Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg I would without hesitation abolish the monarchy tomorrow, or preferably yesterday. I have three times turned down honours from the Crown. But having organised two State Visits abroad and seen things close up, I will say in fairness, I have no doubt the Queen is not a racist.
Can you imagine a page 3 nowadays, Monday a photo of a women, tuesday for men, weds a man who was a woman, Thursday a woman who was a man, Friday the undecided and by then I think we need the weekend off.
It depends what they hoped to achieve by it. If it was a bit of a "f*ck you" to the UK press and the Monarchy as a business/institution then they may consider it to have been a success. If it was also a springboard from which to launch their media (and her case, I suspect, political) careers, then, again, it probably hit the spot in the US. The septics have a schizoid relationship with the Royals in that they love the pomp and ceremony but they are also proud of kicking them out in 1789 and celebrate that fact every July. In this day and age, cancel culture excepting, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and notoriety gets clicks, so despite the vitriol aimed at MM and H by the red tops, the Press must be loving the fact it was not some play-it-safe bland interview which revealed nothing controversial. If it was an attempt to get the UK public back onside and/or get the Press to back off then it was probably a spectacular failure, although we shouldn't use the headlines in the gutter press and the majority opinion expressed in this forum as the barometer. However, I don't think that was their primary aim as that ship has sailed. I do think the timing was somewhat insensitive with Prince Phillip seriously ill in hospital, not to mention counter-productive because if he dies in the near future the Daily Mal will almost certainly write a piece under the headline "Phillip Died of a Broken Heart". In fact they have probably already written it and are just waiting to fill in the dates and times. However, the Mail would probably have written such a story anyway and blamed his poor health on the stress of the first "Megxit" in Jan 2020, so perhaps H & MM felt they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Not to mention that waiting for Phillip to recover is a fools' errand as he is now it seems reaching the end stage of his life and is never going to "get better" but could hang on for another year or two, perhaps more, and if they resolved to wait until after he died, how long after is too soon? It could be years before they felt they could put their side of the story and (as they see it) move on with their lives.
They are perfectly entitled to give up the royal duties and move wherever they want, if they never want to shower or cut their hair again I don’t give a shit. BUT I would NEVER shit on my family like that, if it was so bad I would possibly never speak to them again, but I would NEVER publicise it nor use it to achieve my goals, to me that is unforgivable and why I would not puss in them if they were on fire. Other than that I have as much interest in their lives as they have to mine.
It's interesting that you don't consider what they interpreted as concerned questioning about the colour of a baby's skin as being potentially racist. However, even if it was simple well-meaning but clumsy curiosity, that sort of thing can be excluding and alienating as reinforces the sense that someone is an outsider. Re: the "old white men" claim: Firstly, I've read the article and it merely quotes an anonymous source speaking about the contents of a communique we have not seen, so it is evidentially weightless. Secondly, it does not quote the actual communiqué from the PR company, which raises further concerns about the reliability and credibility of the source and the article itself. Thirdly, and most importantly, it does not appear that the PR team used the headline-grabbing and provocative terms "warning" and "old white men". Instead, presuming it is an accurate quote, it said "The PR person for Harry and Meghan’s company Archewell urged reporters to impress on their seniors to use a “broad range of contributors” once it had been broadcast." I don't see a problem with that - it seems to me more like a plea to be treated fairly and to use at least some journalists who may be able to bring their own experiences to bear when discussing the issues. It may well be that MM is sick to the back teeth of having people who cannot ever have experienced what she has experienced and in fact often exercise wilful blindness about such issues, pontificating about whether something is racist or not. I recall when last summer those two black athletes were treated in an unfair manner by police (IIRC, police claimed they'd been driving erratically then failed to stop but video evidence showed otherwise and they were both handcuffed), the female one declined the opportunity to go on TV to speak about it because she said she refused to debate the existence of racism and have her experiences and those of millions of others denied and denigrated by complacent middle-aged white guys speaking from a position of ignorance. Anyway, congratulations sir, you allowed yourself to be manipulated by the same MSM that you so smugly claim to be aloof from.
yes, technically she can abdicate but it is considered to bring the monarchy into disgrace and therefore it’s not really an option for her. It was considered shameful when her uncle and a dictated, so she never will this is a good summary of how badly she was treated by the press. Nothing less than racist unless someone else can point to another reason for why two wives of princes should be treated so differently. To re affirm, their interview was a terrible thing to do to their family but I don’t think it devalues what they have had to put up with.
well obviously you and I are reading different accounts and wordings, I guess that is exactly what this thread was about. And thanks for your observations about me, much appreciated I’m sure?
Perhaps we did because you actually linked to the wrong page of the Sun website, which was not the "Old White Men" story but a general one "rounding up" BBC coverage and containing numerous links to The Sun's commentary on BBC News (so, really a sort of meta-news rather than actual news) However the page you linked to contained a headline and link to this article headlined "MARKED THEIR CARD: Meghan Markle’s team told BBC not to just use ‘old white men’ when debating Oprah interview", which I presume must have been the one to which you are referring. I suspect you only skim read it before posting, because it seems MM's team did not use that term and it was merely a provocative term inserted by the journalist in order to trigger their readers into a state of furious indignation: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14301228/meghan-harry-warned-bbc-impartial-oprah-interview/
I don’t know who told them that the interview was a good idea. Seems at best insensitive and at worst malicious wrt their family. I don’t care about the tabloids I had to laugh today when William said about the family not being racist. His grandfather couldn’t step off a plane without making a racist comment. https://www.rt.com/uk/387146-prince-philip-quotes-royal/
Here's an at a glance list of those headlines contrasting the Mail and Express' treatment of MM and KM. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
Or that Princess Michael of Kent (daughter of an SS officer) wore a "Blackamoor" brooch, which is basically a posh version of a golliwog badge, to a dinner attended by MM when she was engaged to Harry. https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/...st-brooch-was-sending-a-message-a4521856.html
The advocado incident and holding their "baby humps" are just nonsense trash articles. I did look up both Sussex & Cambridge webpages (for the first time) and the main thing that struck me was one couple talk about their official visits, like a company webpage really. The other gives more personal thoughts, and alludes to some responsibility for the Royal relationship with the Commonwealth which is a bit of a cheek really. No idea if they originally tried to sell clothes on their old site as it doesn't exist anymore. Now your point was your believe in the absence of any other reason, that Kate is treated better by the MSM than Meg due to their race. So here's this article which suggests something quite different. https://www.ccn.com/kate-middleton-handcuffs-proof-media-royal-women-loathing/ BTW. Lizzie could abdicate, that she chooses not to is neither here nor there imo. None of her cousins around Europe used to abdicate either until fairly recently, but now many have. You make your bed & you lie in it.
It’s quite simple. He wants to opt out of duties, he should opt out of the benefits of those duties. If he and/or the family feel protection is still needed, they should pay for it.
Harry himself wore a nazi uniform too. I take it he’s a raging racist nazi too. And as usual you can’t be racist against a white person. Of course.
Not sure whether you’re deliberately exaggerating or misinterpreting.... That sort of behaviour would fall into the category of stupid and insensitive behaviour which may have racist overtones. It depends on context. Turning up at a party attended by your grand-nephew's new mixed race fiancée wearing a posh golliwog badge when brooch-wearing is a subtle channel of communication among upper class ladies (quite possibly racist or perhaps just a horrible coincidence as a result of ignorance, or perhaps even a terribly misguided attempt to show solidarity). Turning up at a fancy dress party wearing a nazi uniform with no other countervailing contextual factors (probably just stupidity/insensitivity). Also just because someone does “something racist” it doesn’t necessarily meant they “are a racist”. On the other hand if they continually do so and it becomes a pattern of behaviour that can’t be explained away, then they probably are. If you’d watched the interview you’d have seen that he admitted that over the past 5 years his eyes have been opened to the experiences and challenges faced by people of colour. Unfortunately however Oprah didn’t ask him about the Nazi uniform (I bloody would!) as I would have been interested to hear how he felt about that now.
I’d have bet money you’d have posted accusing me of racism even tho I was simply pointing out what you and others have either inferred or said direct: you can’t be racist to white people. Seems if someone doesn’t agree with you, they must be racist. Well done. It’s known many of the older guard in the Windsor family were nazi supporters, and probably racist, certainly anti-Jew and anti-polish. I haven’t read the whole thread, lost interest a while back, but I’d wager you have also said or inferred that Pratt Morgan is a racist too. Because he doesn’t like Merkyl any more. Change the record mate. Think the overwhelming answer to the OP is media can’t be trusted Thread on ignore
Oh just stop with the victim mentality based on what you think I might have said but didn’t re: the issue of whether it’s possible for black or brown people to be racist to white people. In order that you don’t continue to debate with you playing both your own role and mine too, like some sort of Punch & Judy show, the short answer is: “Of course it is possible but it’s much less prevalent and widespread and due to the fact that white people are in the majority and at a societal level tend to be more likely to be in positions of power, it’s generally much less serious/harmful, plus it is a nuanced issue and not at all black and white (pun intended)”. If you read back through the thread then there’s a post by @bootsam on that subject. If you want to make this thread about you and your perceived grievances by debating that issue then we can, mate, but you’ve flounced by putting the thread on ignore.
I don’t agree that most racism is from white to of colour. Racism is worldwide . Plenty of white on white racism ie French v Belgians. Most of white Europe don’t like Germans. Pakistani v India and vice versa. Sorry mate but on a worldwide scale you are incorrect. Indians in S Africa not liking people of a darker colour than them, the list goes on and on.
