Jump to content

Menu

Meghan & Harry Interview


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

The thing about skin color - they should have made a documented complaint when it happened if it happened.  If they did, then they can prove that and it's on the "Firm" to prove that they investigated and what else they did about it.

Who was it?  You can't just make a public accusation like that and leave it open as to who did it.  OK so it wasn't Elizabeth II or Philip, then was it Charles, William, Kate, one of the minor children, or some aunt/uncle or a more distant relative?  It matters.  It's not fair to just say "someone in the family did this" and let everyone make their own assumptions about such a thing.

If I had to guess, it was either Charles or William. In fact I wonder if that’s what William said as an advice to think and slow down the relationship that sent Harry off the rails. Total speculation. 
I could even see the family around the table discussing this and giggling. Why? Because I have witnessed those sorts of discussions on more than one occasion and participants don’t even think it’s racist. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

If I had to guess, it was either Charles or William. In fact I wonder if that’s what William said as an advice to think and slow down the relationship that sent Harry off the rails. Total speculation. 
I could even see the family around the table discussing this and giggling. Why? Because I have witnessed those sorts of discussions on more than one occasion and participants don’t even think it’s racist. 

I’m not sure who said it but my guess is it was someone very close. Who else would have the temerity to raise the issue to Harry’s face? Who’re you gonna complain to about your own family?

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I’m not sure who said it but my guess is it was someone very close. Who else would have the temerity to raise the issue to Harry’s face? Who’re you gonna complain to about your own family?

Seems better to complain to someone who can do something about it contemporaneously than to tell the whole world years later, leaving the actual perp open to speculation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to see who some of you believe without question and write off as lying without question.

Also I think all the speculation about who discussed the baby’s skin tone is mind boggling. You have no idea who it was, and you know virtually nothing about them, but some of you feel absolutely no qualms on pinning it on William or Charles. Honestly the hypocrisy is amazing. If the person is saying something you agree with then they can’t possibly be wrong, but anyone else - just throw them under the bus. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

If I had to guess, it was either Charles or William. In fact I wonder if that’s what William said as an advice to think and slow down the relationship that sent Harry off the rails. Total speculation. 
I could even see the family around the table discussing this and giggling. Why? Because I have witnessed those sorts of discussions on more than one occasion and participants don’t even think it’s racist. 

Twitter has apparently decided it was Charles, but I can't figure out if that was leaked or if it was just because of a poorly timed photo op where he was standing around a vaccination site with majority black people today and everyone thought it was tasteless.  Surely it was planned months ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

Twitter has apparently decided it was Charles, but I can't figure out if that was leaked or if it was just because of a poorly timed photo op where he was standing around a vaccination site with majority black people today and everyone thought it was tasteless.  Surely it was planned months ago.

I read an article that said it had been on the schedule for quite a while.

Truthfully none of this is an either/or.  I have no trouble believing that some of the BRF had questions about what the baby would like like and that Meghan bullied her staff. Or that there was racism and she was discouraged from seeking mental health treatment, and that M and H had very unrealistic expectations that set them up for problems with his family.

 If nothing else, Harry and Meghan both seem extremely naive.  I don’t believe she didn’t do some research on Harry or his family.  The way Diana and Fergie were treated in the family and by the press is public knowledge and well documented.  I don’t believe she didn’t have some clue what she was walking into.

But we all believe love can conquer all when we’re in those early stages of a relationship.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TCB said:

It’s interesting to see who some of you believe without question and write off as lying without question.

Also I think all the speculation about who discussed the baby’s skin tone is mind boggling. You have no idea who it was, and you know virtually nothing about them, but some of you feel absolutely no qualms on pinning it on William or Charles. Honestly the hypocrisy is amazing. If the person is saying something you agree with then they can’t possibly be wrong, but anyone else - just throw them under the bus. 

What can you expect in a thread where a poster literally threw around allegations of being ok with child abuse when she did not like someone else disbelieving conspiracy theories about the Palace wanting M and A killed?

Misinformation is ok, apparently, when serving some notion of 'doing justice'. 

Actually, misinformation and conspiracy theory never serves any form of justice. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SKL said:

Seems better to complain to someone who can do something about it contemporaneously than to tell the whole world years later, leaving the actual perp open to speculation.

No one can 'do' something about your family. If it had been staff, they would have said it was the 'institution' as they had no qualms doing that repeatedly throughout the interview. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No one can 'do' something about your family. If it had been staff, they would have said it was the 'institution' as they had no qualms doing that repeatedly throughout the interview. 

Well, you know, I have family who come from various backgrounds and may have said something about skin color.  If I feel something needs to be done about it, I go to the person who said it, or if I feel powerless to do that, I go to someone who does have power to do something about it.  I don't save it up for an Oprah interview.

But again, if it needed to be said to the whole world, at least say who it was, so the rest of the family doesn't get implicated along with whoever said whatever.

[Also, I'm not so sure that nothing could be done about what a family member said.  At a minimum the people in charge of protocol or whatever should advise the errant family member about using better judgment.  As has been discussed, the family isn't autonomous, not even the queen.]

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well, you know, I have family who come from various backgrounds and may have said something about skin color.  If I feel something needs to be done about it, I go to the person who said it, or if I feel powerless to do that, I go to someone who does have power to do something about it.  I don't save it up for an Oprah interview.

But again, if it needed to be said to the whole world, at least say who it was, so the rest of the family doesn't get implicated along with whoever said whatever.

You're not a royal family member either, nothing to protect anyone from. I have BOTH gone to my family members about concerns AND explained to others why we are no longer communicating but we don't have public reputations to protect. No one cares outside of family and friends what's happening in either of our households.

In all honesty, I think H&M came across as incredibly naive, him WRT to the race issues their relationship would raise, and her willfully so WRT the ability to manage the 'the institution'. If they'd paid any attention they'd know that every generation needs a scapegoat/scapegrace to distract from the monarch and direct heirs. Let's face it, William and Kate are BORING. In exchange for their peaceful, boring, well-managed personas, someone, someway, was gonna have to be sacrificed to keep the hounds fed. That these two thought they would be able to escape that fate is astounding. That 'the institution' thought they'd happily go along with that is equally astounding.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well, you know, I have family who come from various backgrounds and may have said something about skin color.  If I feel something needs to be done about it, I go to the person who said it, or if I feel powerless to do that, I go to someone who does have power to do something about it.  I don't save it up for an Oprah interview.

But again, if it needed to be said to the whole world, at least say who it was, so the rest of the family doesn't get implicated along with whoever said whatever.

When my colorist MIL expressed happiness that our first born was fair, I expressed an appreciation that she may have meant to suggest she was happy that our child would not face as much discrimination by virtue of said fairness, but that how fair or dark our child was held zero relevance to us as parents. We would not be rubbing talc into her skin in order to 'help the fairness along'. In the same way as when FIL wished us 'better luck next time, you must give us a grandson!', I told him that we were thrilled to have a daughter and would love for her to have a sister. 

Why H could not have shut his racist relatives down at the time and then protected his spouse from the comment - white partners in mixed marriages think long and hard before bringing their own outragedness back to the spouse - I cannot imagine. It's doable. Even if one is a Prince. 

I suppose H has form for not really getting issues - it's within the last decade he was blithely calling people from Pakistan an offensive slur, and everyone other than unreconstructed racists have known it's a slur for at least the last thirty years. 

The two were not naive but full of hubris. 

Personally, the only member of the RF I have time for is the one without hubris, which is Anne. Refused her husband a title, kids lived a private life, spends her days engaged in that boring practice of public duty and largely shuns celebrity. Her children live boring private lives sans security as a result.

Sack the lot of 'em and put her in charge of the referendum on becoming a Republic. That's my vote, along with never having to hear from members or ex-members ever again. What a waste of three days worth of international oxygen. 

The entire circus is obnoxious.

 

 

 

Edited by Melissa Louise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You're not a royal family member either, nothing to protect anyone from. I have BOTH gone to my family members about concerns AND explained to others why we are no longer communicating but we don't have public reputations to protect. No one cares outside of family and friends what's happening in either of our households.

In all honesty, I think H&M came across as incredibly naive, him WRT to the race issues their relationship would raise, and her willfully so WRT the ability to manage the 'the institution'. If they'd paid any attention they'd know that every generation needs a scapegoat/scapegrace to distract from the monarch and direct heirs. Let's face it, William and Kate are BORING. In exchange for their peaceful, boring, well-managed personas, someone, someway, was gonna have to be sacrificed to keep the hounds fed. That these two thought they would be able to escape that fate is astounding. That 'the institution' thought they'd happily go along with that is equally astounding.

If someone needs to be fed to the hounds, Andrew seems like an excellent choice.

Bill

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

If someone needs to be fed to the hounds, Andrew seems like an excellent choice.

Bill

You would think, right, but that was not so subtly the point being raised in the interview. He's also blood. MM isn't.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Americans caping for a Prince and Duchess. 

Viva la revolution!

I rather think it's more like people in the commonwealth lapping up scandal sheets and keeping journo-adjacent people/photographers employed. They don't sell nearly so many papers here as abroad. Too  many other celebs to grace the covers and spread the glare of the klieg lights. Most Americans cannot conceive of why these two, mild as they are in word and deed compared to our own headline-grabbers, would be so hounded. Hence, the seeming uproar.

ETA: I don't actually know of anyone (and I have seen a LOT of comments among my friends about America owning the monarchy from abroad once again) who refers to them as Prince and Duchess. They are H&M, wealthy celebs. No different from FREE BRITTANY! (TM) or any other Kardashian show.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, WHO item about the fact that 1 in 3 women experienced sexual or physical violence in her lifetime gets coverage...after the third day of breathless first page reporting on the trials of the ultra rich. Shame on those who think this was worth it. 

Edited by Melissa Louise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure we can walk and chew gum at the same time. You know what else isn't getting coverage? Maternal mortality, kids still not reunited with their parents after border crossing, WARS, coups, political arrests, the start of Chauvin's murder trial, etc. Whataboutism on a celeb gossip story that you choose to comment on is a little preachy dontcha think? It's diverting, sure, just like my romance novels. We don't have to be focused on saving the world all day. Breaks are allowed.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

You know, Melissa Louise, I think that's a very important topic. So important that it merits its own thread rather than occasional snarky comments here. Are you going to post it, or should I do it?

 I know you're being snarky, but yeah, it would be great if WTM had a multipage thread about that, or even a more US specific topic - the fact that Black women have disproportionately suffered job loss during Covid. 

My frustration, though, is with the media and those amplifying the media - and yes, I've given feedback to the media in my own country. 

So please, yes. Start a thread on that. Non-snarkily, I think that would be both appropriate and positive.

Edited by Melissa Louise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

 I know you're being snarky, but yeah, it would be great if WTM had a multipage thread about that, or even a more US specific topic - the fact that Black women have disproportionately suffered job loss during Covid. 

My frustration, though, us with the media and those amplifying the media - and yes, I've taken a break from thinking about topping myself to give feedback to the media in my own country. 

So please, yes. Start a thread in that. Non-snarkily, I think that would be both appropriate and positive 

You know good and well that a topic like that necessitates discussion of political positions, parties, leadership, etc. that is next to impossible to have on the chat board without the thread being locked. Discussions on a variety of similar issues take place on the politics board, per board rules.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to poke my toe into this water, and ask (genuinely curious) if wondering aloud about the skin color of one's coming biracial child is always unacceptable.  So, like I wondered if my children would have blue or brown eyes. Or have my dh's Native American skin tone, or my Irish coloring. Is is just in poor taste to wonder about that with an expectant biracial couple, even if no negative motives exist?  

(This is a real question, that does not excuse anyone's racist words. I'm merely curious.)

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

I'm going to poke my toe into this water, and ask (genuinely curious) if wondering aloud about the skin color of one's coming biracial child is always unacceptable.  So, like I wondered if my children would have blue or brown eyes. Or have my dh's Native American skin tone, or my Irish coloring. Is is just in poor taste to wonder about that with an expectant biracial couple, even if no negative motives exist?  

(This is a real question, that does not excuse anyone's racist words. I'm merely curious.)

I think it kind of depends on the background? My husband has some Native American ancestry and I did wonder, aloud, if any of our kids would have his slightly darker skin tone. (How two brown eyed, brown haired parents wound up with two blue eyed, blond haired boys is still beyond me)

When my cousin got pregnant in high school, our elderly and somewhat racist grandfather asked if the baby was going to be black.  The background there was racism vs mere curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

I'm going to poke my toe into this water, and ask (genuinely curious) if wondering aloud about the skin color of one's coming biracial child is always unacceptable.  So, like I wondered if my children would have blue or brown eyes. Or have my dh's Native American skin tone, or my Irish coloring. Is is just in poor taste to wonder about that with an expectant biracial couple, even if no negative motives exist?  

(This is a real question, that does not excuse anyone's racist words. I'm merely curious.)

Good question. I don't always think it's bad. Context is everything. I wondered what my DD/DS would ultimately look like too. One was bio and the other wasn't so there were lots of surprises. The difference is in the intimation that there is something wrong or less desirable or complicating about any particular outcome. The babies in our family span the gamut from ebony to white-passing. Our genes are so intermixed that we never know if we're gonna get someone who looks like us in terms of skin tone or a 'throwback' who looks like a prior ancestor. We don't make any ugly babies. They're all gorgeous and we certainly don't care how other people will receive/perceive them. I didn't get the sense that Harry heard that comment with the same context or spirit in mind.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I think it kind of depends on the background? My husband has some Native American ancestry and I did wonder, aloud, if any of our kids would have his slightly darker skin tone. (How two brown eyed, brown haired parents wound up with two blue eyed, blond haired boys is still beyond me)

When my cousin got pregnant in high school, our elderly and somewhat racist grandfather asked if the baby was going to be black.  The background there was racism vs mere curiosity.

Yeah, I have two blondes, a brunette and a red head from 2 parents with brown hair, one with blue eyes, one with brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

For me, it is because people rarely use the color of eyes to define beauty or discriminate. Skin color has been one of the tools used to discriminate, to other, to say people of a darker color are inferior, ugly. It affects everything from the idea of what is beautiful to who is smart.

In my culture, it comes as colorism where fair is beautiful. We grew up with a cream called Fair and Lovely and top Bollywood actors used to advertise it. In an arranged marriage culture, you would see matrimonial ads for fair and beautiful bride while the groom for whom they are looking for a potential match is almost always described as dusky. 🙄. They are literally saying that the dark color of the groom will be mitigated by the fair color of the bride when they make a baby. 

So many other things just make speculation on the color of the skin of a baby not the same as other parts like eyes to me.

I know this happens. It used to be the case among many black families in the US too, still is for some. I do kinda chuckle tho because one of my kids recently told me that they prefer darker skinned individuals as potential partners. Apparently, they think our family is rapidly losing its melanin and needs an infusion. :laugh: 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

I'm going to poke my toe into this water, and ask (genuinely curious) if wondering aloud about the skin color of one's coming biracial child is always unacceptable.  So, like I wondered if my children would have blue or brown eyes. Or have my dh's Native American skin tone, or my Irish coloring. Is is just in poor taste to wonder about that with an expectant biracial couple, even if no negative motives exist?  

(This is a real question, that does not excuse anyone's racist words. I'm merely curious.)

As others have said, it depends on if any valuation is put on the potential color of the offspring.  In the H & M case it appears from comments that a title etc. were tied to the conversations about color that this was more than mere musings about what the baby might look like. 

My own bi-racial kids have looked very different over time - as in they looked very much like one race when they were  born and changed to look a bit more like the other race as they grew up.  But I figure that's just part of how kids can look like Mom for a while and then start to look like Dad later on and then probably end up looking like their own unique blend in the end. 

Questions and comments can have nuance.  And while some lack of nuance can just be due to ignorance, some is often colored by racism.  Like the people over the years who have asked me "What are they?"  Answer - humans.  Or the people who have made reference to how one of my kids could "pass" while the other one can't.  There is a value judgement inherent in that comment because passing for white is definitely seen as a valued thing. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

For me, it is because people rarely use the color of eyes to define beauty or discriminate. Skin color has been one of the tools used to discriminate, to other, to say people of a darker color are inferior, ugly. It affects everything from the idea of what is beautiful to who is smart.

In my culture, it comes as colorism where fair is beautiful. We grew up with a cream called Fair and Lovely and top Bollywood actors used to advertise it. In an arranged marriage culture, you would see matrimonial ads for fair and beautiful bride while the groom for whom they are looking for a potential match is almost always described as dusky. 🙄. They are literally saying that the dark color of the groom will be mitigated by the fair color of the bride when they make a baby. 

So many other things just make speculation on the color of the skin of a baby not the same as other parts like eyes to me.

 

18 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I know this happens. It used to be the case among many black families in the US too, still is for some. I do kinda chuckle tho because one of my kids recently told me that they prefer darker skinned individuals as potential partners. Apparently, they think our family is rapidly losing its melanin and needs an infusion. :laugh: 

See, I'd hoped that my kids would've come out more dark like my dh who has NA ancestry. They're all pale and freckled like me...,much to my disappointment. They're still cute, but dang, I wanted those darker complected babies.

And when slathering themselves with sunscreen they've been known to rant "Why are we all so PALE!" 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

For me, it is because people rarely use the color of eyes to define beauty or discriminate. Skin color has been one of the tools used to discriminate, to other, to say people of a darker color are inferior, ugly. It affects everything from the idea of what is beautiful to who is smart.

In my culture, it comes as colorism where fair is beautiful. We grew up with a cream called Fair and Lovely and top Bollywood actors used to advertise it. In an arranged marriage culture, you would see matrimonial ads for fair and beautiful bride while the groom for whom they are looking for a potential match is almost always described as dusky. 🙄. They are literally saying that the dark color of the groom will be mitigated by the fair color of the bride when they make a baby. 

So many other things just make speculation on the color of the skin of a baby not the same as other parts like eyes to me.

And that's why I asked. As a white lady, I don't want to inadvertently hurt a lovely couple's feelings, so since it can be a sensitive subject for some people, regardless of how kindly it is meant, I probably should just comment about other things. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fairfarmhand said:

And that's why I asked. As a white lady, I don't want to inadvertently hurt a lovely couple's feelings, so since it can be a sensitive subject for some people, regardless of how kindly it is meant, I probably should just comment about other things. Thanks.

Genetics fascinate me.....the extremes of very fair or very dark I find beautiful.   But I have  discovered it is a subject fraught with potential land mines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some completely unhealthy reason, I was thinking about this topic while driving this afternoon. And I realized that 35-ish me would have very much felt & done much like H/M have done.....e.g. if I felt I had been terribly wronged and maligned, I would have had a great belief in the importance of my own Sincerity & the Rightness of Setting the Story Straight.  

Versus the 50-ish me, who now has the wisdom to recognize (or maybe it's exhaustion) that some situations are such quagmires that any attempt to resolve them - especially publicly - even if one is right - will only aggravate and further complicate all the unresolved issues that created the quagmire in the first place.

It doesn't make one Wrong in the attempt. It just means one will be unsuccessful, ending up in the same situation as before, only now with even greater ill will and misunderstanding circulating.

Which, most unfortunately (especially for the two brothers), seems to be the most likely outcome here. 

 

 

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

For me, it is because people rarely use the color of eyes to define beauty or discriminate. Skin color has been one of the tools used to discriminate, to other, to say people of a darker color are inferior, ugly. It affects everything from the idea of what is beautiful to who is smart.

In my culture, it comes as colorism where fair is beautiful. We grew up with a cream called Fair and Lovely and top Bollywood actors used to advertise it. In an arranged marriage culture, you would see matrimonial ads for fair and beautiful bride while the groom for whom they are looking for a potential match is almost always described as dusky. 🙄. They are literally saying that the dark color of the groom will be mitigated by the fair color of the bride when they make a baby. 

So many other things just make speculation on the color of the skin of a baby not the same as other parts like eyes to me.

The blue eye thing does have a connotation in the West though, because supposedly Hitler and others who believed in eugenics considered blue eyes to indicate superiority.  I remember how sad my ex was when he realized he could never father blue-eyed kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Happy2BaMom said:

For some completely unhealthy reason, I was thinking about this topic while driving this afternoon. And I realized that 35-ish me would have very much felt & done much like H/M have done.....e.g. if I felt I had been terribly wronged and maligned, I would have had a great belief in the importance of my own Sincerity & the Rightness of Setting the Story Straight.  

Versus the 50-ish me, who now has the wisdom to recognize (or maybe it's exhaustion) that some situations are such quagmires that any attempt to resolve them - especially publicly - even if one is right - will only aggravate and further complicate all the unresolved issues that created the quagmire in the first place.

It doesn't make one Wrong in the attempt. It just means one will be unsuccessful, ending up in the same situation as before, only now with even greater ill will and misunderstanding circulating.

Which, most unfortunately (especially for the two brothers), seems to be the most likely outcome here. 

And this is why I can't stand Oprah, who is old enough, experienced enough, and smart enough to know better, but greedy enough to keep on doing it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

And this is why I can't stand Oprah, who is old enough, experienced enough, and smart enough to know better, but greedy enough to keep on doing it.

What the heck? She’s an interviewer and businesswoman with a media company and she was offered a story she could produce and sell. Do you share the same feelings toward Bill Gates for making money doing what he does? Is he greedy too? She’s not their mama, daddy, confidant or counselor and they are grown.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

You clearly dodged a bucket b/c that is some seriously sick and twisted thinking.

FTR he was Chinese and he liked my eyes.  He thought we could make babies with eyes like mine.  But nope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

FTR he was Chinese and he liked my eyes.  He thought we could make babies with eyes like mine.  But nope.

Yeah, still sick and still twisted. The centering of European beauty ideals has poisoned lots of minds around the world. My niece, btw, has blue-gray eyes and both of her parents have brown ones. They came from a grandparent. Every baby in my family is ‘baby surprise’.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep seeing the word “narcissist” and Meghan related. I don’t know much about her but what I do know from my own life and a narcissist is that a comment made with no implications that the color of the baby’s skin could be less desirable could and would be turned around to absolutely infer the comment was made because it was a problem. 

I am not saying the royal did not have bad intentions, just pointing out my experience with a narcissist and my comments being twisted to suit the narrative.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. On the other hand, a toxic or abusive person could make an "innocent comment" that plainly has another meaning, and then gaslight you to the asylum and back about how you're the irrational, mean one who is willfully misunderstanding them for something they didn't say.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tanaqui said:

Sure. On the other hand, a toxic or abusive person could make an "innocent comment" that plainly has another meaning, and then gaslight you to the asylum and back about how you're the irrational, mean one who is willfully misunderstanding them for something they didn't say.

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

I'm going to poke my toe into this water, and ask (genuinely curious) if wondering aloud about the skin color of one's coming biracial child is always unacceptable.  So, like I wondered if my children would have blue or brown eyes. Or have my dh's Native American skin tone, or my Irish coloring. Is is just in poor taste to wonder about that with an expectant biracial couple, even if no negative motives exist?  

(This is a real question, that does not excuse anyone's racist words. I'm merely curious.)

I think it depends on the background of the parents. I always thought my kids would look very Asian, I am Chinese and DH is Norwegian. So we always thought our kids would be darker coloring and brown eyes. To our amazement our first had green eyes and blonde hair. My Norwegian MIL was elated that her grandchild would look just like her with blonde hair. When my second child came along and was much darker, black hair and had brown eyes. The off hand comments we got from DH’s family was amazing, like “Oh I hope she doesn’t get mistaken for Mexican” “Such a shame she’s so dark” or “Such a shame she doesn’t look like her sister, S is so beautiful in comparison.” DH stood up to his family and told them that the racism stops or they would have no contact with us or the grandkids.

Edited by Marie.Sd
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I keep seeing the word “narcissist” and Meghan related. I don’t know much about her but what I do know from my own life and a narcissist is that a comment made with no implications that the color of the baby’s skin could be less desirable could and would be turned around to absolutely infer the comment was made because it was a problem. 

I am not saying the royal did not have bad intentions, just pointing out my experience with a narcissist and my comments being twisted to suit the narrative.

I watched several videos on YouTube of people claiming to be mental health professionals “evaluating” what we “know” about her.  100% of the stories they were using to evaluate her came from tabloids, which makes me think someone in the palace deliberately crafted that as the narrative they were going to leak to the press. And people who think she’s a narcissist definitely believe tabloid stories about her. 

I personally suspect the assumption that those stories are believable are both evidence of racism and a cultural bias against both Americans and actors. It’s not as if ANY American really understands royalism in any way.  But everyone, certainly of my generation or younger has been taught strong anti-bullying ethics and that it’s a virtue to stand up against injustice.  Meghan was known for that even as a child. 

I saw a news report yesterday that the general consensus in the UK is that young people believe her, even if they see the other side too, and older people are generally angry at her for saying anything to hurt the queen.  So perhaps the stand up to injustice ethic vs the “know your place” ethic is generational. 

I too would have been incredibly naive about the idea of volunteering to be the scapegoat for the family, but I’m old enough to remember my mother watching the Diana interview, even if I didn’t fully understand it. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Katy said:

I watched several videos on YouTube of people claiming to be mental health professionals “evaluating” what we “know” about her.  100% of the stories they were using to evaluate her came from tabloids, which makes me think someone in the palace deliberately crafted that as the narrative they were going to leak to the press. And people who think she’s a narcissist definitely believe tabloid stories about her. 

I personally suspect the assumption that those stories are believable are both evidence of racism and a cultural bias against both Americans and actors. It’s not as if ANY American really understands royalism in any way.  But everyone, certainly of my generation or younger has been taught strong anti-bullying ethics and that it’s a virtue to stand up against injustice.  Meghan was known for that even as a child. 

I saw a news report yesterday that the general consensus in the UK is that young people believe her, even if they see the other side too, and older people are generally angry at her for saying anything to hurt the queen.  So perhaps the stand up to injustice ethic vs the “know your place” ethic is generational. 

I too would have been incredibly naive about the idea of volunteering to be the scapegoat for the family, but I’m old enough to remember my mother watching the Diana interview, even if I didn’t fully understand it. 

Yeah, I am scratching my head at the claims that she is a narcissist. That term gets thrown around so much these days it is loosing its meaning.  It is a diagnosis and has a number of criteria that has to be met....all these commentators who claim to know that she is do not know her and do not have the authority to say such things.  I am certainly not an expert on Meghan.  But when people call her a gold digger it just seems so ridiculous.  She is a beautiful woman and has been in the realm of wealthy people for many years....if money was what she was after she would have chased that years ago,  she wasn’t some starving artist.  She had her own money.  
 

I personally only know one person who is likely a N. And I was her DIL for 26 years and knew her very very well.  I don’t begin to assume a person I don’t even know is a N.  

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...