The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 12-26-2017, 11:14 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I try not to get into PMK. She knew what she was doing and proudly wore it knowing the history behind it. She’s very into history. She’s not dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The history behind that brooch is deep, dark and very much offensive. Which is the reason why Princess Michael wore it for everyone to see.

She chose to wear this brooch on the very day she was due to meet Ms. Markle at the extended family luncheon.

Everyone got her message. Loud and clear. She’s ignorant!
What about when Harry wore the shirt with the swastika on it? The history behind the swastika is far more known than the history behind the brooch. I am not going to go too far out of my way to defend Princess Michael but I think that it is a slippery slope when you start ascribing attitudes and motives to people.
__________________

  #82  
Old 12-26-2017, 11:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
What about when Harry wore the shirt with the swastika on it? The history behind the swastika is far more known than the history behind the brooch. I am not going to go too far out of my way to defend Princess Michael but I think that it is a slippery slope when you start ascribing attitudes and motives to peopule.
Harry got a lot of **** for that, and rightfully so. Til this day, some people still hate him for it even though he has grown up quite a bit overall since then. I remember people bring this up and snark about him when the news came out about him dating Meghan, who is biracial. But it is different when one is being stupid and insensitive when they are 20 and then grow up and show over time that that’s not who they are. It’s different when you are 70. I’m not saying PMK did it on purpose to offend or anything. I quite frankly don’t care to guess how that came about, but that’s a rather poor comparison.
__________________

  #83  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,059
Regarding the 'Tempest in a Teacup' that [briefly] RAGED in the ' meejah' over Princess Michaels decision to wear a brooch depicting a 'Moor' to the first Royal Christmas Lunch attended by Ms Markle in Britain...

Some [mostly foreigners] are OUTRAGED, citing it as clear evidence of racism against Ms Markle..

'Difference' and the 'exotic' has been celebrated in art [especially in 'decorative art' such as jewelry] for centuries..
Consider the massive vogue for Chinoiserie or [less well known] 'Turquerie', celebrations of little understood 'far-away' places that captured European imaginations,at a time when very few people travelled and got 'first-hand' knowledge of the wider World.

Should these often charming, often naive representations of the 'other' be put away forever because their original purpose [to intrigue, enchant and give pleasure] has been misunderstood ?

I really don't think so..
The brooch depicted a man wearing a Turban, but were Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs incensed ?

There is not a shred of evidence that Princess Michael intended to offend, that Ms Markle was offended ,or that ANYONE within the BRF or in wider Britain beyond is anything other than delighted for the affianced, and at Ms Markle's decision to make this country her home.
  #84  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:11 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Harry got a lot of **** for that, and rightfully so. Til this day, some people still hate him for it even though he has grown up quite a bit overall since then. I remember people bring this up and snark about him when the news came out about him dating Meghan, who is biracial. But it is different when one is being stupid and insensitive when they are 20 and then grow up and show over time that that’s not who they are. It’s different when you are 70. I’m not saying PMK did it on purpose to offend or anything. I quite frankly don’t care to guess how that came about, but that’s a rather poor comparison.
IMO, regardless of how young he was, there is no way that Harry could not have known what a swastika represents and I get that for some people it will forever define Harry for them. By the same token, I can see that for some people the brooch and other acts will forever define Princess Michael.

I agree with you that Harry got a lot of crap for it and some people (although likely a small number) have not gotten over it and the same will happen to Princess Michael which is understandable.

I don't think it is a poor comparison but your comment, "I’m not saying PMK did it on purpose to offend or anything" shows that you are not rushing to judgement about Princess Michael's motives. Again I am not trying to defend Princess Michael nor am I bothered by the blowback but I am cautioning against too many people jumping on the bandwagon and being so quick and strident to assign motives to people.
  #85  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Regarding the 'Tempest in a Teacup' that [briefly] RAGED in the ' meejah' over Princess Michaels decision to wear a brooch depicting a 'Moor' to the first Royal Christmas Lunch attended by Ms Markle in Britain...

Some [mostly foreigners] are OUTRAGED, citing it as clear evidence of racism against Ms Markle..

'Difference' and the 'exotic' has been celebrated in art [especially in 'decorative art' such as jewelry] for centuries..
Consider the massive vogue for Chinoiserie or [less well known] 'Turquerie', celebrations of little understood 'far-away' places that captured European imaginations,at a time when very few people travelled and got 'first-hand' knowledge of the wider World.

Should these often charming, often naive representations of the 'other' be put away forever because their original purpose [to intrigue, enchant and give pleasure] has been misunderstood ?

I really don't think so..
The brooch depicted a man wearing a Turban, but were Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs incensed ?

There is not a shred of evidence that Princess Michael intended to offend, that Ms Markle was offended ,or that ANYONE within the BRF or in wider Britain beyond is anything other than delighted for the affianced, and at Ms Markle's decision to make this country her home.
Honestly, I think the outrage isn’t necessarily from the possibility that Meghan might be offended. It’s, rather, that people themselves are offended by it. And right now, Meghan serves as a symbol of it. Quite like how every time the issue of Harry and hunting comes out, all the headlines are wondering how Meghan would be offended by it. In reality, it’s the animal rights activist and those that are offended by hunting itself more than Meghan is.

As for the art aspect, some hotels that displayed such figurines have received petitions to remove those figurines. So it’s certainly not just against PMK. PMK can wear her brooch whenever she want for whatever reason she wants in private obviously. However, wearing it to he Queen’s lunch at BP where they know photographers will be waiting outside does open her up to criticism. Add on top of that, it’s the first Christmas lunch the soon to be newest member of the family, first in modern history (trying to stay away from the Queen Charlotte debate), is attending does add attention to the race aspects of it. Given your views on optics on little things like cost of a privately purchased dress, I’m surprised you don’t understand the problem here.

And it’s not specifically about the turban. The blackamoor figurines have generally been associated with slavery and colonialism overall. I don’t know if there are backlash from Muslims or others overall, we just haven’t seen it here. And Meghan being the first biracial woman to marry into this family does serve as a symbol for many and some do feel that they can relate more to the royal family now because she is part of it. I’ve seen it being openly discussed in television by people of color. So I do think when there is such attention on that, the people of color will taken more attention on this than Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs. I don’t know if this would’ve even gotten into the headlines have they not been able to attach Meghan to it. So in a way, it is giving voice to people of color here.
  #86  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Honestly, I think the outrage isn’t necessarily from the possibility that Meghan might be offended. It’s, rather, that people themselves are offended by it. And right now, Meghan serves as a symbol of it. Quite like how every time the issue of Harry and hunting comes out, all the headlines are wondering how Meghan would be offended by it. In reality, it’s the animal rights activist and those that are offended by hunting itself more than Meghan is.

As for the art aspect, some hotels that displayed such figurines have received petitions to remove those figurines. So it’s certainly not just against PMK. PMK can wear her brooch whenever she want for whatever reason she wants in private obviously. However, wearing it to he Queen’s lunch at BP where they know photographers will be waiting outside does open her up to criticism. Add on top of that, it’s the first Christmas lunch the soon to be newest member of the family, first in modern history (trying to stay away from the Queen Charlotte debate), is attending does add attention to the race aspects of it. Given your views on optics on little things like cost of a privately purchased dress, I’m surprised you don’t understand the problem here.
Exactly!! For all we know Meghan may have admired the brooch. Just because its a black face doesn't make it racist unless you know the history behind it. If Meghan said she was offended then Princess Michael should have apologised but as Jacqui said people don't need to act outraged for her.
  #87  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,059
There is NO protection against 'those that WISH to take offence' [in this 'day and age'].

Princess Michael [and anybody] is free to wear whatever she chooses, wherever she chooses, provided 'public decency' is not transgressed.
It is in the nature of a 'free society' that 'Sumptuary laws' are abolished, enabling individuals to wear whatever they choose [such as a chador, or Hijab] despite the fact that their choice may be displeasing to some.
  #88  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:36 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The history behind that brooch is deep, dark and very much offensive. Which is the reason why Princess Michael wore it for everyone to see.

She chose to wear this brooch on the very day she was due to meet Ms. Markle at the extended family luncheon.

Everyone got her message. Loud and clear. She’s ignorant!

How ridiculous and overly dramatic.
It's like called out the Queen as imperialist because she wears the Cullinan brooches.
In a way wearing this brooch could be seen as the ultimate proof that PM is not racist : she didn't see the problem to wear it in front of Ms Markel because she precisely didn't see her as a biracial , but as a welcomed future member of the BRF.

But this theory is far less juicy i guess, and how easy to be offensive and to jump to the darkest conclusions (and PM is of course an easy target).

And again let's take a look at the exact definition of a "moor" shall we :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors
  #89  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:37 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
There is NO protection against 'those that WISH to take offence' [in this 'day and age'].

Princess Michael [and anybody] is free to wear whatever she chooses, wherever she chooses, provided 'public decency' is not transgressed.
It is in the nature of a 'free society' that 'Sumptuary laws' are abolished, enabling individuals to wear whatever they choose [such as a chador, or Hijab] despite the fact that their choice may be displeasing to some.


Of course she’s allowed to wear what she’d like- just as people are allowed to respond, pointing out when something is in poor taste or in the case of this brooch, linked to a deeply racist history.
  #90  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,563
PMK has shown poor judgement in the past when choosing her apparel for special occasions. The dress that she wore to her son’s wedding was almost shockingly rude.
I’ve often wondered what her daughter-in-law thought.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
  #91  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
There is NO protection against 'those that WISH to take offence' [in this 'day and age'].

Princess Michael [and anybody] is free to wear whatever she chooses, wherever she chooses, provided 'public decency' is not transgressed.
It is in the nature of a 'free society' that 'Sumptuary laws' are abolished, enabling individuals to wear whatever they choose [such as a chador, or Hijab] despite the fact that their choice may be displeasing to some.
Of corse she’s free to wear it. It’s not against the law, and that’s why she’s not hauled off to jail for it. Free society also means people can react and speak their mind to it. AS a response to their reaction and expressing how offensive this is l, PMK said she will retire it and that’s her choice as well. No one forced her to.
  #92  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
There is NO protection against 'those that WISH to take offence' [in this 'day and age'].

Princess Michael [and anybody] is free to wear whatever she chooses, wherever she chooses, provided 'public decency' is not transgressed.
It is in the nature of a 'free society' that 'Sumptuary laws' are abolished, enabling individuals to wear whatever they choose [such as a chador, or Hijab] despite the fact that their choice may be displeasing to some.
I agree. We do not know what MM thought about it.

BUT... when you have 2 great-uncles who were Nazis, distant cousins (Charlie Coburg for example) who were Nazis, had access to the BEST education in Great Britain and then claim you do not know what that is around your arm...Harry.....um....no, you don't get a pass.
  #93  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:49 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
Of course she’s allowed to wear what she’d like- just as people are allowed to respond, pointing out when something is in poor taste or in the case of this brooch, linked to a deeply racist history.
Again this "deeply racist history" doesn't apply to the decorative arts concerning the blackamoors ;

"Blackamoors have a long history in decorative art, stretching all the way back to 17th century Italy and the famous sculptor Andrea Brustolon (1662-1732). They are often mistaken for depictions of the African American slaves and the ornamental pieces that they inspired; however, these decorative gems are distinctly different".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacka...e,Collectors-5

We see what we want to see ...
  #94  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,059
Quote:
this brooch, linked to a deeply racist history.
ONLY those judging the PAST [and its artifacts] by the Today's notions and woefully misunderstanding the nature of it's art would make such a link...

If you do, that's your prerogative, personally I do not.
  #95  
Old 12-26-2017, 12:51 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post

And again let's take a look at the exact definition of a "moor" shall we :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors
Exactly, people aren't even looking at what Moor means. Moors aren't black, they're African but not black. The only similarly between Meghan and the brooch is that they both have African roots. Anyways even if you are trying to use the term in a derogatory sense, that would be in relation to Muslims. I honestly don't see the big deal, even as a black person, HRH wore a brooch with Christmas relations that has probably been worn before but no one has said anything before, because they didn't care enough before but now they just have to speak out because they are so "disturbed".
  #96  
Old 12-26-2017, 01:01 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
How ridiculous and overly dramatic.

And again let's take a look at the exact definition of a "moor" shall we :

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors[/url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackamoors_(decorative_arts)
Points to you for looking this up. Next, go look up the history of this whole style of jewelry.

It was popularized in the 1770s-1800s as a way for wealthy, white European women to show off the creamy whiteness of their their skin as juxtaposed to the darkest male skin of slaves at the time. In fact, some women chose slaves for service by the darkness of their skin. Then they also chose jewelry that fetishized dark slave skin. And the practice extended from there to table legs, art, lamps, etc.

In the 20th century, the style again became collectable for some wealthy white women. They collected antiques that celebrated black slavery but also purchased new trinkets that were made to capitalize on the popularity of the style. Meaning new generations of wealthy white people capitalized on fetishized black slave images.

None of that is attractive, IMO.

And I am less offended that PM wore this in front of Meghan, than that she has been wearing this brooch in front of people of color all these long years. At best, she needs to wake up and think about the meaning behind stuff she finds "attractive."

And yes, I look at beautiful old (and new) diamonds and think about the blood that is behind them. And I am betting that that there are one or two members of the BRF that do as well.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
  #97  
Old 12-26-2017, 01:02 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
ONLY those judging the PAST [and its artifacts] by the Today's notions and woefully misunderstanding the nature of it's art would make such a link...

If you do, that's your prerogative, personally I do not.

Ahh, but you can accept that something was art within the time that it was made while also realizing that it no longer needs to be displayed (or the way in which it is displayed should be changed) because it no longer represents the values of the day.

Blackamoor art may not be the same as the depictions of African American slaves, both in their history, nature, and overall context, but they’re still a vestige of society as it was - when people of colour were viewed and treated as less than white people.

Thus, while it might be one thing to admire the craftsmanship of such a piece, or even to think that the piece itself is beautiful, it’s another thing to explicitly wear such a piece. At best it displays a complete ignorance of history and society, at worst it displays a racist attitude. In all likelihood, what it’s displaying is that the person displaying such a piece does not care about how such a piece does represent one of the worst aspects of human society - the general belief that some people are less than others simply because of the colour of their skin.
  #98  
Old 12-26-2017, 01:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
Again this "deeply racist history" doesn't apply to the decorative arts concerning the blackamoors ;

"Blackamoors have a long history in decorative art, stretching all the way back to 17th century Italy and the famous sculptor Andrea Brustolon (1662-1732). They are often mistaken for depictions of the African American slaves and the ornamental pieces that they inspired; however, these decorative gems are distinctly different".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacka...e,Collectors-5

We see what we want to see ...
It’s interesting how selective you are about this because if you keep reading to the next paragraph, then you’d see that in modern society, it is seen as having racist connotation relating to racism and colonialism.

So you are right in we see why we want to see, but that’s certainly not one sided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade View Post
I agree. We do not know what MM thought about it.

BUT... when you have 2 great-uncles who were Nazis, distant cousins (Charlie Coburg for example) who were Nazis, had access to the BEST education in Great Britain and then claim you do not know what that is around your arm...Harry.....um....no, you don't get a pass.
Harry never claimed to not know what that was. He made a bad decision and has since apologized for it. Young people do stupid things and aren’t always considerate or thoughtful. What they find as humorous or interesting just boggles the mind sometimes. And they often see the trot of their ways when they mature as I’m sure we’ all have done things we are embarrassed about when we were young. Although perhaps not on this scale. As long as he doesn’t keep wearing it afterwards and behaves as a decent human being afterwards, I don’t think they should forever be defined by a costume when they are 20.
  #99  
Old 12-26-2017, 01:12 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
It’s interesting how selective you are about this because if you keep reading to the next paragraph, then you’d see that in modern society, it is seen as having racist connotation relating to racism and colonialism.

So you are right in we see why we want to see, but that’s certainly not one sided.
And , at your turn, if you bother to see the endnotes, you'll see that this sentence is directly linked ...to the PM' brooch affair ! Because until now, again, blackamoor decorative art was not directly linked to racism....
  #100  
Old 12-26-2017, 01:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,059
My opinion is unchanged, as I daresay others is..
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dubai Ruling Family at the Newmarket Horse Race: 2012 - 2013, 2015 Artemisia Ruling Family of Dubai 17 05-07-2017 06:09 AM
the casiraghi trio dating outside their race stephanie201985 Princess Caroline and Family 81 08-13-2009 08:37 AM
Fargerik Fotball (Football against Racism) sofajr Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Family 7 06-10-2008 05:50 AM
Do you think Harry (or Wills) will ever date outside their race? babybird The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 167 03-14-2006 08:22 AM




Popular Tags
alqasimi aristocracy armenia belgian royal family castles charles of wales countess of snowdon countess of wessex crown crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history earl of wessex french revolution friendly city genealogy germany greece headship henry v house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha kiko king philippe lady louise mountbatten-windsor lithuanian castles marriage mbs meghan markle monaco christening monarchist monarchy monogram naples nobel 2019 norwegian royal family official visit palaces potential areas prince harry prince of wales prince peter princess royal queen mathilde rania of jordan romanov family savoy saxony shakespeare south africa south korea spanish royal state visit sweden swedish history swedish royal family swedish royalty united kingdom usa


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×