Manslaughter, not murder, then? I'm sure the corpse would be relieved. — unenlightened

:rofl: You made my day!

Well since we're here, and the interview is current, I'll make a comment as a non-royal married to a mixed race woman. On the one hand, who gives a fuck if mega-rich celebrities have harsh words said to them sometimes. On the other, the story is very very familiar to us and remarkably restrained and kind to the people and institutions that have clearly driven them out of the country.

The royals are racist because royalty is racist. They are brought up to look down on everyone and simultaneously claim to be living a life of service to the whole population. This is the very source of the doctrine of white superiority that justified the slave trade and the rape of the world known as the British Empire.

The most interesting aspect to me was the confession of how the Royal family has lost its real power, and is now a pawn of the media, allowed to continue on condition that they allow intrusive reporting, nd punished with negative reporting if they resist. My take is that the media need reform, and the royals need abolition. The royals do not serve and the media do not inform.

the marked difference between American racism and British racism — frank

Here in the Netherlands racism has been a global debate ever since our national children's festival suddenly was branded racist. It's like saying that Santa Claus promotes obesity. Which I'm doing right now. Because tradition sometimes needs to change.

What I don't understand about British culture is the fact that they have words such as francophile. Does that mean they themselves are anglocentric? And if that's true, does that mean that the world is anglocentric since English is the lingua franca?

Not trying to create hostility here, just trying to understand something.

Maybe what this comes down to in the end is a family that's not getting on; and that's a bit sad. My sympathy is somewhat dulled by the fact they are all so mightily privileged. I cannot deny an element of schadenfreude when I think they have family problems, just like any family; despite the fact they are so mightily privileged. Wealth no guarantee of happiness then? It makes my abject poverty so much easier to bear!

The royals do not serve and the media do not inform

@unenlightened

This is the main key how royals stay in the power. The secret pact of hide all conflicts between the royal family and press. They know it is a very important instrument of power. It can help you to clear your image or let you tumbling down.
I guess what Meghan and Harris did is strategic. Of course she lived racist issues inside Backingham Palace but how can she criticise it? It is not an easy step go and point the British royal family as racists.
If they spoke with Oprah is due to a clever move. Now it is a debate inside the UK about what the hell is going on with the royals. Which is more credible? Meghan or the royals?
If she did this during her time in UK nobody would believe it. But this interview in the US leaving from the royal family says it all. The British press would probably hide it because is a shame but they wouldn't share it with the world.
So here is more guilty the press/media stuff despite all the racist issues we will looking forward in the next months.

She's following a classic toxic female script.
— fishfry

What is that and why is this perspective not sexist? — frank

Because it doesn't imply that all women are like this, but that some women are like this.

The royals are racist because royalty is racist. They are brought up to look down on everyone and simultaneously claim to be living a life of service to the whole population. This is the very source of the doctrine of white superiority that justified the slave trade and the rape of the world known as the British Empire.

My take is that the media need reform, and the royals need abolition. The royals do not serve and the media do not inform. — unenlightened

:100:

I think the real issue is the plebeification of royalty (!). But this is complex and unpalatable to put into words, so it's easier to focus on some racist aspect.

A plague on both their houses -- Buckingham Palace and the California shelter for still-over-privileged couples.

What I don't understand about British culture is the fact that they have words such as francophile. Does that mean they themselves are anglocentric? And if that's true, does that mean that the world is anglocentric since English is the lingua franca? — TaySan

You probably know that French was the language of world diplomacy and the official language of England for three hundred years. English was the language of the plebian classes.

A plague on both their houses -- Buckingham Palace and the California shelter for still-over-privileged couples. — Bitter Crank

Royalty are generally a distraction from substantive issues and in general are extremely useful to media oligarchs in generating massive ratings, sales and clicks.

Marries into the Royal family then says, "It's not working for me." — fishfry

I have tried really really hard to find an ounce of sympathy in my heart for poor Megan, and you know what? There just isn't any. When it comes to Megan Markle, I have a heart of stone, No empathy either.

I do have sympathy for people who are born into the royal family of GB without granting permission first (See Schopenhauer1's antenatal fixation). They didn't ask to be born as relatives of QEII. But Markle? She went way out of her way to get there. Poor little disappointed rich girl.

:up:

I binge watched the Netflix ROYALS, so I guess you are right.

Marries into the Royal family then says, "It's not working for me."
— fishfry

I have tried really really hard to find an ounce of sympathy in my heart for poor Megan, and you know what? There just isn't any. When it comes to Megan Markle, I have a heart of stone, No empathy either. — Bitter Crank

So marrying into royalty makes you fair game? I don't agree.

It also comes with assumptions like Meghan hasn't married out of love and it was a rational decision. If she married out of love and underestimated it all or let her feelings guide her then when things cool down "this isn't working for me" is entirely valid. And being rich is totally irrelevant but somehow when people are rich and famous we expect all sorts of things from them. Maybe stop thinking rich people are accomplished, OK? They're just as fucked up as you and me.

I don't care because I don't have an opinion one way or the other and wish the story would piss off from the front page.

You probably know that French was the language of world diplomacy and the official language of England for three hundred years. English was the language of the plebian classes. — Tom Storm

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me

Yay!

Don't people say, "I had to struggle, so I have no pity for you." ?

Probably have to develop some pity eventually, huh?

I'm not sure what you mean. Care to clarify?

You said about Meghan Markle that she was complaining about stuff that happens every day for people of color in America. I'm not saying that's wrong, or that she shouldn't have grown a thicker skin by now, I was just thinking that having no pity (which I do a lot unfortunately) could stand in the way of change.

We take our own experiences for granted. Do you know what I mean?

I love paradoxes and there seems to be one lurking in the background of all that's happening in the spotlight.

Typically, success is seen/projected as a team effort and failure as an individual slip-up. In this case, accusing the entire royal family is rather unusual don't you think?

In this case, accusing the entire royal family is rather unusual don't you think? — TheMadFool

It's odd that even though the accusation is particularised as a single conversation with one individual, and other relationships with the family are specifically mentioned as being close, still the accusation is taken to be of "the entire royal family".

Thing about institutional racism is that it is not personal. The policy is that the reputation of the Royal family is more important than the needs or comfort of the individual. This means in this case, that family is more important than race. That makes it institutionally racist, whatever the beliefs and other practices of any or all members are. Megan becomes "selfish" for finding that her race impinges on her life even in a life of privilege.

As Harry explained, the members of the Royal family are ALL trapped by the trappings of privilege. The cage is well gilded, and it takes another conflicting loyalty to even expose this, and thus open the possibility of escape.

Yeah, I know what you mean, frank, but ...

She had to know what she was getting into and if she really didn't it was willful ignorance on her part. Kiss a prince and his family turns into bigoted frogs. Really? I'm not gullible enough to believe that during their courtship the prince didn't tell the actress about his traumatic experiences of losing a mother who was once the victim of his family's cold cruelties. And she married into belated Royalty squatting atop the ruins of a reeking empire so expansive that it'd finally collapses only 75 years ago under the weight of imperial overreach of its boot on the necks of most black brown & yellow peoples around the globe for centuries – white supremacy über alles! An American citizen who will capitulate her Independence from the imperial yoke by accepting a royal title of "princess" or "duchess" or whatever and wear the damn tiara (along with all the imperial pomp & trappings of colonial masters) – WTF? Had this actress ever read "The White Man's Burden" or even understood her own country's own white supremacist "Manifest Destiny" which was extended by Kipling's imperialist verse?! For fuck's sake ... :shade:

No damn pity.

It's odd that even though the accusation is particularised as a single conversation with one individual, and other relationships with the family are specifically mentioned as being close, still the accusation is taken to be of "the entire royal family".

Thing about institutional racism is that it is not personal. The policy is that the reputation of the Royal family is more important than the needs or comfort of the individual. This means in this case, that family is more important than race. That makes it institutionally racist, whatever the beliefs and other practices of any or all members are. Megan becomes "selfish" for finding that her race impinges on her life even in a life of privilege.

As Harry explained, the members of the Royal family are ALL trapped by the trappings of privilege. The cage is well gilded, and it takes another conflicting loyalty to even expose this, and thus open the possibility of escape. — unenlightened

First, the royals make a great show of welcoming Megan Markle into the family and in just a couple of years wants to expel her from the same. Why on earth would they do this, given the fallout would be worse? Something doesn't add up.

Another point to note: why is Harry's conduct in all this not being given due consideration? He's royal family too and seems willing to stand by Megan Markle come hell or high water. Commendable, no?

Just saying...

white supremacy über alles! — 180 Proof

Well, where I come from, we´ve had frog eaters and black haired guys ruling us blondies for centuries...
You bring up Lady Di and all that, I think you´re on the right track there, Royalty, as well as noblesse and clans from Rockefellers, Hells Angels, or clans wherever never was about "supremacy", really. Not anything in the line of Meritocracy. Rather, a way for rather mediocre guys enjoying the fruit of the labor of others. And some kind of artificial imagery to cater for that. Meghan having a baby too dark might fck that up. She should, as you say, have been aware of that.

Give us some true Meritocracy and we'll see who is the surpreme...

Why on earth would they do this, — TheMadFool

It doesn't look much like a barrel of laughs for anyone. I suspect that people did what they did on all sides for reasons other than to arrive where things stand. Of course no one wanted to expel her and get all this grief; but it is the nature of the institution - its whole identity and raison D'etre - to separate itself from the riff-raff. The individuals do what the institution is set up to do, not what they want to do. That's why I call it a gilded cage. Harry married who he wanted, whereas his father, Charles, did his duty, and had what he wanted on the side. A pair of disasters.

Although there’s research indicating that infants demonstrate a preference for caregivers of their own race, any future racial biases and bigotries generally are environmentally acquired. Adult racist sentiments are often cemented by a misguided yet strong sense of entitlement, perhaps also acquired from one’s environment.

One means of proactively preventing this social/societal problem may be by allowing young children to become accustomed to other races in a harmoniously positive manner. The early years are typically the best time to instill and even solidify positive social-interaction life skills/traits, like interracial harmonization, into a very young brain. Human infancy is the prime (if not the only) time to instill and even solidify positive social-interaction characteristics into a very young mind.

Irrational racist sentiment can be handed down generation to generation. If it’s deliberate, it’s something I strongly feel amounts to a form of child abuse: to rear one’s impressionably very young children in an environment of overt bigotry — especially against other races and/or sub-racial groups (i.e. ethnicities). Not only does it fail to prepare children for the practical reality of an increasingly racially/ethnically diverse and populous society and workplace, it also makes it so much less likely those children will be emotionally content or (preferably) harmonious with their multicultural/-racial surroundings.

Children reared into their adolescence and, eventually, young adulthood this way can often be angry yet not fully realize at precisely what. Then they may feel left with little choice but to move to another part of the land, where their race or ethnicity predominates, preferably overwhelmingly so. If not for themselves, parents then should do their young children a big favor and NOT pass down onto their very impressionable offspring racially/ethnically bigoted feelings and perceptions, nor implicit stereotypes and ‘humor’, for that matter. Ironically, such rearing can make life much harder for one’s own children.