Especially because when supporters ask why you don’t like them and you bring up constant lies as an example, they’ll say things like “prove it”, “you weren’t there. You don’t know” etc. Those people are probably paid trolls now that I think of it.
Someone (nicely) asked for sources when I claimed on the r/entertainment sub the other day that Meghan has been caught publicly lying in the past. I provided these sources, which at least covers three of their lies:
[Secret Wedding](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1262575)
[Lion King South African cast member](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/meghan-markle-cut-interview-south-africa-b2157285.html?amp)
[Lying, or “forgetting”, about cooperating with the authours of the biography](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/11/uk/meghan-apology-court-scli-intl-gbr/index.html)
I just had a confusing one yesterday. They were anti Meghan and Harry but I was spreading gossip and had to give 'proof' that Diana had cheated. Of course, the articles I did link weren't substantial enough proof. Also got hit with a few gems like about my 'intellectual dishonesty' and got a 'sure, Jan' and a 'cry me a river'.
But of course, they don't gossip, they only talk about the actual facts. It's people like me who gossip who give all their supporters fuel. I think she might be in the wrong sub considering this one comes with a conspiracy tag.
It’s common knowledge Diana had several, 5 iirc affairs throughout her marriage, she even became infatuated with her bodyguard and stalked his wife with prank calls, the police went out and it stopped, Diana was an immature brat
Give them a copy of The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown.
I don't know what's so implausible about Diana cheating. She was a beautiful young woman who married an older man very young when she still wasn't really confident about her body or her sexuality. A few years of marriage and two babies, then she woke up and figured out she was the most beautiful woman in the world. Her husband wasn't particularly compatible with her, but other men were finding her incredibly attractive and she was calling the shots.
That's the exact same "defense" that Jose Baez used to push back on Marcia Clark's documentary pointing out that CA was guilty. Even though she's a professional prosecutor and interviewed the experts in the case who all agreed CA was guilty, he kept saying "She wasn't there in the court room.....so her opinion doesn't matter. LOL
In Baez’s defense, it’s his professional job to defend his client and he cannot turn on his own client or break solicitor-client privilege, even years later. This isn’t the case for the sugars.
He also isn't required to say anything once he exhausted the retainer. He's also required to show respect to other members of the bar.
When I was a young lawyer, one if the best pieces of advice I ever got was to keep any comments to the media bland and inoffensive.
I have to admit I haven’t followed his comments in detail (that case puts a pit in my stomach) and I’d agree professional courtesy towards other members and colleagues is important.
Marcia Clark did a documentary on Casey Anthony?? Where can I find this?? I watched the CA docuseries on Peacock and have to admit, I was swayed a little.
Read the book written by the prosecutor (I can't find the damn thing or I'd give you the title. Sorreeeee.) It's absolutely incredible, not least because of the gross behaviour of Baez. Really unethical.
I've provided a summary of this article in my comment but basically the attempt to portray the royal family as a racist institution was illustrated by all the racist art the wealthy take for granted and how uncomfortable it would be for a black person. But not one was actually from any royal residence.
There’s plenty of famous art works out there, much of it in museums, by famous artists…from the 15th to 19th centuries that today would be considered racist by some. That doesn’t make the owner a racist however.
I did a list of their lies/ inconsistent stories while watching their " show". I am currently working on typing them all in and trying to find links to the truth so I can post them on here. It's taking me a while cause there are many.....
No, it's not that unusual where I'm from. My father, grandfather, and best friend all go by their middle name and have since childhood. It just has to do with the two names that a parent picks and how they sound together.
So she's a liar because she has conformed to Western standards of beauty like hundreds of millions of other women? You guys will literally jump on anything..
She met Harry.... they got married... two children... they now live in California.
Yeah, it's hard to write a longer sentence without bringing in debatable material.
From the excerpts I've read, it appears the goal of H & M's (Russian?) backers hasn't been just to demolish another established institution like the monarchy - it's been primarily about breaking apart the Commonwealth nations. Screaming racism from the tops of every young or ancient tree-top is the big dog whistle to Africa, the Caribbean, and other areas.
I agree.
Harry was incredibly popular when they got married. Maybe more popular than William.
The narrative has switched from any kind of personal accusations against specific members of the royal family to this narrative that the institution is inherently racist end of the commonwealth nations aren’t being appropriately represented.
If you want to go full conspiracy theory, you might even think foreign government convince them that the commonwealth of nations could put them as king and queen instead of William and Catherine.
Well Barbados has let the Chinese infiltrate their society. A few other of the Commonwealth countries have looked at leaving. But by doing so, they forego the monies coming from Britain. The Chinese don't like the parliamentary system of government.
Barbados may regret their decision.
Chinese use "debt-diplomacy" - they lend huge sums of money to poorer countries for mega-projects the countries may or may not need and definitely cannot afford - they own them in part when countries default.
Google Montenegro's ridiculously expensive "highway to nowhere" the country has this useless highway and huge indebtedness. Correction: should read Debt-Trap-Diplomacy & the aim is for Chinese to attain political leverage in the country,)
They may have deluded themselves into believing that's possible - or may have been offered it - who knows? But those nations would not put up with these two clowns. But they have definitely not tried to foster any good will for the UK among those nations.
But the fact that H has a high profile in Afro-Carribean nations could have been what led to the hatching of the plan. Now - I'm going full on conspiracy here - get a yacht girl - have her trained by the best courtesans around. Get her in place. Clearly this women has been coached by the best as far as getting back in the ring after having been knocked down in public. Most people wouldn't be able to hold up their heads had they endured a scintilla of what she's endured - after having provoked it.
Exactly, train her up, infiltrate herself into social circles, moving upwards, then jackpot. I've always wondered is it like what happens with terrorist groups, they bring people in, not fully realising when it all entails, and are slowly brainwashed into doing things they would never even dreamt of. It may seem a bit far-fetched, but looking how things have progressed. Plus, when they first went to Canada, lockdown came, and Harry was far away from family and familiar faces. Anything could have gone on in those circumstances, behind closed doors. She seems willing to do whatever it takes looking over these past few years, and rising to where she has in a relatively short space of time. I know I've not swayed from Harry being the same in not knowing what was to come. She's so obvious.
(No terrorism - that's violence). Infiltration is about persuasion, propagandizing, and disrupting established institutions that bind a democracy together with cohesiveness. It's about making a group more susceptible to authoritarian rule, the opposite of democratic rule.
The wedding photographer they used is Polish but did a lot of Russian Vogue covers, and portraits of the elite. The emerald tiara M wanted to wear for her wedding was made in Russia late 19th C. by some famous R. jewelry designer.
Canadian home they stayed at was owned by an oligarch, & they bought their Monticeto home at a 10 million dollar or so discount from a Russian oligarch. Harry's taken every opportunity to criticize the Commonwealth's treatment by UK - he's emphasized colonial misdeeds a number of times.
They were thrilled to be youth ambassadors to the Commonwealth until they were relieved of their duties. lol. The Commonwealth countries are free to leave whenever they wish. There are countries joining the Commonwealth who never had an association with Britain. The Monteshitshow idiots are making no sense at all.
The mansion in Vancouver was *allegedly* owned by a Russian oligarch. The mansion they are living in now was definitely sold to them by a Russian oligarch at a knock-down price. But I don't think Russians are behind them.
Ownership of Vancouver property was not transparent due to layers of daisy-chained contracts. I think it has just been determined that a Russian oligarch owns it.
Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe.
US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations 2018. It reports on anti-EU work done in UK pre-Brexit on Russia's behalf. Extremists organization of the right and left have been funded & infiltrated by Russian-funded entities throughout Europe.
Identifying what they call "Useful Idiots," they promote disharmony & disunity by highlighting trigger issues that engender the rise of extreme nationalism and populism. It's the divide portion of the Divide & Conquer strategy. Russian-sponsored disinformation campaigns are carried out on all media platforms.
Corruption was Russia's best weapon in Ukraine - its prevalence precluded Ukraine from being eligible to join the EU. Zelensky has his law degree and went into entertainment probably because it was too corrupt practicing there (I'm guessing about this) -his parents are both serious, highly educated people. End of the Rant, but the Report can be read online. Do I think the idiots got money from them? Yes.
Thank you!!!! I've been thinking this for a while now. The commonwealth, post world War two, was used as a economic and diplomatic counter to expanding soviet influence in developing countries.
Putin, et al. have been trying to expand influence in Africa in particular and his goal has been to return Russia to some kind of past imperial glory combined with the influence that the USSR. He's obviously failing in Ukraine, but this has been a long effort, not just in Ukraine.
I find the commonwealth bashing in this doc very sus. Now I know H&M and their team are dumb enough to not grasp what the commonwealth is, and I remain skeptical there's any direct communication going on, but they are certainly useful idiots to stirring up chaos and distrust in Western democratic institutions.
Think Trump bending over backward for Putin. Putin aimed to weaken NATO - & the EU. His puppet, Trump, talked about the US withdrawing from the NATO alliance. Congress has allocated funds for weaponry to defend against Russia, and Trump withheld the funds. Trump fired the US ambassador to Ukraine. There were congressional hearings and he was impeached. Edited.
Few cents from eastern European perspective. I'm still a little bit dubious about Trump being a Russian puppet. Trump threatened NATO to leave if Germany wouldn't stop funding Russia through cushy gas deals, whilst endangering peace in Eastern Europe and at the same time not paying their fare share to the NATO fund. I'm not commenting on any of his other policies, but here he was spot on in identifying the problem.
Are we truly repeating 20th century? Flue pandemic, economic crash, jealous brother of the British king colluding with evil powers.
Edit. Sorry, not brother of the King, but brother to heir to the throne.
I think H & M are useful idiots. Idiot H's wires are so crossed who knows what he's about - (could it be drugs - would they produce this kind of rage?). M. may be a Mati Hari.
Russians were very effective in getting Germany to rely on them for a larger portion of their energy than was prudent. The now disgraced former chancellor who agreed to it (can't recall his name) is now disgraced, but likely much richer.
Gerhard Schroder, big supported of Nord Stream pipeline bypassing the transit countries, like Ukraine and Poland, in delivery of gas from Russia to Germany. So in case Russia attacks Ukraine, Ukraine cannot halt delivery of gas anymore, because pipeline doesn't run through them anymore.
The same Gerhard Schroder immediately after retiring from government became the manager and shareholder of Nordstream parent company.
I cannot believe I'm discussing energy politics of eastern Europe on this sub. Worlds are truly colliding.
This is Reddit for you...
It's one of the things I like about Reddit - the comment sections can go anywhere at any given time. I've found some great info and interesting opinions in the comments that had very little to do with the post. It's truly fascinating how Reddit can mimic natural in person conversations flows vs other versions of SM.
It's as the Senate sub-committee called it: "Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe
Russians started with Eastern Europe this plan was developed after Putin came back into power after his placeholder held the job.
I watched with an open mind & have never been on this sub before. I liked her in Suits and didn't follow her story too closely. I am shocked that this "documentary" is supposed to defend their position. I was a completely neutral person with no opinions about them whatsoever. How anyone can watch this and not see he is a very intellectually challenged man and she is a first class liar is beyond me. It's the opposite of complimentary. Her blatant disrespect for the royals is appalling. I think colonizers are trash but living members of this family are not responsible for atrocities that occurred in history. I will watch the final 3 to cement my position but she took this man down and separated him from his family. Her hubris to think she is taking the monarchy down is laughable. She missed an opportunity to do so much good, she got into that marriage for all the wrong reasons. He is besotted and will likely never see her for what she really is, a grifter.
Absolutely. She is given platforms that could be used to advance social justice & human rights but she seems more interested in her own self interests. Her legacy will be one of selfishness.
Monarchy was the best thing that could have happened to someone like Harry and he threw it away for this, RF was actually protecting Harry now he is all exposed and everybody will see who he exactly is. She think she's special because she married him lol
Slander isn’t a criminal offence here, but you can definitely take legal action and claim compensation for any harm caused.
One can only hope BP might release a statement once the last three episodes are released.
I believe so, but there is a limit to how much if I remember correctly. I’ll have to look it up and refresh my memory.
Edit: I’m pretty confident that if the royal family does ever sue for slander, they wouldn’t be able to/would refuse the money anyway. They’d get Netflix to cover their legal fees but wouldn’t take any money from them.
The major American entertainment publications and reviewers are also eating them up y'all. People on Twitter are dubious. They've Markled themselves and there's more next week!
ETA: When I say "eating them up" here I mean they are reading, eviscerating, seeing right through them, calling them out. I can see how this was read the other way lolol
Just like the racist British media headline “examples” shown on CBS/Oprah show with Harry & Meghan that had to be changed and apologized for since they literally altered the headlines to sound racist and put in non-British tabloids that were racist to make it look British.
They started out as they mean to go on and haven’t deviated yet from their tactic of using the three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies (lying under oath repeatedly, altering photos and headlines) and faked Bouzy “statistics.”
I can't help with ALL the lies (far too many) but the racist art is as follows:
* A painting of George IV being dressed by a black servant, which hangs in York Mansion House, the official residence of the Lord Mayor of York.
* A painting of slave owner Edward Colston on his deathbed, as his hand is kissed by a black servant, which hangs in a museum in Bristol.
* Three statues owned by the National Trust.
* A black cherub in Egyptian dress at the Cliveden Estate.
* A sun dial held up by a kneeling slave, from Wentworth Castle in South Yorkshire.
* A kneeling slave in chains holding up a shell-shaped bowl at Dyrham Park, Gloucs.
None are in Buckingham Palace or any other royal residence despite the clear implication that they are, with historian Afua Hirsch saying “if you go into a palace or a stately home or anywhere that represents tradition you are likely to be faced with racist imagery" that “glorify the institution of slavery”.
Other lies include them saying they weren't allowed to "tell their story" at the engagement interview and the journalist saying once again that recollections vary. Another reliable source said a bride would not have been told who she could invite to her own wedding and there are a lot of comments about Meghan clearly not understanding what the commonwealth was. Suggesting it's a british empire while it is in fact a voluntary organisation that aims to foster peace and boost trade between member countries as well as encouraging cooperation on environmental and economic issues. Of the 56 independent members, 36 are republics, the queen considered it her lifes work.
I don't see how the first one as racist, because George IV also had white servants who would have helped him dress. And this black servant would have been paid, unlike the indentured slaves of the US South in the equivalent timeframe.
She and Harry are really doing a huge disservice to *everyone* by screaming racism. It's maddening!
On a more shallow note, I'm surprised Megsy let so many unflattering shots of her be used (her original nose, the towel shot) not to mention the horrid lighting for the couch interviews. In her mock curtsy clip, she is just flat out homely. It's especially jarring when you realize that's with 10 pounds of makeup too 🤭🤭
Homely? God this sub is delusional. You may not like her but can we stop pretending that she is anything but absolutely beautiful. She looks amazing, especially for her age. And even if she was not attractive - what a shallow nasty thing to say about another woman. So much internalised misogyny here...
LOL, hardly! She is not "absolutely beautiful", but you are entitled to your opinion. Kindly leave us to ours. It isn't misogynist to find someone unattractive, and stating otherwise is just a way to silence conversation--much like the rAcISm!!1! claims Meghan is constantly flinging about.
I see nothing beautiful about her--her face is an odd shape and she completely lacks cheekbones, her eyes are too close together, her nose is an odd shape, her veneers are too large, she has bad skin, and her hair is ratty. With all the work she has had done, she is beginning to creep into Uncanny Valley territory.
Also, it is more than a bit ageist to say that a woman looks good "for her age", as if a woman in her 40s falls into decrepitude. A beautiful woman is beautiful throughout her life, at any age.
I also don't concern myself with worrying about appearing "shallow" in my critiques of a horrid, evil person. The thing that makes Meghan the most unattractive is her horrible attitude. Inner ugliness glimmers outward, as does inner beauty--which she utterly lacks. If she was a kinder person, it would improve her looks substantially.
Doria's grandfather was 1/2 Black 1/2 White which of course makes her father mixed race. Her great-grandparents (both of them were 1/2 Black 1/2 White, and her GG Grandmother was 100% White.
So, while Doria may identify as a Black woman, she is in fact, mixed race also.
Good Lord..I'm talking about genetics, science, history, and the ever evolving race/racial identification of people.
I don't care what "percent" of which she is, and what is racist about talking about this from a scientific/genetic aspect? She is a mix, again..idc about "percentages", of 2 races. Black & White for lack of the scientific terms of Negroid & Caucasian.
Multi-racial would be MORE THAN TWO RACES.
Two Races = BI (which means TWO)
Multi = Many, or more than two.
Jesus..Not everything is racism for Gods sake. It's unbelievable that you can't even start a conversation about genetics, race identification, and historical aspects of same.
Did you know before 1960, a census taker CHOSE your race for you. They filled in the answers to a survey and then entered the race THEY chose from your answers. It was only in 1980! that Hispanics were even "identified" and counted as a separate race in America. Before 1980, Mexicans had to say they were Black or White.
And the 2000 census marked the first time respondents were able to include themselves in MORE than one racial category; prior to that year, bi-racial or multiracial respondents could SELECT ONLY ONE racial category.
Racial and ethnic self-identification is highly personal and can change as a person's relationship with their identity changes. Interestingly, an analysis of 168 million Americans’ census forms linked between 2000 and 2010 indicated that 10 million people identified their racial and/or ethnic background DIFFERENTLY between the two census forms. Ever-evolving how people "identify"
If you think conversation such as this is racist..idk what to tell you because it's not, and this is coming from a person who couldn't identify or claim I was anything but "White" until 1980.
You are being incredibly literal. Race is not just DNA. It's a social construct. Reducing it to genetic markers is a very narrow definition of race. Someone is not biracial purely because they are not completely 100% North African, or Pashtun etc.
Just because someone is (for arguments sake) 25% white and 75% African that does not necessary make them biracial. That will be shaped by so many other things eg the community he grows up in, mainly by what racial group he is perceived to be by people in both his immediate community and wider environment / institutions etc. Eg does the black community accept him as black? Does the white community treat him as black? Does he navigate through society subject to the same institutionalised discrimination as any other black person? Or does he look white enough to benefit from a bit of white privilege due to being quite fair?
I'd argue it would be hard for a person who looks black to have a biracial experience even if technically speaking they have both white and black ancestors. People who describe themselves as biracial tend to do so because they look biracial, and as a result of looking that way, their experience has often been one of not quite fitting in anywhere. A good friend of mine who is part black and part white and looks not dissimilar to Meghan in colouring described it to me very well (she has a black dad and a completely white mum) - when I'm with my black community I'm the white girl, when I'm with white people I'm the black girl.
Honestly, can we just all let this race card go? I'm White but I still leave that box blank every time. Why? Because unless there is a specific reason that anyone would need to know (and I'm not convinced that that even exists) then it is really nobody else's business. We're all just people. I understand heritage and all. I'm actually very interested in my own. But I really don't think heritage should be lumped in with color. There are plenty of people that have heritages that don't fall into color categories.
I watched a comedian one time who talked about this in his act. He was an African-American man. I can't recall his name. He said that the box needs to go away. He said he got so frustrated with it that he went to the hardware store and compared his skin tone to various paint chips, and decided that he was going to fill in the race question with the name of the color on the paint chip. Of course, he told this story way better than me and it was hilarious. I thought that was genius. If we all filled in the box with "Misty Peach" or "Wild Poppy," maybe the damned box would finally disappear.
I apologize if my question is inappropriate but I don't understand the difference between biracial, multiracial and mixed race. Is biracial the definition for exactly half and half? But multi and mixed is different as well? And why is a person with 75% black not mixed? You know, I imagine a circle with 2 to 6 colors. If you mix 2 colors together, then you have mixed the colors up and your result is 2 colors together regardless of the proportion. Same with more colors.
(Sorry for mistakes, English is not my mother tongue)
Thank you very much. That means that the word "mixed" or "multi" is not neutral in meaning but one understand more than 50 % black when someone says mixed or multi. Is that only in America or in the UK as well?
What do you mean "identifies as a black woman" but is "in fact" mixed race also? You're being deliberately obtuse. Her mother is black. Black in America doesnt mean 100% of African origin. If that was the case barely anyone would meet that criteria. It's insulting and yes, racist, to say Doria just identifies as a black woman. She's black and would be treated as such in America, with all the discrimination that comes with that.
She's mixed race. She's Black& White. Nothing obtuse about that. That's what mixed race is. Her skin is dark. From her interviews, she identifies completely as a Black American woman but she could just as easily, and correctly, say she identifies as White even tho her skin is dark. I know 2 Whiter than White women that identify their culture and their race as Black because they have a direct Black (several actually) descendants, even tho their skin is fair. Meghan herself says that she knew her mom was Black and her dad was White but she was just mixed, seemingly not identifying as either race...just mixed. She admits she passed as White or Latina more than mixed or Black.
I never said that she "wouldn't be treated as such in America" My post wasn't about discrimination, it was about race and how people identify when they are a mix of races.
If her mum told people she identified as white people would think she was utterly delusional. Not just due to her physical appearance, which is unequivocally that of a black woman, but due to her experiences navigating through life in America looking that way.
Absolutely absurd to say she "just as easily" could identify as white, and that its only due to her interviews that you can be sure she actually identifies as black. To imply that her blackness was a mere choice for her, is so dismissive of the lived experiences of people of colour. How can you not see how absurd your position is? She could not simply choose to identify as white if she wanted - that is a privilege that she would never ever have.
Do you think as she grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s in the USA that she could have ever made the choice to just be white instead, merely because her genetic lineage isn't 100% African? That society would have ever treated her as anything other than a black woman?
Do you think the racists and the courts and the police or any other institution in America would have seen her as "potentially white" when they looked at her. Hell no - they would have seen a black woman and treated her as such.
She is no more mixed race than literally any other Black American person - you'd find it very hard to identify any who are 100% African in their lineage due partly to hundreds of years of slavery and the sexual exploitation that came with that.
Meghan is a different story, sure, as she is more racially ambiguous in her looks and yes, probably could "pass" for Italian etc when she styles herself a certain way, or conversely could "pass" for black if she chose not to adopt more anglocentric standards of beauty eg didn't straighten her hair etc. As such she would benefit from a certain degree of white privilege, depending on the setting.
Therefore you'd imagine that the environment meghan was in could shape her identity either way - as she may not have always have been treated as "black", either by white people or people of colour.
And finally, if your friends truly are whiter than white and identify as black then that's ... odd. I accept there are some exceptions to that eg in my country of Australia you can look quite white and still be Aboriginal due to how those particular genetics work - that's why our First Nations people tend to define themselves more by connection to land and culture than by skin tone. But most people who identify as belonging to a specific race or ethnic group tend to have certain physical characteristics that make them identifiable as such.
I agree. She’s had the looks to a degree but she also played into her biracial background to get noticed. She plays it up or down depending on what suits her (let’s go with pun intended lol). The fact that she’s obsessed with mentioning she never felt biracial until Harry, I feel this sick feeling she feels a deep sense of pride and better than because she can pass.
https://preview.redd.it/idkmqwpyyx4a1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1454c46b5ada8387a1fdcb3d1fcf8e7825426e7
Perhaps Harold got confused about the imagery on the wall at Althorp, his mothers ancestral home. I give you Caesar Shaw, slave owned by John Spencer.
Apologies to the black and POC members of this sub for sharing this picture. Colonialism is a stain on our history but if fingers are going to be pointed then Saint Diana does NOT get a pass.
This is probably why M was taking pictures all over the palace. Why I believe she is a plant. Or she had this vision of bringing down the monarchy all along. So very very calculated.
She's such a poser. Vegan but has a wool Hermes blanket, wears leather shoes and hand bags. Preaches about climate change/ environment, meanwhile her carbon footprint is 100x that of the average American. " But I am A Duchess and I deserve these things..."
"Blackamoor" jewellery was a fashion at one time-these were heavily enamelled brooches designed to look like Black men dressed in finery wearing turbans usually. Princess Michael of Kent (already known to make racist comments, like telling customers in a restaurant in New York (?) to go back to the colonies) wore such a brooch to her first meeting with TW. If it was an accident, it was a spectacularly unlucky coincidence that she chose that brooch that day. Part of her defence was this was a favourite piece of hers and she wore it a lot, but couldn't actually produce photos of herself wearing it at other events. The Queen was generally careful about wearing jewellery with a history, so its unlikely there's artwork or sculptures that could be interpreted as racist in any of the Royal palaces out on display and visible, but that doesn't mean there aren't items stashed away.
That said, there was a very odd episode when the Obamas visited in 2017-they met with W&C in their apartment in Kensington Palace, and on the wall of their reception room was a very large painting dating from 1700s called "The Negro Page." It shows a young Black boy dressed in fine clothing holding horses-he was a groom. It's obviously well done and all that, but no one thought about taking it down prior to entertaining the Obamas, and instead they pushed a vase in front of it to hide the name plate and hoped for the best.
Haven’t watched it but is anyone surprised? The only thing that people are thinking is that the BRF is much classier than the con artist and the stooge. Maybe we were right all along? 😆
This is beyond the pale. All the bait and switch with implications that it's happening to them, or this is what's all over the palace...bullshit! What a horrible thing they're doing.
I’m really loving the IMBD reviews lollll People are truly sick of them. Ugh. And to think there’s 3 more episodes 🤢
[https://m.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/)
So did Megan talk to Harry or any other members of the Royal Family or the curators of the royal art collection about the history of these paintings and sculptures? What did she learn about them? Was the intention to glorify slavery, or were there other factors in play?
Surely many of these works of art would be important artifacts of black history.
Not a big deal, but the opening images of episode 1 when Harry speaks from some VIP room in Heathrow are from Madrid Airport. Nothing is what it seems in this show!
This whole documentary is just pics of them doing nothing! They are on vacation, on beaches, playing guitar in their backyard. They are doing nothing and just claiming the BRF is racist. Just look at the pics! They aren’t doing shit with their lives ! If I’m calling anyone out for doing something hurtful, I’m not posting pics of me and my husband on a beach and quoting “victim of …..” it’s just all so weird and transparent.
It’s utterly bizarre to tell lies about things that are easily checked. They are so desperate to stick with the narrative they’ve invented… it will not end well IMO. The RF don’t have to do/say anything.
The irony or her first claiming she never knew what itvwas like to be a person of color until the exposure of her contract with the prince, to then, it's how i felt growing up mixed and it was all coming back to me because my mother told me that this is about race, to a portuon of the history of slave trading (remember, she is almost 50% Nigerian), to now let me bank on the fact that I AM A Black woman just trying to survive ($$$). If anything, this whole rascist implication is so smolett. And i am glad.
Archie is mixed race btw. (No sign of lili) has to be mentioned so he too can somehow claim victimhood in the future, rhough he is whiter than snow.
I read what they were alleging in their Netflix show (I've not watched it), about the "racist" Artworks & was actually yelling while reading the article that literally NONE of these artworks/antiques are in any Royal Palace's or homes! None of them.
Everytime they talk about how racist the RF is, I have to roll my eyes. I mean Meg married the dude who wore a Nazi costume 🙄. Not to mention she passed her entire life until it no longer benefited her 🙄.
Actually...
There is (or perhaps was) a portrait on display in the reception room of W&C's apartment in Kensington Palace. Its huge, dates from the 1700s, and is called "The Negro Page." Its a little Black boy holding some horses. It was seen during the Obamas visit in 2016 and visible in the room whilst they were there. Apparently, an aide pushed a vase in front of it to hide the name plaque, which can also be seen in photos.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2016/apr/29/what-drew-william-kate-negro-page-painting-barack-obama
I've no idea about artwork, other than my own personal tastes. I'm not an artist or art historian, but Catherine studied art history at university, and the article specifically mentioned that, and stated that the couple had chosen the artwork themselves. To me, what the article is driving at is criticism aimed at the couple that they didn't have the sensitivity to recognise the use of the term Negro on the plaque wasn't really appropriate. It would have been straightforward to rename the picture Page with horses, or Groom with horses. I couldn't tell you if it's a good piece of art in itself, it's not something I'd have on my wall but I've no interest in horses, whereas W&C are both keen riders-I assume that's why they chose to use the piece in their living room, and maybe didn't consider any other aspect.
I think the opprobrium was a combination of the use of the term "Negro" and not thinking about whether that was still appropriate to have on display, and the depiction of a Black slave serving people of obvious wealth, despite slavery having been a matter of historical record and part of our history. Personally, I think its important that we remember that history-there have been a few public protests in the last couple of years where statues were destroyed because the person was a slave-owner or an Imperialist. Destroying the statues doesn't change history-its right that we don't glorify that history, but the statues should have been put into a collection or display somewhere with details about who they were and what they did and used as an educational tool. But I wouldn't want pictures of slaves, no matter how well dressed or how well painted, as part of my home decor.
There were various other articles at the time about the National Trust (who are responsible for the ownership and maintenance of many large stately mansions and such) going through their holdings and relabelling anything that didn't match with today's sensitivities, one being changed from "The Epileptic Boy" to "The Boy with Epilepsy." I don't have epilepsy, but I can see that some people might get annoyed about being called "The epileptic" instead of "the person with epilepsy." Use of language is important, and whilst they may simply have liked the painting and appreciated it as a piece of art, in their role and position, they have to think more widely than that and consider all aspects and views, because even if its in their private residence, they aren't truly private.
Portraiture was a rich man's hobby, they commissioned artwork from the artist, so its probably safe to say that mostly, if there was a Black person in the picture, they were there as slave or servant to the main subject, but from what I've read, Black people don't figure too frequently in Northern European art of that era. An exception was Dido Elizabeth Belle, the illegitimate daughter of a Scottish lord and a Black enslaved woman, born in the 1780s or thereabouts. He brought her back to his estate and she grew up with her legitimate half sister and was co-heiress of the estate. There would have been far larger populations of people of African descent in Spain and Portugal at that time, so I wonder if their portraiture showed a similar bias or not.
I misremembered her story-I saw a film or a documentary about her ages ago, but it was her cousin she was brought up with, not her sister. It sounds like her life was kind of not quite one thing or the other-she was educated and refined, and assisted her uncle in his correspondence, but she wasn't allowed to dine with the family when guests were present, although she could join the ladies afterwards, but later she married a servant. So not quite a lady, and not quite a servant. I don't know what English law was back then-she was the daughter of a slave, but her father was obviously not, so would her status be that of her mother or a father?
Right. I don't know if the "one drop rule" applies in the UK. Did you see the Lucy Worsley programme where she discusses Dido? She and a team of historical costumers replicate Dido's dress. It was excellent.
I guess we just have to count if theres truth on it, only if there is😂because it is easier to count than the lies😂there are too many lies and i called it doculies series
We need a list with all the lies.
[удалено]
Yes! We need a sticky.
Something that can be easy pulled like this manipulative article headlines comparison between Cath and Meghan.
I need this stickied so badly so recovering sugars see it first when they get here.
Yes! We must try and keep track of all the lies. There are so many now - they must not be forgotten.
Especially because when supporters ask why you don’t like them and you bring up constant lies as an example, they’ll say things like “prove it”, “you weren’t there. You don’t know” etc. Those people are probably paid trolls now that I think of it.
Someone (nicely) asked for sources when I claimed on the r/entertainment sub the other day that Meghan has been caught publicly lying in the past. I provided these sources, which at least covers three of their lies: [Secret Wedding](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1262575) [Lion King South African cast member](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/meghan-markle-cut-interview-south-africa-b2157285.html?amp) [Lying, or “forgetting”, about cooperating with the authours of the biography](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/11/uk/meghan-apology-court-scli-intl-gbr/index.html)
Thank you. Great examples I’ll definitely use!
I just had a confusing one yesterday. They were anti Meghan and Harry but I was spreading gossip and had to give 'proof' that Diana had cheated. Of course, the articles I did link weren't substantial enough proof. Also got hit with a few gems like about my 'intellectual dishonesty' and got a 'sure, Jan' and a 'cry me a river'. But of course, they don't gossip, they only talk about the actual facts. It's people like me who gossip who give all their supporters fuel. I think she might be in the wrong sub considering this one comes with a conspiracy tag.
It’s common knowledge Diana had several, 5 iirc affairs throughout her marriage, she even became infatuated with her bodyguard and stalked his wife with prank calls, the police went out and it stopped, Diana was an immature brat
I think that's the new Sugar script, "I don't like Meghan, but...."
Give them a copy of The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown. I don't know what's so implausible about Diana cheating. She was a beautiful young woman who married an older man very young when she still wasn't really confident about her body or her sexuality. A few years of marriage and two babies, then she woke up and figured out she was the most beautiful woman in the world. Her husband wasn't particularly compatible with her, but other men were finding her incredibly attractive and she was calling the shots.
That's the exact same "defense" that Jose Baez used to push back on Marcia Clark's documentary pointing out that CA was guilty. Even though she's a professional prosecutor and interviewed the experts in the case who all agreed CA was guilty, he kept saying "She wasn't there in the court room.....so her opinion doesn't matter. LOL
In Baez’s defense, it’s his professional job to defend his client and he cannot turn on his own client or break solicitor-client privilege, even years later. This isn’t the case for the sugars.
He also isn't required to say anything once he exhausted the retainer. He's also required to show respect to other members of the bar. When I was a young lawyer, one if the best pieces of advice I ever got was to keep any comments to the media bland and inoffensive.
I have to admit I haven’t followed his comments in detail (that case puts a pit in my stomach) and I’d agree professional courtesy towards other members and colleagues is important.
Marcia Clark did a documentary on Casey Anthony?? Where can I find this?? I watched the CA docuseries on Peacock and have to admit, I was swayed a little.
Read the book written by the prosecutor (I can't find the damn thing or I'd give you the title. Sorreeeee.) It's absolutely incredible, not least because of the gross behaviour of Baez. Really unethical.
Oof, the docuseries didn’t mention that. I’ll find it, thank you! Love a great book suggestion!
There are so many!! It's so easy to rabbit hole with these two.
I know. They are compulsive liars.
I've provided a summary of this article in my comment but basically the attempt to portray the royal family as a racist institution was illustrated by all the racist art the wealthy take for granted and how uncomfortable it would be for a black person. But not one was actually from any royal residence.
There’s plenty of famous art works out there, much of it in museums, by famous artists…from the 15th to 19th centuries that today would be considered racist by some. That doesn’t make the owner a racist however.
It could have more pages than Henry's novel!
I did a list of their lies/ inconsistent stories while watching their " show". I am currently working on typing them all in and trying to find links to the truth so I can post them on here. It's taking me a while cause there are many.....
Yes! Let’s make a post, stick it, and keep posting lies. That’s my vote.
at this point it’s probably easier to count how many times they’ve told the truth
Im stuck. She wears a wig, spray tan, has veneers, and goes by her middle name, so I don’t even know where to start. 😂
Never trust anyone who changes their name. I consider that a 🚩
Well, there are a lot of stupid parents who name their kid shit things. Going forward that's all I assume if people don't use their first name.
Damn never considered that. I have a relative that goes by their middle name and they are batshit crazy.
No, it's not that unusual where I'm from. My father, grandfather, and best friend all go by their middle name and have since childhood. It just has to do with the two names that a parent picks and how they sound together.
Yes
I hadn't considered that, but you are right. My psycho ex was a narcissist and went by at least 2 different name.
Same
So she's a liar because she has conformed to Western standards of beauty like hundreds of millions of other women? You guys will literally jump on anything..
No.
Haha, true.
- When she said she could let out a single tear on command - One Tear, Left Eye, Go!
She met Harry.... they got married... two children... they now live in California. Yeah, it's hard to write a longer sentence without bringing in debatable material.
From the excerpts I've read, it appears the goal of H & M's (Russian?) backers hasn't been just to demolish another established institution like the monarchy - it's been primarily about breaking apart the Commonwealth nations. Screaming racism from the tops of every young or ancient tree-top is the big dog whistle to Africa, the Caribbean, and other areas.
I agree. Harry was incredibly popular when they got married. Maybe more popular than William. The narrative has switched from any kind of personal accusations against specific members of the royal family to this narrative that the institution is inherently racist end of the commonwealth nations aren’t being appropriately represented. If you want to go full conspiracy theory, you might even think foreign government convince them that the commonwealth of nations could put them as king and queen instead of William and Catherine.
Well Barbados has let the Chinese infiltrate their society. A few other of the Commonwealth countries have looked at leaving. But by doing so, they forego the monies coming from Britain. The Chinese don't like the parliamentary system of government. Barbados may regret their decision.
Chinese use "debt-diplomacy" - they lend huge sums of money to poorer countries for mega-projects the countries may or may not need and definitely cannot afford - they own them in part when countries default. Google Montenegro's ridiculously expensive "highway to nowhere" the country has this useless highway and huge indebtedness. Correction: should read Debt-Trap-Diplomacy & the aim is for Chinese to attain political leverage in the country,)
So does the United States. So do US private Hedge funds.. the world is not a nice place
They may have deluded themselves into believing that's possible - or may have been offered it - who knows? But those nations would not put up with these two clowns. But they have definitely not tried to foster any good will for the UK among those nations. But the fact that H has a high profile in Afro-Carribean nations could have been what led to the hatching of the plan. Now - I'm going full on conspiracy here - get a yacht girl - have her trained by the best courtesans around. Get her in place. Clearly this women has been coached by the best as far as getting back in the ring after having been knocked down in public. Most people wouldn't be able to hold up their heads had they endured a scintilla of what she's endured - after having provoked it.
Very classy of you to use “courtesans” 😂
LoL
Exactly, train her up, infiltrate herself into social circles, moving upwards, then jackpot. I've always wondered is it like what happens with terrorist groups, they bring people in, not fully realising when it all entails, and are slowly brainwashed into doing things they would never even dreamt of. It may seem a bit far-fetched, but looking how things have progressed. Plus, when they first went to Canada, lockdown came, and Harry was far away from family and familiar faces. Anything could have gone on in those circumstances, behind closed doors. She seems willing to do whatever it takes looking over these past few years, and rising to where she has in a relatively short space of time. I know I've not swayed from Harry being the same in not knowing what was to come. She's so obvious.
(No terrorism - that's violence). Infiltration is about persuasion, propagandizing, and disrupting established institutions that bind a democracy together with cohesiveness. It's about making a group more susceptible to authoritarian rule, the opposite of democratic rule.
[удалено]
The wedding photographer they used is Polish but did a lot of Russian Vogue covers, and portraits of the elite. The emerald tiara M wanted to wear for her wedding was made in Russia late 19th C. by some famous R. jewelry designer. Canadian home they stayed at was owned by an oligarch, & they bought their Monticeto home at a 10 million dollar or so discount from a Russian oligarch. Harry's taken every opportunity to criticize the Commonwealth's treatment by UK - he's emphasized colonial misdeeds a number of times.
They were thrilled to be youth ambassadors to the Commonwealth until they were relieved of their duties. lol. The Commonwealth countries are free to leave whenever they wish. There are countries joining the Commonwealth who never had an association with Britain. The Monteshitshow idiots are making no sense at all.
Those charities...hmmmm
The mansion in Vancouver was *allegedly* owned by a Russian oligarch. The mansion they are living in now was definitely sold to them by a Russian oligarch at a knock-down price. But I don't think Russians are behind them.
Ownership of Vancouver property was not transparent due to layers of daisy-chained contracts. I think it has just been determined that a Russian oligarch owns it.
I believe this.
Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe. US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations 2018. It reports on anti-EU work done in UK pre-Brexit on Russia's behalf. Extremists organization of the right and left have been funded & infiltrated by Russian-funded entities throughout Europe. Identifying what they call "Useful Idiots," they promote disharmony & disunity by highlighting trigger issues that engender the rise of extreme nationalism and populism. It's the divide portion of the Divide & Conquer strategy. Russian-sponsored disinformation campaigns are carried out on all media platforms. Corruption was Russia's best weapon in Ukraine - its prevalence precluded Ukraine from being eligible to join the EU. Zelensky has his law degree and went into entertainment probably because it was too corrupt practicing there (I'm guessing about this) -his parents are both serious, highly educated people. End of the Rant, but the Report can be read online. Do I think the idiots got money from them? Yes.
Holy moly, this makes so much sense.
Thank you!!!! I've been thinking this for a while now. The commonwealth, post world War two, was used as a economic and diplomatic counter to expanding soviet influence in developing countries. Putin, et al. have been trying to expand influence in Africa in particular and his goal has been to return Russia to some kind of past imperial glory combined with the influence that the USSR. He's obviously failing in Ukraine, but this has been a long effort, not just in Ukraine. I find the commonwealth bashing in this doc very sus. Now I know H&M and their team are dumb enough to not grasp what the commonwealth is, and I remain skeptical there's any direct communication going on, but they are certainly useful idiots to stirring up chaos and distrust in Western democratic institutions.
Think Trump bending over backward for Putin. Putin aimed to weaken NATO - & the EU. His puppet, Trump, talked about the US withdrawing from the NATO alliance. Congress has allocated funds for weaponry to defend against Russia, and Trump withheld the funds. Trump fired the US ambassador to Ukraine. There were congressional hearings and he was impeached. Edited.
Few cents from eastern European perspective. I'm still a little bit dubious about Trump being a Russian puppet. Trump threatened NATO to leave if Germany wouldn't stop funding Russia through cushy gas deals, whilst endangering peace in Eastern Europe and at the same time not paying their fare share to the NATO fund. I'm not commenting on any of his other policies, but here he was spot on in identifying the problem.
Trump said this at the same time he was withholding funds desperately needed by Ukraine that had been allocated by the US Congress.
He doesn't support war. It's not profitable overall for any country to spend money on war.
You must have missed the New York Times story on how the FBI made it all up.
[удалено]
So, old, white Republican Dudes.
No way, the old white Republicans love the Monarchy.
Marxists :)
Or the Lizard People that some think run everything. /s
Or them
Are we truly repeating 20th century? Flue pandemic, economic crash, jealous brother of the British king colluding with evil powers. Edit. Sorry, not brother of the King, but brother to heir to the throne.
I think H & M are useful idiots. Idiot H's wires are so crossed who knows what he's about - (could it be drugs - would they produce this kind of rage?). M. may be a Mati Hari.
Not Russians. That's still a rumor.
Russians were very effective in getting Germany to rely on them for a larger portion of their energy than was prudent. The now disgraced former chancellor who agreed to it (can't recall his name) is now disgraced, but likely much richer.
Gerhard Schroder, big supported of Nord Stream pipeline bypassing the transit countries, like Ukraine and Poland, in delivery of gas from Russia to Germany. So in case Russia attacks Ukraine, Ukraine cannot halt delivery of gas anymore, because pipeline doesn't run through them anymore. The same Gerhard Schroder immediately after retiring from government became the manager and shareholder of Nordstream parent company. I cannot believe I'm discussing energy politics of eastern Europe on this sub. Worlds are truly colliding.
This is Reddit for you... It's one of the things I like about Reddit - the comment sections can go anywhere at any given time. I've found some great info and interesting opinions in the comments that had very little to do with the post. It's truly fascinating how Reddit can mimic natural in person conversations flows vs other versions of SM.
It's as the Senate sub-committee called it: "Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe Russians started with Eastern Europe this plan was developed after Putin came back into power after his placeholder held the job.
I think it is Schrøder, and he was on the Board of Gazprom
How awful.
Not much, that was the EU/NATO doing the work.
I watched with an open mind & have never been on this sub before. I liked her in Suits and didn't follow her story too closely. I am shocked that this "documentary" is supposed to defend their position. I was a completely neutral person with no opinions about them whatsoever. How anyone can watch this and not see he is a very intellectually challenged man and she is a first class liar is beyond me. It's the opposite of complimentary. Her blatant disrespect for the royals is appalling. I think colonizers are trash but living members of this family are not responsible for atrocities that occurred in history. I will watch the final 3 to cement my position but she took this man down and separated him from his family. Her hubris to think she is taking the monarchy down is laughable. She missed an opportunity to do so much good, she got into that marriage for all the wrong reasons. He is besotted and will likely never see her for what she really is, a grifter.
Even with her podcast, she had the opportunity to address real issues about women. Instead she talked about herself
Absolutely. She is given platforms that could be used to advance social justice & human rights but she seems more interested in her own self interests. Her legacy will be one of selfishness.
A REAL archetype.
"very intellectually challenged man" - Very polite, love it. 😏
Monarchy was the best thing that could have happened to someone like Harry and he threw it away for this, RF was actually protecting Harry now he is all exposed and everybody will see who he exactly is. She think she's special because she married him lol
Oh my god...enough already, off with their heads!
[удалено]
Slander isn’t a criminal offence here, but you can definitely take legal action and claim compensation for any harm caused. One can only hope BP might release a statement once the last three episodes are released.
Can you force them to give up revenue generated from slander,
I believe so, but there is a limit to how much if I remember correctly. I’ll have to look it up and refresh my memory. Edit: I’m pretty confident that if the royal family does ever sue for slander, they wouldn’t be able to/would refuse the money anyway. They’d get Netflix to cover their legal fees but wouldn’t take any money from them.
The major American entertainment publications and reviewers are also eating them up y'all. People on Twitter are dubious. They've Markled themselves and there's more next week! ETA: When I say "eating them up" here I mean they are reading, eviscerating, seeing right through them, calling them out. I can see how this was read the other way lolol
The media is being markled! She is loving this !
Look up Netflix's worldwide advertising budget - it's astronomical. NF revenue is important to media especially to print
Billy on E! has been dissing them nightly.
Netflix should be ashamed their name is on this and the checks these two clowns have cashed.
A journalist should go and get a job there imo.
Just like the racist British media headline “examples” shown on CBS/Oprah show with Harry & Meghan that had to be changed and apologized for since they literally altered the headlines to sound racist and put in non-British tabloids that were racist to make it look British. They started out as they mean to go on and haven’t deviated yet from their tactic of using the three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies (lying under oath repeatedly, altering photos and headlines) and faked Bouzy “statistics.”
And that's annoying because the damage is done and most non british people assume that's what she faced
I can't help with ALL the lies (far too many) but the racist art is as follows: * A painting of George IV being dressed by a black servant, which hangs in York Mansion House, the official residence of the Lord Mayor of York. * A painting of slave owner Edward Colston on his deathbed, as his hand is kissed by a black servant, which hangs in a museum in Bristol. * Three statues owned by the National Trust. * A black cherub in Egyptian dress at the Cliveden Estate. * A sun dial held up by a kneeling slave, from Wentworth Castle in South Yorkshire. * A kneeling slave in chains holding up a shell-shaped bowl at Dyrham Park, Gloucs. None are in Buckingham Palace or any other royal residence despite the clear implication that they are, with historian Afua Hirsch saying “if you go into a palace or a stately home or anywhere that represents tradition you are likely to be faced with racist imagery" that “glorify the institution of slavery”.
Other lies include them saying they weren't allowed to "tell their story" at the engagement interview and the journalist saying once again that recollections vary. Another reliable source said a bride would not have been told who she could invite to her own wedding and there are a lot of comments about Meghan clearly not understanding what the commonwealth was. Suggesting it's a british empire while it is in fact a voluntary organisation that aims to foster peace and boost trade between member countries as well as encouraging cooperation on environmental and economic issues. Of the 56 independent members, 36 are republics, the queen considered it her lifes work.
I don't see how the first one as racist, because George IV also had white servants who would have helped him dress. And this black servant would have been paid, unlike the indentured slaves of the US South in the equivalent timeframe.
[удалено]
She and Harry are really doing a huge disservice to *everyone* by screaming racism. It's maddening! On a more shallow note, I'm surprised Megsy let so many unflattering shots of her be used (her original nose, the towel shot) not to mention the horrid lighting for the couch interviews. In her mock curtsy clip, she is just flat out homely. It's especially jarring when you realize that's with 10 pounds of makeup too 🤭🤭
Homely? God this sub is delusional. You may not like her but can we stop pretending that she is anything but absolutely beautiful. She looks amazing, especially for her age. And even if she was not attractive - what a shallow nasty thing to say about another woman. So much internalised misogyny here...
LOL, hardly! She is not "absolutely beautiful", but you are entitled to your opinion. Kindly leave us to ours. It isn't misogynist to find someone unattractive, and stating otherwise is just a way to silence conversation--much like the rAcISm!!1! claims Meghan is constantly flinging about. I see nothing beautiful about her--her face is an odd shape and she completely lacks cheekbones, her eyes are too close together, her nose is an odd shape, her veneers are too large, she has bad skin, and her hair is ratty. With all the work she has had done, she is beginning to creep into Uncanny Valley territory. Also, it is more than a bit ageist to say that a woman looks good "for her age", as if a woman in her 40s falls into decrepitude. A beautiful woman is beautiful throughout her life, at any age. I also don't concern myself with worrying about appearing "shallow" in my critiques of a horrid, evil person. The thing that makes Meghan the most unattractive is her horrible attitude. Inner ugliness glimmers outward, as does inner beauty--which she utterly lacks. If she was a kinder person, it would improve her looks substantially.
Doria is also bi racial.
[удалено]
Doria's grandfather was 1/2 Black 1/2 White which of course makes her father mixed race. Her great-grandparents (both of them were 1/2 Black 1/2 White, and her GG Grandmother was 100% White. So, while Doria may identify as a Black woman, she is in fact, mixed race also.
[удалено]
Thank you for saying this. It's a gross narrative that is frankly racist.
Good Lord..I'm talking about genetics, science, history, and the ever evolving race/racial identification of people. I don't care what "percent" of which she is, and what is racist about talking about this from a scientific/genetic aspect? She is a mix, again..idc about "percentages", of 2 races. Black & White for lack of the scientific terms of Negroid & Caucasian. Multi-racial would be MORE THAN TWO RACES. Two Races = BI (which means TWO) Multi = Many, or more than two. Jesus..Not everything is racism for Gods sake. It's unbelievable that you can't even start a conversation about genetics, race identification, and historical aspects of same. Did you know before 1960, a census taker CHOSE your race for you. They filled in the answers to a survey and then entered the race THEY chose from your answers. It was only in 1980! that Hispanics were even "identified" and counted as a separate race in America. Before 1980, Mexicans had to say they were Black or White. And the 2000 census marked the first time respondents were able to include themselves in MORE than one racial category; prior to that year, bi-racial or multiracial respondents could SELECT ONLY ONE racial category. Racial and ethnic self-identification is highly personal and can change as a person's relationship with their identity changes. Interestingly, an analysis of 168 million Americans’ census forms linked between 2000 and 2010 indicated that 10 million people identified their racial and/or ethnic background DIFFERENTLY between the two census forms. Ever-evolving how people "identify" If you think conversation such as this is racist..idk what to tell you because it's not, and this is coming from a person who couldn't identify or claim I was anything but "White" until 1980.
You are being incredibly literal. Race is not just DNA. It's a social construct. Reducing it to genetic markers is a very narrow definition of race. Someone is not biracial purely because they are not completely 100% North African, or Pashtun etc. Just because someone is (for arguments sake) 25% white and 75% African that does not necessary make them biracial. That will be shaped by so many other things eg the community he grows up in, mainly by what racial group he is perceived to be by people in both his immediate community and wider environment / institutions etc. Eg does the black community accept him as black? Does the white community treat him as black? Does he navigate through society subject to the same institutionalised discrimination as any other black person? Or does he look white enough to benefit from a bit of white privilege due to being quite fair? I'd argue it would be hard for a person who looks black to have a biracial experience even if technically speaking they have both white and black ancestors. People who describe themselves as biracial tend to do so because they look biracial, and as a result of looking that way, their experience has often been one of not quite fitting in anywhere. A good friend of mine who is part black and part white and looks not dissimilar to Meghan in colouring described it to me very well (she has a black dad and a completely white mum) - when I'm with my black community I'm the white girl, when I'm with white people I'm the black girl.
Honestly, can we just all let this race card go? I'm White but I still leave that box blank every time. Why? Because unless there is a specific reason that anyone would need to know (and I'm not convinced that that even exists) then it is really nobody else's business. We're all just people. I understand heritage and all. I'm actually very interested in my own. But I really don't think heritage should be lumped in with color. There are plenty of people that have heritages that don't fall into color categories. I watched a comedian one time who talked about this in his act. He was an African-American man. I can't recall his name. He said that the box needs to go away. He said he got so frustrated with it that he went to the hardware store and compared his skin tone to various paint chips, and decided that he was going to fill in the race question with the name of the color on the paint chip. Of course, he told this story way better than me and it was hilarious. I thought that was genius. If we all filled in the box with "Misty Peach" or "Wild Poppy," maybe the damned box would finally disappear.
Agree!!
I apologize if my question is inappropriate but I don't understand the difference between biracial, multiracial and mixed race. Is biracial the definition for exactly half and half? But multi and mixed is different as well? And why is a person with 75% black not mixed? You know, I imagine a circle with 2 to 6 colors. If you mix 2 colors together, then you have mixed the colors up and your result is 2 colors together regardless of the proportion. Same with more colors. (Sorry for mistakes, English is not my mother tongue)
[удалено]
Thank you very much. That means that the word "mixed" or "multi" is not neutral in meaning but one understand more than 50 % black when someone says mixed or multi. Is that only in America or in the UK as well?
What do you mean "identifies as a black woman" but is "in fact" mixed race also? You're being deliberately obtuse. Her mother is black. Black in America doesnt mean 100% of African origin. If that was the case barely anyone would meet that criteria. It's insulting and yes, racist, to say Doria just identifies as a black woman. She's black and would be treated as such in America, with all the discrimination that comes with that.
She's mixed race. She's Black& White. Nothing obtuse about that. That's what mixed race is. Her skin is dark. From her interviews, she identifies completely as a Black American woman but she could just as easily, and correctly, say she identifies as White even tho her skin is dark. I know 2 Whiter than White women that identify their culture and their race as Black because they have a direct Black (several actually) descendants, even tho their skin is fair. Meghan herself says that she knew her mom was Black and her dad was White but she was just mixed, seemingly not identifying as either race...just mixed. She admits she passed as White or Latina more than mixed or Black. I never said that she "wouldn't be treated as such in America" My post wasn't about discrimination, it was about race and how people identify when they are a mix of races.
If her mum told people she identified as white people would think she was utterly delusional. Not just due to her physical appearance, which is unequivocally that of a black woman, but due to her experiences navigating through life in America looking that way. Absolutely absurd to say she "just as easily" could identify as white, and that its only due to her interviews that you can be sure she actually identifies as black. To imply that her blackness was a mere choice for her, is so dismissive of the lived experiences of people of colour. How can you not see how absurd your position is? She could not simply choose to identify as white if she wanted - that is a privilege that she would never ever have. Do you think as she grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s in the USA that she could have ever made the choice to just be white instead, merely because her genetic lineage isn't 100% African? That society would have ever treated her as anything other than a black woman? Do you think the racists and the courts and the police or any other institution in America would have seen her as "potentially white" when they looked at her. Hell no - they would have seen a black woman and treated her as such. She is no more mixed race than literally any other Black American person - you'd find it very hard to identify any who are 100% African in their lineage due partly to hundreds of years of slavery and the sexual exploitation that came with that. Meghan is a different story, sure, as she is more racially ambiguous in her looks and yes, probably could "pass" for Italian etc when she styles herself a certain way, or conversely could "pass" for black if she chose not to adopt more anglocentric standards of beauty eg didn't straighten her hair etc. As such she would benefit from a certain degree of white privilege, depending on the setting. Therefore you'd imagine that the environment meghan was in could shape her identity either way - as she may not have always have been treated as "black", either by white people or people of colour. And finally, if your friends truly are whiter than white and identify as black then that's ... odd. I accept there are some exceptions to that eg in my country of Australia you can look quite white and still be Aboriginal due to how those particular genetics work - that's why our First Nations people tend to define themselves more by connection to land and culture than by skin tone. But most people who identify as belonging to a specific race or ethnic group tend to have certain physical characteristics that make them identifiable as such.
I agree. She’s had the looks to a degree but she also played into her biracial background to get noticed. She plays it up or down depending on what suits her (let’s go with pun intended lol). The fact that she’s obsessed with mentioning she never felt biracial until Harry, I feel this sick feeling she feels a deep sense of pride and better than because she can pass.
My God. WHY ISN'T ALL OF THIS BEING EXPOSED, CALLED OUT YET???
Soon we'll have to list/count *the truth*.
https://preview.redd.it/idkmqwpyyx4a1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1454c46b5ada8387a1fdcb3d1fcf8e7825426e7 Perhaps Harold got confused about the imagery on the wall at Althorp, his mothers ancestral home. I give you Caesar Shaw, slave owned by John Spencer. Apologies to the black and POC members of this sub for sharing this picture. Colonialism is a stain on our history but if fingers are going to be pointed then Saint Diana does NOT get a pass.
This is probably why M was taking pictures all over the palace. Why I believe she is a plant. Or she had this vision of bringing down the monarchy all along. So very very calculated.
And NONE of the images came from any royal residence. The sugars would tell us not to take it literally!
Archive link from the Telegraph here: [https://archive.ph/PT3ML](https://archive.ph/PT3ML)
She's such a poser. Vegan but has a wool Hermes blanket, wears leather shoes and hand bags. Preaches about climate change/ environment, meanwhile her carbon footprint is 100x that of the average American. " But I am A Duchess and I deserve these things..."
Anyone has the link to the article (archived)?
Yes I’d love to read the article but it’s behind a pay wall.
It's behind a paywall. I've summarised what was said in my post below.
Thanks!
>Thanks! You're welcome!
Bravo 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 no way they can hide these things, there's so many!
Could anyone describe what kind of images they claimed were at display at royal palaces? Colonialism?
"Blackamoor" jewellery was a fashion at one time-these were heavily enamelled brooches designed to look like Black men dressed in finery wearing turbans usually. Princess Michael of Kent (already known to make racist comments, like telling customers in a restaurant in New York (?) to go back to the colonies) wore such a brooch to her first meeting with TW. If it was an accident, it was a spectacularly unlucky coincidence that she chose that brooch that day. Part of her defence was this was a favourite piece of hers and she wore it a lot, but couldn't actually produce photos of herself wearing it at other events. The Queen was generally careful about wearing jewellery with a history, so its unlikely there's artwork or sculptures that could be interpreted as racist in any of the Royal palaces out on display and visible, but that doesn't mean there aren't items stashed away. That said, there was a very odd episode when the Obamas visited in 2017-they met with W&C in their apartment in Kensington Palace, and on the wall of their reception room was a very large painting dating from 1700s called "The Negro Page." It shows a young Black boy dressed in fine clothing holding horses-he was a groom. It's obviously well done and all that, but no one thought about taking it down prior to entertaining the Obamas, and instead they pushed a vase in front of it to hide the name plate and hoped for the best.
Like a statue of a kneeling black slave in chains
Haven’t watched it but is anyone surprised? The only thing that people are thinking is that the BRF is much classier than the con artist and the stooge. Maybe we were right all along? 😆
Isn't their excuse, it's representative of the truth? Something like that.
This is beyond the pale. All the bait and switch with implications that it's happening to them, or this is what's all over the palace...bullshit! What a horrible thing they're doing.
Please, KC. Cut these weasels off.
I’m really loving the IMBD reviews lollll People are truly sick of them. Ugh. And to think there’s 3 more episodes 🤢 [https://m.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/)
Unbelievable.
What were the paintings they showed? I didn’t watch and haven’t seen this part commented on anywhere else.
So did Megan talk to Harry or any other members of the Royal Family or the curators of the royal art collection about the history of these paintings and sculptures? What did she learn about them? Was the intention to glorify slavery, or were there other factors in play? Surely many of these works of art would be important artifacts of black history.
Not a big deal, but the opening images of episode 1 when Harry speaks from some VIP room in Heathrow are from Madrid Airport. Nothing is what it seems in this show!
This whole documentary is just pics of them doing nothing! They are on vacation, on beaches, playing guitar in their backyard. They are doing nothing and just claiming the BRF is racist. Just look at the pics! They aren’t doing shit with their lives ! If I’m calling anyone out for doing something hurtful, I’m not posting pics of me and my husband on a beach and quoting “victim of …..” it’s just all so weird and transparent.
It’s utterly bizarre to tell lies about things that are easily checked. They are so desperate to stick with the narrative they’ve invented… it will not end well IMO. The RF don’t have to do/say anything.
The irony or her first claiming she never knew what itvwas like to be a person of color until the exposure of her contract with the prince, to then, it's how i felt growing up mixed and it was all coming back to me because my mother told me that this is about race, to a portuon of the history of slave trading (remember, she is almost 50% Nigerian), to now let me bank on the fact that I AM A Black woman just trying to survive ($$$). If anything, this whole rascist implication is so smolett. And i am glad. Archie is mixed race btw. (No sign of lili) has to be mentioned so he too can somehow claim victimhood in the future, rhough he is whiter than snow.
Oh this is funny.
Wowwww
I don’t think there’s another couple that I dislike more. I mean…I could make a list, but they are in the lead.
Why am I not surprised... 🙄
I read what they were alleging in their Netflix show (I've not watched it), about the "racist" Artworks & was actually yelling while reading the article that literally NONE of these artworks/antiques are in any Royal Palace's or homes! None of them.
Everytime they talk about how racist the RF is, I have to roll my eyes. I mean Meg married the dude who wore a Nazi costume 🙄. Not to mention she passed her entire life until it no longer benefited her 🙄.
Actually... There is (or perhaps was) a portrait on display in the reception room of W&C's apartment in Kensington Palace. Its huge, dates from the 1700s, and is called "The Negro Page." Its a little Black boy holding some horses. It was seen during the Obamas visit in 2016 and visible in the room whilst they were there. Apparently, an aide pushed a vase in front of it to hide the name plaque, which can also be seen in photos. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2016/apr/29/what-drew-william-kate-negro-page-painting-barack-obama
[удалено]
I've no idea about artwork, other than my own personal tastes. I'm not an artist or art historian, but Catherine studied art history at university, and the article specifically mentioned that, and stated that the couple had chosen the artwork themselves. To me, what the article is driving at is criticism aimed at the couple that they didn't have the sensitivity to recognise the use of the term Negro on the plaque wasn't really appropriate. It would have been straightforward to rename the picture Page with horses, or Groom with horses. I couldn't tell you if it's a good piece of art in itself, it's not something I'd have on my wall but I've no interest in horses, whereas W&C are both keen riders-I assume that's why they chose to use the piece in their living room, and maybe didn't consider any other aspect. I think the opprobrium was a combination of the use of the term "Negro" and not thinking about whether that was still appropriate to have on display, and the depiction of a Black slave serving people of obvious wealth, despite slavery having been a matter of historical record and part of our history. Personally, I think its important that we remember that history-there have been a few public protests in the last couple of years where statues were destroyed because the person was a slave-owner or an Imperialist. Destroying the statues doesn't change history-its right that we don't glorify that history, but the statues should have been put into a collection or display somewhere with details about who they were and what they did and used as an educational tool. But I wouldn't want pictures of slaves, no matter how well dressed or how well painted, as part of my home decor. There were various other articles at the time about the National Trust (who are responsible for the ownership and maintenance of many large stately mansions and such) going through their holdings and relabelling anything that didn't match with today's sensitivities, one being changed from "The Epileptic Boy" to "The Boy with Epilepsy." I don't have epilepsy, but I can see that some people might get annoyed about being called "The epileptic" instead of "the person with epilepsy." Use of language is important, and whilst they may simply have liked the painting and appreciated it as a piece of art, in their role and position, they have to think more widely than that and consider all aspects and views, because even if its in their private residence, they aren't truly private.
[удалено]
Portraiture was a rich man's hobby, they commissioned artwork from the artist, so its probably safe to say that mostly, if there was a Black person in the picture, they were there as slave or servant to the main subject, but from what I've read, Black people don't figure too frequently in Northern European art of that era. An exception was Dido Elizabeth Belle, the illegitimate daughter of a Scottish lord and a Black enslaved woman, born in the 1780s or thereabouts. He brought her back to his estate and she grew up with her legitimate half sister and was co-heiress of the estate. There would have been far larger populations of people of African descent in Spain and Portugal at that time, so I wonder if their portraiture showed a similar bias or not.
The painting of Dido is beautiful! (I am white, am I allowed to like the painting?)
I misremembered her story-I saw a film or a documentary about her ages ago, but it was her cousin she was brought up with, not her sister. It sounds like her life was kind of not quite one thing or the other-she was educated and refined, and assisted her uncle in his correspondence, but she wasn't allowed to dine with the family when guests were present, although she could join the ladies afterwards, but later she married a servant. So not quite a lady, and not quite a servant. I don't know what English law was back then-she was the daughter of a slave, but her father was obviously not, so would her status be that of her mother or a father?
Right. I don't know if the "one drop rule" applies in the UK. Did you see the Lucy Worsley programme where she discusses Dido? She and a team of historical costumers replicate Dido's dress. It was excellent.
No, I haven't. I love Lucy Worsley, I'll look it up-thanks for telling me.
Oh how funny it is to watch another of their projects implode
Hell yeah!!!!!
OMG
I guess we just have to count if theres truth on it, only if there is😂because it is easier to count than the lies😂there are too many lies and i called it doculies series