The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:18 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
I think it was important to say they’re still loved. I have no doubt they (or at least Harry and Archie for sure) are.

I’ve been thinking - it’s also not like they’re saying they’re well LIKED members of the family- regarding only Harry and Meghan of course.
And it is much more than what Meghan herself said about her father when announcing he would not attend their wedding. She only expressed "I have always cared for my father".
__________________

  #382  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:19 PM
roseroyal's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rose Bush, United States
Posts: 5,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Unfair because we don't know who said what. And now the entire family is under suspicion.

How is that not unfair?

The entire family.
Put like that, perhaps unfair but un avoidable. Someone needed to think before they spoke.
Me personally, don’t suspect anyone, don’t accuse anyone. But believe someone is.
To be concerned about the reputation of ones family, as Harry said this person was - and therefore to make comments about ones skin tone was racist.
And perhaps it wasn’t family- perhaps it was the institution. But they said family.
__________________

  #383  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:22 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
As far as the issue of security, I definitely think that Harry should pay for it, but it seems that Harry is a little stingy and tight when it comes to his wallet. Remember the story about Cresida Bonas, when Harry would not pay for her ticket to the US, his friend's wedding
  #384  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
And it is much more than what Meghan herself said about her father when announcing he would not attend their wedding. She only expressed "I have always cared for my father".
All this falls into something I totally believe in. Something we all have the ability to say to anybody at anytime no matter who we are. It goes: "I love you but I really don't like you very much right now.". You can forever love the person but totally not like where they're coming from or what they're doing at the present time.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #385  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseroyal View Post
Put like that, perhaps unfair but un avoidable. Someone needed to think before they spoke.
Me personally, don’t suspect anyone, don’t accuse anyone. But believe someone is.
To be concerned about the reputation of ones family, as Harry said this person was - and therefore to make comments about ones skin tone was racist.
And perhaps it wasn’t family- perhaps it was the institution. But they said family.
Harry Windsor was clear. It was a member of his family. The media & social media have been full of it. Speculating who it is. They still are. Disgusting.

Harry Windsor knew he'd made a mistake because he scrambled to tell Oprah Winprey that it wasn't The Queen.

So we had the spectacle of Oprah Winfrey telling Gayle King on US tv that the Queen of the UK et all Head of the Commonwealth was not a racist! As if the world needs to be told that.

How demeaning for HM.

As if we need to be told this! The Queen has spent her entire life promoting the multi ethnic Commonwealth. It was well known that she & Mrs Thatcher disagreed about sanctions against Apartheid South Africa in the 1980's.

What this is going to do to race relations in this country is anyone's guess.

Harry Windsor has done a lot of damage. I hope he's happy with himself.
  #386  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:29 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by mary mary View Post
I really appreciate your comments and agree with basically everything you said... my only potential point of disagreement being what any of us would have done if suicidal in Meghan's position, only because I do believe when you're that depressed you don't necessarily think logically so it's hard to say.
To be honest, from this side of the pond, I did not see racial attacks, just sharp criticism about her spending, her fashion style, not following the royal protocol, such as walking ahead of Harry. Could somebody point me to an article that actually attacking her for being bi-racial?
  #387  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:32 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseroyal View Post
Put like that, perhaps unfair but un avoidable. Someone needed to think before they spoke.
Me personally, don’t suspect anyone, don’t accuse anyone. But believe someone is.
To be concerned about the reputation of ones family, as Harry said this person was - and therefore to make comments about ones skin tone was racist.
And perhaps it wasn’t family- perhaps it was the institution. But they said family.
I was not aware of that Harry said this, but I have not re-watched the interview. Can you provide the quote where Harry said this? That the comment was made by someone linking a concern about his future children's skin color to concern about the reputation of the family?

I am unable to find it myself.
  #388  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:43 PM
andrew's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arad, Romania
Posts: 257
.

"CENTER FOR COMPASSION AND ALTRUISM RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, STANFORD MEDICINE
James R. Doty, MD is the Founder & Director of the Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education (CCARE) at Stanford Medicine. Dr. Doty is a world-renowned expert on the neuroscience of compassion. Archewell Foundation supports the Center’s mission for groundbreaking research and education on techniques for developing compassion and promoting altruism within individuals and society."

I think somebody should explain to Harry and Meghan what compassion and altruism means, because they are promoting it on their Foundation 's website but I don't think they understand it.
In their interview I' ve heard them talking about only ME, ME, ME (or us) :we want titles, we want protection officers, we want funding, we want only positive media coverage, we want attention, we want freedom, we want understanding and so on.
What about the needs of others?! What about compassion for others?! They say that their life is service... Self-service, maybe...
  #389  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:47 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
A reader listening to podcast Stories of our Times noted Times reporter Valentine Low said he knew Meghan "had a very bad time in the summer of 2019 & she had been in a state of distress. I knew about the conversation she had with the head of HR."

https://twitter.com/madaboutmeghan/s...230016515?s=21

Interesting. I haven’t heard this myself though.
  #390  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:47 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
From where I sit, just *one* statement from Harry and Meghan that can be proven to have as many holes as swiss cheese, pours a bucket of questioning on *everything* stated in that interview. Which is honest truth? Which is elaboration? Which is misunderstanding? What is pure fabrication to fit a narrative? Without factual backup, its all perspective of the person talking.

The picture painted by this interview wasn't a clear and precise presentation of facts that can be backed up. A lot of it was perception of something as seen by an individual. The one that threw me off the most was the claim of Archie not getting "prince" because his skin tone may be "darker" and without the "prince" title, he'd not be eligible for security. Boris Johnson does not hold any title and he's covered by the same Metropolitan Police Protection Command that protects the royals and so is Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. Mr. Khan's skin tone didn't come into play there either. That made me question Meghan's perspective on security.
Could it be because Harry's and Meghan's marriage is considered morganatic? That is why William's children are princes and princess because the Queen changed the law for them?
  #391  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckyhoneyface View Post
Could it be because Harry's and Meghan's marriage is considered morganatic? That is why William's children are princes and princess because the Queen changed the law for them?
Easy answer to that. No. Has nothing to do with it.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #392  
Old 03-10-2021, 01:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckyhoneyface View Post
Could it be because Harry's and Meghan's marriage is considered morganatic? That is why William's children are princes and princess because the Queen changed the law for them?



The Sussexes do not have a morganatic marriage. Prince Harry's children are in the line of succession and as Harry's eldest son, Archie can use his father's secondary title-Earl of Dumbarton. Upon his father's death, he'll become the Duke of Sussex. His sister could be known as Lady _____Mountbatten-Windsor, but that's unlikely as the parents don't opt to use those titles at this point in time. When Charles' reign begins, the children would become HRH Prince Archie and Princess _____ of Sussex according to the Letters Patent of 1917 as the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line. That couldn't happen with a morganatic marriage.


https://www.google.com/search?client...rriage+meaning


Quote:
Morganatic marriage, legally valid marriage between a male member of a sovereign, princely, or noble house and a woman of lesser birth or rank, with the provision that she shall not thereby accede to his rank and that the children of the marriage shall not succeed to their father’s hereditary dignities, fiefs, and entailed property.
  #393  
Old 03-10-2021, 05:40 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
This thread has now been cleaned up to removed a disruptive and unnecessary discussion that was not directly related to the topic of the thread.

Please remember that factual information concerning the allegation made by Harry and Meghan in connection with the colour of Archie's skin, as well as Buckingham Palace's response to it, is limited.

Accordingly, this limits our discussions to what we know and so we must avoid speculation and avoid diverting the topic beyond the scope of the thread.
__________________
JACK
  #394  
Old 03-10-2021, 05:43 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 74
The executive director of the Society of Editors has resigned after a rolling series of withdrawals from the National Press Awards over claims that there is no racism in the press made his position untenable.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...cism-statement

After Piers Morgan, another one bites the dust...
  #395  
Old 03-10-2021, 05:44 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post
The executive director of the Society of Editors has resigned after a rolling series of withdrawals from the National Press Awards over claims that there is no racism in the press made his position untenable.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...cism-statement

After Piers Morgan, another one bites the dust...
Looks like more people are holding the UK media accountable for their actions.

Can someone in the UK explain who the Society of Editors are? Are they like a watchdog organisation?
  #396  
Old 03-10-2021, 05:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: cu, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
To be honest, from this side of the pond, I did not see racial attacks, just sharp criticism about her spending, her fashion style, not following the royal protocol, such as walking ahead of Harry. Could somebody point me to an article that actually attacking her for being bi-racial?
I'm also in the US and don't claim to follow UK tabloids closely (or really at all), but off the top of my head this is one example of obviously racist coverage (or rather, I'm linking to an explanation of the racist article but you can easily google the original if you'd rather read it) --

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...ed-3159559?amp

I can't imagine any tabloid has explicitly criticized her *for* being biracial, if that's what you're looking for. But coverage can very much be racist and critiques in clearly racially-coded language, and that absolutely qualifies as racist. Most people in print are not going to attack someone simply and directly for being biracial. But to pretend that is the only form of racism would be pretty naive.
  #397  
Old 03-10-2021, 05:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Looks like more people are holding the UK media accountable for their actions.

Can someone in the UK explain who the Society of Editors are? Are they like a watchdog organisation?



https://www.societyofeditors.org/


Quote:
The Society of Editors has nearly 400 members, including editors, managing editors, editorial directors, training editors, editors-in-chief and deputy editors in national, regional and local newspapers, magazines, radio, television and digital media, media lawyers and academics in journalism education.
They are as different as the publications, programmes and websites they create and the communities and audiences they serve. But they share the values that matter.
  #398  
Old 03-10-2021, 05:59 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Looks like more people are holding the UK media accountable for their actions.

Can someone in the UK explain who the Society of Editors are? Are they like a watchdog organisation?
I'm not from the UK, but here is a link to the "About page" of the website of the Society of Editors.

https://www.societyofeditors.org/about/
  #399  
Old 03-10-2021, 06:02 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mary mary View Post
But coverage can very much be racist and critiques in clearly racially-coded language, and that absolutely qualifies as racist. Most people in print are not going to attack someone simply and directly for being biracial.
Not to mention the numerous bigoted and racist dog whistles...
  #400  
Old 03-10-2021, 06:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Looks like more people are holding the UK media accountable for their actions.
No, the statement did not claim there was no racism in the press. Essentially, it stated that the UK media holds the rich and powerful accountable for their actions (including calling out racism), along with supportive coverage (including of the Sussexes).

For example: "If it is simply the case the Sussexes feel that the press by questioning their actions and commenting on their roles when working as Royals funded by the taxpayer were being racist then they are mistaken".

The full original statement (earlier posted by Durham) along with the statement of clarification (which apologizes for not being clearer about the media's need to improve diversity but reiterates that the Society of Editors is proud of its history defending press freedom):

https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe...ims-of-racism/
__________________

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
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021 Jacknch The Electronic Domain 1196 03-09-2021 01:48 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names biography british british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! history house of windsor japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers monarchist movements monarchists mountbatten plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech st edward thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×