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and Meghan will raise young Archie (modern version of Arthur) the prince in waiting, as a force against this corrupt outdated imperial institution.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.