Meghan and Harry 7: Recollections May Vary

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

 

[viii]

@EmCatlyn makes a good point. 

And I have to agree - the Oprah interview made it sound like multiple conversations were had about the baby’s skin colour. It would be pretty easy enough to lie about it because no one can prove a conversation didn’t happen, especially since they won’t say who said it. 

[Anna Bolinas]

Quote

I can believe that such a discussion might have been misinterpreted by Meghan who was perhaps more conscious of her race than of her social class.  (Americans tend to be rather dim about social class.)  

Suppose someone said to Harry, “You have to consider her background.  She isn’t one of us.  Your mother had a hard time, and she was one of us.  Imagine how it might be for Meghan.  And what about your children? Where will they belong?”  And supposed Harry reported this to Meghan.  She might hear “not one of us,” as “not white.”  I would hear it as “not upper-class British.” 

I mean, saying Meghan isn't "one of them," whether as a reference to her class or to her race or even to her nationality, is kind of an assholish thing to say. It may be technically true that Meghan has very different life experiences from the rest of the royal family and the aristocracy of the UK, but just in general most people don't like being told or reminded of how they don't fit in. The racial and class components just make it more uncomfortable. Also, Meghan being biracial probably also makes her even more aware of that liminal space between belonging and not belonging, and reminding her that her kids will face that as well isn't helpful.

As for Americans and social class, while it's true that Meghan is probably more aware of her race than her class, I don't think I would characterize Americans as dim about class. Americans know about class differences, despite the insistence on America being the ~land of opportunity~ where anyone can ~pull themselves up by their bootstraps~. Yes, we have those kinds of success stories, but there still are people of the upper classes who will look down on people of the lower classes. But in an American context, it's compounded by race because the racist structures of American society have mostly funneled white people to the upper classes and black/brown people to the lower classes. And even when black and brown people have ascended to the upper classes, they still will find it nigh impossible to escape racism. Like for example, LeBron James is pretty damn rich and successful, but he still has had racists graffiti his home with anti-black slurs. His class doesn't change that. It doesn't protect him from racism. And his children, even being born already in that class, already with the riches from their father's basketball career, will also still have to face racism. They are interlocked systems.

And I know that Kate also faced scrutiny for her own class background when she married William. Probably similar conversations were had about her among some of the snobbier members of the upper classes. But for Meghan, I think it's understandable why she would feel like the racism compounds the classism, especially given the history of the British monarchy and colonization/racial oppression--because even if she modeled the ways of the British upper-classes to a T, she can't change her race. 

[Xanariel]

I think the context of the conversation and how it was said would matter massively when judging what the meaning of it was. 

"I wonder if your babies will look like Meghan or her mother" is a fairly innocuous thing on its own, but if said in a certain tone could convey a lot to anyone listening.

Meanwhile, an older relative could mean well, but say something very insensitive and hurtful - even if they think they were giving a compliment (in line with Harry telling a black comedian that he "didn't sound black" and assuring someone at a dinner that his South African girlfriend was not "black or anything, you know".)

Though regardless of what the intent of the conversation and when it happened, I think it's indisputable that Harry and Meghan falsely tried to link it to the title and security question, presumably because saying your baby was racistly denied protection sounds better than saying you had expected the taxpayers to keep funding you despite quitting your job. 

[just_ordinary]

2 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

I mean, saying Meghan isn't "one of them," whether as a reference to her class or to her race or even to her nationality, is kind of an assholish thing to say. It may be technically true that Meghan has very different life experiences from the rest of the royal family and the aristocracy of the UK, but just in general most people don't like being told or reminded of how they don't fit in. The racial and class components just make it more uncomfortable. Also, Meghan being biracial probably also makes her even more aware of that liminal space between belonging and not belonging, and reminding her that her kids will face that as well isn't helpful.

As for Americans and social class, while it's true that Meghan is probably more aware of her race than her class, I don't think I would characterize Americans as dim about class. Americans know about class differences, despite the insistence on America being the ~land of opportunity~ where anyone can ~pull themselves up by their bootstraps~. Yes, we have those kinds of success stories, but there still are people of the upper classes who will look down on people of the lower classes. But in an American context, it's compounded by race because the racist structures of American society have mostly funneled white people to the upper classes and black/brown people to the lower classes. And even when black and brown people have ascended to the upper classes, they still will find it nigh impossible to escape racism. Like for example, LeBron James is pretty damn rich and successful, but he still has had racists graffiti his home with anti-black slurs. His class doesn't change that. It doesn't protect him from racism. And his children, even being born already in that class, already with the riches from their father's basketball career, will also still have to face racism. They are interlocked systems.

And I know that Kate also faced scrutiny for her own class background when she married William. Probably similar conversations were had about her among some of the snobbier members of the upper classes. But for Meghan, I think it's understandable why she would feel like the racism compounds the classism, especially given the history of the British monarchy and colonization/racial oppression--because even if she modeled the ways of the British upper-classes to a T, she can't change her race. 

I think you are accidentally proving the point though, by citing the LeBron incident. The American class system works very different. British class is not about money. You can be upper class and poor/have no cash flow and you can be have millions and still be working class. One has still access to networks and will be accepted by them the other one can just dream of it. They will never belong. The British class system is not very permeable. It has loosened up a bit, but I believe a lot of it is superficial while the old structure prevail, just more hidden. Meghan can Model British upper class to a T, she can never be one of them. Not because of the colour of her skin (even though of course her heritage would have prevented her ancestors to ride up the ranks over the centuries) but because neither she, her parents or grandparents were born into the upper class. Not even marriage can remove that. It’s unbelievable snobby and I am sure her skin colour didn’t help but it’s not the core root. 
But I can see why it would look like that to her. I general, think H&M should have openly addressed the they felt irritated and seriously insulted and the other person should have apologised. If I accidentally step on someone’s foot I apologise but I need to notice what I did first.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

I mean, saying Meghan isn't "one of them," whether as a reference to her class or to her race or even to her nationality, is kind of an assholish thing to say. It may be technically true that Meghan has very different life experiences from the rest of the royal family and the aristocracy of the UK, but just in general most people don't like being told or reminded of how they don't fit in. The racial and class components just make it more uncomfortable. Also, Meghan being biracial probably also makes her even more aware of that liminal space between belonging and not belonging, and reminding her that her kids will face that as well isn't helpful.

As for Americans and social class, while it's true that Meghan is probably more aware of her race than her class, I don't think I would characterize Americans as dim about class. Americans know about class differences, despite the insistence on America being the ~land of opportunity~ where anyone can ~pull themselves up by their bootstraps~. Yes, we have those kinds of success stories, but there still are people of the upper classes who will look down on people of the lower classes. But in an American context, it's compounded by race because the racist structures of American society have mostly funneled white people to the upper classes and black/brown people to the lower classes. And even when black and brown people have ascended to the upper classes, they still will find it nigh impossible to escape racism. Like for example, LeBron James is pretty damn rich and successful, but he still has had racists graffiti his home with anti-black slurs. His class doesn't change that. It doesn't protect him from racism. And his children, even being born already in that class, already with the riches from their father's basketball career, will also still have to face racism. They are interlocked systems.

And I know that Kate also faced scrutiny for her own class background when she married William. Probably similar conversations were had about her among some of the snobbier members of the upper classes. But for Meghan, I think it's understandable why she would feel like the racism compounds the classism, especially given the history of the British monarchy and colonization/racial oppression--because even if she modeled the ways of the British upper-classes to a T, she can't change her race. 

When I say that most Americans are “dim” about class, I mean that most Americans confuse “class” with “how poor or rich you are.”  We tend to minimize distinctions that involve other criteria, though of course the other criteria are very important in our perception of class. However, in my experience, at least, the criteria for class is more fluid (less well-defined) in the US than among the British.  

I agree that “not one of us,” is far from a “democratic” statement, but it is not an inherently racist statement. I’ve heard it used by people of different denominations (not just fundies), people from different political parties, “science” versus “humanities” people, etc.   Context is everything.

Since we can only speculate about what was actually said and in what context, I think the best we can do is understand that not only “recollections” but “interpretations” of the same incident may vary. ?

[EmCatlyn]

Cosmopolitan has the headline: “Prince Charles Has ‘Made It Quite Clear’ He’s Leaving Town During Prince Harry’s Visit.”

Although they make it sound as if he is deliberately avoiding Harry, I wonder if part of his reason for going off to Scotland is to be out of the public eye while Diana is being honored by their sons.  That is, even if there were no tension between him and Harry, Charles might be “out of town” during this period.

The report goes on to say that Harry is expected to quarantine at Frogmore Cottage same as last time.  It appears that William and Harry will have no contact except for the event honoring their mother.  

[louisa05]

13 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

When I say that most Americans are “dim” about class, I mean that most Americans confuse “class” with “how poor or rich you are.”  We tend to minimize distinctions that involve other criteria, though of course the other criteria are very important in our perception of class. However, in my experience, at least, the criteria for class is more fluid (less well-defined) in the US than among the British.  

I agree that “not one of us,” is far from a “democratic” statement, but it is not an inherently racist statement. I’ve heard it used by people of different denominations (not just fundies), people from different political parties, “science” versus “humanities” people, etc.   Context is everything.

Since we can only speculate about what was actually said and in what context, I think the best we can do is understand that not only “recollections” but “interpretations” of the same incident may vary. ?

My husband’s grandmother uses that phrase for anyone not of Polish descent. Primarily me and her daughter-in-law 

[viii]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Cosmopolitan has the headline: “Prince Charles Has ‘Made It Quite Clear’ He’s Leaving Town During Prince Harry’s Visit.”

Although they make it sound as if he is deliberately avoiding Harry, I wonder if part of his reason for going off to Scotland is to be out of the public eye while Diana is being honored by their sons.  That is, even if there were no tension between him and Harry, Charles might be “out of town” during this period.

The report goes on to say that Harry is expected to quarantine at Frogmore Cottage same as last time.  It appears that William and Harry will have no contact except for the event honoring their mother.  

I feel like even without the Harry drama, Charles would lay low that weekend. There’s a lot of people who still resent him for Diana’s down spiral and death. 

It seems too bad that he won’t be around though - chances of a reconciliation seem to be dimming the more time passes (and the more Harry speaks). 

[tabitha2]

For one He blew it and proved he or they could not be trusted with keeping family conversations private. 

[Xanariel]

There seems a massive amount of resentment on Harry's part towards Charles, so I'm not sure his presence would smooth things over in any case. 

Meanwhile, a third article for Lacey's book, and this one explained a few things for me. Lacey had previously seemed fairly pro-Sussexes (or at least more critical of William) in other articles, but as some readers on other sites have pointed out, Lacey was close friends with Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered and dismembered by Saudi agents on the orders of MBS. 

This article discusses Meghan's decision to publicly wear earrings gifted from MBS on two occasions, including a birthday dinner for Charles after his culpability with the murder was widely known. 

Lacey points out that royal aides told Meghan not to wear the earrings because of the provenance, which she ignored. Instead, her press team merely stated the jewels were borrowed without stating from who. 

Lacey states that Meghan was weaselling her way around admitting where the jewels came from - as a wedding gift, the jewels are technically marked down as the property of the Queen. However, this isn't like the Queen's jewellery collection, where she hands out stuff from the vaults and you have to be content with what you're given; such gifts remain with the person they were given to, and while they can't sell or regift them, they can otherwise do as they wish with them (so there was zero reason for Meghan to wear them if she didn't want to). They were therefore technically borrowed from the Queen, but not in the sense most people would have understood it. 

He further criticises Meghan as being unable to claim ignorance of either the murder or the Saudi regime in general, as she told a group on International Women's Day that she was an avid reader of the Economist - which ran several articles on the murder before her second outing of the earrings - and was acquainted with a Saudi feminist activist who was kidnapped and tortured by the regime about a week after MBS would have given her the jewels. 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Xanariel

[louisa05]

5 hours ago, Xanariel said:

There seems a massive amount of resentment on Harry's part towards Charles, so I'm not sure his presence would smooth things over in any case. 

Meanwhile, a third article for Lacey's book, and this one explained a few things for me. Lacey had previously seemed fairly pro-Sussexes (or at least more critical of William) in other articles, but as some readers on other sites have pointed out, Lacey was close friends with Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered and dismembered by Saudi agents on the orders of MBS. 

This article discusses Meghan's decision to publicly wear earrings gifted from MBS on two occasions, including a birthday dinner for Charles after his culpability with the murder was widely known. 

Lacey points out that royal aides told Meghan not to wear the earrings because of the provenance, which she ignored. Instead, her press team merely stated the jewels were borrowed without stating from who. 

Lacey states that Meghan was weaselling her way around admitting where the jewels came from - as a wedding gift, the jewels are technically marked down as the property of the Queen. However, this isn't like the Queen's jewellery collection, where she hands out stuff from the vaults and you have to be content with what you're given; such gifts remain with the person they were given to, and while they can't sell or regift them, they can otherwise do as they wish with them (so there was zero reason for Meghan to wear them if she didn't want to). They were therefore technically borrowed from the Queen, but not in the sense most people would have understood it. 

He further criticises Meghan as being unable to claim ignorance of either the murder or the Saudi regime in general, as she told a group on International Women's Day that she was an avid reader of the Economist - which ran several articles on the murder before her second outing of the earrings - and was acquainted with a Saudi feminist activist who was kidnapped and tortured by the regime about a week after MBS would have given her the jewels. 

Or, you know, she doesn’t read The Economist. 
The key there is staff informed her and she did it anyway. I think that sums up a lot of her problems—a refusal to give any consideration to anyone’s advice. She was the newbie to this job and to an entire culture. Listen to the people who know how things work and understand the culture. You don’t know everything. 

[Xanariel]

22 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Or, you know, she doesn’t read The Economist. 
The key there is staff informed her and she did it anyway. I think that sums up a lot of her problems—a refusal to give any consideration to anyone’s advice. She was the newbie to this job and to an entire culture. Listen to the people who know how things work and understand the culture. You don’t know everything. 

In all fairness, it was a busy time with the tours and I could buy that she was generally an avid reader but hadn't been keeping up with articles that month - I don't think that's necessarily as much of a smoking gun as Lacey suggests. 

But the Khashoggi news was everywhere - it implicated a future head of state in a serious international incident. There's not a chance the BRF wouldn't have been aware of/informed of it even if Harry and Meghan had avoided every newspaper between the incident and the dinner - in fact, I'm struggling to see how she wouldn't have heard of it by the time she first wore the earrings on tour. 

And it's so baffling to me, because why wear the jewels so soon after the murder and try to hide their origin, when you could avoid that open goal with any other piece of Meghan's jewellery collection? 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Or, you know, she doesn’t read The Economist. 
The key there is staff informed her and she did it anyway. I think that sums up a lot of her problems—a refusal to give any consideration to anyone’s advice. She was the newbie to this job and to an entire culture. Listen to the people who know how things work and understand the culture. You don’t know everything. 

Apparently, Meghan’s explanation for the way some of the staff perceived her as a bully is that “the staff were not up to their job and could not deal with the pressure of working for her and understanding how she wanted things to run.” (Page Six)  If the report is accurate, this suggests a certain blindness to her own attitude and its effect.  She is also quoted by various sources as having replied  “It’s not my job to coddle people,” when called on her manner  early on.

I can understand making mistakes.  I don’t sympathize with her refusal to own them.

[just_ordinary]

29 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Apparently, Meghan’s explanation for the way some of the staff perceived her as a bully is that “the staff were not up to their job and could not deal with the pressure of working for her and understanding how she wanted things to run.” (Page Six)  If the report is accurate, this suggests a certain blindness to her own attitude and its effect.  She is also quoted by various sources as having replied  “It’s not my job to coddle people,” when called on her manner  early on.

I can understand making mistakes.  I don’t sympathize with her refusal to own them.

I can definitely see a clash of work cultures here. But honestly if you employ people in another country with a different standard and laws around that it’s you that has to adapt to certain things. No one in a job like the ones that claimed she bullied them, would be ok with getting screamed at. Or reading mails at 5am regularly (a tour could be a valid exception). We value the fact that we are not 24/7 at the back and call. We demand to be treated with respect even in tense situations (someone loosing it at peoples further down the hierarchy have a very bad reputation). We fought hard for our rights as employees and will not go back on them.

Edited June 23, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Xanariel]

While I think that Meghan should be held accountable for how she treats staff, I also think we shouldn't overlook Harry in this. 

Harry was shouting at people and creating a toxic environment just as much as Meghan. Harry in fact shouted and swore at Angela Kelly - the Queen's personal dresser and one of her favourite staff members - for not dashing up to London to let Meghan have a tiara for a hair trial, even though the tiara was neither Angela's nor Harry's and Kate hadn't been permitted early access either. If he's making demands like that of the Queen's staff, how's he treating the people directly under him? 

I'm especially troubled that the Sussexes' response seems to be less "we would never mistreat our employees" and more "these employees actually sucked and weren't up to our standards" - presumably implying that any perceived ill-treatment was in fact deserved. 

[EmCatlyn]

32 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

While I think that Meghan should be held accountable for how she treats staff, I also think we shouldn't overlook Harry in this. 

Harry was shouting at people and creating a toxic environment just as much as Meghan. Harry in fact shouted and swore at Angela Kelly - the Queen's personal dresser and one of her favourite staff members - for not dashing up to London to let Meghan have a tiara for a hair trial, even though the tiara was neither Angela's nor Harry's and Kate hadn't been permitted early access either. If he's making demands like that of the Queen's staff, how's he treating the people directly under him? 

I'm especially troubled that the Sussexes' response seems to be less "we would never mistreat our employees" and more "these employees actually sucked and weren't up to our standards" - presumably implying that any perceived ill-treatment was in fact deserved. 

I agree.  What I wonder is whether Harry had been inclined to yell at staff before Meagan or if he is modeling himself on her.  Maybe he thinks she is more “genuine”?

I tend to raise my voice when excited. This is partly personality and partly cultural.  However, I recognize that many people around me associate “shouting” with anger, and when I am called on it, I apologize.   I don’t assume that I am right and they are wrong, and I truly make an effort not to “shout.”  Further, when I notice that someone is bothered by the volume or tone of my words, I try to modulate them.  You would think Harry at least would have been taught to speak courteously to staff and others who are just doing their jobs. 

The response that people who accuse them of bullying were just inadequate employees rather seems to support the idea that they were bullying, doesn’t it?  ?

[Xanariel]

2 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree.  What I wonder is whether Harry had been inclined to yell at staff before Meagan or if he is modeling himself on her.  Maybe he thinks she is more “genuine”?

I tend to raise my voice when excited. This is partly personality and partly cultural.  However, I recognize that many people around me associate “shouting” with anger, and when I am called on it, I apologize.   I don’t assume that I am right and they are wrong, and I truly make an effort not to “shout.”  Further, when I notice that someone is bothered by the volume or tone of my words, I try to modulate them.  You would think Harry at least would have been taught to speak courteously to staff and others who are just doing their jobs. 

Honestly, I actually think it's more likely that Meghan, if not learned it from Harry, was at least empowered by him to think it was acceptable and that she could get away with it. 

I actually think the BRF needs to take a good look at itself over this. There's been reports for years that Andrew is a dick to staff, and while Charles was always going to push him out of the royal rota, I've never read of him experiencing consequences for his actions or the staff getting any HR process. If the Oprah interview hadn't prompted some staff to come forward to the Times, would we be getting a formal investigation? 

William split his household off, but William was not funding Harry's employment of these staffers or due to be his boss for another good few years - where the hell was Charles in all of this? 

[EmCatlyn]

3 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I actually think the BRF needs to take a good look at itself over this. There's been reports for years that Andrew is a dick to staff, and while Charles was always going to push him out of the royal rota, I've never read of him experiencing consequences for his actions or the staff getting any HR process. If the Oprah interview hadn't prompted some staff to come forward to the Times, would we be getting a formal investigation? 

I think the e-mail reporting the complaints leaked to the press just before the Oprah interview (possibly to anticipate/balance what H and M might say to Oprah).  The investigation resulted from that leak.  So it appears that it was not what they said in the interview as much as that they were doing the interview at all that set the investigation in motion.

My impression is that the royals prefer to deal with issues like this privately.  Although Meghan complained of not being protected, the palace was, in its own way, protecting her and Harry by not launching an investigation.  This “protection” was withdrawn when it became clear Meghan and Harry were going to paint themselves as victims to Oprah.  Hence the investigation.

 

That William reportedly got so angry at Harry about the bullying would suggest that Harry was not behaving in a way approved by the family.  However, it appears that their disapproval fell short of either reducing Harry’s income or launching an investigation until Harry moved away. 

[viii]

I'm not surprised at the investigation - they've had quite the turn over with staff since they first got married. 

[Pleiades_06]

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I can definitely see a clash of work cultures here. But honestly if you employ people in another country with a different standard and laws around that it’s you that has to adapt to certain things. No one in a job like the ones that claimed she bullied them, would be ok with getting screamed at. Or reading mails at 5am regularly (a tour could be a valid exception). We value the fact that we are not 24/7 at the back and call. We demand to be treated with respect even in tense situations (someone loosing it at peoples further down the hierarchy have a very bad reputation). We fought hard for our rights as employees and will not go back on them.

Just to clarify, because you seem to subscribe to every US stereotype in the book: this is not US work culture. This is entitled and crappy but isn’t necessarily a cultural phenomenon. Stop ascribing cultural (and racial/classist) reasons for Meghan’s behavior. This has always been my main issue with criticism directed towards her: people try to make about her background. If she were a white Brit, this wouldn’t happen. She’s an asshole but not because of the stereotypes people on this thread like to subscribe to.

[tabitha2]

Some people whatever sex, orientation, ethnicity , religion  or class  they are just mean because it’s simply their nature. Perfectly nice and sweet to those who benefit them or they consider important but a nasty piece of work to underlings or those who can’t easily fight back And then blame the ones they hurt because nothing is ever their fault ever. 

I never thought Harry was like that and certainly not raised like that but it seems I was mistaken. I suppose Meghan just gave him an excuse and encouragement to show his true colors. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by tabitha2

[Pleiades_06]

21 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Some people whatever sex, orientation, ethnicity , religion  or class  they are just mean because it’s simply their nature. Perfectly nice and sweet to those who benefit them or they consider important but a nasty piece of work to underlings or those who can’t easily fight back And then blame the ones they hurt because nothing is ever their fault ever. 

I never thought Harry was like that and certainly not raised like that but it seems I was mistaken. I suppose Meghan just gave him an excuse and encouragement to show his true colors. 

I agree with the first part, but I’m not convinced Harry was the sweet nice person people think he was.

[Anna Bolinas]

On 6/22/2021 at 4:06 AM, just_ordinary said:

I think you are accidentally proving the point though, by citing the LeBron incident. The American class system works very different. British class is not about money. You can be upper class and poor/have no cash flow and you can be have millions and still be working class. One has still access to networks and will be accepted by them the other one can just dream of it. They will never belong. The British class system is not very permeable. It has loosened up a bit, but I believe a lot of it is superficial while the old structure prevail, just more hidden. Meghan can Model British upper class to a T, she can never be one of them. Not because of the colour of her skin (even though of course her heritage would have prevented her ancestors to ride up the ranks over the centuries) but because neither she, her parents or grandparents were born into the upper class. Not even marriage can remove that. It’s unbelievable snobby and I am sure her skin colour didn’t help but it’s not the core root. 
But I can see why it would look like that to her. I general, think H&M should have openly addressed the they felt irritated and seriously insulted and the other person should have apologised. If I accidentally step on someone’s foot I apologise but I need to notice what I did first.

Right, but since Meghan was born and raised in America and is coming at it from an American perspective, then her perspective on class is going to be tied with race. So I guess what I should've said in my original post is that Americans aren't dim about class, we just have a different class system than the UK, and that's where the confusion sets in.

And I can rephrase the LeBron stuff a little too--if we define class as the milieu in which you were born, then LeBron James's kids are definitely upper class in America because they have been born into wealth. LeBron James's eldest son, LeBron Jr, has attended some fancy private California schools. He'll probably become a successful basketball player himself, though even if he doesn't, his upbringing is very different from mine. I'm lower middle class and went all through public school. But me being white means I will not face the racism that LeBron Jr has probably faced. Meanwhile, of course, in Britain any aristocrat would think we're both low-class trash, so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

On 6/22/2021 at 4:52 AM, EmCatlyn said:

I agree that “not one of us,” is far from a “democratic” statement, but it is not an inherently racist statement. I’ve heard it used by people of different denominations (not just fundies), people from different political parties, “science” versus “humanities” people, etc.   Context is everything.

 

It's not inherently racist, but if a bunch of stuffy white aristocrats looked at a biracial American woman and said to her, "Oh, you don't belong here with us. You're not one of us and you never will be. Better to just leave now because you will never fit in here," I think it's reasonable to assume that there is both racism and classism present in that remark. That is the context, and it's very different from me saying, "Someone from New York can't be a Philadelphia sports fan. You're not one of us."

And those aristocrats can feel all they want that it's true that Meghan will never have had the same experiences as them, but I don't find it particularly ~classy~ to point those kinds of things out to someone, especially if you don't know them that well. Call me an ugly, ignorant American, but in Meghan's position, I would've thrown hands with these snobs like two years ago. 

[viii]

Harry’s had a lot of scandals attached to his name before Meghan was ever on the scene. He complained about the royal family countless times. I don’t know why people are so quick to blame her when he’s shown his ass plenty of times over the years.