X Close

Why monarchies are more tolerant History shows that the Royal Family has always been a better friend to minorities than American democrats

Happier times. Credit: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Happier times. Credit: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty


March 9, 2021   5 mins

In 1850, an eight-year-old orphan from west Africa called Sarah Forbes Bonetta Davies was sent on the long journey to England. Sarah, a Yoruba from what is now Nigeria, had been captured by the King of Dahomey during a conflict in which both her parents were killed, and spent two years as a slave until a Royal Navy Captain, on a diplomatic mission for the Queen, took pity on her and persuaded the ruler to hand her over, telling him: “She would be a present from the King of the Blacks to the Queen of the Whites.” Once in England, Queen Victoria had Sarah raised by a couple from Chatham, and the girl became a regular visitor to Windsor Castle.

Alas, the story did not have a fairytale ending. Sarah died, aged just 40, from tuberculosis in 1880 after travelling to Madeira to convalesce, Victoria by now queen of much of Africa.

It was not so unusual for the Queen of the Whites to play host to an African girl. As ruler and empress of much of the globe, Victoria saw herself as the benevolent ruler of a family of nations, of all shades of humanity; at the same time, millions of her subjects at home lived in abject poverty, and when Miss Davies was growing up barely 1.5m could vote out of a population 20 times that.

Most American men, in contrast, could choose their head of state, thanks to the revolution that had ousted Victoria’s grandfather. The creation of Jefferson, Hamilton and the other Founding Fathers had been a tremendous success, not just in terms of wealth and power but in fulfilling its high-minded hope that all men might be able to pursue happiness. President Andrew Jackson was raised in the Waxhaws, a backcountry region of the Carolinas, the son of Irish immigrants, and had gone on to the White House; Abraham Lincoln grew up in a log cabin and reached the very top.

Yet Sarah Davies could never have dreamed of dining in the White House. Although there had been black guests since the time of Lincoln, the first African-American to be invited to have dinner at the president’s home was Booker T Washington – in 1901. Even then, it caused such anger that it wouldn’t be repeated for decades.

Such a visit would have raised few eyebrows in Britain, where Queen Victoria’s circle hosted people from various backgrounds, as did those of her successors; George V, in particular, had views on race that were unusually liberal for the time. The House of Windsor, whatever their other, many faults, have always stood for what most regard as basically decency on the subject — which is why perhaps the most damaging revelation in yesterday’s Oprah Winfrey interview was Meghan Markle’s suggestion that Harry had heard “there were concerns and conversations about how dark [Archie’s] skin might be”. The Oprah interview has placed race at the heart of the royal fall-out, and, as a result, the British Royal Family has been cancelled by American progressives. The Windsor family fall-out has, unfortunately, become part of The Discourse.

Obviously the royal family should be cancelled by progressives; hereditary monarchy is, after all, a very reactionary concept. Americans cancelled the monarchy in 1776. Yet monarchies have also historically been, paradoxically, more racially tolerant than republics.

The America that rebelled against Victoria’s grandfather came to be both more egalitarian and at the same time more racially conscious and prejudiced than Britain; it developed a “colour bar” and “one-drop rule”, ideas designed to separate races into a hierarchy (although these ideas were far more pronounced in the South). Most African-Americans, when given the chance, sided with Britain in 1776, as did pretty much every Native American, because they rightly understood that as racial outsiders they were better off with a monarch ruling an empire, rather than an egalitarian republic from which they were excluded.

But these American ideas about race did not develop back in Europe; they didn’t even develop in some other parts of the Americas. Modern academia, largely colonised by the American narrative, is obsessed with ideas of “whiteness” and race even though they make little sense in the context of pre-20th century British and European history. At the end of George III’s reign, life expectancy among slaves in Trinidad was 17. For the working class in Preston it was 18, while in Liverpool it was 16. What on earth does “white privilege” mean in the context of 19th century Lancashire? What does it even mean in 21st century Lancashire?

It’s an American concept, fitting the fact that Americans historically had far more antagonistic views about race. During the Second World War the behaviour of British people towards black soldiers — and the behaviour of British women in particular — shocked US soldiers stationed here. Indeed, it was the objections of US servicemen to sharing a hotel with a black man that led to British courts reaffirming that segregation did not and could not exist in England.

That racial attitudes in Britain were not as harsh as those in America partly reflected demography — there just weren’t many black people until the 1950s — but they were also the product of the hierarchical, class-bound nature of British society. In contrast to the awesome ascent of Jackson and Lincoln, Britain didn’t have a working-class MP until (arguably) 1874, 30 years after a mixed-race man of African heritage first sat in the Commons. The UK didn’t have a working-class prime minister until 1924. No one born in a Cornish mining community could have risen to the top in Victorian England. They certainly wouldn’t have been invited to dine with the Queen.

In Britain class differences were far more important than race and were often so highly formalised as to resemble segregation. When Blackburn Rover’s Jimmy Forrest became the first professional — i.e. working-class — footballer to play for England, he had to wear a different coloured shirt to his gentleman team mates. “Professional” players also had to have separate dressing rooms. That kind of open snobbery has always been anathema to the US, even if it had its own class system and elite schools.

In contrast, various Indian cricketers played for England in the Victorian and pre-war period, five of whom had princely titles, men such as Iftikhar Ali Khan, the 8th Nawab of Pataudi. Of course, there was racial prejudice. Had the Nawab of Pataudi turned up in a Victorian pub, he might have been treated as an outsider in a way that Jimmy Forrest wouldn’t have been. But among important people who mattered, there would have been little doubt who came further up the pecking order.

Even monarchy itself is by nature multi-racial; whether or not George III’s wife Queen Charlotte really had African ancestry, royalty has always been mixed, since the earliest “peace-weaver” princesses of the early middle ages. Yet Harry and Meghan’s marriage was treated by an America-brained press like it was an earth-shattering event, when hardly anyone cared about the racial angle, another dog that didn’t bark for the media. And now, thanks to our own Americanised discourse, we’re forced to see everything through the narrative of race rather than the more salient issue of class — even the tragic self-destruction of a family the Americans decided a long time ago they wanted rid of.


Ed West’s book Tory Boy is published by Constable

edwest

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

284 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

As an American I don’t believe in hereditary monarchy and I am glad I don’t live in one. But I respect the British who do like having their monarchy.
But this fiasco with Harry and Meghan is more about family to me. Imagine marrying a man and then trashing his 94 year old grandmother and 99 year old grandfather, who gave you a $40M+ wedding and a huge mansion, with vague accusations. Imagine trying to destroy that grandmothers life’s work. Imagine treating your brother this way. Your brother who has been there for you all your life. A man who married a woman who was kind to you and included you as the third wheel everywhere they went.
Imagine treating your own father the way she does. Imagine having a wedding like that and having only your mother important enough in your life to show up. Not a single man in your life (and there were several) who you had any kind of relationship with to walk you down the aisle. Imagine inviting hundreds of people you have never met to your wedding. It’s patently ridiculous.
Harry is feeble minded and emotionally immature. Meghan spotted him a mile off and he was ripe for the picking. It got her out of working and out of Toronto and back to LA. She could not have done that on her own. Poor Harry thought he was getting some exotic bi-racial mysterious glamour puss when it reality he just got the shallow end of the pool at the Los Angeles Holiday Inn.
This isn’t about the monarchy, it’s about Meghan and Harry.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Jonny B'good
Jonny B'good
3 years ago

Spot on.

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  Jonny B'good

yup…fine encapsulation of the many racist and misoginysts who are attracted to conservative ideology

spb070
spb070
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Not to mention cluelessness, stupidity, and ethnomasochism of many attracted to degenerate ideologies like Liberalism.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago

Thank you for those comments. Its very encouraging to read an American with the same or similar views to most of us here in the UK. My concern is Markle is attempting to swing the opinions of entire USA against our royal family and in turn against us. A dangerous and spiteful woman. Have a great day!

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

I don’t know many Americans but the two I do – ladies who are very different in their political outlook – find H&M just as appalling as I do.

Last edited 3 years ago by Katharine Eyre
Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

there is so much you and yours don’t know.

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Could you explain a bit what you mean?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

don’t worry too much about her impact on American sentiment. She’s not that convincing. A cursory Google search reveals a girl who went to private schools, whose parents were in the entertainment industry and likely opened doors for her, and overall, a person more likely to fit the category of privileged than woebegone.

Daisy D
Daisy D
3 years ago

We also didn’t like that Simpson woman.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Daisy D

All very deja vu I agree.

Penelope Lane
Penelope Lane
3 years ago
Reply to  Daisy D

Yes indeed, the common factor being not race, but class. Plus offending the established religion by being divorced.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Daisy D

She was more than a bit before my time. But she lived pre-SJW days so she wouldn’t have gotten very far yelling about racism and misogyny. Today, you’re nobody unless your somebody’s victim. But she too latched on to an easily led dupe. Maybe it runs in the family.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago

trust me when I tell you we in the US don’t give a rat’s ass about your monarchy, they are yours to do with as you will and they represent your values ever so well…cheers.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

How naughty of UnHerd to give you a pink cartouche!

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago

how telling your willful ignorance is.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Refreshing! (But many in UK feel the same and they don’t represent our values).

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

and yet you all allow them to endure as an entitled elite worth $80 billion US.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

And that’s your business because……..?

donald.couper
donald.couper
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

What’s so great about the US? Whether or not you liked “the Trump”, all the other candidates he ran against were appalling, which is important as PoTUS has a lot more power than our Monarch does. The French Presidents are equally awful. I’m over seventy and find that the Monarchy provides a satisfying sense of continuity and it’s nice to know that politicians, at least nominally, have someone they have to look up to.

Terry Mushroom
Terry Mushroom
3 years ago
Reply to  donald.couper

French, bless them, are on their fifth Republic since 1792.

Alan Healy
Alan Healy
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry Mushroom

Don’t forget the 2 restored monarchies and 2 emperors .

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  donald.couper

Well, lots of things are good about the US. But the larger point may be that Meghan and Harry chose it over the UK. Now I don’t believe much of what they say about their experiences in the UK, especially since so much of it has already been disproved. But let’s not explode this incidence of petty entitlement on the Markles part into a US vs UK type thing. both countries are wonderful tolerant places to live.

Terry Mushroom
Terry Mushroom
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

ERII is the monarch of 16 independent countries. She’s on the currency of some 30 countries.
US has given the world Trump & Biden.

Paul Savage
Paul Savage
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

But you give enough of a rat’s to post yards of comments here.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

I wouldn’t worry about it. As I said, this isn’t about the monarchy, it’s about Harry and Meghan.

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 years ago

“Poor Harry thought he was getting some exotic bi-racial mysterious glamour puss when it reality he just got the shallow end of the pool at the Los Angeles Holiday Inn.”
Stands. Applauds.

R P
R P
3 years ago
Reply to  David Owsley

great line isn’t it – applauds also

Neil John
Neil John
3 years ago
Reply to  David Owsley

A classic case of the lower ‘head’ leading…

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  David Owsley

willful and malign ignorace has a way of attracting like minds…you two deserve each other.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

What happened to the lovely dog and then Nigel Farage?

Misty Misty
Misty Misty
3 years ago

Speaking as one mentally impaired (in your view), at least I can say I am not dyslexic! How about concentrating on the issues rather than the ad hominem attacks?

Richard Lord
Richard Lord
3 years ago

Go Annette, tell it as it is. A wonderful response to a really good article.

Graeme Laws
Graeme Laws
3 years ago

Two words. Thank you.

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago

It was telling that Megan relayed the comments purportedly made by Harry. And Oprah didn’t press the point as to who was worried about Archie’s skin tone. The entire interview was a well staged propaganda ploy. Vague accusations of this sort are near criminal. H&M are the first people I would be glad to see cancelled.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

Interesting also that Oprah confirmed that it was not the Queen or Philip. This suggests Charles or William. If they haven’t the guts to name the people, they should keep quiet.

SUSAN GRAHAM
SUSAN GRAHAM
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

I think that the person who has -supposedly- said this is unlikely to be a senior royal and more likely a comment by a staffer – overheard and then noted in meg’s little book for use at a future date. Also the context is important, we have all mused about our expected children, who will they resemble etc and many of us did wonder about Archie – before of course we knew about the surrogate-ensuring he would be white.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  SUSAN GRAHAM

We don’t actually know that anyone made any comment, do we? And that’s by design. See, there’s nothing to investigate this way, the duke and duchess of SJW just get to let the stench hang in the air. Well, not for me, put up or shut up. If you’re not willing to indicate who said what precisely then there’s been no actual,accusation, has there? Somebody said something is not an accusation,

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  SUSAN GRAHAM

Most probably A ”staffer” who Meghan &Harry bullied..At least 11 Staff resigned or threatened to resign from their staff if they couldn’t be transferred .Not a Good Look for ”Spreading Compassion &Understanding” and bank balance..?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

It wouldn’t be to Oprah’s benefit for them to have clarified who, if anyone, made a comment. And Oprah does what is to Oprah’s benefit. Unlike Harry, she is most definitely not a gullible dupe and she will dine out on this for days, dribbling out more SHOCKING revelations. Oprah wants everyone talking about her interview.
Accusation? Someone said something is not even close to an accusation. But you’re right, that was the whole point.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

I don’t know Harry, I don’t know Megan. I don’t wish them any harm and I don’t have any special insight into their emotional lives or their relationship with their families and would not presume to understand other people’s family dynamics in a judgmental way. I don’t support the idea of a hereditary monarchy and don’t see why the Windsors and associated hangers on should be treated any differently than any other family.
I do find the vitriol aimed at all parties very disturbing – stomach turning, in fact. The above post brought to my mind the image of a hyena tearing at the corpse of a mauled animal.
And it is misogynist and racist to characterise Meghan as an exotic bi-racial mysterious glamour puss taking poor feeble minded Harry for a ride.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

And it is misogynist and racist to characterise Meghan as an exotic bi-racial mysterious glamour puss taking poor feeble minded Harry for a ride.
Why? Because it seems accurate on all counts. She IS bi-racial; we’ve been lectured to no end over that. That she is more white than black gets left out for some reason. She IS presented as glamorous, what with being an actress.
Harry has not acquitted himself very well in this adventure; if you’re going to accuse someone of racism – which was the implication about the child’s skin tone – then be a man and name names. Or be an adult who understands that such discussions are frequent with mixed-race pairings.
So, where is the source of your heartburn? Words like misogynist and racist get tossed around so often that they are practically meaningless from overuse. It’s like listening to two teenagers who cannot speak without repetitive use of the f-word. After a time, it has all the punch of “green.”

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

The thing is everyone seems to trip over themselves blathering on about Harry being entrapped as if he’s not responsible for his own actions – that in itself is a misogynistic trope. Also words like ‘exotic’ are just outdated racial stereotypes – it’s at best clumsy language and at worst veiled racism.

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

There is nothing ‘racist’about calling a place or person ‘exotic’. It is exotic from the person’s perspective. A French friend of mine says that if he needs to visit the exotic, he has no need to go to the South Seas or the Far East.All he has do is cross the Channel where the world is seen in a way opposite to the way it is in France. France and England have always had a cat and dog relationship. By the same token, an editor in London used to talk of my exotic residency in France. For all I know, Chinese and Japanese people regard each other in the same way.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
3 years ago
Reply to  David Platzer

I find the use of exotic to describe a person (especially an American) to be an outdated term – a place or thing? Sure.
Ultimately if Meghan were a white woman then I find it hard to believe that the term would be used…

Last edited 3 years ago by Lloyd Marsden
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

You don’t think an American actress would be exotic to Harry? Compared to his previous horsey set socialite type girlfriends, all English or SA?

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Terry Mushroom
Terry Mushroom
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

It was a word used in a phrase by an American who demonstrates that she can do irony.
Something the Americans are supposedly unable to do.
She was accusing Harry of what you complain about.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

If she Wasn’t White why does she describe herself as bi racial,at best she is Quadroon or a Quarter/..?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  David Platzer

Good point. Tiger Woods once said his wife Elin Norgren was exotic. Don’t get much whiter than Elin Nordgren. Lloyd claiming it’s racist does not make it so.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

Thanks for putting that better than I could.

R Button
R Button
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

thank you.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

Harry said he was trapped and so are Charles and William, but they cannot do anything about it, unlike him. Now he is free but wants back in for the money and titles.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

I don’t challenge that, I was referring to the trope that she entrapped him with her feminine wiles and he was powerless to resist.
I don’t think we know that he wants ‘back in’ though. I’m not privy to their thoughts but they could have genuinely and naively thought that they could escape the ‘firm’ and still perform the charitable royal duties.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

Don’t confuse powerlessness with hapless gullibility. She didn’t have to entrap him, he walked right into it.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

He admitted he was trapped.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

I don’t challenge that, I was referring to the trope that she entrapped him with her feminine wiles and he was powerless to resist.

S A
S A
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

He is an emotionally damaged kid under it all. He is very messed up and easy pickings for a manipulator. I suspect you would not be so sure of Misandry if someone were to pick out a woman who got involved with a manipulative man and trashed her relationship with her family.

David George
David George
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

Honestly Lloyd, do you even live in the real world, women use their charms to attract and control men all the time, often without even thinking about it.
It’s not misogynistic or a “trope”, it’s the reality of the beautiful, eternal dance of the sexes. Men like it, women like it. It’s not going to go away just because some wet wokelet has dreamt up another excuse to get offended.

Micheal Lucken
Micheal Lucken
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

Google images of exotic women. It doesn’t exactly support that assertion. Nor is it used exclusively to describe women. There are other aspects to the world beyond race and gender. Hard to imagine to a follower of the Woke religion I know but not everybody views the world exclusively through those features. Many believe behavioural traits such as opportunistic manipulation are actually independent of skin colour and genitalia and should be called out regardless of such features.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Micheal Lucken

Precisely. Part of Meghans exoticism was being an American. She wasn’t the run of the mill society English girl he had dated in the past. She wasn’t horsey, she wasn’t going hunting. And to top it off she was an actress. For Harry, that was exotic. In addition she was a SJW, not something he had ever been with before but it must have been deadly attractive to him because it gave him a “cause”. No prior girlfriend even came near that.

Icarus none
Icarus none
3 years ago

You seem to know a lot. Thank you for your fine analysis.
Edit added, after reading some more comments: you do tend to overuse the “horsey” bit.

Last edited 3 years ago by Icarus none
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Icarus none

I disagree that a use or two is overusing. And his prior girlfriends were that outdoorsy type. Of an expensive kind. It’s not an insult to say someone likes horses, btw.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Phil Mac
Phil Mac
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

He’s trapped because he’s thick and damaged. Sure, the guy has to take responsibility in the end but she marked her target and took it out clean.
I thought “exotic” was usually complimentary, at least that’s how it struck me.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Lloyd Marsden

Harry is a hapless dupe. There’s men like that all over the place. It’s not misogynist to note this, in fact, it says nothing at all about anyone other than the hapless dupes.
As to exotic, do you believe that Alec Baldwin’s fake Spanish wife was not more attractive to him than a plain old Boston girl would have been? Wise up.

Micheal Lucken
Micheal Lucken
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

As you say those terms are so commonplace. Yes they still intimidate and inhibit in public discourse but they are gradually losing their power. On the whole they say more about the person using the terms than those they are aimed at.

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

racist misogynists just can’t help themselves…do go on.

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Thanks Mark for that antidote to the nastiness on here. You only have to read a few of the recent Unherd comments on this subject to realise how sensible it was of Harry and Meghan to leave this country. The articles are written by sensible people who I often disagree with but have respect for their opinions. The BTL comments however are often as unpleasant as anything you might find on Twitter.

R Button
R Button
3 years ago
Reply to  Philip Burrell

Thank you.

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  Philip Burrell

those under the sway of conservative ideology rely on ad hominem as their cudgle being completely without rational thought they are incapable of rational arguement.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Which pamphlet did you crib that from?

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Given the ad hom manner with which you fling around words like “racist” and “misogynist” without any evidence whatsoever, and without actually engaging in any argument with the points raised by those you thus accuse, we must then conclude that you are utterly enslaved by conservative dogma.
And do try to find the shift key; there are two of them, so it shouldn’t be beyond you.

Misty Misty
Misty Misty
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Dear Pot, thank you for that comment. Signed Kettle.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I agree with your first paragraph especially and note the negative responses. I ended up in the same situation when commenting on another site. I don’t understand how anybody can belief they have the entitlements and privilege of the royal family just by virtue of their birth, but history shows that many do, and they collect an army of sycophants. I don’t really object to them awarding themselves titles provided they don’t do it with my money and have no role in government. The Queen has maintained her dignity because she says nothing; it is a pity the rest of the family don’t follow her example.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

“I don’t understand how anybody can belief they have the entitlements and privilege of the royal family just by virtue of their birth, but history shows that many do, and they collect an army of sycophants.”

No, not sycophants. You are confusing the adioration lavished on vacuous Hollywoood celebrities with voluntary acceptance ot a constiutional ruler. Personal feelings (except in the case of a few silly people who worship the Royal Family as persons rather than value the monarchy as an institution) don’t come into it

Last edited 3 years ago by Arnold Grutt
Christopher Wheatley
Christopher Wheatley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

This is a very poor post. If we didn’t have royalty we would have a president and your friend Tony would apply for the job. If Tony was playing around and got found out, you would have a lot of press and TV coverage. What’s the difference?
You have used the post to tell everyone that you don’t approve of royalty and the rest was badly thought out.
(Please ask Tony if he is looking for an Engineering advisor.)

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Mr Blair,was fined for Opportuning in A Men’s toilet in 1980s,he was Charged As Anthony Lytton…..Not homophobic just Truth,Left,Right &Politically correct oafs hate.

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
JR Stoker
JR Stoker
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

Any evidence whatsoever as to your assertion about Andrew?

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

the empirical evidence has been accumulating for decades as you well know.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

You grammar needs improvement, please work on it.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

More Woke Garbage,If the Royal family were Racist,they would have stopped the marriage
(,Queen Charlotte 200 years ago was first bi-racial ‘Royal’ Not Self obsessed Social Climber Meghan). If you care to Look at Tabloids Positive response to Their Marriage ,just look at Leaders,Articles at the time(3 years +ago..),.She Just Wanted ‘Red Carpet’ fever of Film premiers,Fashion shows,Not 150-200 engagements Queen has or other Royals,as to pathetic Republicans , THis is Proof,no president, would be cheaper,MPs expenses inc Carrie Simmonds £200,000 refurbishment is another reason,no doubt You think All criticism of Women is ‘misogynist’? Laughable really

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

The wealth of the west was built on Africa’s exploitationRichard Drayton
Britain has never faced up to the dark side of its imperial history
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

Really Africa introduced Slavery to the planet. As to Garbage Africa never had wealth,until cecil Rhodes got into Diamonds…..What Observers on Africa Want to know is where billions of Aid have Gone eg Mugabe Billions in Bank,whilst Rhodesians starve & Farms derelict after being Africas ”Bread basket” blaming” Whitey” is fashionable but Wrong

David George
David George
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

She’s an actress doing what actresses do.
As far as Andrew is concerned there’s never been so much as a suggestion that he was sexually involved with pre-pubescent children, it’s dishonest or incorrect to use “pedo” to describe his (alleged) activities.

Cave Artist
Cave Artist
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I have flagged your comment as it is libellous.

alison rain
alison rain
3 years ago
Reply to  Cave Artist

theres a good little snitch.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I didn’t characterize her that way. I don’t find her exotic, mysterious or glamorous. But poor Harry did. That was the point. If you don’t believe Meghan being an American, an actress and a SJW was the perfect trifecta of attraction for Harry Wales, then you aren’t paying attention. Compared to the social set type girl he had always dated, horsey and hunting, Meghan must have been fatally attractive. And please I mean no disrespect to horsey type socialites, but no one could be more different from Meghan.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

I totally agree with you! Incredibly VITRIOLIC & judgemental views. No grey areas of uncertainty or balance. Wow so … all knowing and judge jury & executioner style comments. The WITCH HUNTS are made like this.

Jeremy Poynton
Jeremy Poynton
3 years ago

Funny thing tho’ – the constitutional Monarchies of Northern Europe are the most stable democratic societies we have. Odd eh? Maybe not – the Monarch is a symbol of the nation, not a political appointment loathed by half the population.
President Blair? God help us.
Otherwise, 10/10 Annette!

As for Meghan – live by the media, die by the media.

Mel Shaw
Mel Shaw
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

President Corbyn?

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

President Biden come to that.

Elizabeth Hart
Elizabeth Hart
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

Not so stable at the moment for the people living in monarchies, under the Covid regime and all that goes with it, e.g. testing, hindering free movement and association, isolation of healthy people/quarantine, QR code surveillance, lockdowns, masking/muzzling, and the threat of coercive vaccination for this virus which isn’t a serious threat to most people…
But the Royal Family are out there spruiking the vaccines, with the 94 year old Queen inferring people are selfish not to have vaccination, and Prince William promoting AstraZeneca.
‘The Firm’ benefits from its connections and has plenty of influence, are its investments publicly disclosed, are there any conflicts of interest?
And Prince Charles is part of the Great Reset, of the ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy’ idea…
What exactly is he involved in with the World Economic Forum, and how does this bear on his role constitutionally in regards to the throne, Commonwealth etc…?
What is this future king planning for ‘his subjects’?

Last edited 3 years ago by Elizabeth Hart
Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

‘constitutional Monarchies of Northern Europe are the most stable democratic societies we have’
It’s one of those statements that sounds authoritative but actually means very little on examination.
Depends on how you define stable, how you define constitutional and over what time period. Spain compared to France? Germany compared to Netherlands? Iceland compared to Denmark compared to Ireland?

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

When I was in the Netherlands, I lived a street away from the then-queen. It was pretty stable.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

I wouldn’t bother to replay. He is a 53 year old, massively overpaid NHS Bureaucrat, probably an inhabitant of Quislinnton, who has been irreparably tarred with the brush of Marxism. QED.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

Looks like I’ve got a stalker. It’s unsettling. Please try and focus on what I say and not who I am.

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

On the Spanish monarchy, wasn’t there a coup attempt by some military officers, which ended when the King told them to stop it?
I suspect that post-intervention Afghanistan may have been more stable if the monarchy had been restored (always assuming the candidate and his heir weren’t outrageously corrupt numpties).
The mere form of democracy without deeply embedded traditions of operating democracy are very fragile. Recent US history shows us that democracy is pretty fragile even with a long and broadly successful tradition. Ultimately it probably comes down to integrety in the people operating the systems, whatever the systems actually are. Singapore did well with a dictator of integrity – Zimbabwe less so with a president who lacked any.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul N

Yes around April 1981 .The Falange wanted their President back,Wokeists of Right or left Dont like facts!!!

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton

I look on the Royal Family as employees of the nation, representatives just as a President would be. If the nation decides, preferably through a referendum that they are no longer required they would retire. In short, the Firm would be disolved. The fact is they are far more colourful and interesting than a dull, grey President which are two a penny the world over and worth the money spent on them.

R P
R P
3 years ago

Thankyou Annette, I applaud your ‘its not for me but I respect your choices’ comment, the world needs more of this.

Karen Lindquist
Karen Lindquist
3 years ago

Great assessment about Meghan’s ridiculous attempt to cry victim. However, letting Harry off the hook and just filing him under feeble minded discounts his own disgusting victim mentality and playing at being the rebel but then being huffy and disgruntled when he gets cut off.
He’s as much of a cry bully as his wife. And honestly, I’m just sick of rich and famous people playing the victim card. I hope there is a special circle in hell just for them. I want them to come into their victim hood completely, since they’ve fetishized it, and we all know fetishes are the most respected aspect of humanity under the woke.

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago

A bit like Adam saying “the woman tempted me.”.

Adam Huntley
Adam Huntley
3 years ago

I hear the word “privilege” banded a lot. But if it can be applied to anyone it is surely these two. They have more financial security most could dream of, a healthy young family and $11m mansion in LA. And yet incredibly they and their PR team have found a way of monetizing victimhood to further finance their luxury lifestyle. They’re playing the public like fiddles and they’re too blind to see it

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Being feeble minded doesn’t take him off the hook. He is a huge cry bully but he never had the gall to really do it up right before Meghan. She gave him permission to do more than be photographed nude at parties. Now he can really step up and stand out, as a full victim in his prime, he was always just number 2 before.
But they are a perfect match in many ways. He was looking all his life for something different. Well, he got it. I don’t think he will be happy in the US. People who were “somebody” in their own country but just plain old Harry in another can rarely handle the let down. I think the US lost in getting these two back, so two points for Great Britain.

Guy Holme
Guy Holme
3 years ago

Thank you, Annette. That is beautifully summed up.

carlavine16666
carlavine16666
3 years ago

Nail on head.

Mike Wylde
Mike Wylde
3 years ago

The US is rather like a Monarchy though, as is France. The difference is that you elect a new monarch every 8 (or sometimes 4 years) whilst all we can do is chop the occasional head off or chuck them out and invite a new one to take over. The President of the US has many more powers than most hereditary monarchs and the main thing the President doesn’t control is the money!.

Last edited 3 years ago by Mike Wylde
David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Wylde

The US president may not control the money but some of them, Clinton and Obama that is, certainly rake it in. Obama’s influence over gullible Harry may have something to do with this.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Wylde

The US is exactly like a monarchy except without a hereditary monarch.

steve sykes
steve sykes
3 years ago

thank you very well said

Stuart Y
Stuart Y
3 years ago

If I could I would copy and send this to every media outlet in the UK, especially BBC, ITV and Sky !! I am so sick and tired of these people who reliably inform us what apparently “we think” based upon spurious Opinion Polls and talking heads both of which are designed to reinforce their very narrow world view, which in most cases is defeated in the only place that should matter in a Democracy. The ballot box

What I am trying to say on this subject is why do we in MSM never have fully thought out, reasoned and sensible opinions such as yours that I consider vastly more aligned with what we “the actual great unwashed” think, rather than a vanishingly small numbers wise group of people who in my opinion seem to get just about everything wrong on ever subject.

Also since when (I must have missed it) has it become the default position that anyone makes an allegation about Race or Sexual Abuse (even decades since) they are automatically believed by this same group?

Thanks again for your comment

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Stuart Y

Thank you StuRt. I believe people with plain old common sense see through this nonsense but most people are just going about their lives, working, taking care of their families. They might watch stuff like this interview for the same reason they slow down as they go by a car wreck. Pure voyeurism. I’ll admit to enjoying a bit of light entertainment like these two knuckleheads.
The media are just selling papers, good for them. But the key is not taking it all seriously. There is more than a bit of humor in watching millionaires crying to billionaires about their mistreatment. Enjoy it without guilt or angst. We would have to make this stuff up if it were not so obligingly provided to us.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Stuart Y

Look at ”Al-Jazeera””,Russia today” Listen to ”Talkradio,” there is still Freedom of Thought&speech on these Media platforms,when it drifts into ”Opinion” they say so.;.hopefully GB News with Brillopad will be Unwoked..when it starts on TV

Martin Adams
Martin Adams
3 years ago

Bullseye!!

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
3 years ago

I have lived and worked in UK, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Belguim, The Netherlands, Denmark, UAE, Japan, Australia and New Zealand … all really nice civilized places these monarchies. On the other hand, the Republics (including the US) I have worked in are decidedly dodgy and uncomfortable.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Gordon Black

The US is not for everyone. But it is definitely for me.

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago

It’s lovely that you have somewhere to live that suits your politics. And I’m equally happy that the UK does not – however creaking its universal healthcare and social security systems may be.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul N

Interesting that you equate happiness with living a specific place to politics. Of course, you can find any politics you want in the US as well as the UK. Most people don’t find politics to equate to life but if you do, that’s your business.
I didn’t say anything about the UK. I am sure I could find happiness in lots of places.

Martin Woodford
Martin Woodford
3 years ago

Good comment, though I would say that there are plenty of constitutional monarchies – especially in Europe. The alternatives are usually some time serving hack of a failed politician or a presidential style of government, for which the only European example is France and few would follow that route – noted as it is for corruption and ineptitude. These European constitutional monarchies do (per the rticle) tend to be stable, liberal and democratic.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Yes, surely there are constitutional monarchies but they still have a hereditary monarch. And there’s the rub. I am just not big on titles and knighthoods and curtsying and bowing and that sort of stuff. It isn’t how I would, as an American, describe either liberal or democratic. To each his/her own. Meghan is, after all, an American, and seems to quite like royal titles.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Cave Artist
Cave Artist
3 years ago

I am sure Mr Markle isn’t perfect but he has been treated shabbily by his daughter and his son in law who can’t even be bothered to meet him. Four years and he hasn’t seen his grandchild. What a rotten pair.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Cave Artist

Yes, I’m sure he is not perfect. But it seems like they could have protected him a bit more. After all, what possible experience could he have had with this? Shabby treatment indeed.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Cave Artist

She has ignored her step family )One Sister says She is liar &fantasist) hardly a ringing endorsement of ”Your Truth”?..

alison rain
alison rain
3 years ago

hold on a second there annette, dont assume all of us brits like having a monarchy. as far as im concerned the sooner this elitist organisation is abolished the better.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  alison rain

I didn’t assume that.

lizziebgood52
lizziebgood52
3 years ago

You would only be able to say that here.. but it’s true

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago

this is about racism and misogyny—foundational principles of conservative ideology and there is no ideology more conservative than Monarchy.

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

I would say that you are doing exactly what the article counsels against: assuming that everywhere else is like the USA, except that even if one accepts that conservative ideologies evolved entirely separately in Europe and North America, I’m sure it would be hard to find a foundational document of North American conservatism that proclaims the supposed virtues of racism and misogyny.
As for the UK, it appears that you either did not read the article, of understood very little of it.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Nun Yerbizness

If you mean the Markles, it’s actually about pettiness and entitlement.

Penelope Lane
Penelope Lane
3 years ago

It’s sad that you cannot see the issues here in terms of anything but family.
It’s also sad that you exude that hoary old female b***h-culture which delights in taking other women down. Whatever else may be said, Megan is undeniably beautiful, not just a “glamour puss” as you so nastily put it.
And if you think that Harry sees other races as “exotic”, you clearly have no knowledge of the lack of racial prejudice general in upper-class circles worldwide. Which means, in turn, that you have not even bothered to read this article properly, since it addresses that very point.
Now what does that say about you, I wonder?

Michael Meddings
Michael Meddings
3 years ago
Reply to  Penelope Lane

“Megan is undeniably beautiful” – absolutely not. Attractive (in the physical sense only), yes. She’s just a toxic septic.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

Odd thing about these femme fatale types is they often aren’t attractive in the standard way but doe-eyed which seems to make some men protective. Harry was going on about how she finally has a family , cancelling out her father who had been perfectly acceptable until then and all her other aunts uncles etc. Even Prince Charles said he had always wanted a daughter-ignoring that he already had a daughter in law Catherine and a step-daughter Laura.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Penelope Lane

It’s pretty clear that Meghan wasn’t happy about being second fiddle to Kate. But yes, taking your family down in public isn’t something I would do.
I didn’t say Meghan wasn’t beautiful, I find her very much so. It isn’t her appearance I am criticizing, it’s her actions. I don’t believe that appearance excuses actions.
I said nothing about her race either. Are you sure it’s my posts you were reading? Not only would an American actress have been exotic to Harry but a foreign prince would have been exotic to Meghan.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Phil Mac
Phil Mac
3 years ago

Great summary.

donald.couper
donald.couper
3 years ago

Haha! You really don’t approve of her do you. I wonder if his experience as a child made him more sensitive to her distress with the media? This in turn might have caused a sort of positive feedback loop causing the pair of them to wildly overreact? Just a thought, but I quite agree it is a disgraceful performance from the pair of them. Very sad for the family.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  donald.couper

It’s pretty clear that I don’t approve of her behavior, yes. It seems to be a lifelong pattern of tossing people who are no longer useful to her to the curb.
i don’t find her distressed with the media. She lives for it. And when she found Harry, she served as the match to launch his own victim hood into the stratosphere. He just wasn’t believable as a victim on his own.

Paul N
Paul N
3 years ago

If the accusations are, as you put it, vague – and if nobody is named, how can it amount to “ trashing his 94 year old grandmother and 99 year old grandfather”? Are we losing perspective just a little?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul N

Yes she has lost perspective. As has Harry.

Icarus none
Icarus none
3 years ago

who gave you a $40M+ wedding and a huge mansion” — Crown property is not really hers to give….

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Icarus none

Google Frogmore.

David Smith
David Smith
3 years ago

Yeah – like it (The Pratt and the Rat)

Last edited 3 years ago by David Smith
kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

Also isn’t it rather strange that a not that youngish newly married couple expect his grandparents ( who are in their nineties) his parent and wife ( both in their seventies ) and his brother (with his own wife and young family) to take care of them as though they are young teenagers? Daddy stopped my money , Katie made me cry but later ‘owned’ her mistake etc etc-all rather childish and petty.

kathleen carr
kathleen carr
3 years ago

Is it normal to expect old people in their seventies and nineties to concern themselves about two people approaching middle-age? Surely the concern should be the other way around?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

if a privileged millionaire complaining to a billionaire about the injustices of life doesn’t convince you, then nothing will.

Zap Zenn
Zap Zenn
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

A shame I can’t upvote this a million times. You echo my sentiment precisely.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I am so stealing this.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago

If you look at what she actually complains about in the interview it amounts to: she was ‘unhappy’ & the royals were ‘cold’; they wouldn’t change the rules to make her son a Prince (they wouldn’t make my son a Prince either for what it’s worth); Kate made her cry. The only genuine cause for complaint is that someone unnamed wondered how dark Archie would be… And they won’t name that person. Not exactly traumatic stuff is it?

Emma Rawlinson
Emma Rawlinson
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Correct, it was all about how the situation she found herself was too alien. Luckily for them they had money to move away and live the life they prefer. Interestingly Harry commented that the family member asked ‘what will the kids look like’. You can read into this with negative connotations but if you take it a face value it’s a comment that most people make when offspring are discussed.

Clara B
Clara B
3 years ago
Reply to  Emma Rawlinson

Yes, my kids are all mixed heritage and I had many conversations about what they’ll look like when I was pregnant with them (and I am now having lots of similar discussions with my grown up child about what my grandkids will look like. They are likely to be all shades and colours. Makes no difference, frankly, I’ll love them all, but I’m still curious about they’ll look).

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Emma Rawlinson

Yes, spot on! All kinds of things can be said. Someone might have said, “it is all right if the baby has Harry’s looks but not his brains!”

Richard E
Richard E
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Whenever anyone has a baby, don’t people always talk about whether they baby will be ginger like the dad, or blonde like the mum, etc etc.
They make very damaging but unspecific accusations, and then tar every one with the same brush by not identifying who made them. And as they don’t identify, no one can come back and explain what they actually said.
Harry relayed the comment to Meghan. But I sense it’s an innocent comment about the baby, that’s then manipulated and taken out of context.
Harry has bought into white privilege and victim politics and critical race theory 100%.

Last edited 3 years ago by Richard E
Emma Rawlinson
Emma Rawlinson
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Agree. It looks like Harry is having a kind of epiphany. Good luck to them, just do it quietly without all the drama.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Harry also married a woman steeped in privilege, a person educated in private schools with Hollywood parents who could open doors for her acting career. This woman is <50% black, but from hearing her, you get the impression that she grew up in some urban hood, dodging white supremacists by day and gang bangers by night.

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

She may have met some “gang bangers” in Hollywood studios.

Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

According to Lady Colin Campbell (herself Jamaican and mixed race) she is not 50% black, but 25% black.

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

He did say “<50%”. I have to wonder, given that most of us over here neither knew nor cared about her racial background, if “whiteness” carries with it such privilege, why is she so keen to emphasise the smaller black proportion of her genes?
A different, but similar, question might be asked of those, like Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug, who adopt an African-American identity without the bloodline to back it up.

Jean Fothers
Jean Fothers
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Harry will always need a Mummy to tell him what to do and what to think. His original Mum was also a spoilt child who wanted the entire Royal Family and the British system to change to suit her.
Then when he grew older, he had the Army to tell him what to do etc.
Now he’s got MeAgain obviously telling him what to do, say and think.

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Jean Fothers

For Diana, see James Lees-Milne’s diary entry for 1st September 1997 in his The Milk of Paradise or Diaries, 1984-1997. I quoted excerpts in the comments section in yesterday’s Unherd. My personal feeling is that the current business is the long-term effect of the poison Diana poured into his weak-minded younger son.

Lloyd Marsden
Lloyd Marsden
3 years ago
Reply to  Jean Fothers

What possible evidence do you have for this assertion?

Last edited 3 years ago by Lloyd Marsden
SUSAN GRAHAM
SUSAN GRAHAM
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

You are spot on, when I was having my kids, we had comments as to if the red hair gene would show up, it’s not malicious, just normal curiosity. But in these days of the perpetually offended, every comment can – with a twisted mindset, be taken out of context and converted to a nasty insult. Somebody once put it to me: ‘it’s not the mouth it comes out of, it’s the mind it goes into’,

Steve Dean
Steve Dean
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

The problem with the ‘whataboutery’ type argument about hair colour, is that you didnt used to have to give up your seat on a bus, if you had blond hair, to someone without blond hair.

Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean

Why is that a factor?

Steve Dean
Steve Dean
3 years ago

I don’t think hair colour is used to the same degree as skin colour is, to prejudice. Is my point.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean
No one is pretending to be white  these days, are they? 
Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Steve Dean
Steve Dean
3 years ago

Can you explain a bit more?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean

Yes. We have an epidemic in the US of liberal white people pretending to be black and brown people. Senator Elizabeth Warren tried it. Alec Baldwins wife was a recent case, parading around pretending to be Hispanic. Rachel Dolezal, head of a west coast NAACP outed by her own family as white, Professor Ward Churchill caught pretending to be Native American (it’s particularly common among academics, Jessica Krug and CV Vitolo Haddad are examples). Satchuel Cole, a racial justice activist, no less. Caught pretending to be black.
And these days, they are getting caught more often, mostly due to social media. You don’t find the reverse though, black and brown people pretending to be white.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Steve Dean
Steve Dean
3 years ago

Ah, got it, yes, it is interesting one. I can’t claim to understand their motives, apart from it appears to be an attempt to seek attention either for them selves of what they are supporting.
is this just another argument (like the blond hair example I commented on) where the initial point is being diluted, not by sound, fact based discussion, but more ‘whataboutary’? Not sure I have the debating term right though, so apologies if there is a better word for it.
i am not sure I would want to be anything apart from what I am.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean

Well there are many benefits to identifying as black or brown in the US. For example, Elizabeth Warren got a job at a prestigious university that was very happy to tout their “Native American” as an example of their diversity. She was a token, albeit a fake one. They were trying to check the diversity box with a clearly white professor. Often professors get jobs based on race, usually in degree programs focused on race as well. You would not get a job as a professor of ChIcano Studies, for example, unless you were Chicano. You would not get a top local job with the NAACP as a white applicant.
Hair color is an odd example since that’s changeable. Black people can have blond hair.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Your mate Donald trump called ”Red indian” Elizabeth Warren imagined indian heritage as ”pocohontas” which iS hilarious and guaranteed to outrage the sanctomonius liberal media..

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Yes it was quite amusing but then Warren brought it on herself by trying to masquerade as a Native American. Most of the people who have been caught faking race have either lost their jobs or had to resign. Warren was lucky that she didn’t. Not sure that she should not have anyway.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean

You obviously Didn’t have Red hair,as I have?..Should I claim A ”Your truth” interview for hurt or imagined hurt ? Victimhood..

Tom Jennings
Tom Jennings
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean

I would wager neither Meghan nor Harry ever had to surrender a bus seat. They are socially elite, wealthy and famous; hardly a starting point for victimhood. They are shooting for victim status in spite of it all and may just pull it off. “Why?” escapes me. Dr Freud, please call your office.

bagshotsands
bagshotsands
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve Dean

No one ever had to give up a seat on a bus in England unless wanting to out of civility or chivilary,

Steve Dean
Steve Dean
3 years ago
Reply to  bagshotsands

It is a US example of where rights were accorded by skin colour. But I suspect you may know that and I am missing the sarcasm, apologies if that is the case. A UK example would be a sign saying ‘No blacks’ on the window of a boarding house.
This type of behaviour is illegal now. No laws passed defending such behaviour against certain hair colours.
The point here is a slowly increasing number of people are finding comments about future childrens hair colour offensive. There is some sort of spectrum of acceptability. To be honest, I would discuss it, but not with the parents, and I feel uncomfortable writing that, but trying to make the spectrum point. I would have no qualms discussing hair colour with anyone, including the parents.
i think the position of people on the spectrum moves over time, and current times are seeing more of a jump than a slow movement.

Jean Fothers
Jean Fothers
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

About 90% of the World wondered what colour the child would be, but mainly out of curious observation. The remainder couldn’t care less.

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Very typical and even banal as many newcomers by marriage feel unwelcome. My paternal aunt told me that my mother warned her against their sister-in-law whom she said was “poison”. Sure enough, there was a break-up between the sister-in-law, my uncle and aunt by marriage several years later. Family life can be hell.

Mike Wylde
Mike Wylde
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

It just didn’t turn out like Disney said it would so it needs to be filmed again with an alternative ending! The nasty vice-chancellor didn’t turn into a toad and the fairy godmother didn’t turn the carriage into a pumpkin and the princess discovered that she was not even a princess but only a duchess whilst Prince Ginger was still a prince.

Fennie Strange
Fennie Strange
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Wylde

I tried to give you a thumbs-up Mr Wilde, but my iPhone wouldn’t let me.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

The reason HM Queen wouldn’t Keep Harry on ‘Civil list’ is she would have to revert to crown estates which make 4x civil list, She pays Tax & has stealthily cut hangers on, it was Harry &Meghan’s choice Not to do Civil engagements. Also we are led to believe Harry,Patron of several mental sickness charities,sent Meghan to H&R (hire &fire) not clever …but I still prefer royalty to Presidency ,just…

Last edited 3 years ago by Robin Lambert
Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

The ‘Civil List’ was abolished in 2011 I think it was and was replaced by the ‘Sovereign Grant’ which is 15% of the profits from the Crown Estates. As these were handed over to Parliament by King George III in exchange for a Civil List payment I think it rather sharp of Parliament to welch on its side of the bargain while retaining the Crown Estate revenue.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

So why is it referred to on News media as ”Civil List”?..

Elaine Hunt
Elaine Hunt
3 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Because they are ignorant or careless. Or both

Andy Yorks
Andy Yorks
3 years ago

I didn’t watch this drivel – better things to do – but I have seen a few clips and read about it. What you have here is two deeply damaged people who seems to be burning with resentment, frustrated ambition, jealousy and envy who are both lacking in self awareness and basic common sense.
She was a very minor actress, and not a particularly good one, who had had a minor role in a minor soap drama. Note she wasn’t talent spotted and got no decent role after ‘Suits’ finished. That tells you a fair amount.
And for all the twaddle about ‘compassion’ she doesn’t seem to have very much of it herself. I believe she merely sent her rings back to her first husband by FedEx – she hadn’t the common decency to ask him for a divorce to his face. Look at how she has treated her Father. He was not a well man at the time she got married, but she made no effort to go and see him and take her latest catch to meet him. I’ve even read (might be untrue of course) that she told him he could come to the wedding as long as he cut all contact with his other children. Trouble is you can believe it’s true.
We then get to the resentments such as wee Archie isn’t a Prince because of racism. This is a wicked and evil slur. Under the Law laid out over a century ago he was not entitled to be a Prince – he is when his Grandfather becomes King, but not before. And if they hate the Monarchy so much why would they want him to be one, and for that matter why don’t they renounce their titles ?? You can’t have it both ways.
As to Harry and his moan that the Prince of Wales wouldn’t take his phone calls I would say given how you have behaved why would he want to talk to you ? And not being able to go directly to Sandringham, being blocked by courtiers, he seems to forget that his grandmother is the Queen, and I am sure she deduced he was wanting to see her to try and manipulate her. The Queen is a wise old bird and I am sure she had his number and you can’t push her around that easily.
All in all this was a very shoddy and shameful interview, shot through with outright lies, half truths and distortions. Perhaps the honest and honourable thing for these two to do now is to give up their titles and get on with their lives as plain Mr & Mrs, and for them never to darken our door again.

R P
R P
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

The ten minutes I lasted – it came across as a chat between friends not an interview!

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

I think it was after divorcing her First husband,She Wanted Canadian citizenship in 2013-15 and got engaged to a Canadian TV celebrity chef & FedEx her rings back to him,with no explanation,to marry ”A Real life Prince” the danger of 24/7 media is it is insatiable for news & ‘fake news’? She even ditched her pets in Toronto ,to move next door to her @ordinary’ mate,Billionaire Oprah Winfreyin LA

Lyn Griffiths
Lyn Griffiths
3 years ago
Reply to  Andy Yorks

Well said.

Martin Humphreys
Martin Humphreys
3 years ago

Americans are obsessed with race and want the rest of the world to be obsessed with it, too.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Only some Americans. Most of us are normal people.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago

Not Meghan Markle it seems.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago

Well sort of – but in American history race is a far more important divide than in the old world. I’m not fan of the currrent political racial conflict – but it is Americas history.

It’s funny that in America WASPS are seen as the elite, where as in England being white anglo saxon protestant puts you historically in the largest oppressed group for the last ~1000 years (allowing for the later arrival of Protestantism). About 50% of men couldn’t vote until 1918, the same time the vote was introduced for Women – completed in 1928. People were banned from power based on not being CoE, rather than race – but these were largely rolled back decades before even the middle classes were allowed to vote.

The point well made in the article is that the UK has a very different history to the US. Some bits better, some bits worse.

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

In fact, it seems that Barack Obama who had a great success and is now as rich as Croesus, stirred the race cauldron when he found himself over his depth as president. His opponents were deemed racist. These last years and not just in America, we have been hearing about racism endlessly. It is surprising in that blacks have become prominent in a way out of proportion to their numbers.

Tom Jennings
Tom Jennings
3 years ago
Reply to  David Platzer

In the colonies, we refer to stirring the race cauldron as “playing the race card”. The “race card” trumps most other cards and sometimes even forces players out of the game. People will keep playing it as long as it works.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago
Reply to  David Platzer

Everyone is on over their heads as leaders. I wouldn’t particularly blame Obama – what of course is hialrious is that after the truly historic event of a black man being elected US president, there are still those who claim racism is as bad as ever in America. Its hard to take people like that seriously. Some grown ups describe these people as cosplaying the civil rights struggle.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago
Reply to  David Platzer

O’bomber (Nobel Prize peace Winner) After bombing 14 countries ..The World is getting stranger &more hypocritical? by the day..

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

Well, I don’t know about that. Meghan and Harry are claiming that it was racism that drove them from the U.K. and they went to the US. So they certainly felt that it was worse in the U.K.
Not sure where the idea that WASPS are the elite in the US comes from. I’d say that was specifically the reverse of the situation.
Yes, of course, the religion thing was very destructive throughout Europe and even in our lifetimes if we remember the troubles in Ireland.
yes, our histories are quite different, I agree.

ani
ani
3 years ago

Thank god for that because quite honestly, I’m beginning to wonder…

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago

Well done for pointing this out about Americans.
I never saw much evidence of racism when I lived and worked in the USA. I remember a black who was working with me in Philadelphia’s John Wanamaker department store. He told me he loved reading history. ‘Queen Victoria, that’s my girl’ he said, ‘She had half the crowned heads of Europe in her own family!’

Last edited 3 years ago by David Platzer
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

Not USA, the Frankfurt School, those Weimar Republic Marxist Intellectuals and Academics, they have been getting things all twisted up for 90 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School I dare anyone to actually read it all, but worth a skim as these guys are why the world is so messed up.
Google the Frankfurt School 11 Points to have them summed up. You will spot some similarities to modern orthodoxy.

And then for fun see the Liberal/Lefty version in ‘RationalWiki’ for the ‘Critical Theory’ the FS spawned used to self justify. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

And in the second link you get the 11 points, although they are ‘debunked using the Liberal Left fact checker which means what ever the Lib/Lft says is true, and what is said otherwise is false.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago

Very sweeping statement, as annette says below… Most Americans aren’t, but unfortunately the ones that are seem to be calling the shots. Much the same as the UK. The people that set the agenda around the world have a very different agenda to 99% of the population.

R P
R P
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

But then they wonder why the keep losing elections, either they are playing a very long game – cue Starmer yesterday – some simpering focus group temp reads social media and thinks it represents the entire UK – it doesn’t – This period for Labour is like the mid- late 90s were for the Tories they will get nowhere!

Karen Lindquist
Karen Lindquist
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Oops, sorry, didn’t mean to hit the downvote button!
Mike, I personally believe this is all coming from somewhere up higher than we can currently understand. So many super rich people and technocrats are really pushing the race, queer, and a portion of the feminists theory stuff into politics.
Democrats pandering will land the republicans back into power either in the 2022 elections or the 2024. I see Trump is already starting to build a platform based on women’s rights. It’s a winning approach that might go bac on all of us since the GOP is actually the worse party for environment and that is the one thing that Democrats are less terrible about.
But somebody powerful wants this. To distract us all with a lot of insanity that keeps people in-fighting down here in the real world. I’m nervous about those people in power and how this is serving them. But it’s brilliant.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
3 years ago

Trump Always had A ”Mrs America” base he didn’t need false one Like Nil delegates( from Democrats)..Kamala harris..

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

American leftists are obsessed with race. Largely because things have progressed markedly from the days of Jim Crow, and the left hates that. You cannot manufacture division without a wedge.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Race has been weaponized against the people. There’s no power behind it.

Terry M
Terry M
3 years ago

American progressives are obsessed with race and want the rest of the world to be obsessed with it, too.

FIFY

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago
Reply to  Terry M

FIFY ?

John Rodger
John Rodger
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Barton

Fixed It For You.

garethhcoombs
garethhcoombs
3 years ago
Reply to  John Rodger

TFFT

Karen Lindquist
Karen Lindquist
3 years ago

Yeah, we are not all obsessed with race, nor are we all on the crazy train of critical theory madness.
Remember, there are 350 million people here to the UK’s 70 million or whatever, and we are from very different backgrounds. You do recall that half the country voted for Trump? I guarantee another large portion just put their heads down and try to live and ignore what they consider an out of control train as it derails.
A lot of us are actually fighting back at this nonsense. And we could use some friends, cuz it’s a lonely place to stand with everyone so afraid to lose their job over speaking honestly.

Pat Fox-Leonard
Pat Fox-Leonard
3 years ago

I have realised that there is no free speech in the USA. Over the past decade I have found myself thinking that the UK , with all its faults, is a safer place to be. Very sad for the normal Merkans. Come and join us!

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago

your assertion of victimhood is noted and your hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are hallmarks of conservatives and raging trumpholes.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

What a horrible thing ‘this’ all is, but every one knows that, and why.

But Monarchy and tolerance. Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, Libya, Syria, all lost their king from 1960s to 1979, and all became disasters because they were replaced by strong men.

Morocco, KSA, Kuwait, Jordan, kept theirs and prospered.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Not to mention Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands – some of the most enlightened, liberal and tolerant societies in the world – all monarchies. Correlation or causation – uncertain. But that is a pattern of sorts.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Constitutional Monarchies. An oxymoron if ever there was one.

Greek: Monos – Alone.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Morocco certainly.

KSA despite enormous natural wealth a veritable hell hole, created by the US in the form of ARAMCO.

Jordan, loosing your capital and the West Bank, was hardly prosperous.

Kuwait and for that matter Bahrain ex Empire tin pot ‘monarchies’ with little to write home about, without Oil it would be back to ‘Lawrence of Arabia’.

Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago

The West Bank was never part of Jordan. It may not be prosperous, and may not even be free by our standards (I don’t know), but it does seem to have escaped the frightful destruction experienced all around it.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Colin Elliott

Grabbed/conquered by Jordan in 1948, formally annexed in 1950, conquered by Israel, 1967. Vae victis!

Andrew Wright
Andrew Wright
3 years ago

To deliberately conflate ill-defined accusations of “racism” with “lack of support” and denying the couple “security” is totally dishonest, by any standard. God PR of course, but that was the only point. The accusations of racism are second hand, and Harry refused to elaborate of course, but the damage has been done, so far as the “world” is concerned. There were innumerable articles in the press (mainly the gutter press, of course) which may have mentioned her colour but no-one actually gave a g***amn. The fact that Meghan apparently did, leading to accusations that the “firm” refused to correct or squash such rubbish, is simply down to her clear belief that social & actual media reflect what people think of her!! It also pre-supposes that the institution could actually do something about it!! The title issue was deliberately allied to that idiocy to blacken the Royal family even more & we all now know that becoming a Prince is a long-winded affair & not guaranteed until Prince Charles ascends to the throne in any case, and had absolutely nothing to do with denying them security. That only came up after they had decided to move to Canada & then the USA .. and I doubt either of those two independant countries would wlecome a phalanx of UK bobbies hanging around!
Furthermore, picking up a phone & calling a psychiatrist or other type of mental health helper would have been easy!!
On top of all thjat, they obviously did not get the “duty” bit of being a UK Royal. Harry has issues, naturally – his parents’ very public spat was appalling too but quite different from this circus .. and by the way, Diana was finally driven to her accidental death by the French paparazzi not the the British gutter press!

Last edited 3 years ago by Andrew Wright
Colin Elliott
Colin Elliott
3 years ago

I am perplexed by Harry’s and Meghan’s decision to do this interview and say the things they said. Whatever grievances they may have had, they have surely created a massive grievance in many in the United Kingdom, from close relatives to ordinary and patriotic citizens.
How can he ever again aspire to any position in the armed forces? How can they attend future ceremonies involving the marriages or deaths of the Royal family, unless they are able to rely upon the toleration lacking in themselves? How can they expect to be welcomed by British charities without the risk of being booed?
And how will they reconcile indefinite exile and scorn for the institution of royalty with continuing to use their titles of Duke and Duchess?

Last edited 3 years ago by Colin Elliott
Pat Fox-Leonard
Pat Fox-Leonard
3 years ago
Reply to  Colin Elliott

She’s cut off his escape routes alright. Clever girl! Got two kids to squabble over too. Her position is so strong, i’d be looking over my shoulder…

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Colin Elliott

What about the ‘Invictus Games’ that Harry put so much into?
All those near forgotten, disabled veterans must feel rather let down by this seedy incident.

Mel Shaw
Mel Shaw
3 years ago
Reply to  Colin Elliott

It does seem strange. But it is clearly calculated for effect. Perhaps they expect the Royal Family to make concessions (more money, titles, and so on).

Stainy
Stainy
3 years ago

Just been thinking about the central idea of the article. Yes, monarchies could be more tolerant of race than certain democratic movements. Pushkin came to mind straight away. However, more telling is the attitude to Jewish people. England may have had a Jewish Prime minister in Disraeli, but with the foundation of a sovereign Australia we had Issacs as a Head of State and Monash as the head of the army. The anti-Semitism here in Australia came from radical liberals. Various elements of the left helped form the most rabid and hate-filled forms of racism. I hope this does not sound particularly familiar.

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Stainy

“Various elements of the left helped form the most rabid and hate-filled forms of racism. I hope this does not sound particularly familiar.”
Entirely familiar. The false and constant media mantra of right-wing this and far-right that doesn’t disguise the truth.

R P
R P
3 years ago

I only lasted ten minutes of this simpering borefest. Harry has now plotted his path – ignore the wittering so social media – the silent majority of the UK will not forget this betrayal of his grandparents and his father / brother. He has ensured he can never really live in the UK again. The cut is final just like Edward VIII.

Great article by the way – really informative and interesting – just what I expect at Unherd, some of the writers wouldn’t normally be in my ‘reading stable’ so to speak but its always good to get a full range of views and opinions and unherd provides.

Last edited 3 years ago by R P
Jonathan Ellman
Jonathan Ellman
3 years ago

Great article. This would be well expanded into a book.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
3 years ago