The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:20 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mpression=true

A pretty good take from the Telegraph. I think if Meghan truly wanted to be ‘inclusive’ she would have chosen people from across the political spectrum. Maybe even a few men.
I disagree. Men have long been given platforms to do whatever they want and quite frankly we hear too much from them.

Anything that helps marginalised people is considered Left politically. The presence of Laverne Cox would surely rankle alot of people on either sides of the political spectrum because trans people are not considered human by either sides (especially those TERFs).
__________________

  #342  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:33 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
Yes, I agree the optics are all wrong again for the ordinary taxpayer who won’t be buying this magazine or buying into anything it is saying from many of these supermodels and glamorous foreign actresses.
I doubt that the "ordinary taxpayer" buys the very upmarket magazine Country Life but I don't remember this level of criticism when Prince Charles guest edited it.

As for the "supermodels and glamorous foreign actresses", they comprise less than half of the 15 women on the cover, which includes

* A boxer
* A Prime Minister
* An academic
* Two British actresses
* A novelist
* A ballerina
* A schoolgirl

The 16th person is the magazine's buyer of course (in the mirror).

I'd also add that "the ordinary taxpayer" does buy tabloid newspapers & magazines, which are packed with photos, articles & interviews with "supermodels & glamorous foreign actresses" because celebrity culture is huge & widespread.

There's no reason why Meghan's work can't include all sections of society from the low income people who benefit from Smart Works to the higher income people whose lifestyle is reflected in magazines like Vogue (and Country Life). While engaged in one specific project/section of society, she isn't discounting others and neither do all the working royals who spread their work amongst a wide range of society & projects.
__________________

  #343  
Old 07-30-2019, 04:39 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalriada View Post
Yes, I agree the optics are all wrong again for the ordinary taxpayer who won’t be buying this magazine or buying into anything it is saying from many of these supermodels and glamorous foreign actresses. It appeared a worthy effort until I saw the plagiarism around the Australian ‘Game Changers’ book and now the whole venture looks naff and copied.
Jacinda Ardern, Jane Goodall, Sinead Burke and Greta Thunberg are not supermodels or actresses.

What makes the activist actresses and models foreign? Many are British, by birth or choice.

They are women of color, from many ethnicities.
Adwoa Aboah-born in London
Adut Akech-born in South Sudan, grew up in Kenya and Australia
Gemma Chan-born in London
Salma Hayek Pinault-born in Mexico, husband is French
Francesca Hayward-born in Kenya, father is English, grandparents from West Sussex
Jameela Jamil-born in London

US born women of color
Christy Turlington Burns-mother is Salvadoran
Laverne Cox
Yara Shahidi

Others who are not actresses/models—
Ramla Ali-born in Somalia, lives in London
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie-born in Nigeria, moved to US as a young adult

Other than their activism, one thing these women generally have in common-they are highly educated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze View Post
I might be slow on the info pouring in, but who has had the time and energy to check on how left or not left these women are politically inclined? I mean, I didn't see one political comment from any of these women in any of the coverage. Is there some assumptions being made about "left" politics, or is any of it based on actual words said by these 15 women?
I think they are considered “left” by some simply because they challenge the “traditional” (white male heterosexual) status quo.
  #344  
Old 07-30-2019, 05:45 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mpression=true

A pretty good take from the Telegraph. I think if Meghan truly wanted to be ‘inclusive’ she would have chosen people from across the political spectrum. Maybe even a few men.
Are you saying that these things are specifically left wing? Who is being excluded (politically) by featuring women who are engaged in these projects/interests?

* mental health campaigns
* United Nations High Commission for Refugees
* disability campaigns
* campaigns against sexual assault & violence against women
* campaigns to make childbirth safer
* advocating for body positivity
* climate change campaigns

All of the above have been supported by members of the British Royal Family. Would you say they weren't being 'inclusive'?
  #345  
Old 07-30-2019, 06:52 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,614
What is being missed is the formal announcement was from Buckingham Palace. That means the head of communications at BP (who reports to the queen) would be aware of the seven month long project and the theme. I wouldn't be surprised if HM has an advance copy of the issue and leafing through it at Balmoral. The point is, if this were a problem it would have been a no go from Elizabeth Windsor herself.
  #346  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:12 AM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,539
I don't have an opinion yet on the content of the Vogue issue, since I haven't had a chance to read it, but I'm looking forward to that. The cover is, at the very best, derivative, but there's a lot of unoriginal covers out there so I don't think that's a big deal. I do find the inclusion of the mirror a little cringe-worthy, however.

What I want to push back on is the idea that is frequently trotted out here that the Queen signs off on and personally approves everything that comes out of Sussex-land. This is not one that is borne out by many years of previous PR disasters that have apparently caught the Queen and her advisors off guard. Sometimes BP gets it right, sometimes they drastically miscalculate, and past performance indicates that they don't always get in front of the curve in a timely way. That in no way implies that I think the Vogue initiative is a problem, it's just that the idea that the Queen is this all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise being who approves every detail of her family's lives is bizarre.
  #347  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,258
General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I agree. I think Meghan would have come under immense criticism for not guest editing Vogue UK. I do think she is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't by some whatever project she chooses, so she may as well do something that interests and inspires her.


That sums up my feelings. I think she would have been heavily criticized for doing anything other than UK, even though US would get more attention. Especially since she’s from the US. She’d have been accused of favoring her homeland, etc.

IA- she may as well do what interests her. People are going to complain anyhow.
  #348  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post

What I want to push back on is the idea that is frequently trotted out here that the Queen signs off on and personally approves everything that comes out of Sussex-land. This is not one that is borne out by many years of previous PR disasters that have apparently caught the Queen and her advisors off guard. Sometimes BP gets it right, sometimes they drastically miscalculate, and past performance indicates that they don't always get in front of the curve in a timely way. That in no way implies that I think the Vogue initiative is a problem, it's just that the idea that the Queen is this all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise being who approves every detail of her family's lives is bizarre.

Right! I think sometimes people overlook the fact that the Queen is 93.
Even though her stamina is incredible for her age, she simply can't oversee every action by her extended family.
No one could.
  #349  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,679
Once again, I do think people are looking above and beyond what this project is and what it set out to do. From the cover of the issue to the women selected and even which publication of Vogue it should have appeared in. UK or US?

I'm just going to take the whole thing as face value and what the aim was to have this edition put together with Meghan guest editing. The focus is on women that make a difference. A collage of women from all walks of life that have accomplished something that makes them stand tall and proud to be women. That's enough for me.

Collages as a cover? In my art training, we learned that when that aim of a painting or a photograph or a drawing is to present focus on more than one specific item or person, a group is used. Learned that back when I had an extra wide parking spot at school for my dinosaur. It still remains true.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #350  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:31 AM
Rena M.'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Kraków, Poland
Posts: 134
Beautiful and wise words from Harry

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/prin...ber-2019-issue

Quote:
It’s the same as an unconscious bias – something which so many people don’t understand, why they feel the way that they do. Despite the fact that if you go up to someone and say, “What you’ve just said, or the way that you’ve behaved, is racist” – they’ll turn around and say, “I’m not a racist.” “I’m not saying that you’re a racist, I’m just saying that your unconscious bias is proving that, because of the way that you’ve been brought up, the environment you’ve been brought up in, suggests that you have this point of view – unconscious point of view – where naturally you will look at someone in a different way.” And that is the point at which people start to have to understand.
__________________
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, "Bigoted Brits will be infuriated and unforgiving. I am already getting emails about how “the woman will pollute the bloodline” and stain national purity" https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnis...tional-family/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzAp5IhyL4
  #351  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:46 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,475
Let’s not get into a debate about politics, please. Any further political posts about will be deleted.
__________________
  #352  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,922
Unconscious bias. This coming from a person who referred to an Asian soldier as a ‘paki’ and ‘raghead’.

I think it’s time for the Sussexes to stop lecturing as they’re coming across slightly hypocritical.
  #353  
Old 07-30-2019, 10:55 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,510
In other news Harry mentioned in the Jane Goodall interview the plan for them was 2 kids Max for the couple. Good for them for not giving in to
pressure to have a large family.
  #354  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:01 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Lawrenceville, United States
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Unconscious bias. This coming from a person who referred to an Asian soldier as a ‘paki’ and ‘raghead’.

I think it’s time for the Sussexes to stop lecturing as they’re coming across slightly hypocritical.
Something for which he acknowledged and apologized for saying. Hopefully he has also learned from it. Which in my interpretation of the quote Harry is saying, acknowledge racist tendencies and make the effort to correct them. Perhaps he is not lecturing but speaking from the experience who is now seeing first hand the many forms of racism.
  #355  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:03 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Unconscious bias. This coming from a person who referred to an Asian soldier as a ‘paki’ and ‘raghead’.

I think it’s time for the Sussexes to stop lecturing as they’re coming across slightly hypocritical.
Yes, personal growth, opening oneself up to different perspectives and learning from ones' mistakes is truly a horror. Just disturbing.

Harry just does not want to get the memo that he will forever have to stay the 21-24 year old, emotionally stunted, ignorant, troubled soul. He can't just go around making improvements to his life and he certainly does not get to broaden his horizon.
It just has to be this way so he doesn't make others who are unwilling to do the same uncomfortable.
Truly shameful Harry. What have you done...
  #356  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:14 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Coastal California, United States
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
In other news Harry mentioned in the Jane Goodall interview the plan for them was 2 kids Max for the couple. Good for them for not giving in to
pressure to have a large family.
I hope they are able to have a second child, if that’s their wish.
I didn’t realize there was any pressure to have a large family. Generally the Royal family seem to mostly have had 2 children in recent years. Going back to the Queen mother and George VI - 2, Princess Margaret - 2, Princess Anne - 2, Prince Charles - 2, Prince Andrew - 2, Prince Edward - 2, Peter Phillips - 2. Zara Tindall - 2, so far. Indeed, I was surprised when William and Catherine had a third child, although the Queen had 4.
  #357  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:23 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Lawrenceville, United States
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
I hope they are able to have a second child, if that’s their wish.
I didn’t realize there was any pressure to have a large family. Generally the Royal family seem to mostly have had 2 children in recent years. Going back to the Queen mother and George VI - 2, Princess Margaret - 2, Princess Anne - 2, Prince Charles - 2, Prince Andrew - 2, Prince Edward - 2, Peter Phillips - 2. Zara Tindall - 2, so far. Indeed, I was surprised when William and Catherine had a third child, although the Queen had 4.
This was my thought. Perhaps as the future king, William is expected to have a somewhat larger family?
  #358  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:30 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessblack View Post
This was my thought. Perhaps as the future king, William is expected to have a somewhat larger family?
I find it very hard to believe that the decision that a couple make about the size of their family ever has anything to do with what is expected of them from the "outside world" or because of their role in life or for any other reason than the number of children is totally between the parents, themselves.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #359  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:32 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Unconscious bias. This coming from a person who referred to an Asian soldier as a ‘paki’ and ‘raghead’.

I think it’s time for the Sussexes to stop lecturing as they’re coming across slightly hypocritical.
It would be an interesting concept, if he and others were allowed growth, learning from their mistakes, and then talking about this growth and learning. I would think that Harry has a lot of knowledge about growing with unconscious and conscious bias, and how to unlearn that. How to change it. It's lifelong growth, actually.
  #360  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:50 AM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessblack View Post
This was my thought. Perhaps as the future king, William is expected to have a somewhat larger family?
I doubt William and Catherine are expected to have a larger family. It's just their preference.

I don't have a problem with Harry's comment in that Jane Goodall interview. It shows that he has grown and changed and that's a good thing.

Though I will say that I wish he had spoken a bit about his own growth and acknowledged how hurtful his past comments have been (I still shake my head when I think of him telling a black man that he didn't "sound black"). Putting that aside, I'm just glad he's speaking out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessblack View Post
Something for which he acknowledged and apologized for saying. Hopefully he has also learned from it. Which in my interpretation of the quote Harry is saying, acknowledge racist tendencies and make the effort to correct them. Perhaps he is not lecturing but speaking from the experience who is now seeing first hand the many forms of racism.
Unfortunately his apology was lacking and got a ton of criticism. He apologized, but then stated that the term wasn't used in malice, or as an insult. Which doesn't matter because the terms are offensive and racist. So his apology was exactly the kind of unconscious bias that he's talking about in the Goodall quote.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
archie mountbatten-windsor, duchess of sussex, duke of sussex, meghan markle, prince harry


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 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





Popular Tags
aristocracy armenia belgian royal belgian royal family birthday celebration charles of wales chittagong cht countess of snowdon cover-up crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife cyprus denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; dutch history dutch royal family dutch royals felipe vi future games germany haakon vii henry v hill house of bernadotte house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau jumma kent list of rulers lithuania lithuanian palaces mailing marriage mbs monaco christening monarchism nobel prize norwegian royal family official visit pakistan palestine popularity prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco princess elizabeth pronunciation queen paola romanov family rown royal tour shakespeare snowdon spain spanish royal startling new evidence state visit sweden swedish history thailand tracts united kingdom unsubscribe usa videos


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×