Off Topic News & Current affairs

I reckon most people assumed it was the D ofE. I did, he has form. I think too much shock horror is made over a "conversation", which for all we know could have been a harmless remark from one person, but has been presented in a way which slurs the whole family. People are not normally blamed for what a relative says, otherwise Jeremy Corbyn would be facing criminal charges.

 

F

Possible answer:

Even anti-monarchists like myself admire The Queen for the way she has done her job. Without her I believe the monarchy would not have survived. As such she is beyond attack and anything spoken against her would have alienated the audience.

Charles and the others do not have the respect of the nation. They can be attacked without comeback.

Winfrey is a professional and wants positive audience ratings.

Therefore the interview was crafted to avoid negative reactions.

Any other ideas out there?

 

When a pasty ginger is breeding with a Mediterranean-looking mulatto there would inevitably be family discussion about what the child might look like. This is natural, and normally light hearted.

Many of my friends have Asian wives and between them children that range from full Asian to standard white. One family has twins that are one of each.

It's a pretty pathetic point to make as the focal point of this charade.

 

There were a number of positive things said by Meghan and Harry about the Queen. Meghan said that Kate was a nice person.and she apologised to her and sent her flowers. With reference to your comment about Oprah, no name was mentioned. Harry said he was not comfortable talking about it.
Harry said that his Father had stopped returning his calls and was no support to him. But he was now in contact with him. Meghan phoned the Queen when Philip went into Hospital.
I have to say i like Meghan and Harry. But i detest sections of the Press..

 

All depends how it is said. It was not a charade it was Meghan and Harry putting their side of the story after constant bashing in the press. One instance was how both Meghan and Kate are portrayed in the press. Like Kate and Meghan both rubbing their baby bumps..With Kate there was a positive story, with Meghan a negative one. This was not the only example, there were many more.

 

Exactly. And there has been no evidence of hostility or bad intent as far as I am aware, although I did not watch the show so there may be something that hasn't been reported.

 

Another example was the way Meghan's love of avocado on toast was portrayed as fuelling criminality and gang warfare, with Kate it was portrayed as an example of good taste. 25 pages in the Daily Mail today about the interview. They appear to have waged a hate campaign against her from the beginning, but they've done that before with white people too, so the assumption that it has been racially motivated is maybe or maybe not true, certainly not definitely proved as some are saying.

 

please log in to view this image

 

I'm no fan of the Royal Family.
I was a Republican for a long time when I was younger. I believed having an elected President and two elected chambers of Parliament was obviously a better option than the system we currently have.

But gradually I sort of shifted position.
In short, I now believe the role of the Monarchy is (on balance) more of a stabilising force than a harmful one.
So I think it's a necessary nuisance if you will, as well as being great for tourism (trooping the colour and all that).

However, I think if I was the Monarch, and my grandson & his wife had just trashed my whole family and the institution I represent, I would actually be even more angered that they and their supporters had gone out of their way to exempt me.
It's a back-handed insult of a nasty kind.


I'm only saying any of this now because in my view the direct accusation of racism takes this debate beyond mere showbiz.
A member of our Royal Family has been called out as a racist, but not identified.
So they're all tarred with that brush.
Sorry - that's not good enough.
When you are accused of racism you should have a right of reply.

 

That person accused of racism will know who they are and they do have a right of reply. I have seen it described as Colourism rather than racism. I don’t know the difference.

 

What are the Royal Family going to do about Prince Andrew? That has been nicely hushed up by The Royal Family, the firm.

 

I think what Harry said was that people have ingratiated themselves by taking out the Correspondents of Newspapers and wined and dined them. Meghan and Harry have not done that.

 

If it was a disparaging remark it's wrong no matter what description it is given. If it was part of a conversation about an incoming mixed-blood baby, the like of which I have taken part in many times, there is no "ism" of any description.

I think context needs to be clarified.

It will be ironic if the Royal Family, which even survivied a period of republicanism, is brought down by this.

But I do think that both question and answer, which I have now seen (it's hard to avoid them) were carefully crafted to make maximum capital from the prevailing tendency to call everything "racist" as a default way to the high ground in any debate.

 

If somebody said one of your family had said a racist comment to them, then told everyone it was not you but would not identify the person who supposedly racially abused them, would you be content for the rest of your family to have to
A) reply individually, even if only to deny it was him/her?
B) remain silent, but have the accusation of racism hanging over them?

Tarring somebody's whole family by making an accusation about one member but refusing to identify that person is wrong.
If Meghan felt it necessary to make the racism accusation in public, she or Harry should say who it was.
Then nobody else has their good name besmirched by association.

But I strongly suspect that besmirching by association is what that interview was all about.

 

Agreed.Like saying all the Krays were gangsters because you were beaten up by one of them. Oh, wait a minute ...

 

It's also very fashionable now to claim harm to your mental health - at which point everything you say has apparently to be believed without question, and you deserve nothing but sympathy and support against the monster who hurt you.
It's Woke double-think.

I'm pretty sure Oprah's mental health was improved no end by the $9 million she was paid.

 

If Gislaine Maxwell talks then Andrew will have to face proper scrutiny. He is not yet guilty of anything.

However, she knows where lots of bodies are buried (perhaps literally as well as metaphorically) and there is growing belief that Epstein was a blackmailer rather than a mere pimp, with Maxwell as his chief procurer and fully in on the scheme. I would imnagine there is a "to be opened if I die suddenly" letter somewhere. Therefore I believe she will be exiled and secrets will be kept.

Andrew will never be allowed back into public life by Charles or William and I suspect that this will be the extent of his disgrace.

 

It's OK to be a complete ar5e as long as you're not racist

 

I take advantage of that on a regular basis ...