Royalty Thread #9. Welcome Archie, the red headed heir, don’t care!

[MsZem]

I hardly think their objections were racial.

AxelAnnie mentioned people's ethnic backgrounds - there are possible issues related to ethnicity that are not racial (e.g. nationality and religious objections). I'm not sure if anything like that arose with respect to the Duke of Edinburgh, but according to Wikipedia: in post-war Britain, it was not acceptable for any of the Duke of Edinburgh's German relations to be invited to the wedding, including Philip's three surviving sisters, all of whom had married German princes.

 

[canbelto]

There’s been more stories about Andrew at Jeffrey Epstein’s parties. This is awful. He has daughters. How could he show such poor judgment?

 

[MsZem]

There’s been more stories about Andrew at Jeffrey Epstein’s parties. This is awful. He has daughters. How could he show such poor judgment?

Harvey Weinstein has daughters, too. Unfortunately many people with daughters do show poor judgment (and worse). Even famous ones.

 

[MLIS]

The objections to Prince Philip were nationality (various German relations, and he was educated briefly in Germany himself) and also he may have been a prince, but he came from an unsettled and deposed monarchy and had a unusual and scattered upbringing. Also, the Queen's father felt she was too young in general and asked them to delay their engagement until after her 21st birthday.

My comments about Meghan's hair were just an example, and perhaps not the best example. My point was that while there is overt racism, there is much more frequently coded and layered language and criticism that does not blatantly say "because she's black" but that is always in the subtext. So for a person to say they haven't seen any racist comments about Meghan is to ignore the systematic and troubling way women of colour are treated and talked about.

 

[canbelto]

The other subtle racism I've seen is people who just "know" that the Queen hates her and use tarot cards and energy readers to come to this conclusion. It always goes along the lines of "the Queen must be heartbroken ..." Why? The Queen didnt hate Diana and until her behavior truly spiraled didnt hate Fergie. In general shes not a hater. Why do they "know" she hates Meghan?

The other thing is the rude comments ppl post on kensingtonroyal when Meghan is in a picture. Stiff like "Come on Kate we all know you hate her!"

 

[AxelAnnie]

What? When did she want to?

Ooooppps....that would be a bad rumor

 

[AxelAnnie]

The other subtle racism I've seen is people who just "know" that the Queen hates her and use tarot cards and energy readers to come to this conclusion. It always goes along the lines of "the Queen must be heartbroken ..." Why? The Queen didnt hate Diana and until her behavior truly spiraled didnt hate Fergie. In general shes not a hater. Why do they "know" she hates Meghan?

The other thing is the rude comments ppl post on kensingtonroyal when Meghan is in a picture. Stiff like "Come on Kate we all know you hate her!"

Hence the utter stupidity of social media.

 

[AxelAnnie]

The objections to Prince Philip were nationality (various German relations, and he was educated briefly in Germany himself) and also he may have been a prince, but he came from an unsettled and deposed monarchy and had a unusual and scattered upbringing. Also, the Queen's father felt she was too young in general and asked them to delay their engagement until after her 21st birthday.

My comments about Meghan's hair were just an example, and perhaps not the best example. My point was that while there is overt racism, there is much more frequently coded and layered language and criticism that does not blatantly say "because she's black" but that is always in the subtext. So for a person to say they haven't seen any racist comments about Meghan is to ignore the systematic and troubling way women of colour are treated and talked about.

Well that is a whole other can of worms. We could insert any group instead of women of color. Jews, gays, fat, little people, disabled people, elderly.

I would love some examples of what you are referring to.

 

[MLIS]

Never mind.

 

[aftershocks]

I don't think anybody can reasonably argue that a successful TV actress had less name recognition than a university student whose parents owned a successful, but by no means famous, business.

Nobody argued that though. You are creating this OTT exaggeration and purposeful misreading in your own mind for whatever reason. My comments about how well or how little Meghan was known in the mainstream before dating Harry, have absolutely nothing to do with Kate Middleton (the Duchess of Cambridge).

She was an actress on a US TV show with a fandom, wasn't she?

That doesn't exactly equate to 'name recognition celebrity status' though which is the comment by canbelto that I addressed earlier. Meghan was a working actor on a successful cable television series when she met Harry. She was not a widely known nor a highly visible star. She had fans who watched Suits, but she was part of an ensemble cast, and not a big star, although she was becoming more well known in the fashion, beauty, entertainment, and humanitarian fields circa 2015-2016.

Meghan landed the Suits audition in 2010, after she had struggled for years going on auditions, sometimes landing bit parts and small speaking roles. As for most actors trying to make it in Hollywood, it was tough. Before Suits, Meghan acquired roles in a number of television pilots that did not get picked up. Fortunately for her and everyone involved, Suits was picked up by USA network in Fall 2010 and it hit solid gold with a stellar production crew, cast, producer, director, and engaging storyline. It was a very good series, and not the 'porn hub' trash characterized in the press immediately after the news broke that Meghan was dating Prince Harry. Significantly, Suits was filmed in cosmopolitan Toronto, which opened up a whole new world and new, defining friendships for Meghan.

I would suggest that interested parties re-watch the engagement interview of Meghan & Harry, which is rather revealing. Meghan mentions the fact that as an actor, she had never been featured in the tabloid or 'Page Six' gossip press. She was not well known in either America or Great Britain among the general populace. Neither was she a regular guest on leading talk shows, though she did appear once on Craig Ferguson's show, and famously as a panel member on an episode of Comedy Central's 'Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore.' She probably looks back and wishes she hadn't accepted that offer, due to the recent OTT negative scrutiny of what she said very articulately about Trump that was actually true.

Bottom line: Even though she was successful and becoming better known within the entertainment and fashion worlds, Meghan Markle was not widely known and she did not have name recognition among the general populace before it was revealed she was dating Prince Harry.

If anyone wants to bring Kate into the conversation, which I do not think is necessary btw, it is contrastingly obvious that due to her acting career, Meghan had a public profile, which is unusual for someone seriously dating a prince of the United Kingdom. So of course, a lot more was in the public domain regarding Meghan which made her royal love story all the more intriguing, but it also led to more trolling and made-up stories. It's not unusual for royals to date actors, singers, or someone in the public eye (e.g. Queen Letizia of Spain was a television news anchor prior to marrying her husband). It is a bit more unusual for British royalty to marry actors, though not unheard of since Freddie Windsor married British actor Sophie Winkleman in September 2009.

 

[aftershocks]

Meghan has gone from being a B rate actor to one of the top ten photographed women in the world. Her access to top designers and advisors has definitely increased.

I don't know anything about such actor ratings. I've heard Meghan termed C and D list more often, so whatever Prior to meeting Harry, Meghan was not that well known in the mainstream, except among fans of Suits. However, Suits was a show that was highly stylized and fashionable in terms of the clothing worn by the cast. There are loads of Youtube promo videos with Meghan discussing fashion, and how her sense of style became more sophisticated as a result of working on Suits. She met a lot of designers on the set, made a lot of friends in the fashion world, and began receiving modeling offers on the side. She did beauty and hair styling promo videos for fashion, make-up, and haircare brands.

While of course, Meghan now has greater access to top designers, it has been reported that she makes most of her own decisions about her working and personal wardrobes. She consults with fashion advisers, but they are mainly her friends, Jessica Mulroney, and the designer of her wedding gown, Clare Waight Keller of Givenchy. Other than that, Meghan continues to use many of the designers she used previously, including Jason Wu, Antonio Berardi, Roland Mouret, Erdem, Misha Nonoo, et al. In her royal role as the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan has expanded her wardrobe to include a number of high profile designers, such as McQueen, Victoria Beckham, Stella McCartney, Dior, Oscar de la Renta, and Carolina Herrera, while also recognizing up-and-coming stars and less widely known designers, including Brandon Maxwell and rising British designer Grace Wells Bonner.

To me it seems like Meghan makes it more of a fairytale for many people (especially in the US).

The love story between Meghan and Harry is NOT a fairy tale, no matter how it is often knee-jerk or fancifully characterized that way as a go-to storyline. The fairy tale notions of meeting and marrying a prince ended with Diana, IMO. Of course, many Americans hearken back to the tale of Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier. Sadly, that was NOT a fairy tale either, though it remains in our cultural memory as such. They didn't know each other that well, and Rainier was rather macho hard line when Grace wished to return to acting. But they developed a mature love for each over the years, and she found ways to spend her time with purposeful charitable and arts-related projects.

The difference with Meghan is that because of her background being viewed as more normal and accessible, she makes becoming royal seem more accessible, when it actually is not. And unfortunately, in some quarters, because of her ethnic background Meghan is seen as someone 'out of the ordinary' in the world of royalty, and thus she has become a 'lightning rod' for all kinds of despicable negative characterizations. In reality, she's not the first woman of color to marry into European royalty or into wealth and 'high-born' aristocracy.

... if you look also at the criticism of Kate when her naturally curly hair gets ringlets...

I've never really seen many criticisms of Kate's hair. Kate has gorgeous locks!

 

[aftershocks]

I have no idea what @aftershocks is talking about. Meghan, prior to meeting Harry, definitely had some name recognition. Kate, prior to dating William, did not have ANY name recognition outside her circle of friends and family. To suggest otherwise is just weird.

See my previous post. Meghan did NOT have 'name recognition' outside of fans who watched Suits, and among industry insiders. That's one reason why all the Google searches of her name happened after the November 2016 press release from Harry asking the press to back-off their harassment, confirmed they were dating. I personally was not making any argument claiming anything about Kate vs Meghan in regard to their public profiles. It's unproductive to compare them, and especially silly to compare them in regard to public profiles. Kate's public profile before her engagement was only due to being William's girlfriend since college. I'd never heard Kate's speaking voice prior to her engagement interview.

It's non-debatably quite different regarding Meghan, since she was an actor with numerous interviews, magazine features, a lifestyle blog, a contract with Reitmans department store to develop capsule fashion collections, an Instagram and Twitter followed mostly by Suits fans, as well as mid-level acting success. And yet, despite all of this, Meghan still did NOT have significant 'name recognition' among the general populace. I believe she was on the cusp of breaking out into becoming better known among wider circles, but her courtship with Harry happened and she became well known for that reason.

As Meghan stated in the 2017 Vanity Fair cover story (intended to introduce her to the British public):
“I can tell you that at the end of the day I think it’s really simple. We’re two people who are really happy and in love. We were very quietly dating for about six months before it became news, and I was working during that whole time, and the only thing that changed was people’s perception. Nothing about me changed. I’m still the same person that I am, and I’ve never defined myself by my relationship.”

 

[overedge]

@AxelAnnie One example is if an employer has a rule that says something like "all employees must have a professional appearance" and then penalizes an employee for having dreadlocks or an afro, even when their hair is clean and well-maintained. This is where "hair discrimination" exists, when wording such as "professional" is interpreted to mean "only the way a white professional person looks" as a way of discriminating against non-white people.

So "messy" can be a codeword for "hair that doesn't look like the majority group's hair" even if the hair is professionally styled. Words like "messy" can be used as a subtle way to label that person as the "other" who will never be accepted as fitting in, no matter what they do.

 

[ballettmaus]

That doesn't exactly equate to 'name recognition celebrity status' though which is the comment by canbelto that I addressed earlier.

I was not replying to you, but Zemgirl, who pointed out that many seem to view Meghan's as the fairytale story more so than Kate's and I pointed out why I didn't.

 

[mella]

Reading this it seems like chemically treating "afro" hair is seen as a magic pill that allows hair to be managed like and present like "european" (for want of a better word) hair. It isn't. It can soften and thin hair and change the appearance but if Meghan's hair is chemically treated (as opposed to non-chemical treatments that achieve similar appearance) it does not mean she can easily address the myriad issues attached to perceptions of afro hair and the complaints about her messy hair. If I had to guess I would speculate her hair is non-chemically straightened but I won't claim to know for sure.

Some points to note (for anyone who is interested):

• Chemically straightened hair grows and that causes issues with management in the period before the next treatment.
• Chemical and non chemical straightening of afro hair often damage afro hair
• Achieving the sort or "slick" look people seem to advocate, for many black women, requires substantial amounts of products that actually damage hair whether natural or treated.
• Pulling afro hair into a tight bun even without said products often causes significant damage over time and without the products the hair growth pattern at and around the hairline will often result in "wisps" escaping.

So actually for those insisting Meghan's hair should be a certain way, please consider that perhaps she is managing her way in the way she has learned best suits it - as any suggestion otherwise is pretty obnoxious.

The wilful refusal of some people to acknowledge the long history of racism attached to commentary on non-white hair is laughable. Do I think every comment intended to be racist? No. But perhaps accepting that a black or mixed race woman, in this case Meghan (like every other woman) knows how to best care for her hair could be considered a polite courtesy. If that includes a "softer" bun that might not stay rigidly in place the whole day - good for her.

 

[MacMadame]

The wilful refusal of some people to acknowledge the long history of racism attached to commentary on non-white hair is laughable.

For some it's willful but for a lot of people, I think it's subconscious. For all their life, they have been given messages about what it is and is not appropriate behavior/clothing/hairstyles based on white norms and the idea that other ways of doing it are equally valid and/or that the "normal" ways of doing it might not even be possible never occurs to them.

Of course, those people, when you point out their blindspots, will usually say "oh, I never thought of that." If they double-down, then they've moved into the willful group.

What I do find laughable is the argument that because Meghan could keep her hair in a non-messy bun while being filmed for Suits where there are makeup and hair people on call the entire time who can touch her up every time she's about to go on camera that this means she could keep her bun non-messy for hours in an outdoor settings without anyone to constantly touch her up. Come on, guys. We've all been in situations where our hair didn't last. Why should she be different?

 

[mella]

... Of course, those people, when you point out their blindspots, will usually say "oh, I never thought of that." If they double-down, then they've moved into the willful group.

Exactly this. It's the doubling down that is so frustrating. I can appreciate that people see things through the filter of their own life and experience but refusal to acknowledge that it's not the only experience and be open to acknowledging another perspective is just weird to me. Considering the ease of access to the massive pool of other people's experiences that we now have.

And yes working on a tv set totally different than outdoor engagements etc but who wants to get caught up with that sort of inconvenient detail!?

 

[AxelAnnie]

Reading this it seems like chemically treating "afro" hair is seen as a magic pill that allows hair to be managed like and present like "european" (for want of a better word) hair. It isn't. It can soften and thin hair and change the appearance but if Meghan's hair is chemically treated (as opposed to non chemical treatments that achieve similar appearance) it does not mean she can easily address the myriad issues attached to perceptions of afro hair and the complaints about her messy hair. If I had to guess I would speculate her hair is non chemically straightened but I won't claim to know for sure.

Some points to note (for anyone who is interested):

• Chemically straightened hair grows and that causes issues with management in the period before the next treatment.
• Chemical and non chemical straightening of afro hair often damage afro hair
• Achieving the sort or "slick" look people seem to advocate, for many black women, requires substantial amounts of products that actually damage hair whether natural or treated.
• Pulling afro hair into a tight bun even without said products often causes significant damage over time and without the products the hair growth pattern at and around the hairline will often result in "wisps" escaping.

So actually for those insisting Meghan's hair should be a certain way, please consider that perhaps she is managing her way in the way she has learned best suits it - as any suggestion otherwise is pretty obnoxious.

The wilful refusal of some people to acknowledge the long history of racism attached to commentary on non-white hair is laughable. Do I think every comment intended to be racist? No. But perhaps accepting that a black or mixed race woman, in this case Meghan (like every other woman) knows how to best care for her hair could be considered a polite courtesy. If that includes a "softer" bun that might not stay rigidly in place the whole day - good for her.

Could we all just agree to disagree about Meghan's hair, and what it means about life and the universe?
Childhood Pictures. So her hair was curly when she was young, and now it is not. Commenting on Rachel's hair, IMO is not a veiled racial slur. It is simply a comment.

 

[canbelto]

I actually wish both Kate and Meghan would go with a more "natural" hairstyle. I've seen Kate with her naturally curly hair and it frames her face much better. And I think Meghan has the kind of heart-shaped face where curly, non-straightened hair would also work.

 

[PDilemma]

I actually wish both Kate and Meghan would go with a more "natural" hairstyle. I've seen Kate with her naturally curly hair and it frames her face much better. And I think Meghan has the kind of heart-shaped face where curly, non-straightened hair would also work.

Which is why I said I would like to see Meghan with natural hair. It would suit her better. But, apparently, that makes me racist. Or something does. Or everything does.

She has appeared many times with hair in an updo that stays put. That's not the problem. She chose to have her hair a falling out mess on her wedding day.

Explain to me next how wearing pants with the hem pooling on the floor is necessary because of her African-American ethnicity? Or ignoring protocol? Or wearing out of season clothing all the time?

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

Which is why I said I would like to see Meghan with natural hair. It would suit her better. But, apparently, that makes me racist. Or something does. Or everything does.

She has appeared many times with hair in an updo that stays put. That's not the problem. She chose to have her hair a falling out mess on her wedding day.

Explain to me next how wearing pants with the hem pooling on the floor is necessary because of her African-American ethnicity? Or ignoring protocol? Or wearing out of season clothing all the time?

Only if you explain why you have such an obsession with commenting on this person and her appearance and behavior - said obsession, by the way, has approached stalker-like levels for quite some time. You first.

 

[overedge]

Words mean things. Maybe think about the implications that words like "messy" could have before using them. Or maybe think about what makes a style "messy" in comparison to another style, and whether the other style is a realistic standard that everyone should be expected to meet.

"Protocol" has been developed over years, if not centuries, and it's not a law that people will get thrown in jail for violating. But it also embodies a set of specific attitudes and expectations. It's not neutral, and it's deliberately designed.

 

[taf2002]

I loved Meghan's hair on her wedding day. It was still in a bun with a little bit of wisps during the after wedding carriage ride. I didn't consider it a falling out mess. I haven't noticed her wearing out of season clothes. Maybe someone should be like Kathleen Turner in Serial Mom who killed a woman for wearing white shoes after Labor Day. Or maybe just "lock her up" or "send her back".

 

[once_upon]

I love Meghan's hair. It looks very modern.

My granddaughter often asks if I can put her hair in a messy bun.

 

[canbelto]

Humble brag some people (like me) have hair that just turns into a messy bun throughout the day because of humidity, movement, and our hair texture.

Anyway "theroyalfamily" instagram is going into overdrive with warm fuzzy posts that do not feature Prince Andrew.

 

[MsZem]

Anyway "theroyalfamily" instagram is going into overdrive with warm fuzzy posts that do not feature Prince Andrew.

Seems like standard royal Instagram content to me. This set of the Queen is awesome.

A pity that none of them took part in the swan census.

 

[mella]

Could we all just agree to disagree about Meghan's hair, and what it means about life and the universe?
Childhood Pictures. So her hair was curly when she was young, and now it is not. Commenting on Rachel's hair, IMO is not a veiled racial slur. It is simply a comment.

It's a bit chicken and egg really isn't it? If there were less comments of a particular nature regarding her hair I imagine there would be less responses and discussion about what those comments mean. As someone said up-thread words have meanings to people and some words have implications that are triggering for people with particular life experiences. I don't think you can expect those people to simply ignore comments that don't bother you or that you don't think mean anything. As you said that's your opinion... we all have one.

I don't really understand your point about Meghan having straight hair now? I think we all get that. My only point was that that can be achieved chemically and non-chemically with varying results. None of us know how she has her hair behind closed doors but my personal guess would be hers could be non chemically straightened. Especially as women of colour often stop using chemical systems whilst pregnant/breast feeding.

 

[mella]

Seems like standard royal Instagram content to me. This set of the Queen is awesome.

A pity that none of them took part in the swan census.

Never heard of this before!

 

[attyfan]

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Brexit thread, but:

UK MPs threaten to drag Queen Elizabeth into Brexit chaos

Senior members of the United Kingdom's ruling Conservative party are so concerned about the country leaving the European Union without a deal that they are planning to go over the new Prime Minister's head and appeal directly to the Queen.

www.cnn.com

 

[Vagabond]

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Brexit thread

Almost anything about the royals is better than what has been posted here over the past fortnight.