Racism within the BRF

[noseybutt]

12 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

At least Charles doesn't get to use the excuse of old age, imo.  (Not saying that he does.) Should he be too old to learn new things or change his ways or adjust his attitude when required he is surely too old to be a reigning monarch.

Yeah sure... I wonder how many buddies they'd have left.

Unless it's a royal putting their foot down I am not counting on any lackey  having the guts to tell people this unless there is some sort of public outcry. Nobody told Andrew to stay the fuck home if he can't be trusted not to molest anyone, until there was too much bad press.

The bolded. It’s similar to any CEO. Regardless of age, there are standards. Same for anyone with official capacity. This is the struggle though of having the family and the business so deeply intertwined, it’s far easier to be cut and dried in professional settings than with family.

Regarding older adults ability to change. I agree that there is a slowing down with age and often an unwillingness to keep changing. I would suggest though that some of the basic non-racist attitudes we are talking about have been pretty mainstream since, what, the 1960s? It’s not just an issue of an 80 year old not changing. It’s also that there was no change when she was 20, 30, 40. I think it’s okay for our patience to wear thin.

[klein_roeschen]

14 hours ago, anjulibai said:

The BRF (both the working Royals themselves and their courtiers) need intense diversity, equity and inclusion training. My understanding is that they have thus far been exempt from DEI type laws and regulations, and that needs to end. 

They not only need training in diversity, they need real diversity. How can it be that a position where you represent the royal family and by extend the United Kingdom be a non- paid voluntary position and you need the substantial wealth to fullfill it because you have to pay for yourself? How can that be a full representation of a country like the UK be done by a teeny, tiny fraction coming from peers with generational wealth and privilege? And how much contact have these persons with the people they represent at these functions? Susan Hussey is just the most current and prominent example of these underlying problems and raceism is only one of them.

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

I think it would be a good idea to cut some of these people involved in the pageantry altogether. Feodalism should be in the rearview mirror and I don't really get hereditary titles in this day and age.  Just because some dude killed people the king didn't like in the 1500s, or whatever, why does it mean their descendants need any special status today.

but the idea of hereditary peers still existing sort of makes sense with the racist thinking that some people are better than others because of who their ancestors are

It's not only the titles, it's also that these peers hold a real power. The upper house of the british parliament, the law making body, is made of a large part of hereditary seats. Which means that Lord However, Earl/ Marquess/ Duke of Whocares not only inherited said title, but also a seat in politics, just by the luck of being born in the right place in the right family. That alone comes with priviledges, possibilities and connections the large masses don't have and will never gain.

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, klein_roeschen said:

The upper house of the british parliament, the law making body, is made of a large part of hereditary seats.

And a Russian oligarch and perhaps some who simply paid for their seats.

[noseybutt]

So that’s the thing. Yes, many of our western institutions are racist, sexist, classist, etc. But not all institutions are equally culpable, responsible, powerful, influential.

A racist church on a street corner is not a good thing. But membership is voluntary and that church likely has minimal influence over the lives of people in the community.

A government entity purporting to represent a diverse population is something different.

[Jackie3]

On 12/1/2022 at 6:22 AM, louisa05 said:

She was a friend of the late Queen, not Camilla. And she's been removed from her position. Do you all want her drawn and quartered in Picadilly Circus, too??? 

 

I'm sorry if people are picking on her too much for your taste.  Not many people would defend a racist, but if you choose to, you can.

The fact that she was the Queen's friend says a lot about the Queen.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Jackie3

[Mama Mia]

It seems like this would of been a good opportunity for Charles to address the casual racism that impacts all their doings, instead of just throwing one old lady to the wolves. He could of issued a statement like this:

My family has come to realize that some of our historical views and forms  of communication can be insensitive and hurtfully racist. This is never the intention, and it detracts from the good works our household intends to promote. As King I am taking the opportunity to engage the entire household and staff - including all senior members of the Royal family- in a structured educational journey that will hopefully improve not only our  presentation to the world as representatives of Britain - but also, on a personal note, improve our communication and relationships with my beloved son and his lovely wife and children, who I now realize have been hurt in ways I did not fully appreciate or properly mediate. Please communicate your concerns and suggestions to our staff as we move forward. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Mama Mia

[viii]

That’s giving Charles far too much credit lol. 

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, viii said:

That’s giving Charles far too much credit lol. 

Oh, for sure, he seems hell bent on presenting himself in the worst possible light in every situation. 

[Jackie3]

16 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

It seems like this would of been a good opportunity for Charles to address the casual racism that impacts all their doings, instead of just throwing one old lady to the wolves. He could of issued a statement like this:

 

I think the racism is casual only to those dishing it out. To the recipient, it is anything but casual. 

Right now, we have the following evidence of racism:

Meghan and Harry's word

Lady Hussey

The Royal Chief of Security -- "threats against Meghan were disgusting and dangerous"

The British Prime Minister

I think it's well beyond casual. I also think we can stop accusing H&M of "lying" about what they experienced.

[Jackie3]

On 12/1/2022 at 5:50 AM, nelliebelle1197 said:

I think Meghan Markle is a liar and manipulator and I think Harry is a spoiled and entitled infant. I also think the woman’s story is very much what happened. Both things can be true.

Meghan lied about racism? Here are some people who back up her claims:

The Prime Minister of Britain. The head of Royal Security. Ngozi Fulani. And then there's this:

Why would William have agreed to get on this throne?

It might be important to ask yourself why you need to believe Meghan made this stuff up.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Jackie3

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

I think the racism is casual only to those dishing it out. To the recipient, it is anything but casual. 

Right now, we have the following evidence of racism:

Meghan and Harry's word

Lady Hussey

The Royal Chief of Security -- "threats against Meghan were disgusting and dangerous"

The British Prime Minister

I think it's well beyond casual. I also think we can stop accusing H&M of "lying" about what they experienced.

Of course. By “casual” I mean it’s so embedded  in the way they are raised and how they interact and see the world that they don’t even notice it.  They aren’t going out lighting torches and actively campaigning to keep “those” people out . It’s more insidious because it’s more subtle.
 

The badgering about where the guest was from is a good example. If the guest was a fellow aristocratic white woman with an unusual name it’s likely that Lady Whatever might have politely asked her once or twice where she was from, as part of conversation— then stopped. She wouldn’t have gone on and on. Her entire role in life has been to make people feel comfortable, that’s her literal job. Even if people aren’t being particularly friendly to her. But she didn’t take the objections seriously because she didn’t see the person as seriously. That’s where casual racism comes in.  In regards to Meghan it was probably similar. They don’t “see”  the difference between tabloid mean comments regarding Kate’s clothes or William’s affairs and the rabid hatred of Meghan based on race. Obviously they should. But they haven’t. 

[KnittingOwl]

On 12/4/2022 at 5:06 PM, Mama Mia said:

Oh, for sure, he seems hell bent on presenting himself in the worst possible light in every situation. 

In general, I don’t think the “never complain, never explain” works as a policy anymore. Especially with a monarch like Charles. You need a strong monarch to make that work, and I just don’t see it happening in a modern society that expects explanations of what is going on. 

[AmazonGrace]

If the intention is to give the impression that "we don't care what any of you peasants think" then "never explain" is the way to go. 

[noseybutt]

22 minutes ago, KnittingOwl said:

In general, I don’t think the “never complain, never explain” works as a policy anymore. Especially with a monarch like Charles. You need a strong monarch to make that work, and I just don’t see it happening in a modern society that expects explanations of what is going on. 

I also wonder if it wasn’t a product of its time. As in, for “never complain, never explain” to work, you also need a modern press with quick but not instantaneous news cycles and a lack of cellphone video that might tell a different story than what the press is spinning. IOW, it was a way to get the press to focus on a particular story line.

A rough analogy is how police departments are now having to deal differently with use of force incidences because of body cam and public cell phone footage. It’s no longer possible to quietly lay low and let it disappear in the next news cycle.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by noseybutt

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

If the intention is to give the impression that "we don't care what any of you peasants think" then "never explain" is the way to go. 

But they do care, very much. If the peasants don't like them, Britain will become a republic.

[prayawaythefundie]

11 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

There are teams of marketing people who decide on release dates. It's very carefully planned, as  it affects things like Q4 profits and shareholder reports. It's the essence of naivete that Netflix would change it on a whim of Harry's. Netflix is the payer, they make the rules.

It makes perfect sense that Netflix would release a trailer when a royal is in town. And just before the book release. It makes them more money that way. They'd be stupid to release the trailer during a lazy week in July. They're making the choice that will make them more money, since obviously they want to recoup the money they gave to the Sussexs.

I hope this has helped you understand a little better how corporations make their decisions. I think you didn't think it through.

What you describe may very well be true but I won‘t let them off the hook that easily. If you keep ordering throwing bombs at others (your own family) you can‘t always come back and say „Ooops, I didn‘t mean to kill you. Since I let my assistant throw, he hit too hard. Not my fault. I would have just taken your arm“.

They keep intentionally & publicly attacking his family over and over again and if they didn‘t mean to hit so hard than maybe they shouldn‘t have given those big corporations that much power over their story. So yes, Harry & Meghan are totally responsible for this one way or another. They should at least own it.

Edited December 8, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

On 12/8/2022 at 9:30 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

What you describe may very well be true but I won‘t let them off the hook that easily. If you keep ordering throwing bombs at others (your own family) you can‘t always come back and say „Ooops, I didn‘t mean to kill you. Since I let my assistant throw, he hit too hard. Not my fault. I would have just taken your arm“.

 

I don't think he wants to go back. So that's OK.

Also, why is it a bomb to speak the truth? Sounds like H&M are expected to put up and shut up. Sort of like fundie women are expected to "keep sweet." It's very similar!

 

[Coconut Flan]

Just because they say it, doesn't make it true.  Far too many of their assertions have been easily proven false.  

[viii]

26 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Just because they say it, doesn't make it true.  Far too many of their assertions have been easily proven false.  

That's the really unfortunate thing here. Even when Harry or Meghan is saying something truthful, there's always a seed of doubt in the back of my mind because of other things they've said that have been easily proven false. 

[TN-peach]

18 minutes ago, viii said:

That's the really unfortunate thing here. Even when Harry or Meghan is saying something truthful, there's always a seed of doubt in the back of my mind because of other things they've said that have been easily proven false. 

When someone testifies and they are caught in a lie under oath many jurisdictions have a jury instruction that basically say you can disregard that person’s whole testimony based on that one lie. 
 

It is the same concept here “we were married 3 days before”, “Kate made me cry” ( I think probably both cried because they were both stressed and Catherine would have been exhaust and hormonal.) 

[Jackie3]

4 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Just because they say it, doesn't make it true.  Far too many of their assertions have been easily proven false.  

The media, you mean? They do lie a lot. It's true.

The Palace? They lie all the time. 

If H&M will be lying in the upcoming documentary, why is the Palace quaking? As you say, their lies will be "easily proven false." Yet that hasnt' happened so far. Strange.

Have you found that link that shows H&M calling their kids Prince and Princess? You seemed so sure about it. I hope it wasn't a lie that can be  "easily disproven." lol

[Coconut Flan]

Misquoting me doesn't work either.

[Mrs Ms]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

Misquoting me doesn't work either.

Bless you for still responding. I am almost impressed the troll hasn’t gotten bored yet. It would take way too much of my energy to think of ways to “misconstrue” everything and twist it into something awful. I definitely have different hobbies…. 🤷‍♀️

[SoSoNosy]

But Jackie3 is all powerful here at FreeJinger.  I have tried twice, she shows in my profile as "ignored", and here she still is.  So I am apparently destined to argue with  her until Beansie takes over the world.

 

[Jackie3]

It's not just Lady Hussey who asks racist questions to nonwhite British citizens.  Charles does this too!

Quote

“And where are you from?” asked the prince.

“Manchester, UK,” I said.

“Well, you don’t look like it!” he said, and laughed. He was then ushered on to the next person.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/prince-charles-brown-skin-british-people-head-of-commonwealth

Edited December 13, 2022 by Jackie3