King Arthur would have been so disappointed in today's Royal Family.
I dunno, didn't Arthur sleep with his half-sister? ?
King Arthur would have been so disappointed in today's Royal Family.
And anyway, most of today's RF are paragons of virtue compared to many of England's former monarchs--who not only slept around, but started wars, and chopped off heads of anyone who got in their way. The modern RF seeks to "serve", not so much to "rule". I think that's progress.
Incest is pretty normal in the royal family.
It was not until the study of genetics began in the early twentieth century that the harm caused by inbreeding was recognized. For modern observers, it is easy to see its relation to royal biological problems, most noticeably in the case of the last Spanish Habsburg monarch, Charles II of Spain, incapable of procreation and suffering from a pronounced underbite – the Habsburg jaw.
Prince Andrew is a suspected paedophile. There are no values in the royal family from what I can see, other than self preservation of the 'firm' as they call it.
Hopefully Harry and Meghan will raise young Archie (modern version of Arthur) the prince in waiting, as a force against this corrupt outdated imperial institution. I'm sure it will probably happen naturally anyway, once he looks back at the news and sees what happened to his mother and grandmother.
We will see
I am a walking encyclopedia of kings and queens (it's always interested and fascinated me) King Henry Vlll is the one most people know, due to his infamous and vicious disposal of wives in his fanatical pursuit of male heir(s), but he did have some serious competition in the whackadoodle department.
I think there is never a "right" way to talk about racism. It's awkward and messy and NECESSARY. My fear is that the message will get lost. If somebody truly commented on Archie's 'darkness" of skin...
I would have felt awful, trapped, and bullied as his mother. And it would need to be called out.
I also believe the queen when she says she is saddened. I hope they can work this out as a family, and even if they cannot, I hope it deters future racism.
I think there is never a "right" way to talk about racism. It's awkward and messy and NECESSARY. My fear is that the message will get lost.
I agree with you 100%.
And I think the reason messages get lost is because hardly anyone can talk about it rationally-- it's too much of emotional landmine.
I hadn't planned to post in this thread anymore, but I would like to clarify something before I really tune this out, because I find the negativity suffocating.
PART 1
The interview wasn't 'just' about racism. If it had been, not a decent person in the world would have questioned anything and everybody would have offered support. What the media etc. has/have done is despicable and they should be held accountable! There are facts of what they have done for all to see. Nobody should have gone through that. It's bad. Period.
However, the interview wasn't 'just' about racism. It's also about a lot of things that were presented as facts like, for example, the claim Archie wasn't given a title because he's a person of color. This sounds horrible, but isn't true, it's the bloody law. He'll become a prince when Charles becomes King. Saying: "they want to change that" is hearsay and even then it is a known fact the RF is slimming down. This was happening even before MM entered the scene and has nothing to do with Archie...
Another one is the getting married 3 days before the actual event. Also not true, due to the law.
The security issue is also connected to something less simple than 'daddy cut me off'. Scotland Yard does this on taxpayer's money; protection. When you no longer work as a royal, and want to be a private citizen, you do not get the bodyguards. Otherwise it is hard to sell to the public. Remember the row in Canada when they were asked to foot the bill? So the blame lies with the government here.
Part 2
This makes people wonder about other stuff. What's to say that the comment about 'what skin color a baby would have' wouldn't be the same as 'will they have red or black hair'? 'Will they have mom or dad's eyes'? It's all about context there.
Those kind of things are overshadowing the interview and cause the problems and rifts. There are now fact-checker pages/articles etc. of all their statements. This is why I said they should have come with facts, not colored by emotions. Harry especially was so traumatized by his mother's death that I doubt he responded rationally to everything that happened.
Link to an opinion piece how Oprah was not conducting an objective interview: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/raymond-j-de-souza-harry-and-meghan-interview-with-oprah-was-entertainment-not-news
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/03/10/why-is-harry-and-meghans-son-not-a-prince/ on the prince issue.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9356741/Harry-Meghan-inconvenient-truth.html 'fact' checkers, although they also use Megan's half-sister's stories as facts, which of course, is not fact, but hearsay. Only factual documented events or laws are facts.
I hope I've managed to make my point come across a bit better now. I am not a royalist, but I do take issue with the truth. If you make accusations as hard-hitting like these, do it with some backup.
Again, I wish them all the best and hope they resolve it.
@moonbeam, I agree.
One's "truth" is often tied to their perceptions, not necessarily to the facts (truth). In my previous post I noted that I felt both Harry & Meghan had some issues. I grew up with a narcissistic parent, married one, and have a sibling I feel has a personality disorder that shares many narcissistic characteristics. I didn't watch the interview because when I had read that Harry was leaving the UK, all my red flags about NPD were flying high. The narcissist needs to separate their target from their support systems. The interview was a bully pulpit from my perspective since both knew the royals could not comment & retort in public. Narcissists- as we saw in the last 4 years- truly believe they are victims in all scenarios-even when they are the bully. I've noted more discrepancies than what have been already noted, and deception is the narcissist's closest ally. They feed off of others perceptions of them, so outside of their family, they tend to be very charming (exceptions being the malignant variety).
This is not to say that there wasn't some racism involved in the press, and on social media. That is part of the systemic racism problem that needs to be overcome. However when it comed to the comments about the baby, without context, it is hard to determine perspectives. Harry has had to apologize for racist comments he's made. He noted he meant no harm in his apology. Without context, how do we know intent? Were they worried about the possibilty of their children facing racism, or if their children could have different skin tones from each other- and who better to ask than those involved? Or were they simply racist?
I also won't question if Meghan was suicidal. Harry claimed in their engagement interview he told her what she'd be in for and it would be hard. The royals are a-political in public, so she had to muzzle her politics & opinions. Their rules are ancient (like Meghan having to bow to Kate, Eugenie, & Beatrice for example), so she was not going to be first ever, except maybe to Harry. The list is long on why a narcissist could crumble in such a situation.
However, when I think I've spotted a narcissist, ANY claim they make will be suspect to some degree.
I agree with everything you've said. Context and truth is EVERYTHING and much of this was in short supply in the Oprah interview which was full of half-truths and inflammatory innuendo set against a RF who could not/would not defend themselves in a similar fashion. Not to mention that threatening to give a potentially "explosive", globally-viewed interview airing your Family's "dirty laundry"(to whom dignity & privacy is vitally important) could easily be construed as a type of "extortion" ... and disloyal in the extreme ... to a family who has loved and provided for you all of your life. It is also very "tabloid-esque" and commercially self-serving which is something I thought H&M were hotly set against? The British tabloids may well have been vicious to H&M but they are not the same as (nor do they speak for) the RF.
Racism is despicable ... but so is Age-ism, Gender-ism and Weight-ism ... yet none of these latter issues would have provoked nearly the same level of response in this age of BLM as H&M and Oprah shrewdly knew. They all knew a ratings bonanza when they saw one. Again, not to justify racism or pedophilia or any other despicable aberration....but neither do I justify what amounts to emotional extortion which somehow, miraculously, manages to conveniently and simultaneously: Significantly increase your public relations, increase your brand awareness and increase your Nielsen ratings -- all at the same time. It does not pass the smell test for me. Truly nice people do not sell out their family for money. And their words and actions are often diametrically opposed.
Hopefully M can make peace with her own estranged family, H can make peace with his own family and the two of them can find a way to earn a living by their own talents and efforts w/o having to continue to trade upon, exploit & commercialize the RF name. To do otherwise is to lower their credibility.
Correction:
Hopefully M can make peace with her own estranged family, H can make peace with his own estranged family and the two of them can find a way to earn a living by their own talents and abilities w/o having to continue to trade upon, exploit & commercialize the RF name. To do otherwise is to publicly lower their own sense of credibility and integrity.
The security issue is also connected to something less simple than 'daddy cut me off'. Scotland Yard does this on taxpayer's money; protection. When you no longer work as a royal, and want to be a private citizen, you do not get the bodyguards. Otherwise it is hard to sell to the public. Remember the row in Canada when they were asked to foot the bill? So the blame lies with the government here.
I find it bizarre that the richest woman in the world can't afford to pay security for her own grandson. Why did she leave him without any security? she knew when he became a private citizen that he would be left without any security, but she didn't step in to protect him. That's very strange.
Also if the richest woman in the world could forgo her wages from the public finances for a few years then maybe we could give our nurses a pay rise instead of giving them a pay cut after the pandemic. That would be really serving the nation instead of constantly taking large sums of money away from public finances. She is a billionaire.
but times must be tight, because she can't even afford to pay security for her own grandson, grand daughter in law and great grandson.
Shameful to leave them in the lurch like that. You should always look after your own family until they can look after themselves, no matter what the differences.
Especially when the media have whipped up so much hatred towards her grandson and grand daughter in law to make them a target.
To me this is mafia tactics of intimidation. "Toe the line or we'll leave you exposed to danger". Whoever is advising the Queen gave some very bad advise indeed.
It's weird to think that people think the Queen doesn't have any money of her own when she has a vast fortune of private money.
She does like to hide her wealth tho.
"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.
A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.
Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures."
Now that's corruption. The Queen should not be using her powerful position to lobby for changes to the British government to change laws for her OWN benefit. What has she got to hide? why is she so embarrassed about people knowing about her vast fortune? maybe because people will start asking questions. Hmmm.
Multiple Issues for the RF in this situation, but foundationally what stands out first is that ALL families have problems, it’s just that most of us handle them privately out of respect for family relationships. Is there anyone that believes that the correct path to heal these grievances was to sit down with a talkshow host for an internationally aired interview and then publicize the results of the post interview phone call with Dad and Brother? Let us all think about Family members we don’t trust and why. It always comes down to violation of trust.
I've never had a problem with racism in my family.
Perhaps they wanted to set the record straight after the media have controlled the narrative for so long.
I don't think the interview was for the RF only.
I can not begin to imagine the incredibly large and spotlighted aquarium the Royal Family must dwell within.
Perhaps if the world spent some time sending them love and positive energy, the more steps they might be inspired to take to create positive changes, which could ripple around the globe.
There are people in that family who can affect positive change. I am going to try something new. Each time I see the Royal Family in the news, I will send the family members some positive energy and some love. It will certainly be better than sending them my frustration right? Probably better for me as well.