Since the Daily Mail’s 2016 headline, “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton”
The New York Times•January 11, 2020 3,337 Comments
LONDON — When Prince Harry and Meghan announced this week that they would be stepping back from their royal duties and spending extensive time in North America, many of Britain’s minority residents said they felt a burst of relief.
At long last, many said in interviews, the couple might finally escape the abuse, much of it racially tinged, that has been heaped upon them by the British press, particularly the country’s raucous tabloids. “Thank God they are free,” said Sanaa Edness, lifting her arms to the sky as she walked through Fordham Park in southeast London. “Nobody should tolerate bullying and abusive behavior because of the color of their skin. All of this is about her race. I know it because as a Caribbean woman who did not grow up here, I have experienced it myself.”
When an African American bishop preached and a gospel choir sang at Meghan Markle and Harry’s wedding ceremony at Windsor Castle in May 2018, it set a precedent for many of Britain’s people of color, who until then had felt excluded from the profoundly white culture and traditions of the British monarchy.
Young black women with no particular interest in the royal family gathered around their televisions and watched with excitement as the beautiful biracial American actress walked down the aisle of St. George’s Chapel and became the Duchess of Sussex.
And since the Daily Mail’s 2016 headline, “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton,” the duchess has been the subject of dozens of racist and sexist stories with references to her “exotic DNA” and descriptions of her family history going from “cotton slaves to royalty via freedom in the US Civil War.”
Classic bait and switch. Typical women never happy or content. She was a part of the royal family but thats not good enough for her feminist agenda. Got her claws into him with the marriage, then the real kicker is when they had children. It was game over for him right after. She knows she now has all the power to financially rape him in divorce court so im sure she said either do it or ill leave you with the kids. Also he married a bitch whos older than him and has been divorced. Prince harry is a simp blue pilled faggot and he gets what he deserves
Originally posted by cigreting
Classic bait and switch. Typical women never happy or content. She was a part of the royal family but thats not good enough for her feminist agenda. Got her claws into him with the marriage, then the real kicker is when they had children. It was game over for him right after. She knows she now has all the power to financially rape him in divorce court so im sure she said either do it or ill leave you with the kids. Also he married a bitch whos older than him and has been divorced. Prince harry is a simp blue pilled faggot and he gets what he deserves
Originally posted by Sophie
Who gives a shit. Not my prince.
Yeah I never understood how people here in the US fawn over the royal wedding and shit like that. I guess its just because a lot of people respect them soley for celebrity status and the money they have. I like certain famous musicians and actors, but the royal family has nothing to offer me, can't really relate to them..
Originally posted by Bill Krozby
Yeah I never understood how people here in the US fawn over the royal wedding and shit like that. I guess its just because a lot of people respect them soley for celebrity status and the money they have. I like certain famous musicians and actors, but the royal family has nothing to offer me, can't really relate to them..
If anything i would expect Americans above any people to reject Monarchy.
Originally posted by Technologist
They’re just figure-heads.
In the UK not so much, aristocracy is woven into the social fabric of the country. You can still hold titles, lands and be given honors by the Monarchy. Here in Holland the only titles that exist are King, Queen, Prince, Princess and Knight. And Knight is the only honor the Monarchy can dash out. In theory Parliament serves at the pleasure of The King. But The King can't dissolve Parliament. In the UK IDK about dissolving but The Monarchy can prorogue Parliament. Which is a fancy term for suspension.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Sophie
If anything i would expect Americans above any people to reject Monarchy.
With people like Trump appointing his family as party members, trying to extend his term, and overreaching the system of checks and balances we have in this country?
With Bush sr. and jr?
Americans love a good nepotistic government. As long as you call them 'president' instead of 'king', and as long as it's THEIR party who is in power, it's all good.
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace
With people like Trump appointing his family as party members, trying to extend his term, and overreaching the system of checks and balances we have in this country?
With Bush sr. and jr?
Americans love a good nepotistic government. As long as you call them 'president' instead of 'king', and as long as it's THEIR party who is in power, it's all good.
Originally posted by Sophie
Oh and i guess we still have The Count of Dykes, which is a holdover from ye olden times and more of a job title than anything.
Originally posted by Sophie
We have a lot more than that. Someone needs to make sure we're not under water most of the time, that job is for The Count of Dykes.
