Are you sitting down? There’s racism in the royal family!

There is no institution more connected to White Supremacy than than the British Royalty.

The British Royalty has always been insular group of White people. They were worried about purity of bloodline to the point of having kids with genetic deformities. The rose to power and gained their wealth by pillaging, killing and dominating indigenous people in Asia and America and Africa and Australia.

With that history, I don't see how it could be any other way. Many British people still think that British colonialism (with all of its brutality and subjugation of whole cultures) was a blessing to the world.

Progressives sure are goofy the way they always falsely accuse everyone of racism.

My dear Snood, clearly history is not your forte:

Philippa of Hainault (June 24, 1314 – August 15, 1369) was a 14th century Queen of England — the Queen-Consort of Edward III to be exact and is rumored to have African ancestry. She was the daughter of the Count of Hainault in the Low Countries (now in Belgium), an area that had once been ruled by Moorish tribes.

Fast forward more than 400 years to Charlotte of Mecklenburg (May 19, 1744 – November 17, 1818). She was the Queen of Great Britain, consort of George III. Also a Princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz – a small territory within the Holy Roman Empire – she was descended via six separate lines from Margarita de Castro, the daughter of Alfonso III of Portugal and his mistress, Mourana Gil, an African of Moorish descent.

It is often pointed out that there are distinct sub-Saharan aspects to portraits of Queen Charlotte, features that are unmistakably African. Queen Charlotte gave birth to 15 children with 13 of them surviving childhood and is has been stated that she is responsible for introducing the Christmas tree in English culture which is now of course a world-wide tradition.

Mohammed Abdul Karim CVO CIE (1863 – April 1909), known as "the Munshi", was an Indian attendant of Queen Victoria. He served her during the final fourteen years of her reign, gaining her maternal affection over that time.

Karim was born the son of a hospital assistant near Jhansi in British India. In 1887, the year of Victoria's Golden Jubilee, Karim was one of two Indians selected to become servants to the Queen. Victoria came to like him a great deal and gave him the title of "Munshi" ("clerk" or "teacher"). Victoria appointed him to be her Indian Secretary, showered him with honours, and obtained a land grant for him in India.

Emma Thynn may not be a household name like Meghan Markle, but she is definitely transforming the idea of British Aristocracy and has been since her marriage in 2013.



Emma is Britain’s first Black marchioness, and In the ranks of British peerage, a marquess and marchioness are second only to a duke and duchess.

I would also like to make clear that just as children can take their surnames from their father, so sovereigns normally take the name of their 'House' from their father.

For this reason, Queen Victoria's eldest son Edward VII belonged to the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (the family name of his father Prince Albert). Edward VII's son George V became the second king of that dynasty when he succeeded to the throne in 1910.

In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family.

The family name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was changed as a result of anti-German feeling during the First World War, and the name Windsor was adopted after the Castle of the same name.

A panda born at the National Zoo in D.C. remains a Chinese panda whatever its name. The 'British' royal family are therefore German.


To counter Max's defamatory and excruciatingly nefarious utterances, may I suggest he take the time to read about the Black Heroes of Trafalgar, when 207 years ago Admiral Horatio Nelson defeated the combined French and Spanish fleet... and on his ship alone, there served 441 English on board on the morning of the battle. The remainder were a seafaring United Nations: 64 Scots, 63 Irish, 18 Welsh, 3 Shetlanders, 2 Channel Islanders, one Manxman, 21 Americans, 7 Dutch, 6 Swedes, 4 Italians, 4 Maltese, 3 Norwegians, 3 Germans, 2 Swiss, 2 Portuguese, 2 Danes, 2 Indians, 1 Russian, 1 Brazilian, 1 African, 9 West Indians, and three French volunteers.

They also released men from slavery and they were freed to join the Navy. A lot of those listed on board as Americans could possibly have been black slaves who were freed.

The black sailors were such an integral part of the Royal Navy that a black figure is given a key role in the painting of the death of Nelson by Daniel Maclise which is in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool, with a copy on the wall of the Royal Gallery in the House of Lords.

The sailor, flanked by two redcoats, is pictured in the centre of the canvas, standing over the dying Nelson, and he is pointing up at the rigging, probably at the sniper who fired the fatal ball that had penetrated Lord Nelson's spine.

Furthermore; An almost identical black figure was also carved later on the plinth on the south side of Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square. The man is unidentified, but may be one of the nine West Indians who were listed on board the Victory at the battle. They include Jonathan Hardy, 25, an ordinary seaman, John Thomas, 23, a Jamaican landsman, or John Francois, 32, an ordinary seaman. George Ryan, 24, also was listed as "African''.


Of all the countries in the world the UK must be the most diverse with some 52 minority MP's and Sajid Javid as chancellor and Priti Patel as home secretary, together with four other non-white ministers – Alok Sharma, Rishi Sunak, James Cleverly and Kwasi Karteng.

There be an old sayin' down here in this neck of the woods and y'all wood do well to remember it before ya haver

Maybe someone (who actually wants to respond to the salient points raised) could help me out with something...
Why are (white) people acting so gobsmacked that the British royals would be concerned about the skin color of Meghan’s unborn baby?

No salient points have been raised.

I doubt that any British royals are concerned about skin color.

I doubt that any white people are acting gobsmacked about anything in particular.

I do think that progressives are goofy for falsely accusing most of the world of racism.

Helping you out is the last thing that I am interested in doing. However, I am in fact truthfully representing my views (I always do so). If that happens to help you by accident, then I'll just have to live with that.

nyt

Why don't you make an effort to understand what's going on instead of answering in your usual glib manner. I can understand why this issue is of little concern to you but you are seriously uninformed — to the point of ignorance. A very poor showing from you, oralloy.

It's more the overt racism of actually asking Harry about it instead of whispering it behind his back.

Well I would have thought that it was more that she is a "commoner" than her skin tone that would have been the issue. I mean if he married from another "royal" family that was dark skinned - I would have thought they would not have issue.

I guess I picture them being more showing classism rather than racism.

You think they speak of skin tone rather than class/being royal- do they think that is a better type of discrimination?

But what do I know - I am just a silly American.

Interesting thing I read (I did not see the interview) but got this from the news:

“He wanted to make sure that I knew, and if I had an opportunity to share it, that it was not his grandmother nor his grandfather that were a part of those conversations.”

So who did say this? His dad? Why would he say not his grandmother or grandfather - but not mention anyone else? If it was a family member not so close - you would think he would say a distant family member or someone that is not an immediate family member.

Just curious?

That would be my take too, I think. They’re just shocked anyone is bringing it out into the open. They’re more comfortable with subtlety and subterfuge.

It’s not that I “think” they’re talking about skin tone. Harry and Meghan expressly said they were asked how dark they thought Archie was going to be. You really should familiarize yourself with the subject before commenting - it decreases confusion.

I think that it’s a deflection to try to turn attention to who said the racist thing to Harry. The much more important thing is that concern about a child’s skin tone was raised. And it was a wake up call for Harry. And it was a big part of why they had to get out of there.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to get at. I was trying to say I am surprised that they did mention and were concerned about skin tone -- because I would have thought that to them a royal bloodline would be more important.

I realize that they DID mention skin tone - was more commenting on your thinking that it should not be surprising whereas - to me royalty seems to more concerned on being married among another royal bloodline - no matter the color. So I could see how it might be surprising skin tone was brought up rather than the lack of royal blood

I agree - just wondering though why Harry would say that? He could still in a way want to protect his grandparents.

I wonder if he had some choice words for them !

Is anyone else struck by the fact that Meghan Markle's skin tone is "whiter" than that of a lot of Europeans?

Hadn’t really occurred to me. I’m not one of those people who claims “I don’t see color”, by any means, but that certainly strikes me as a weird something to be calling attention to here.

Is it supposed to be like a proof of the shallowness and/or disingenuousness of the royals for caring about the shade of her baby but not being aware she’s light skinned?

I don't have a satisfactory answer, but part of it is because anything that shows white people might be racists is embarrassing. It's proof we might not be the wonderful people we think we are. No one should be surprised at what has happened to Meghan, what's indefensible is the craven notion that a child's skin color determines his worth. I blame the Queen for letting this get out of hand, if she had embraced the marriage of her grandson and Meghan the rest would have shut up and kept their ugly superstitions to themselves. What really irks me, is the fact that white Americans claim they are all aghast about racism in another country..........too many people want to believe they are descendants of Royals therefore Royals are exemplary and would never be less than Devine.

It's difficult to write a concise paragraph about racism, there are many bogus reasons that can be boiled down to jealousy, fear, irrationality, false pride, arrogance, complacency and unfair competition. We all have to put our foot down, we are supposed to be a melting pot.........Leave Meghan alone

Meghan was pretty clear in saying that the queen was always very welcoming and kind to her. Both her and Harry indicated that the problems they had didn't come from her.

I've seen a couple people here say the Queen could have put her foot down and avoided a lot of the issues. I don't know if that's realistic. I get the impression the Queen was sheltered and kept from having to deal with anything ugly. Besides, she probably would have a bullet-layer of good old denial that would keep her from ever acknowledging things like the pedophilia of Andrew, the adultery of Charles (and Diana), or the raw racism of anyone.

But it was mentioned prominently in the media and you brought it up here:

It suggests, to me, that the issue is racism and the mention of "skin color", as if it were simply an aesthetic matter, is just a way for the royals to hide their actual concern with the "racial purity" of the bloodline because they know that sort of thinking is reprehensible.

No.