Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you saying because she has 1 black parent - she is most certainly black? Why can’t she be white? Her father is white.
Isn’t it the outdated and racist 1 drop of blood theory?
Or is it like in Judaism- if your mother is Jewish, then you are a Jew.
If your father is Jewish, but the mother is not- then you are not Jewish?
I don’t get it: why is MM considered being black?
President Obama is biracial as well, but yet he's "Black".
I think not only DNA plays into this, but culture and the noticeable physical characteristics that identify a person as black as well. Especially when there's been a history of racism from the dominant white population, a bi racial person will stand out and appear as black, and often "forced" to stay within the minority group. Of course this mentality was more so in ye olden days, but much of the thinking and gravitation to the minority group remains, and these days there seems to be a lot of voluntary self segregation such as separate graduations etc.
Piers certainly may be wrong in his assessment (I really don't care) but it could be for a range of motivations including bias towards the crown, personal relationships or a host of things other than racism.
To immediately classify any dissent as racist, or even any support that the person might be wrong but not racist....makes you racist as well?
It's an offensive claim to say the least.
I'd expect "The Talk" to lose a lot of viewership over this.
I thought these kind of talk show formats thrived on heated discussion and controversies amongst highly opinionated people. So I guess in the future the networks want bland personalities engaging in college level debates on current events.
I thought these kind of talk show formats thrived on heated discussion and controversies amongst highly opinionated people. So I guess in the future the networks want bland personalities engaging in college level debates on current events.
Heated discussion is one thing. Gross personal attacks entirely another.
A talk show host where you must agree with their view points or get labeled in horrific fashion, is not long for network TV.
I mean seriously, who would want to go on a show where the host might accuse you of racism for disagreeing with them?
That gal is no Oprah as others have pointed out, after this she may find herself falling down the rungs to cable TV gigs.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 18 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
I don't believe a word coming out of Meghans mouth either and now not only has she alienated herself from her biological family she's alienated herself from her in-laws too. Apart from her 'hangers on' has she any real friends left? With the exception of her idiot husband that is.
As far as I could see the problem was nothing to do with race, it was to do with allegations made during the Oprah interview and especially four allegations made by Harry and Meghan.
The first is that they were married two days prior to their actual wedding which has been proved to be false by the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby .
The seconds is Archie would not be given a title due to racism, which again is false.
It is Royal Protocol that Great-grandchildren of the monarch are not princes or princesses, except for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In the current situation, that means that Prince George, the eldest son of Prince William, automatically became a prince, but not Archie, even though they are both great-grandsons of the Queen. Under this protocol, Prince George's siblings - Charlotte and Louis - will not have receive the title either.
Prince Charles has expressed his wish to cut titles further, to the immediate family, however he suggested this long before Harry even met Meghan.
So this has nothing to do with race.
The third accusation is that a member of the Royal Family of stating how dark would the baby be, which they later had to elaborate on, stating it wasn't the Queen or Prince Philip. The Palace launched an investigation and will deal with the matter internally if proven correct. Prince William has now publicly stated that the Royal Family is 'very much not racist'.
The fourth allegation was in respect of Britain withdrawing armed protection, which is again false, indeed the UK can not provide permanent armed police in another country, nor can British police have the same any powers of arrest or detention in the US.
In relation to these allegations it's not Piers Morgan that's stating they are false, it's the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, actual written Royal Protocol and Prince William and other Royals, as well as member of the Police.
The only thing Piers Morgan did was point these falsehoods out and state his own opinion in relation to Meghan, which wasn't based on race but was more to do with personality traits.
As for Harry and Meghan, they are not working Royals and should be cut free from the Royal Family, including the loss of titles, and as far as most people in Britain are concerned if you are not going to perform national public duties then why should you retain royal status.
Last edited by Brave New World; 04-05-2021 at 03:43 AM..
President Obama is biracial as well, but yet he's "Black".
I think not only DNA plays into this, but culture and the noticeable physical characteristics that identify a person as black as well. Especially when there's been a history of racism from the dominant white population, a bi racial person will stand out and appear as black, and often "forced" to stay within the minority group. Of course this mentality was more so in ye olden days, but much of the thinking and gravitation to the minority group remains, and these days there seems to be a lot of voluntary self segregation such as separate graduations etc.
He has a white mother and a black father. If I remember correctly, his father wasn't even in his life, if that's the case, he probably was not raised knowing the African American culture.
What Obama did, saying he's black is one of my big peeves because he's just as much white as he is black unless he's going to test his DNA, then he could have say 56% African American DNA which makes him appear more African American then white. I tested my 2 grand kids, my granddaughter is somehow 63% European (we supposedly get equal amounts of DNA from each parent) while my grandson is 56% European. One of my daughters friends is doing the same as Obama, it's been driving me nuts. She has a picture of her son that says #because I have a black son when he is mixed. At one time, I had a discussion with my grandson when he told me Obama was the 1st African American President. I explained that Obama was mixed just like he is. He couldn't understand why Obama wouldn't say he was mixed.
There are a lot of mixed kids by me. My grandson in 2nd grade. They're doing hybrid and remote, decided to move all of the remote kids into one class so my grandson has a new remote teacher. According to my grandson, every student in his class is mixed. Just about all of my daughters friends who are late 20's, have mixed kids. I can only think of 2 that have white kids, one of those 2 has 2 mixed kids and one white kid.
Obama choosing to label himself black isn't doing all of those kids any favors by doing so. He should have been proud of both of his ethnicities to pave the way for others like him because there's discrimination for people that are mixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
As far as I could see the problem was nothing to do with race, it was to do with allegations made during the Oprah interview and especially four allegations made by Harry and Meghan.
The first is that they were married two days prior to their actual wedding which has been proved to be false by the Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby .
The seconds is Archie would not be given a title due to racism, which again is false.
It is Royal Protocol that Great-grandchildren of the monarch are not princes or princesses, except for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In the current situation, that means that Prince George, the eldest son of Prince William, automatically became a prince, but not Archie, even though they are both great-grandsons of the Queen. Under this protocol, Prince George's siblings - Charlotte and Louis - will not have receive the title either.
Prince Charles has expressed his wish to cut titles further, to the immediate family, however he suggested this long before Harry even met Meghan.
So this has nothing to do with race.
The third accusation is that a member of the Royal Family of stating how dark would the baby be, which they later had to elaborate on, stating it wasn't the Queen or Prince Philip. The Palace launched an investigation and will deal with the matter internally if proven correct. Prince William has now publicly stated that the Royal Family is 'very much not racist'.
The fourth allegation was in respect of Britain withdrawing armed protection, which is again false, indeed the UK can not provide permanent armed police in another country, nor can British police have the same any powers of arrest or detention in the US.
In relation to these allegations it's not Piers Morgan that's stating they are false, it's the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, actual written Royal Protocol and Prince William and other Royals, as well as member of the Police.
The only thing Piers Morgan did was point these falsehoods out and state his own opinion in relation to Meghan, which wasn't based on race but was more to do with personality traits.
As for Harry and Meghan, they are not working Royals and should be cut free from the Royal Family, including the loss of titles, and as far as most people in Britain are concerned if you are not going to perform national public duties then why should you retain royal status.
If only Prince George gets a title, why do Prince Andrew's daughters have the title of Princess or was that before the change in guidelines? I guess the press referring to Charlotte as Princess are wrong? Same with the rest of Williams kids with the title of Prince so and so.
Thanks for the summery. I've yet to find time to try to watch the Oprah interview to see exactly what Meghan is claiming. I personally don't care for Oprah. Being the grandparent of 2 mixed grand kids plus understanding that the Monarchy is European and very much like white bread, I'm sure they had questions about the possibility of Harry and Meghan having a dark skinned child. While there are a lot of mixed kids in my town, England may not be like my town. Meghan should have known that they would have questions. There's no reason it had to be turned into them being racist because they had questions.
What I read about Piers was that he was giving an opinion both because he lives there, plus he's friends with Meghan. To me, Piers has his own opinion, like we all do. He just happens to be a celebrity who's voice gets heard louder.
I had also read where the Archbishop had said he had meetings with them but won't divulge if they had the "backyard" ceremony but that he did not sign the license until the big wedding that everyone watched, so legally they were not legally married in the private ceremony.
As for security, why do they even need it? This is America, not Britain where Harry's head may be worth ransom, but then again, now that he gave up his role, he's really not worth much to anyone but Meghan.
It's a shame they chose to air all of this nationally instead of bringing it up in private where it belongs. I'm surprised they didn't sign an NDA (non-discloure agreement) that would make them legally not allowed to do this.
I really liked Harry. Out of all of them, he seemed like an ok guy who would fit in in America. I believe Princess Diana was looking for a California house too when she died. I think she would have approved of Harry stepping down and relocating.
I highly doubt Meghan will change her ways. I'm not familiar with her before she got married, after they married I'd read a few articles about her with how outspoken she can be and how much she loved to blog. She had to shut her blog down which probably hurt. Her whole life changed when she said "I do" but she knew what she was getting into.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 18 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roselvr
If only Prince George gets a title, why do Prince Andrew's daughters have the title of Princess or was that before the change in guidelines? I guess the press referring to Charlotte as Princess are wrong? Same with the rest of Williams kids with the title of Prince so and so.
Prince Andrew's children are Grandchildren and not Great-Grandchildren, and Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice's will not have titles.
The Queen's great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's son Archie, Princess Eugenie's son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of 'prince' or 'princess'.
It also should be noted that Princess Anne chose not to give her children also Grand Children a title and neither Zara or Peter Philip's children have titles.
Whilst Prince Edwards children are merely Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, rather than Prince or Princess.
Under existing convention, Archie could be named a prince should his grandfather, Prince Charles take the throne, however Charles stated long before Harry met Meghan that he wished to reform the family, and only grant titles to the immediate core family thereby cutting the number of Royals. This was reported years ago.
It's strange that Harry and Meghan, want titles for themselves and their children, despite not being working Royals and despite complaining about the media attention and having this royalty forced upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roselvr
Thanks for the summery. I've yet to find time to try to watch the Oprah interview to see exactly what Meghan is claiming. I personally don't care for Oprah. Being the grandparent of 2 mixed grand kids plus understanding that the Monarchy is European and very much like white bread, I'm sure they had questions about the possibility of Harry and Meghan having a dark skinned child. While there are a lot of mixed kids in my town, England may not be like my town. Meghan should have known that they would have questions. There's no reason it had to be turned into them being racist because they had questions.
What I read about Piers was that he was giving an opinion both because he lives there, plus he's friends with Meghan. To me, Piers has his own opinion, like we all do. He just happens to be a celebrity who's voice gets heard louder.
I had also read where the Archbishop had said he had meetings with them but won't divulge if they had the "backyard" ceremony but that he did not sign the license until the big wedding that everyone watched, so legally they were not legally married in the private ceremony.
As for security, why do they even need it? This is America, not Britain where Harry's head may be worth ransom, but then again, now that he gave up his role, he's really not worth much to anyone but Meghan.
It's a shame they chose to air all of this nationally instead of bringing it up in private where it belongs. I'm surprised they didn't sign an NDA (non-discloure agreement) that would make them legally not allowed to do this.
I really liked Harry. Out of all of them, he seemed like an ok guy who would fit in in America. I believe Princess Diana was looking for a California house too when she died. I think she would have approved of Harry stepping down and relocating.
I highly doubt Meghan will change her ways. I'm not familiar with her before she got married, after they married I'd read a few articles about her with how outspoken she can be and how much she loved to blog. She had to shut her blog down which probably hurt. Her whole life changed when she said "I do" but she knew what she was getting into.
The allegations have largely been proved to be nonsense.
As for claims they were financially cut off, they are also nonsense.
Although why non working Royals should feel that the nation owes them a living or indeed titles is beyond me, they should be stripped of titles and allowed to get on their way. The Royals can fill in any duties by bringing Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice back in to the fold, and of course William's children when they are old enough.
Prince Andrew's children are Grandchildren and not Great-Grandchildren, and Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice's will not have titles.
The Queen's great-grandchildren including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's son Archie, Princess Eugenie's son August Brooksbank, Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips children do not possess the title of 'prince' or 'princess'.
It also should be noted that Princess Anne chose not to give her children also Grand Children a title and neither Zara or Peter Philip's children have titles.
Whilst Prince Edwards children are merely Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, rather than Prince or Princess.
Under existing convention, Archie could be named a prince should his grandfather, Prince Charles take the throne, however Charles stated long before Harry met Meghan that he wished to reform the family, and only grant titles to the immediate core family thereby cutting the number of Royals. This was reported years ago.
It's strange that Harry and Meghan, want titles for themselves and their children, despite not being working Royals and despite complaining about the media attention and having this royalty forced upon them.
I agree that if they're not working royals, she should not have one. I don't think Harry should lose his that he was born with.
I guess immediate "core" family would be those that would one day be King or Queen by birth but not their siblings unless the oldest child was deceased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
The allegations have largely been proved to be nonsense.
As for claims they were financially cut off, they are also nonsense.
Although why non working Royals should feel that the nation owes them a living or indeed titles is beyond me, they should be stripped of titles and allowed to get on their way. The Royals can fill in any duties by bringing Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice back in to the fold, and of course William's children when they are old enough.
If they're not working royals, they should not be getting funded, period. Harry should have more then enough money to support them plus she can go back to acting.
I'm shocked to read they weren't paid to be on Oprah.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
