you are coming from.
There’s no such thing as ‘wrong terminology’. The ‘right’ terminology changes with the wind. I am seventy this week. As a boy my mother scolded me for remarking that I had a new friend who was a black boy. She said that was impolite and I must call him coloured…. It seems funny now, but she was very keen not to upset anyone. Of course then you had to say black. Now I think the term is ‘people of colour’, but this is all utter drivel. I can even remember my grandmother who was born in 1896, looking out of her window in the 1960s at the then unusual sight here, of a black gentleman walking down the street. She had the beginnings of dementia then, and she sighed and said, ‘poor fellow’, shaking her head with a genuine compassion. I’m not sure what she was thinking, but it was entirely benign and well meaning.
Iâm confused. Can you explain the joke to me?
He means, you’re living in the mental past. Isn’t his comment clear to you? Or are you living in a mental fog also?
Is your name David Platzer?
Talking in a light-hearted, flippant way as people did about their relations in generations past when things were not taken so earnestly as they are now.
I understand the curiosity of what a baby will look.
Meghan said the tone was off, which eludes to colorist comments that her and Harry uncomfortable.
Will the kid have dadâs big ears or be as ginger as her mother? If the family enjoys teasing they might talk about it.
We donât know the exact exchange that occurred about Archieâa skin color.
Considering skin color is attached to very negative real-world implications, open speculation is best left on the table, especially if thereâs not a good relationship between those who said it and Meghan and Harry.
Indeed, a lot of legislation, pretty much the whole education system, the media etc. is stacked in favour of the blacks in much of the “western” world – the world blacks mass-migrated to without the original inhabitants’ consent.
But i somehow doubt that’s what you had in mind when you typed that.
Meghan wasnât there so knows nothing about the âtoneâ.
Would that be the colour tone?
Indeed, and Iâm sure there was also speculation about whether the child would have his mothers ski jump nose, his fathers red hair or his grandadâs jug ears. Just as happens in every family expecting a new baby.
Because you clearly have no in-laws or close relationships with people of color:
Skin color has a major even lethal way someone navigates their life, comparing speculation on hair color to skin color is a false equivalency in terms of controversial.
Say it behind close doors in one thing. Saying it in front of the parents is another.
I mean donât think people get harassed by the police for driving while ginger.
We have no knowledge of the tone of these comments. Youâre just filling in gaps with your own bias.
And you’re not?
What skin colour would you say Meghan has anyway? In the above photo she looks more Thai than black. She’s on her third or fourth nose and her second set of lips. Google “young meghan markle photos” and you see someone who looks as much like her adult self as Michael Jackson did.
She comes across as wanting to look as white as possible while milking being partly black for all it’s worth.
She is an utterly toxic and obnoxious parvenue.
At first, I genuinely thought she was Mediterranean, possibly related to Philips family.
Same here
Prince Philipâs family is Danish/German…
And Greek.
From what i have read elsewhere, she identified on her early CV as ‘Caucasian with Italian ancestry’ so you have hit the mark.
Much easier to monetise black.
So sad this woman, wanting to be someone but not succeeding because every rational thinking person sees her indeed as toxic and wanting to unsettle. Poor Harry, burning bridges over such a woman.
Maybe they are all ubersensitive because of the ongoing speculations as to Harry’s paternal DNA.
Nah, Diana’s affair with Hewitt didn’t happen until after Harry was born. Google the dates
You’re kidding. Look at the photo of the young Hewitt and Harry. I don’t care when the main Hewitt/Diana affair happened. There WAS a coupling before Harry was born.
then why is he a carbon copy of charles now?
I wasn’t even aware she was supposed to be black until she told us. Wasn’t very interested but she looked like she might come from a Mediterranean country.
I can see that. She is very light-skinned which makes her racially ambiguous.
For some reason though, gingers do get bullied in the school yard
Do they get shot by police?
If they are criminals / suspects resisting arrest, yes.
Your point?
Usually in the UK they get a stern talking to by an unarmed police officer.
And thereâs the difference between the US and the UK.
âIfâ being the key word.
If youâre making an argument that despite being 14% of the US population, Black Americans are inherently more criminal is this why the are disproportionately stopped by police or jailed, and itâs not racial bias, then weâre done here.
Don’t insert the word “inherently” in there, thereby moving the goalposts. Blacks (Americans, British, French, Swedish, etc. etc.) ARE more criminal than the rest, no ifs and buts about that. Inherently or not, doesn’t matter.
Racists arguments are unoriginal and dull.
What a clever riposte.
LOL
Are you actually saying that blacks are not more criminal than the rest? Bless.
Thought it might have taken a little more effort before that card was pulled. No doubt it will make a few bob for Markle but I doubt it cuts much ice in this forum.
These are facts my dear, unpalatable, but facts nonetheless.
I would say that I feel an urgent need to yawn when racist arguments are considered unoriginal and dull. What about people who talk about race card no matter where or when?
more non-blacks are shot by police than blacks and by quite a margin. Will you be constructing more straw men today?
Are you going to keep parroting tired arguments that have been literally refuted a long time ago?
Simply asserting that something has been refuted is not the same as actually refuting it
Roughly 75% of civilians killed by police officers are NOT black. If you can refute that, go ahead.
I never made such a claim.
Youâre arguing with yourself.
is someone writing things like this on your behalf? Otherwise, you made the claim.
Linnette Gallego
55 minutes ago
Reply to Alex Lekas
Are you going to keep parroting tired arguments that have been literally refuted a long time ago?
85% in UK.
In the UK 85% of deaths in custody happen to white people.
Are you actually claiming that no one with red hair has ever been shot by police?
Whatever happens in America, has no bearing on this country. Deaths in custody here are vastly on the white side. If you don’t know that, you are ignorant of the facts.
85% of deaths in UK police custody are white people.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122775/deaths-in-police-custody-in-the-uk-2019-by-ethnicity/
Yes they do and why is this considered acceptable? I have a three-year-old granddaughter and hope her life is not blighted by negativity due to her hair colour.
I totally disagree with you . In case you have not seen my previous post I have an Italian father, English mother, Pakistani husband and Russian daughter in law and an Irish Grandma.
Skin colour has never been discussed.
Meghan is a Black biracial American. Itâs taboo in the US.
Meghan is American and she finds offensive. Also you donât know the tone of the comments.
Telling someone that they shouldnât be offended about something taboo in their own culture is self-centered.
Did you read? Half English half Sicilian.
Do you read? Iâm talking about Meghan
Are you enquiring about her surname, or what? That’s quite rude.
Oh, a ninja-edit… i see.
Snitching on your family on a public forum is completely taboo in my view of family ethics. Meghan and Harry’s behaviour offends me deeply. Thank you for understanding Linette that most of us consider it the unforgivable betrayal. Don’t wash you dirty laundry in public is pretty firm rule on this side of the Atlantic.
Do you understand the meaning of the word taboo. Something like 10% of American marriages are biracial. That is not a taboo in any shape or form
Being half black is taboo in the US?
I can understand that the race card issue is real and painfull. We must try to keep a balance in matters though. I am truly taken aback by people getting so fired up by the element race card in this matter. Some young couple blurts things out about skin tone. But is their narrative the truth? Has it yet been proven that is was actually said? No. It is a one sided narrative. So as most advocates of the devil say; no one is guilty unless proven. To me diva Meghan seems to throw in everything to being able to throw an enormous heap of dirt at a number of people who are really old and that is pretty sad actually. But may be I am completely wrong about is all. All monarchies have their issues and may be we as tax payers should stand up. But should you do that by throwing dirt or putting out the dirty laundry?
She IS NOT BLACK.
If she was of Mediterranean origin she would be regarded as being rather pale skinned. My great grand parents on one side were Italian. I am far ‘blacker’ than she is. I’m white British.
it most certainly is not ‘taboo’ if you have watched any amount of American television and commercials. do you actually live here?
As are you
Explain
WHICH colour? Yellow, red, or? Spell it out, blekk.
If the blacks are so mentally inept and unequipped to coexist with other ‘colours’, then they should perhaps keep to their own company in their own natural habitats instead of flooding into other continents en masse.
Thankfully not ALL blacks are like that though, there are quite a few eminently bright and decent ones among them.
Yawn
We donât actually even know that there were such comments.
If he turns out to have some grey matter that will seem suspicious since neither of his parents have.
neither…has
Charles isn’t his grand dad. James Hewitt is.
absolutely right. It was probably said in jest, not as a racist statement. I assume the culprit probably was Prince Philip. We all wonder what hair colour, nose shape, character will emerge, especially having your first baby…
Why probably? We donât know. If Meghan and Harry are saying they found it off, why is their perception presumed invalid?
Because voicing such ‘perceptions‘ is crass, tasteless, classless. Whinging and snivelling are deeply distasteful traits, not only for royals but for any society with a modicum of self-respect. But if you’re whinging about ‘microaggressions’ while situated in the the trimmings of royalty, your whining is a disgrace for the entire country.
We donât even know that it happened, do we?
To a loving family itâs irrelevant, a mere talking point as much as how tall or short a child might be. I speak with some experience, having a beautiful grandchild who is of mixed race.
……and of course its all complete bollox, I can assure you that apart from a few of the usual twitter and other social media types, who seem to spend all their time being agitated over pretty much everything, no one else really a flying four x over any of this.
yes well 17 mil in the US watched it…
“Roll up, roll up, folks, for the new great comedy act: Ginger and Whinger, in which two very rich people, both of them spoiled in childhood, both ultra-celebrities, courted and caressed by Hollywood and everyone else dealing in fake values, claim they are among the world’s greatest victims in their aim to go sobbing all the way to the bank.”
‘It’s a scream! Victor Meldrew, move aside. This couple has taken your crown’ (Weekly Herald).
‘I tried to look on dispassionately and sympathising but could not keep it up. Half-way through I was rolling on the floor laughing’ (Morning Standard).
‘This is as funny as the best of Morecambe and Wise. Not to be missed’ (Daily Echo).
‘ The royal couple’s tragedy was so moving, I laughed till I had to send my pants to the cleaner’s’ (Adrian Snort, chief arts critic of the Mercury).
‘Holes the well-worn tired old “Poor little rich girl” act with a giant torpedo amidships’ (Variety).
‘Contrary to report, Meghan is a good actress and her tears were very well done. They caused my wife to weep too, from hysterical laughter’ (The Hesperus).
There is something vaguely obscene about Americans, without doubt the most racist country in the western World, lecturing the Royal Family – arguably the greatest supporters and proponents of the Commonwealth, on matters of race, the more so when delivered in the self-serving interests of a parvenu, opportunist, charlatan, who in the words of even her best friends would attend the opening of an envelope if it gave her some column inches.
There is something vaguely obscene about Americans, without doubt the most racist country in the western World, lecturing the Royal Family
That may be one of the most ignorant things ever read on these pages, made doubly so by the oh-so-self-assured “without doubt” clause. The country is so racist that brown and black people the world over quite literally risk their lives in order to get here.
Markle may well be what you say but the need to indict a whole nation for a single person says more about you than her.
As they do to the UK also
They literally try to swim across the English Channel to get here and arrive by the thousands these days in hopeless rubber boats having crossed the busiest seaway on the planet on the way.
Exactly, same in the UK, also a contender for the ‘most racist country in the western World’, where every Taran, Dhalip and Hamid cross a dozen countries to get to. Of course everyone knows we are probably among the most tolerant and non racist.
Do you have any close relationships with a Taran, Dhalip, and Hamid?
I notice you ask question but donât reply to answers, particularly when they donât suit your narrative.
People immigrate to the US because military intervention and CIA deposing of elected presidents in their own countries, destabilizing vulnerable regions of the world.
Just like how the UK and EU countries did, when they collectively colonized most of the world.
Made it unfit to live where they are. You do realize that the comforts of the UK, US, and EU are at the expense of other countries they exploit. Like thereâs consequences to behavior.
Do you read books with chapters?
My son lives in the States and has a black girlfriend, whose parents came from Sierra Leone. Nothing to do with the CIA destabilising the country. They were hoping for a better life in the US. You really live on a conspiracy planet.
Your one specific situation obviously nullifies overall reasons why Black and Brown people from desperate counties flee to the US. Or advanced degrees in political science and international affairs.
Colonization didnât create lingering impacts on Africa or other colonized countries.
Every military intervention, economical, and political decision made by powerful countries in the world is made in isolation. Thereâs no cause and effect.
Obviously itâs not all about the US but wealth is concentrated in the white West and not by accident.
Her one situation nullifies the sweeping statement in your comment.
And if you need any more, I know a bunch of Brazilians, Indians and South African who emigrated to the US or Canada for economic reasons.
Itâs called trends, Mark. Trends donât include everyoneâs reasoning.
Please explain…
Quite a few Cornish, Irish, Welsh and Scots etc too. When GB was by all historical accounts the most powerful country on the planet. Wonder what drove them?
One of …. I believe this to be fair factual claim of GB power late 19th century.
“but wealth is concentrated in the white West and not by accident.”
No – that is certainly true. It is concentrated where it is because of the ability, ingenuity and hard work of the people who made it so. Where people are stupid and feckless, idle and corrupt it is less pleasant. The nations of Africa have been entirely independent of colonial influence for sixty or more years. Countries such as Ethiopia were never colonised at all, They have been sent vast amounts of aid and development funding, but all of them are more or less failed states. Rhodesia was one of teh most productive and wealthy states in Africa at the time it fell under the rule of its own people. In thirty or so years its people were starving.
Why?
Have you ever done any (voluntary)jobs in Africa?.Then you would know that not by accident but by social geografic and natural circumstances the continent lacks sufficient funds.
Is there some military intervention the US is engaging in in Mexico, because I’m not aware of it. Maybe we’re engaged in numerous African nations that you can point to. Ironically, the latter group manages to do quite well in the States while the native-born minorities complain of perpetual racism.
Do you read books with chapters?
When someone resorts to childish insults, no matter how clever they believe those insults to be, it’s to cover for their lack of argument. You didn’t have to do that; what preceded this line was ample evidence that you had no argument to make in the first place.
If you are genuinely interested in US military and CIA intervention and how itâs effects destabilized regions of the world, you could perform a simple Google search. Lots of declassified information taught in childrenâs school textbooks. Otherwise my consulting fee is $110 an hour.
âWhen someone resorts to childish insultsâ
And what do you call resorting to nullifying lived experiences of people you can never experience and positioning oneself as the expert to justify your worldview?
Is that barometer of maturity and adulthood?
A bit rich considering you just nullified the lived experience of Stephanie Surface & her family.
Read below since you and Alex are on par with reading comprehension skills.
Nice ad hom you’ve got there!
And what do you call resorting to nullifying lived experiences of people you can never experience and positioning oneself as the expert to justify your worldview?
That is a good question for you to ponder since you did that very thing with me and some others. Projection is a marginal improvement over ad hominem, but it is far from being a substantive argument.
Where did I specifically make a claim about why her daughter-in-law came to the US thus nullifying her own specific reasons?
Donât be so obtuse to twist what I said into asserting that everyone immigrates to the US because of desperation.
Itâs call trends and research, Alex. Itâs called trends and research.
Did you know that when people immigrate to the US, immigration asks the reasons for leaving and all of this information is gathered?
And then analysts and historians and other experts can trace trends to political strife that the US and/or other powerful counties has their hands in at minimum. The white West is wealthy and not by acccident.
Donât be so obtuse to twist what I said into asserting that everyone immigrates to the US because of desperation.
taking something I never said and claiming it as “asserting” sounds a bit like, well, twisting. You did the same with Stephanie, who presented anecdotal evidence of experience in her family which is echoed by a lot of others.
It’s amazing that for such a horrible place, the US is a magnet for people the world over. We’ve had foreign adventures. And? You deny others of agency when seeking to blame America first.