Potentially unpopular opinion - in the course of the interview, do any of them, H/M or Oprah elaborate on the tone or inflection of the question asked by the unidentified royal regarding the colour of Archie's skin? Rather than an overt act of racism, could it not have been a genuine question of curiosity as to the appearance of their grandson/great grandson/nephew/cousin to be? Would the question have had significance of they had asked whether Archie would be ginger/paler because of Harry's appearance, or a large nose, or inherited any other physical trait. It might have been insensitive on the part of the unidentified royal, but without knowing the tone and the context, which was inferred by Oprah, not confirmed by the interviewees, I hesitate to believe it was a matter of overt racism and discrimination.
@LowGravitasWarning, if you took that one thing alone, it would be a valid point. Thinking out loud essentially talking about an unknown. But coupled with the other information that was being talked about, it seems unlikely.
@LowGravitasWarning, you mean you're hesitating to make a concrete opinion until you have all the facts and have explored all possible sides of the situation?
BURN THE WITCH!!!
@LowGravitasWarning, I was thinking the exact same thing.
@ThePandaPool , I get your point on body of evidence - for me it points to a profoundly unhappy family for many reasons, but not institutional racism.
Insensitive, stressful to be around, at times behind the curve on many issues, at times distant and aloof, yes, I think the royals can be all these things. Happy family they are not and there are some members who probably could do with fading away into history/facing the music for their own proven misdeeds. But institutionally racist to the point where the entire family is dragged through the mud? Would Harry as loving husband want to being Meghan into that world? Would the marriage have been allowed (bearing in mind Q has sign off)? Would Charles have walked her down the aisle when her own father couldn't? An unhappy family with bridges now smouldering for the entertainment of the public, yes, but hate filled racists? I just can't make that connection.
@LowGravitasWarning, they don't even name who made the comment, I'm questioning the validity of this claim at all.
@LowGravitasWarning, the problem is that the examples you are using are cases in the public eye. Of course they act differently. These are royals. Their image and blood are all they have. Also the obvious elephant in the room with their bloodline being of the upmost importance, would breed racism by it's very nature. Its healthy to question the validity of this stuff is healthy, but what you're doing here is an obvious disregard for what's in front of you. This is like supporting flat earthers to encourage a different way of thinking.
@ThePandaPool , in that regard, you're basing accusations of racism on an implication and speculation of events to which there is no evidence. It amounts to "well they're a bunch of white people who have been in a private club for hundreds of years, they're obviously racist". This is your flat-earth analogue in reverse - "believe this because this opinion fits with my preconception of this subject with little evidence"
There must be evidence and fact, not insubstantial, unverified claims that run contrary to public events we DO have evidence and fact for. Could it all be a front? Could Queeny put a white teatowel over her head and start burning crosses as soon as the doors are closed - I'm not saying that's impossible, but until there is evidence, the court of public opinion should consider the impact of its judgements on the human beings it faces up to with little in the way of proof beyond our preconceptions of the institution.
We must be evidence led, in all things.
@LowGravitasWarning, "private club for hundreds of years" you conveniently left out the part that the club is VERY SPECIFICALLY about the members breeding. And I hate to break it to you, that simple fact does not qualify as little evidence.
@LowGravitasWarning, your one mistake is thinking that it has anything to do with race, when it is in fact about power and virtue signaling
@ThePandaPool , personally - don't think that holds much bearing here. They've married amongst other European royalty because that's what monarchy's do to cultivate power and allegiance - it's not a pleasant idea (inbreeding aside) but it's just the nature of the machine at the time. To marry outside was not "doing your duty". It's not pleasant and a trend now thankfully dead to place personal happiness of its members over the need to make sure if the Danes attack those filthy Germans, Uncle George will have our back cos second cuz Christoph is bonking third cuz Alice (not real example - just making a point).
Selective breeding is what just happens - if there was a black royal family in Europe that would have given them an edge when the practice was prevalent - I guarantee it would have been married into - colour of skin be damned and I doubt the bride/groom would have had much choice in the matter if it meant "doing your duty". Unpleasant - but again, inference, not evidence.
@Gallchobhair, it had crossed my mind, I'll admit - but my disagreement is that the world now throws the "racist" label with such abandon it doesn't understand or care the damage it causes. Whatever H/M's aim was here (something only they can answer) it has resulted in harm to a family, institution and a country at large as the world now looks sideways at this perceived sesspit of racists and xenophobes. I don't want that label and believe most are completely undeserving of it.
Let them put forward a case and have it be judged on the merits of fact and evidence - not inference, speculation and preconception.
@LowGravitasWarning, that doesn’t make sense to me. Sounded like they were worried about the tone of a baby that wasn’t even close to being born yet so clearly seems like a race issue. Also just based on how both Meg and Harry’s unease about how the question was brought up to them kinda shows that it wasn’t just a harmless question. And there’s also the fact that they refused to grant their child with the same titles and protection that would come from being the son of a royal
@LowGravitasWarning, I completely agree, which is why i say it has nothing to do with actual racism. They want attention
@supahotfiya, but it comes back to the fact that we simply dont know how it was said - no attribution to a person or information on circumstances. As I've said elsewhere in this thread - do I believe it might have been a poor question to ask? Yes. A sign of systemic racism? No.
And regarding titles and privileges - there are rules that dictate this - as Harry is not the son of the currently ruling monarch and is not in the direct line of succession, his children are not yet entitled to HRH titles. This is why the Prince Royal's children don't have HRH titles. When the Queen dies and Charles ascends to the throne, then he will become Prince Archie. This is a matter of protocol that while the Queen can override it, it would set precident for all.over children and go against the original spirit of the rule to keep the working royal family small and a small a burden to the nation as possible.
@LowGravitasWarning, For all we know, someone could have simply pointed out that if he had kids with her (he said that the conversation happened when they were dating) it would significantly reduce the chances of them being pasty-faced gingers like him. 🤷🏻♂️
It seems odd that what these two said is some kind of big reveal. Like it's some kind of surprise that all these rich powerful white royalties are racist.
@ThePandaPool , Blue eyed devils
@ThePandaPool , Almost as if the very representation of the british identity, that upholds the responsibility of conserving its culture, is a meanie torwards changing approaches from an actress and her dear husband.
Do you accept cookies? [Yes] [No]