The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 -

[Osipi]

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. ?

 

[TLLK]

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=firefox-b-1-d&q=morganatic+marriage+meaning

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.

 

[Jacknch]

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.

 

[Harald]

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/2...-quits-after-row-over-meghan-racism-statement

After Piers Morgan, another one bites the dust...

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

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/2...-quits-after-row-over-meghan-racism-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?

 

[mary mary]

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....-describe-meghan-markle-explained-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.

 

[TLLK]

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/

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.

 

[Harald]

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/

 

[Harald]

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...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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/so...ed-soe-responds-to-sussexes-claims-of-racism/

 

[Curryong]

There is this, published by the Fail, just after it was discovered that Harry was dating Meghan. It’s references to gang-scarred Compton would be read by many as a racial attack on Meghan’s mother’s background. Doria in fact lived/lives in Windsor Hills.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

And this, which refers to Rachel Johnson’s comments about ‘rich, exotic DNA’ in an article which also spoke about Doria being ‘a dreadlocked lady from the wrong side of the tracks’.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...ent-prince-harry-exposes-quiet-racism-n825516

 

[Erin9]

Janina says Meghan authorized her to speak. Interesting.



Also Janina says the whole family knew, which contradicts what Harry said. He said he was too ashamed to tell his family.

So, Harry said the interview would be their only commentary on BRF/exit, etc.

But Meghan is authorizing her friends to talk. If your friends are speaking on your behalf...you’re still talking IMO.

That took about 30 seconds. What a shock.

 

[Erin9]

"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...

You’re right. I took a quick glance at the foundation website. They really like the word compassion. Too bad they lack it. This interview was anything but compassionate.

I wonder if anyone else has pointed out this hypocrisy.

 

[Sionevar]

The Daily Mail is now reporting the Queen plans to 'reach out to Harry for peace talks'.

Is there any chance this could all end with Harry and Meghan back in the fold? I would say no, but stranger things have happened...

 

[Queen Ester]

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....-describe-meghan-markle-explained-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.

This is the demographics of Compton as of 2019, I think if you for it, you can find racism or antisemtism anywhere.

The racial makeup of Compton was 31,688 (32.9%) Black; 24,942 (25.9%) White, (0.8% Non-Hispanic White); 655 (0.7%) Native American; 292 (0.3%) Asian; 718 (0.7%) Pacific Islander; 34,914 (36.2%) from other races; and 3,246 (3.4%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 62,669 persons (65.0%).

 

[Queen Ester]

This is the demographics of Compton as of 2019, I think if you for it, you can find racism or antisemtism anywhere.

The racial makeup of Compton was 31,688 (32.9%) Black; 24,942 (25.9%) White, (0.8% Non-Hispanic White); 655 (0.7%) Native American; 292 (0.3%) Asian; 718 (0.7%) Pacific Islander; 34,914 (36.2%) from other races; and 3,246 (3.4%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 62,669 persons (65.0%).

Kate's mother was ridiculed for being a stewardess, I don't remember Kate giving much thought in public at least.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is this, published by the Fail, just after it was discovered that Harry was dating Meghan. It’s references to gang-scarred Compton would be read by many as a racial attack on Meghan’s mother’s background. Doria in fact lived/lives in Windsor Hills.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

And this, which refers to Rachel Johnson’s comments about ‘rich, exotic DNA’ in an article which also spoke about Doria being ‘a dreadlocked lady from the wrong side of the tracks’.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...ent-prince-harry-exposes-quiet-racism-n825516

It should be noted that both of those headlines/comments appeared in the Daily Mail (which is not held in high esteem by the general UK public, to put it mildly), and were widely condemned at the time they were published.

 

[Curryong]

But Jenna didn’t say anything much which was the reason the host became annoyed with her.

And the reference to all the staff and family knowing may not refer to when the suicidal thoughts etc occurred but shortly afterwards. Things may have seeped out to others after Meghan went to see the HR.


Harry might well have felt ashamed to confide in his family that Meghan was struggling if there had been feelings expressed within the family circle when he told them he wished to marry Meghan.


After all, wasn’t there a remark supposedly made by Philip on the lines of ‘You step out with showgirls, you don’t marry them’ and William referring to ‘that girl’ and him knowing nothing of her background. These are only a tiny bit of what we do know was presumably said when Harry contemplated marrying. We don’t know what conversations went on in the family, (if any.)

 

[Erin9]

I hate to bring up the racism issue, but it really bothers me that Meghan brought up the alleged racist incident when she didn’t even hear it herself. There’s something wrong with that IMO. She threw the family under the bus with millions watching over something she never even heard.

No matter what, I think it should have stayed a private family matter, but her total lack of first hand knowledge makes it worse IMO.

That sets aside her and Harry’s inability to get basic facts straight....

 

[AC21091968]

Brendan O’Neill has released three articles on Spike Online criticising Harry and Meghan, coming from a republican and free speech activist. After reading all three of them, the third one is the most scathing, especially when he threw in some politics.

The unbearable victim complex of Meghan Markle
The Oprah interview was an emotionally manipulative performance designed to consolidate Harry and Meghan’s power.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/08/the-unbearable-victim-complex-of-meghan-markle/

Thou shalt not criticise St Meghan
As Piers Morgan has discovered, if you diss the patron saint of wokeness you’re in trouble.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/09/thou-shalt-not-criticise-st-meghan/

No, Harry, the British press is not bigoted
Harry and Meghan’s hatred of the tabloids is underpinned by a nasty strain of elitism.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/09/no-harry-the-british-press-is-not-bigoted/

To give a little bit of the context of "elitism", there was an audience member of Question Time who asked "How is Labour going to win any election when there is newspapers like The Sun and The Times are having such an influence on northerners and manipulating them - let’s use the word brainwashing because that’s what it comes down to with their headlines. They don’t have a chance". And I think this was what Brendan meant by comparing Harry & Meghan to "Corbynista who’s taken one too many media-studies classes".
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...update-sunday-times-brexit-news-jeremy-corbyn

 

[Heavs]

Kate's mother was ridiculed for being a stewardess, I don't remember Kate giving much thought in public at least.

Kate was mocked for a lot of things that were beyond her control like her family history, class, virginity, looks, weight (huge amount about weight) and a lot of stuff that was highly sexist. There was also a conspiracy theory that her family was secretly Jewish and lying about it because her mother's maiden name was Goldsmith.

Meghan did suffer racism, as well as much broader anti Americanism that was more open and comments about her career along with everything else and that was very nasty and unacceptable.

However I don't subscribe to the "rudeness" meme going around for Kate, it was more than that, it was attacking a 20 something every which way there was in ways that would certainly get brought up in #metoo (upskirt attempts) and probably damaged her mental health.

Not to mention Bea and Eugenie being considered fair game because of their parents and sometimes unfortunate fashion choices from when they were about 12.

 

[Curryong]

It should be noted that both of those headlines/comments appeared in the Daily Mail (which is not held in high esteem by the general UK public, to put it mildly), and were widely condemned at the time they were published.

The Fail may not be held in high esteem by the British public (who IMO think tabloids are a form of entertainment not news organisations) but it has a huge circulation within Britain just the same.


And yes, there was a sense by the tabloids that those two articles went too far. So they changed tack and became more subtle. Digs that Meghan was no English rose, not ‘one of us’, and the racial stuff became dog whistle articles if you knew how to interpret it.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I think it's hard to say the media criticism of Meghan was racist without at least mulling over how much would have been different had Harry married a white American with the same background who did all the same things. Everyone compares it to the coverage of Kate, but people often forget that race isn't the only difference between Meghan and Kate, and probably not even the biggest difference.

Just as an example, I think the sensationalistic coverage of the California neighborhood would probably have been the same either way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And yes, there was a sense by the tabloids that those two articles went too far. So they changed tack and became more subtle. Digs that Meghan was no English rose, not ‘one of us’, and the racial stuff became dog whistle articles if you knew how to interpret it.

I have not seen the "English rose" or "one of us" articles you mention. But as far as I am aware the two widely-condemned articles above both appeared in the Daily Mail only.

 

[AC21091968]

Kate was mocked for a lot of things that were beyond her control like her family history, class, virginity, looks, weight (huge amount about weight) and a lot of stuff that was highly sexist. There was also a conspiracy theory that her family was secretly Jewish and lying about it because her mother's maiden name was Goldsmith.

Meghan did suffer racism, as well as much broader anti Americanism that was more open and comments about her career along with everything else and that was very nasty and unacceptable.

However I don't subscribe to the "rudeness" meme going around for Kate, it was more than that, it was attacking a 20 something every which way there was in ways that would certainly get brought up in #metoo (upskirt attempts) and probably damaged her mental health.

Not to mention Bea and Eugenie being considered fair game because of their parents and sometimes unfortunate fashion choices from when they were about 12.

I would call the attacks on Catherine are mostly snobbery, especially when the tabloid sneered about Carole's great-grandfather being a coal miner at Durham, her previous job as a flight attendant or accusing her being a "pushy" mother. There was also the description of "Wisteria Sister" and social climber on Catherine and Pippa.

Sadly, snobbery from the press will probably continue whenever a newcomer married into Royal Families. Daniel Westling, Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano are just some examples. Even Prince Philip faced opposition from the press and public when he married The Queen, though there was also criticism towards his sister's husbands especially after WWII.

 

[Harald]

Kate was mocked for a lot of things that were beyond her control like her family history, class, virginity, looks, weight (huge amount about weight) and a lot of stuff that was highly sexist. There was also a conspiracy theory that her family was secretly Jewish and lying about it because her mother's maiden name was Goldsmith.

I also remember reports of Kate getting the cold shoulder from staff and that William had to intervene to end that treatment.

 

[Prinsara]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...ent-prince-harry-exposes-quiet-racism-n825516

I couldn't help but see the end of this article: “You’re always setting up yourself for a bit of fall when you put expectations on one person of color, or woman of color, and expect them to be the redemption you’ve be waiting for,” Akpan said.

 

[Erin9]

Brendan O’Neill has released three articles on Spike Online criticising Harry and Meghan, coming from a republican and free speech activist. After reading all three of them, the third one is the most scathing, especially when he threw in some politics.



The unbearable victim complex of Meghan Markle

The Oprah interview was an emotionally manipulative performance designed to consolidate Harry and Meghan’s power.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/08/the-unbearable-victim-complex-of-meghan-markle/



Thou shalt not criticise St Meghan

As Piers Morgan has discovered, if you diss the patron saint of wokeness you’re in trouble.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/09/thou-shalt-not-criticise-st-meghan/



No, Harry, the British press is not bigoted

Harry and Meghan’s hatred of the tabloids is underpinned by a nasty strain of elitism.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/09/no-harry-the-british-press-is-not-bigoted/



To give a little bit of the context of "elitism", there was an audience member of Question Time who asked "How is Labour going to win any election when there is newspapers like The Sun and The Times are having such an influence on northerners and manipulating them - let’s use the word brainwashing because that’s what it comes down to with their headlines. They don’t have a chance". And I think this was what Brendan meant by comparing Harry & Meghan to "Corbynista who’s taken one too many media-studies classes".

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...update-sunday-times-brexit-news-jeremy-corbyn

Wow. Those were scathing. Thanks for sharing.

I largely agree with the sentiments.

 

[tommy100]

I think it's hard to say the media criticism of Meghan was racist without at least mulling over how much would have been different had Harry married a white American with the same background who did all the same things. Everyone compares it to the coverage of Kate, but people often forget that race isn't the only difference between Meghan and Kate, and probably not even the biggest difference.

Just as an example, I think the sensationalistic coverage of the California neighborhood would probably have been the same either way.

I've said about this before on the Sussex forums, I'm inclined to believe that a vast vast majority of any difficulties faced by Meghan and the staff in dealing with her are not at all about race but different culture clashes and down to Meghan being American rather than anything to do with her race. To be honest the interview just highlights that - they way Meghan talks about "its not like the movies with Princesses classes", no one teaching her the national anthem, 5am emails to staff, being seen as demanding, not feeling supported... I think the staff may have fallen short of realising the support needed for Meghan as she was American with, questionable, no knowledge of the Royal Family. In which case its a whole new world she had no clue about. To be fair to the staff the last few married ins had all been on the scene for a long long time pre-engagement and royal duties - Tim was an Equerry to the Queen before marrying Anne, Sophie dated Edward for 6 years before marrying, Kate and William dated for almost a decade before they married. This quick introduction of a new "royal" combined with Meghan being much more assertive and world wise feeling happier to stand on her own feet and deal with staff t me explains a lot of what may have happened and why there were issues. I'm not blaming anyone here either I'm just saying I think there were issues and things didn't run as smoothly and cohesively as everyone wanted.

 

[TLLK]

I couldn't help but see the end of this article: “You’re always setting up yourself for a bit of fall when you put expectations on one person of color, or woman of color, and expect them to be the redemption you’ve be waiting for,” Akpan said.

Being dubbed with such a load of expectations would be a truly unfair burden for any individual to have to bear IMO. They are simply fellow human beings.