Canada, they are yours, for free!

[Guinevere]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/opin ... harry.html

Opinion

Black Britons Know Why Meghan Markle Wants Out
It’s the racism.
By Afua Hirsch
Ms. Hirsch is the author of “Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging.”
Jan. 9, 2020

The British press has succeeded in its apparent project of hounding Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, out of Britain. The part it perhaps didn’t bargain for, however, is the loss of Prince Harry — a much loved royal and a key part of the family’s global brand — along with her.
In a statement released this week, the couple said they wanted to “carve out a progressive new role” within the royal family and would “step back as ‘senior’ members, and work to become financially independent.”
The British press reacted with surprise at the “shock move abroad,” described variously as “seismic,” “selfish,” “rogue” and “an atrocious lapse of judgment.”
If the media paid more attention to Britain’s communities of color, perhaps it would find the announcement far less surprising. With a new prime minister whose track record includes overtly racist statements, some of which would make even Donald Trump blush, a Brexit project linked to native nationalism and a desire to rid Britain of large numbers of immigrants, and an ever thickening loom of imperial nostalgia, many of us are also thinking about moving.
From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists.

Those who claim frequent attacks against the duchess have nothing to do with her race have a hard time explaining these attempts to link her with particularly racialized forms of crime — terrorism and gang activity — as well as the fact that she has been most venomously attacked for acts that attracted praise when other royals did them. Her decision to guest-edit British Vogue, for example, was roundly condemned by large parts of the British media, in stark contrast to Prince Charles’s two-time guest editorship of Country Life magazine, Prince Harry’s of a BBC program and Kate Middleton’s at Huffington Post, all of which were quietly praised at the time.
Her treatment has proved what many of us have always known: No matter how beautiful you are, whom you marry, what palaces you occupy, charities you support, how faithful you are, how much money you accumulate or what good deeds you perform, in this society racism will still follow you.

In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race. The relatively few people of color — and even fewer if you count only those who have African heritage — who rise to prominence and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be “grateful” or told to leave if we don’t like it here.

The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it, and policies of recruiting people from the Caribbean and Africa for low-paid work and then discriminating against them in education and housing, is with us today: The scandal surrounding the wrongful deportation of black British people in recent years is still reverberating.
Meghan’s decision to join the family that is the symbolic heart of the establishment responsible for this troubled history was perplexing to many black British people, as we wondered whether she fully appreciated the institution she had entered.
Both she and Harry appear to have gained crystal clear vision as to their reality. It’s no wonder the couple want to leave and — as the coded statement that they want to raise their son, Archie, “with the space to focus on the next chapter” seems to suggest — protect him from the bile to which they’ve been exposed.

The British press, having attacked the couple continuously, now reacts with shock at this move. But the clues have been there for some time for anyone willing to read them.
There was the decision not to give Archie a title from birth — something that is expected among royal children of this rank but which Meghan and Harry appear to have chosen to avoid. Then there were the rumors last spring that they might relocate to a country in southern Africa.

In recent months, the couple have begun bypassing official royal channels and communicating with the press directly — most notably when the duchess said in a television documentary that she found adjusting to royal life “hard,” and Harry revealed that the tragic experience of the death of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, made him want to “protect” his wife and family.
All were signs that the couple would not abide by royal business as usual, to the extent that even announcing this decision to step down from their roles as senior royals appears to have taken Buckingham Palace by surprise.

I am not at all surprised. This was the bitter shadow of their sunny May 2018 wedding. How many of us suspected — hoping but doubting we were wrong — that what would really initiate Meghan into her new role as a Briton with African heritage would be her experience of British racism. And ironically, by taking matters into their own hands, Harry and Meghan’s act of leaving — two fingers up at the racism of the British establishment — might be the most meaningful act of royal leadership I’m ever likely to see.

[TPFKA@W]

Remember Fergie and how she was treated by the press? Diana of course too, and "Waitie Katie"? Long before them there was the Duchess of Windsor. The press had field days with all. Meagain, as some had dubbed her, is not special in that distinction except the others had no card to pull.

[Guinevere]

Yes, I remember all of them, and read the articles then (except the Duchess of Windsor, but that was a different time and a different issue), and I've read the articles now. I read a different tone.

Fergie was a bit chunky, and god forbid not a virgin, and we all know that's about the worst you can be as a woman. Except if you're an American woman with African-American roots.

I have no skin in this game, but if it were my decision, I'd let them go (because, among other reasons, reducing the size of the "official" monarchy is a good thing) with the following conditions:

1. They give up the HRH titles and any monies from the civil list.
2. They can keep the Sussex title, but cannot benefit financially from it (apparently they are trying to register Sussex Royal, which is just so crass).
3. They can keep their Windsor digs, so long as they are in the UK X% of the time, and carry out X appearances annually for the Crown (to be negotiated, but something like 30% of their time and 150-200 appearances, total, for both).
4. Daddy may give them what he pleases from his income from Cornwall. They'll have to figure out the rest.
5. They pay for their protection overseas. The Crown covers it in the UK.
6. Neither Harry nor his children stay in the line of succession.

[ex-khobar Andy]

As I said about 30 posts ago in this thread, I really have not seen the racism which Afua Hirsch (NYT; Guin's post) refers to but obviously, as a black woman, she has a better perspective than I do on the topic, so she sees it more clearly

Last night I watched Sanditon (unfinished Jane Austen novel) on PBS. There is a black actor, playing the role of a Caribbean sugar heiress - worth £100,000 which is more than the rest of the characters put together - called Crystal Clarke (the actor, not the heiress). She looked familiar so I looked her up on Wikipedia to see what she had been in before. That didn't help me but I did come across this:

Clarke was born and raised in Essex County, New Jersey to Caribbean parents; her mother is from Trinidad and her father is from Guyana.[3][3][4] She has one brother. She made the decision to leave the United States to pursue acting because she felt her race and class put her at a disadvantage.[5] Clarke moved to Glasgow to attend the Royal Conservatoire and graduated in 2014.[3]

Racism exists in both the US and the UK. We have a president in the US who openly uses racist tropes and images and words: "good people on both sides" and "I don't want black guys counting my money" and you name it. Boris Johnson isn't much, if at all, better in this regard although to be fair to him (why? the crowd shouted) he's an equal opportunity asshat. I really haven't seen much of it personally but maybe that's down to the company I choose to keep. I recall some of my guys who were late to a shift once opening my eyes to the DWB (driving while black) issue (1980s Buffalo NY but elsewhere and still AFAIK a problem).

Maybe it's better in Toronto or Vancouver or wherever they eventually settle. Toronto is (or was when I used to visit regularly) seemingly a real melting pot of a city. But I really do not think that, as a general statement, they they will find that moving to N America will significantly lessen the extent and strength of the racism they will see and suffer from daily.

[TPFKA@W]

I have watched racism play out in the raw. I know it exists and exists in corners where one would not expect it to exist. I watch black women who are so hard on each other, and who are really hard on black men. I now have a biracial step grandchild who I hope to protect from the institution. It is one hell of an uphill battle. With all that, I have not seen the racism against Megan play out in the press. God only knows though, what went on behind closed doors, because I know how white people talk if they think no one of color will hear. But for all that, I believe she knew what she was facing, she is no child, closing in on 40 at a gallop and her expiration date in Hollywood is already up, because ageism is quite acceptable. She has had to face sexism and racism in Hollywood prior to this, so yeah, she gets nothing out of this but the dress she has on her back and Harry, who is nothing special at all in the way of looks nor particularly intelligence, gets nothing else of benefit by way of having been born royal, from this day hence. Foot your own damned security bills.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, I remember all of them, and read the articles then (except the Duchess of Windsor, but that was a different time and a different issue), and I've read the articles now. I read a different tone.

Fergie was a bit chunky, and god forbid not a virgin, and we all know that's about the worst you can be as a woman. Except if you're an American woman with African-American roots.

I have no skin in this game, but if it were my decision, I'd let them go (because, among other reasons, reducing the size of the "official" monarchy is a good thing) with the following conditions:

1. They give up the HRH titles and any monies from the civil list.
2. They can keep the Sussex title, but cannot benefit financially from it (apparently they are trying to register Sussex Royal, which is just so crass).
3. They can keep their Windsor digs, so long as they are in the UK X% of the time, and carry out X appearances annually for the Crown (to be negotiated, but something like 30% of their time and 150-200 appearances, total, for both).
4. Daddy may give them what he pleases from his income from Cornwall. They'll have to figure out the rest.
5. They pay for their protection overseas. The Crown covers it in the UK.
6. Neither Harry nor his children stay in the line of succession.

I think that’s a very fair proposal - but I suspect from comments I’ve been reading on articles in British press that there might be a great deal of resistance to them getting any financial support from the crown at all, and many British people seems to consider the Duchy of Cornwall to be a public fund as it would apparently legally revert to the people should the monarchy ever be dissolved. (Can’t pretend to be versed in the legalities of all that, it’s just what I’ve read.)

I wholeheartedly agree on the bit about not profiting from the Sussex royal brand, it IS very crass - but it’s clear that’s what they intend. I am so torn because I really don’t like to tear a sister down, but I have very bad feelings about Ms. Markle - unless she’s suffering from postpartum and that explains what’s going on here, she IS a totally mature woman who didn’t walk into the royal family with any reasonable naïveté - not like the 19 year old Diana, who she apparently revered and whose life story she must’ve known in detail just from reading People magazine.

Anyway, I’m sad to say it but I predict a dissolution in the future for this marriage - how far down the road who knows, but these are two people who really didn’t have much time to get to know one another and within months of marriage one of them has landed in a pretty huge rift with his family (the other has had a rift with most of hers for years already) and most all his lifelong friends, and now is being relocated thousands of miles from where he’s lived and been settled all his life. I don’t know, it just doesn’t feel like a recipe for long term marital success - but you never know. Perhaps they’ll live happily ever after in Canada - a most congenial spot.

[Guinevere]

Don't forget, Her Majesty loves Harry, no matter what she thinks of his choices, and wants the best for him. IMO, that includes keeping him tied to the Crown in some way, and encouraging a positive relationship among the parties. And I respect her, so she gets what she wants.

[TPFKA@W]

Don't forget, Her Majesty loves Harry, no matter what she thinks of his choices, and wants the best for him. IMO, that includes keeping him tied to the Crown in some way, and encouraging a positive relationship among the parties. And I respect her, so she gets what she wants.

Her Majesty did not take the abdication and ensuing shenanigans of her uncle David in a particularly forgiving manner. I would not be surprised to see a similarly unloving approach here.

I love the comments about Meagan leaving to be in a position to play herself on The Crown. Harhar.

[Scooter]

There's a universe of difference between giving up the Crown and what is happening here. And HM would have probably been a lot more forgiving of her uncle (which was hinted at in several gestures over the years) had she not been faced with the justifiable bitterness of her mother.

And after the trials she faced with Margaret, I think she has a lot more sympathy for the position of those who are or will be siblings of the Sovereign, living under the shadow of the Crown, but knowing that they will never wear it.

[TPFKA@W]

Well, one thing is certain, it is all conjecture and only those present and a fly on the wall know for sure.

[ex-khobar Andy]

2. They can keep the Sussex title, but cannot benefit financially from it (apparently they are trying to register Sussex Royal, which is just so crass).

Crass indeed. I do feel a little strongly about this because I have an indirect personal connection. And I'm not talking about the time I met Diana long before she met Charles. (I used to know her grandfather which means I knew Harry and Wiliam's great grandfather and George and whatever the others are called's great great grandfather which makes me feel really fucking old.)

My grandfather fought and was wounded in WW1 (Second Battle of Arras, 1917) and walked, the rest of his life, with a limp. He could still outwalk me when I was 14 so it didn't really slow him down but he did allow, when pressed, that it hurt. His regiment: the Royal Sussex. Fifty years later and coincidentally, I ended up in Sussex (~ 50 miles south of London) at University. The Royal Sussex regiment was disbanded in 1966 and held their last reunion in 1968. I attended some of the festivities with my grandfather. I was 18 and he must have been 76 or thereabouts. I went with him to his batman's house: WW1 army officers had servants on the battlefield who kept their officers supplied with coffee and probably shined their boots. I'm not defending the system - it's just the way it was. He was probably in his eighties and wasn't in the best of health. Folding money changed hands although my grandfather was very far from wealthy. Fifty years later, bonds forged on the battlefields of France were unbroken. The batman still called my grandpa Sir although I know he would have had no objection to being called Freddie.

The Royal Sussex was a storied regiment. Registering the name "Sussex Royal" to me is a bit like opening a bookshop and calling it Noble and Barnes. And Harry is an army guy.

[RayThom]

I think this whole thing is a giant ruse created to draw attention away from Randy Andy's illicit behavior connected to Jeffery Epstein and Donald Trump.

It seems like it's working. A royal masterstroke of misdirection.

Long live the Queen.

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[Gob]

Stealing that!!

[Sue U]

-"BB"-

OK, that was funny.

[Big RR]

I don't understand royal titles, but I always thought every child (or at least legitimate child) of a monarch was a prince or princess by birthright and that the title was not something which was conferred nor one which could be taken away anymore than the child's status as a child of the monarch could be removed; I guess the title of prince can be conferred on someone not the monarch's child (not sure how it it done) like Prince Phillip, and that this title is revocable.. Of course, if it can be taken away, I have no problem with that either, but then I really don't care one way or the other, but I was just wondering.

[RayThom]

I don't understand royal titles, but I always thought every child (or at least legitimate child) of a monarch was a prince or princess by birthright and that the title was not something which was conferred nor one which could be taken away anymore than the child's status as a child of the monarch could be removed; I guess the title of prince can be conferred on someone not the monarch's child (not sure how it it done) like Prince Phillip, and that this title is revocable.. Of course, if it can be taken away, I have no problem with that either, but then I really don't care one way or the other, but I was just wondering.

Exactly, who cares?

This monarchy, or any monarchical systems that remains, are an anachronistic affront to any reasonable expectation of true democracy. It's time to get a grip and let those stuffy Royals die an inevitable slow death.

Power to the people.

[Scooter]

I don't understand royal titles, but I always thought every child (or at least legitimate child) of a monarch was a prince or princess by birthright and that the title was not something which was conferred nor one which could be taken away anymore than the child's status as a child of the monarch could be removed; I guess the title of prince can be conferred on someone not the monarch's child (not sure how it it done) like Prince Phillip, and that this title is revocable.. Of course, if it can be taken away, I have no problem with that either, but then I really don't care one way or the other, but I was just wondering.

The rules can be and have been changed from time to time based on the circumstances. The general rule is that the children of a sovereign, the children of the sons of a sovereign, and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes or princesses. This general rule has been amended a few times to reach its present form. It has also been altered for specific circumstances. For example, George VI, who had no sons, changed it so that all children of the then Princess Elizabeth would be princes or princesses (which they would eventually have become only when their mother ascended to the throne). Conversely, Prince Edward (the Earl of Wessex) asked, and the Queen granted, than his children be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes/princesses. Princess Anne's children were never entitled to the style of prince/princess according to the general rule, nor did she wish to have an exception made for them.

[BoSoxGal]

Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, he didn’t get named a Prince by his wife. She gave him the English court title Duke of Edinburgh and authorized his precedence over all other royals except his eldest son before parliament.

[Scooter]

Philip was not a prince of the United Kingdom until 1957; since then he has been styled HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (prior to that he was HRH The Duke of Edinburgh). He had discontinued the use of his titles as a prince of Greece and Denmark several months prior to his marriage.

List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh