Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 5: Oprah, Racism, and Gossip! Oh My!


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I think you are forgetting the Muslim  population in Germany. They exist, too.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. @just_ordinary's post seemed to be mostly about the relative importance of the details of faith in the everyday life of most German Christians. Which aligns 100% with my own experiences, to be honest.

Do you mean that faith is generally more important in the life of German Muslims? This is the way I understood it at first and now I've been thinking about that aspect all day. Or am I misunderstanding this and your comment was it simply in response to the numbers they quoted (i.e. 45 Million Christians in a population of 83 Million without mentioning the number of Muslims)?

I actually looked that up before posting and all sources I could find said around there were around 5 Million German Muslims in 2015. Interestingly the German population apparently estimates that the percentage of Muslim Germans is around 20% when it is more like 5%. Which, if true, gives a pretty good example of what racism dresses up as in Germany these days. But I might be wrong with the numbers. Not to mention, I might have misunderstood your post due too a language barrier.

4 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

And please don’t think people who aren’t religious are somehow morally superior to those who are. There is a trend in Germany to impose those values on everyone. 

That's not good. Actually, that is completely unacceptable.

But I have to admit that there is a certain kind of self-righteous superiority-complex-thing that is very, very German ("Am deutschen Wesen, soll die Welt genesen." and all that nonsense). Not from everyone - I'm not trying to accuse anyone in this thread of that - but it's definitely present in more people than I'd like and it even annoys me to no end (and I a)grew up with it and b) am not usually it's target). There is also a very weird and very ambivalent attitude towards the U.S and American culture in a lot of people, so I'm not surprised that people - maybe especially Christians from the U.S. - are met with a certain condescending attitude that must be absolutely infuriating.

I would very much like not to do that, even accidentally - and we're probably all a but blind towards our own cultural prejudices and bad habits - so if you like, could you tell me what it is that makes you feel that way? Outside of the obvious, condescending anti-American bullsh*t, I mean. I emphasised the "if you like" part, because you have no obligation to explain anything to a stranger on the internet, of course.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

Now You damn well know that girl is going to be named Diana, Probably Diana Francis or Diana Spencer ROFLMAS

Not sure why that's funny, but I named my daughter after my late mom.  My mom was one of the kindest and most decent people I'd ever known and I thought, and still think, it was a lovely way to honor her and give my daughter a little bit more of her legacy.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alaniel said:

But I have to admit that there is a certain kind of self-righteous superiority-complex-thing that is very, very German ("Am deutschen Wesen, soll die Welt genesen." and all that nonsense).

I translated the phrase and while I'd never heard it explicitly said that way,  it was very much the attitude of my German father.  In that half kidding but not really kidding he would joke about our superiority as we were the result of "fine German engineering" and he and his family very much looked down on my mom's maternal family who has been in the US since long before there was a US....and don't get me started on what they thought of her paternal Irish immigrant side.

We all knew it was a ridiculous point of view, but as a kid it can kind of do a number on you that one parent thinks half of your DNA is somehow inferior.  

But German customs being superior to American customs didn't make sense either considering he chose to live and raise his kids here.

Nothing royal related, I just chalked that up to my dad being from another generation with his problematic views and was under the impression Germans today are far more tolerant and inclusive than the average American so I found it interesting.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Not sure why that's funny, but I named my daughter after my late mom.  My mom was one of the kindest and most decent people I'd ever known and I thought, and still think, it was a lovely way to honor her and give my daughter a little bit more of her legacy.

If I'd had a daughter, I was planning to give her a name similar to my mom's - for the reasons you outlined.  Instead, my son has my father's first name as his (my son's) middle name.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Nothing royal related, I just chalked that up to my dad being from another generation with his problematic views and was under the impression Germans today are far more tolerant and inclusive than the average American so I found it interesting.

Well, many of the people around here are tolerant and inclusive - although not really more so than a progressive American, I think. And for the others it's a lot more subtle and often almost unconscious these days.

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Nothing royal related, I just chalked that up to my dad being from another generation with his problematic views and was under the impression Germans today are far more tolerant and inclusive than the average American so I found it interesting.

As with everything, you can find very open minded german seniors and very closed minded young people with that attitude her. That supriority complex some of my fellow people have is baffling to me. For me its german own kind of flavor of rasicm and classism.

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In find some of the most racist people are racist toward their own ethnicity. My Auntie is a Hispanic Mexican women but she talks ugly about Mexicans a lot And she was in the Chicano rights movement ! 

  • Sad 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I translated the phrase and while I'd never heard it explicitly said that way,  it was very much the attitude of my German father.  In that half kidding but not really kidding he would joke about our superiority as we were the result of "fine German engineering" and he and his family very much looked down on my mom's maternal family who has been in the US since long before there was a US....and don't get me started on what they thought of her paternal Irish immigrant side.

We all knew it was a ridiculous point of view, but as a kid it can kind of do a number on you that one parent thinks half of your DNA is somehow inferior.  

But German customs being superior to American customs didn't make sense either considering he chose to live and raise his kids here.

Nothing royal related, I just chalked that up to my dad being from another generation with his problematic views and was under the impression Germans today are far more tolerant and inclusive than the average American so I found it interesting.

I could imagine it to be a mix of a certain mindset and the fact that living in a different culture (even though it’s your choice) sometimes makes people glorify their old country/customs/heritage to a point that not sweet nostalgia anymore.

It would be interesting how he would think about our latest f**k ups (superior German management at BER airport and the Elbphilharmonie, superior German engineering with the car tampering (Dieselaffaire), superior German values when our banks exploited weaknesses for tax evasion at an unbelievable level, the unbelievable mismanagement in COVID vacation- I was short of considering moving to my in laws in Britain, Brexit be damned). We love to moan and criticise, but if non Germans dare to question us, we definitely have a way of being snobbish and patronising.....

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got curious about the horrendous Wimbledon incident people were referencing in the last thread and it seems like...she wore jeans? She asked someone to not take photos of her?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alaniel said:

Do you mean that faith is generally more important in the life of German Muslims? This is the way I understood it at first and now I've been thinking about that aspect all day. Or am I misunderstanding this and your comment was it simply in response to the numbers they quoted (i.e. 45 Million Christians in a population of 83 Million without mentioning the number of Muslims)?

The latter. That Muslims exist too. And there is a spectrum of Muslims, just like there’s a spectrum of Christians. 
 

I’m a US American married to an Iranian. He has German citizenship and our kids have three. We love Germany-but Germany is figuring out what true multiculturalism looks like. When there was an attack by Muslims last year, my husband hung up a cross in the car so people wouldn’t think he “was like them.”

As an American, people like to assume I’m basically every stereotype that I’ve read on this thread directed at Meghan Markle. But what happens to me isn’t even close to what’s happened to my husband in terms of bigotry.
 

Here’s the thing: in Europe and the US, people accept you if you adhere to a white status quo. If you go beyond that-whether by having a black gospel choir at your wedding or wearing a headscarf or whatever-you’re subversive. That attitude was formed by institutions like the British royal family. You either speak the Queen’s English or you don’t. Germany has its own standards, which sometimes values “progressivism” at the expense of people’s cultural and religious identities.

The first Germans I met in Germany were a pastor’s family on an exchange program. They were far more tolerant and accepting of differences than many of my academic friends. 

 

38 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

In find some of the most racist people are racist toward their own ethnicity. My Auntie is a Hispanic Mexican women but she talks ugly about Mexicans a lot And she was in the Chicano rights movement ! 

This is often an example of self-preservation. 

1 hour ago, klein_roeschen said:

That supriority complex some of my fellow people have is baffling to me.

Not a German thing-US Americans are the same. And some of our Iranian family do it too. It’s awful.

  • Upvote 4
  • Sad 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

In find some of the most racist people are racist toward their own ethnicity. My Auntie is a Hispanic Mexican women but she talks ugly about Mexicans a lot And she was in the Chicano rights movement ! 

This is interesting to me, because the minute I heard about the comments about the baby’s skin color (haven’t watched the interview, so I’m going from what I’ve heard- but I think Harry said the conversations happened before the wedding?), all I could think about was the woman I heard on the train several years ago talking about how her son ‘knows better than to bring a dark-skinned girl home’ (both women in the conversation were Black). That and some of the Meghan stans talking about how they hoped the baby was brown with a red Afro. Colorism and prejudice are alive and well in pretty much every corner of society. I think we all need to own our prejudices, because conscious or unconscious, we all have them. It’s sometimes an issue of first recognizing it and then unlearning it that makes the biggest difference. 
 

Regarding security, as the article one poster linked to, the Queen did negotiate to keep security for Andrew (the article said it would have affected Anne and Edward/Sophie, too). Anne has actually had a kidnap attempt against her- if you want a chuckle, search for the interview she did not long after (her response to a gun in her face was something along the lines of ‘not bloody likely!’). I admire Anne for her dedication and lack of over-the-top vanity regarding her personal appearance, but have to question if she’d be the same person if she grew up as the spare. 
 

Anyway, I think the likelihood of Harry and Meghan (and by default, Archie) keeping security would have been pretty darn good if they’d stayed in the UK- not as working royals, just living in the country. By the time their announcement came, they were living in Canada, a Commonwealth country- and there was already huge blowback about Canada paying for their security.
 

Whatever country they live in is (edited to add: supposed to be) the one to pay for their security, like it is on Royal tours. Royal security isn’t paid for by the Crown, but by taxpayers, and the Queen doesn’t get to decide who is and isn’t eligible for security, though I’m sure she could request. Scotland Yard/the Metropolitan police provide security, so it would be either up to them to have officers live in the US while ‘on duty’ or ‘on’ in a rotation/Scotland Yard reimburse Canada/the US for security costs (whose standards wouldn’t be as high as the protection officers for the family), or the government of whatever country they’re living in to take on the cost. Had they not moved abroad, the previous threat assessments for the Sussex family would have likely been enough for them to keep their security, especially if the Queen put in a request (which I think she would have done). 

Edited by Emkay
  • Upvote 4
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, closetcagebaby said:

I got curious about the horrendous Wimbledon incident people were referencing in the last thread and it seems like...she wore jeans? She asked someone to not take photos of her?

Wait. That's it? I've been wondering about what was so awful. I thought for sure I'd remember an awful incident because I like Wimbledon.  I'm aghast she wore pants...*/sarcasm. 

Thanks @klein_roeschen for the clarification.  Carry on nothing to see here....

Edited by WiseGirl
Add text
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

Wait. That's it? I've been wondering about what was so awful. I thought for sure I'd remember an awful incident because I like Wimbledon.  I'm aghast she wore pants...*/sarcasm. 

Iirc it wasn't the fact that she wore pants. But she watched a game there with a friend and for her security, a whole section of the seats around her where empty. All while on maternity leave after the birth of her son and not attenting official functions. I don't care about her watching a tennis match while on maternity leave, but I get why people are getting angry. All these seats could have gotten to people also wanting to watch the match, but where left empty for her security.

  • Upvote 7
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, viii said:

Does anyone have any proof that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy? Receipts other than Paul Burrell speaking time US Weekly, that is. 

A quick google produced this non-tabloid article.

Ingrid Seward, EiC of Majesty (The Quality Royal Magazine!) is quoted as saying that Charles has talked about downsizing for years:

Quote

 

LONDON (AP) — Prince Charles, the future king, has long been seen as a potential modernizer who wants a more modest monarchy in line with other European royal households — and the streamlining process has already begun with the astounding developments of recent months.

But the changes have come at a terrible cost for Charles, who has seen his brother Prince Andrew disgraced and his once close sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, become estranged....

“Charles has been saying for years and years, ‘Let’s make it smaller,’” said Majesty magazine editor-in-chief Ingrid Seward. “He feels quite strongly that with such a big House of Windsor, there are too many opportunities for things to go wrong. And it’s too expensive. And they need too many houses, too much public expenditure.”

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, anjulibai said:

They can pass titles along, if the title is created in such a way to allow them to. 

In fact, in a few cases, titles have been recreated to allow for female succession when it was obvious a couple wasn't going to have sons but daughters. 

The problem is, most titles were created in the past to only be inherited by males, and that was written into the titles themselves. 

They'd have to do something in Parliament to change all titles to absolute primogeniture, overriding the Letters Patent (or Royal Warrants, or whatever they are called) that created the titles in the first place. 

(snip)

Building on what you're saying: There's also a little thing called "fee entail", a legal concept. Everyone familiar with Jane Austen knows that in a landed family, if only daughters are present, all the plunder goes to the next male relative.

So, it wouldn't only be an act of Parliament (they tried that 1925), but quite a lot of legal action to unpick all those contracts and wills that persist and ensure the preference for male heirs stays. Hence, it's also a legal and societal issue - at least in England.

  • Upvote 9
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. A years long legal  headache that wastes time and takes away from real societal issues and only benefits a small handful of very privileged people is  gonna be Hard pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

Building on what you're saying: There's also a little thing called "fee entail", a legal concept. Everyone familiar with Jane Austen knows that in a landed family, if only daughters are present, all the plunder goes to the next male relative.

So, it wouldn't only be an act of Parliament (they tried that 1925), but quite a lot of legal action to unpick all those contracts and wills that persist and ensure the preference for male heirs stays. Hence, it's also a legal and societal issue - at least in England.

(In my best QE2 warble) Ohhh, hellow there!

OK, enough of that.  Hello! I vaguely definitely remember reading that the entailments weren't absolutely automatically assigned to male relatives; my source was somebody on the old Republic Of Pemberley website who took issue with Emma Thompson's line in Sense & Sensibility 1995 that "property goes from father to son, not father to daughter." I think one of the examples she might have provided was Lady Catherine duBourg herself.  Who knows.  But anyway. Fun to think about, since I'll never have to really think about it.

Back on the topic of H&M, who ain't just a cute clothing store anymore. (Stop me. I had Kahlua and it hasn't worn off.)

The British artiste Russell Brand did a video commenting on the H&M situation and made some good points, most of which had to do with the fact that The BRF Firm is an 88 billion pound operation and that Liz herself has never been above leaning on legislators, et.al., to get the rules bent beneficently in her general direction.  

I don't remember all of it and I have misplaced the link.  But I'm sure a search will bring it up toot sweet.  I do know I liked it because IIRC, he says the whole royalty thing is a bunch of hooey.  FWIW.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2021 at 4:23 PM, tabitha2 said:

Don’t get So excited: Titles still are strictly Male line only aside from a ver small handful of cases . That’s why Prince Edwards young son  is Viscount and his older sister is just a Lady and The Duke of York will revert to the Crown after Andrew passes 
 

Unless she married it As it is Charlotte will never get a title of her own.  No Duchess of York like Andrew got as the Monarchs second child as That will go to Louis. No whatever the female Equivalent to the Earl of Wessex either. 
 

Thus She can’t pass any Royal title to her descendants and her husband gets no title. When and if she marries she will the Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith 

 

Not saying this won’t all change in 20 years but considering how there is no  serious discontent or strong move to change this culture even from the Aristocratic ladies themselves  that’s not a given by ant stretch. ]

 


 

 

I would disagree. When King William is on the throne, the Princess Charlotte will become the Princess Royal.

Edited by omilona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

(In my best QE2 warble) Ohhh, hellow there!

OK, enough of that.  Hello! I vaguely definitely remember reading that the entailments weren't absolutely automatically assigned to male relatives; my source was somebody on the old Republic Of Pemberley website who took issue with Emma Thompson's line in Sense & Sensibility 1995 that "property goes from father to son, not father to daughter." I think one of the examples she might have provided was Lady Catherine duBourg herself.  Who knows.  But anyway. Fun to think about, since I'll never have to really think about it. (snip)

You're right. Not every property was/is entailed - otherwise, where would all the rich heiresses come from? ;) I was clumsily trying to make the point just how deeply and often legally engrained male primogeniture is.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, omilona said:

I would disagree. When King William is on the throne, the Princess Charlotte will become the Princess Royal.

It’s not automatic, and if Charlotte prefers a private life, he might not do it. Also, Anne has to be dead first, and given her mother and grandmother’s longevity, it could be 30 years or more before it’s an option.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, viii said:

Does anyone have any proof that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy? Receipts other than Paul Burrell speaking time US Weekly, that is. 

That’s a really interesting question. I logged on to my work network at 11:00 pm so I could use an employer-funded database to look into it. Another exciting Friday night. It first came up in the mid-1990s when the Labour Party gained power, and the Royal family embarrassed itself with a spectacular series of scandals. It was first attributed to Labour politicians, and then there were articles saying that Charles agreed with the idea. There doesn’t appear to be any direct quote from Charles about it, but it’s clear that his aides have been authorized to speak for him. In almost thirty years, no one has ever suggested that maybe it’s not true.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

There doesn’t appear to be any direct quote from Charles about it

Well, Ingrid Seward said so. It must be true.

The Editor-in-Chief of Majesty (The Quality Royal Magazine™️) would never lie about Charles or the BRF.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HerNameIsBuffy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.