It was daily mail. It was written for their audience.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Wouldn't be easy if it wasn't there.
Very easy for people who have not experienced racism to tell those that are that they aren't.
I'm not gay but if a gay person tells me it's homophobic I don't tell them it isn't. I listen and learn
I think it depends on how "experiencing racism" is interpreted? Being educated about racism and being taken for a ride over a sensitive subject are very different and should be treated as such. Those making false claims about racism should be challenged in my opinion. Otherwise it just gets ridiculous.
Niggling isn't racist though. It's a common enough word (on this side of the Atlantic at least) and has nothing to do with the other n word.
It is also very common in the US.
Guys I know the word isn't racist 
bit like all the media at the time the racism was covert. These are people who literally use words for a living. And it was the daily mail! I saw the headline on the netflix documentary, I hadn't seen it before, and I thought in a sea of racism I can completely see why you would object to this particular word.
Because I'm not a head and I listen to what people are saying rather than brushing it off as people being sensitive.
This is the Internet so you don't have to listen to me but I hope irl you listen to the people around you.
Happy to move this along now.
bit like all the media at the time the racism was covert. These are people who literally use words for a living. And it was the daily mail! I saw the headline on the netflix documentary, I hadn't seen it before, and I thought in a sea of racism I can completely see why you would object to this particular word.Because I'm not a head and I listen to what people are saying rather than brushing it off as people being sensitive.
This is the Internet so you don't have to listen to me but I hope irl you listen to the people around you.
Happy to move this along now.
I agree with you ( although I'm not sure Harry is reflective or thoughtful) I think he has long resented the press and his family, but they have both blamed Meghan wholesale while thinking he is a poor gullible innocent who just needs to get out of the evil woman's clutches, leading to Meghan feeling persecuted for things her husband has done and Harry blaming the press and
his family for not protecting his wife, when he should have done better. I agree also that it could easily have been William in the heat of an argument about Meghan that could have made the comment about the children before they married. That would also explain the hostility between the brothers.
She was stupid not to go directly to the Palace, but the Palace got LSH to resign. Presumably they would or should have done that anyway, and the story would have got out that it was as a result of a complaint against her. If it was brushed under the carpet, then all the more reason for Ngosi to publicise it. Again, the fault lies with the toxic British media, who have riled this case up. LSH was racist and rude. She was then asked to resign by Charles probably who presumably realised it was racist and rude, and not a good look. Then people, aided and abetted by the Tabloids have rushed to the 'defence' of an aristocrat who didn't do her job properly and has managed to shut down a domestic abuse charity- one which was recognised by The Queen, racially abusing a woman because they couldn't believe an old lady from an almost completely White Upper class background could possibly be racist! The irony being lost on them.
Last edited:
I thought Kate was more of a target than William in the documentary. The racist comment could have been made by William or by anyone really. Camilla and Ann have been suspected of saying it as well. I'd be interested to see what they say about it in the next volume. How are they going to square the 2 different accounts that they gave on Oprah? Harry's version was a lot more believable than Meghan's. I could easily believe someone in the RF making a comment when they first found out Harry was dating a mixed race woman but I can't believe that they were having conversations when she was pregnant about the colour of the child's skin influencing what title it would get. It will be interesting to see how they address it. Harry said in vol 1 that his family were prejudiced against her because she was an American actress and she ran with that as well. They seemed to be at pains to say that the prejudice was down to her being an actress/Hollywood type so maybe they will just gloss over the whole thing. Even saying there is unconscious bias within the RF and that Harry used to be the same could be a sign that they're not going to go as far as we might expect in part 2.
I also think that there were more hurtful comments targeting Catherine than anyone else:
Her being stiff when she first met MM and her having been married as she "fit the mould" rather than W being in love with her - this was quite specific. But maybe it was aimed at both William and Catherine as a couple.
So within the space of a couple of posts we are now unable to use the words 'thug' and 'niggling'. Two words in common parlance. I'll carry on using them thanks. 
I’m not aware of the thug issue and agree niggle is a word used perfectly reasonably in common usage. However, the way in which it was used in that headline definitely looks somewhat suspect and alluding to a different and unacceptable word. I genuinely can’t see any other reason for using it in this context unfortunately and would ask what else anybody thinks they were referring to.So within the space of a couple of posts we are now unable to use the words 'thug' and 'niggling'. Two words in common parlance. I'll carry on using them thanks.
I don’t think it’s a case of don’t use them, is it? just for one be mindful of the context and for the other an acceptance that while it’s not the root or meaning of the word that in the context of that headline, it was used in such a way to elicit a response. Why Was it used in that headline in the way it was? What about someone’s engagement could ‘niggle’ anyone let alone a tabloid paper? Why not use something like ‘bother’ same meaning, same number of letters?So within the space of a couple of posts we are now unable to use the words 'thug' and 'niggling'. Two words in common parlance. I'll carry on using them thanks.
That was my take, anyway.
Last edited:
@Boring Monday and @Baby Giraffe you articulated my point way better than me 
no one is asking you stop using words don't be so dramatic. I don't know why people get so defensive when others point something out. Just be like oh okay, I didn't see it like that but now you've said it... you didn't write the article did you, so no need to be taking it so personal
no one is asking you stop using words don't be so dramatic. I don't know why people get so defensive when others point something out. Just be like oh okay, I didn't see it like that but now you've said it... you didn't write the article did you, so no need to be taking it so personal
Same here.So within the space of a couple of posts we are now unable to use the words 'thug' and 'niggling'. Two words in common parlance. I'll carry on using them thanks.
I have to agree with you on this. Also the tabloids are known to insert words that will have a double meaning to particular stories, if you look out for them.
I could see William asking why Meghan needs more palace protection as Kate had to go through it too. Meghan was attacked for being American and mixed race, Kate for being a commoner. Harry sayd that the racist angle makes it completely different. I think that's an interesting question and I cannot answer to it but it could have been a point of tension between Harry and William.
The point about classiscism vs racism has been also a point of discord among the left. The left was typically protecting workers and using a rhetoric around the fight between social classes. With the loss of influences from unions, a part of the left - the liberal left - has been much more focused on minorities protection - which is also needed. But this phenomena went with some kind of neglect towards the working class struggles. I think Meghsn and Harry are much less sensitive to those questions - they don't talk about wealth inequalities neither do they consider their own wealth is not necessarily desserved.
Also, the documentary portrays them as two unique people who went through many challenges but the ressources they had access to are hardly mentionned. Meghan could go to a select private highschool because her parents could pay for it. She could pursue her dream of being an actress because she didn't have to worry about money. It took many years but her ex-husband could support her and share his connections to her as he was a movie producer in Hollywood. Harry, well is a prince of England, could attend the most select school in the UK because of his family and have had so many accesses/opportunities because of his status. They are both quite oblivious of those privilegies. In this sense they are quite similar to Harry's family.
I could see William asking why Meghan needs more palace protection as Kate had to go through it too. Meghan was attacked for being American and mixed race, Kate for being a commoner. Harry sayd that the racist angle makes it completely different. I think that's an interesting question and I cannot answer to it but it could have been a point of tension between Harry and William.
The point about classiscism vs racism has been also a point of discord among the left. The left was typically protecting workers and using a rhetoric around the fight between social classes. With the loss of influences from unions, a part of the left - the liberal left - has been much more focused on minorities protection - which is also needed. But this phenomena went with some kind of neglect towards the working class struggles. I think Meghsn and Harry are much less sensitive to those questions - they don't talk about wealth inequalities neither do they consider their own wealth is not necessarily desserved.
Also, the documentary portrays them as two unique people who went through many challenges but the ressources they had access to are hardly mentionned. Meghan could go to a select private highschool because her parents could pay for it. She could pursue her dream of being an actress because she didn't have to worry about money. It took many years but her ex-husband could support her and share his connections to her as he was a movie producer in Hollywood. Harry, well is a prince of England, could attend the most select school in the UK because of his family and have had so many accesses/opportunities because of his status. They are both quite oblivious of those privilegies. In this sense they are quite similar to Harry's family.
I thought the headline said something like she had a niggling feeling it wouldn't work or something like that so I would take it at face value - she had a feeling that was niggling at her. Maybe I'm just very naive but I would never have thought they were trying to reference the other n word. I just wouldn't have read it like that. Are there people who would and would have had a good laugh about it??? Is it because it was in the Daily Mail that it can be interpreted this way? If that was the author's intent then it's vile.
- Status