Also people keep bringing up her CV where she said she was Caucasian. Well, if she had to pretend to he white to get jobs, that's racism.I'm in no way a Meghan fan but what makes me uncomfortable is when people say (there was a guy in a video on the H&M thread) Meghan hasn't experience racism because she is white. INCORRECT...
A. she is not white she is light skinned mixed race, if you stand her next to Helen Mirren you will see she is not 'white'
B. Are you saying mixed raced people cant experience racism? again INCORRECT maybe not as bad as a dark POC but they can still experience racism. In fact her son Archie (who is also mixed raced) experienced it when Danny Baker posted a picture of a monkey up!
So stop with this bullshit!
Defender of the Faith is a title The Pope originally gave to Henry VIII when he wrote a book in support of Catholicism and against Martin Luther. Of course, that all went to pot 20 or so years later when all the divorce wrangling was taking place and The Pope took it back. When things had settled down, it was Parliament that restored it to Henry, not The Pope.Well, I doubt very much that Scottish monarchs gave much of a shit about the CofE, frankly. After the Union of the Crowns, James VI & I and Charles I only liked it because it was weedy enough to give in to their ideas about the divine right of kings.
The Scots have always been stroppier about their religion, whether it's hurling stools at pulpits, fighting civil wars and uprisings about religion, and willing to die for Presbyterianism in the case of the Covenanters. They made Charles II swear an oath to uphold it at his coronation at Scone and even now the monarch has to sign an agreement to uphold the Church of Scotland, despite it not being an established church. The stroppiness of the CofS extends to its governing body, the General Assembly, which didn't hesitate to lay into UK politicians in lieu of a Scottish Parliament. It's also quite forward thinking too, having had women ministers for years before the CofE, most being quite happy with gay ministers and equal marriage, and seeing no problem with divorce, hence Anne and Tim getting married at Crathie Kirk unlike Charles and Camilla who could only get a blessing of their civil marriage.
Apart from various Northern Irish descended bigoted lunatics, no one really gives much about of a shit either about a multitude of religions and churches. Eh, you do you, pal; it's between you and your god, the basis of our version of Calvinism and the reason for the insistence on education. You can have a legal pagan handfasting too as well as celebrating many other religions.
I really can't think of why Charles shouldn't change the coronation oath; it's not as though many people are actively Christian, let alone a majority of the population.
Yet the vast majority of the Commonwealth have their own heads of state anyway. They were not going to make Charles King again because of Meghan.See @TYL159 98% is most. 48% is a little under half.
Sorry I'm gonna move it forward now as that was the most bizarre couple of posts I've ever read
I've watched the last episodes now. I actually don't think it's been that bad certainly not damaging to the family. I'm felt a bit sad when David olusoga () was talking about the common wealth and what an asset Meghan would have been to the royal family because it was true. Her and Harry could have really modernised it in a way that William and Kate can't. All in all I think it's all very sad.
The Free Church of Scotland certainly cares they are fervently anti gay and even anti shopping on Sunday.Well, I doubt very much that Scottish monarchs gave much of a shit about the CofE, frankly. After the Union of the Crowns, James VI & I and Charles I only liked it because it was weedy enough to give in to their ideas about the divine right of kings.
The Scots have always been stroppier about their religion, whether it's hurling stools at pulpits, fighting civil wars and uprisings about religion, and willing to die for Presbyterianism in the case of the Covenanters. They made Charles II swear an oath to uphold it at his coronation at Scone and even now the monarch has to sign an agreement to uphold the Church of Scotland, despite it not being an established church. The stroppiness of the CofS extends to its governing body, the General Assembly, which didn't hesitate to lay into UK politicians in lieu of a Scottish Parliament. It's also quite forward thinking too, having had women ministers for years before the CofE, most being quite happy with gay ministers and equal marriage, and seeing no problem with divorce, hence Anne and Tim getting married at Crathie Kirk unlike Charles and Camilla who could only get a blessing of their civil marriage.
Apart from various Northern Irish descended bigoted lunatics, no one really gives much about of a shit either about a multitude of religions and churches. Eh, you do you, pal; it's between you and your god, the basis of our version of Calvinism and the reason for the insistence on education. You can have a legal pagan handfasting too as well as celebrating many other religions.
I really can't think of why Charles shouldn't change the coronation oath; it's not as though many people are actively Christian, let alone a majority of the population.
No as that effectively means Roman Catholicism returns as the main Church in the UK and the Monarch is once again subordinate to the Pope and the Vatican.Defender of the Faith is a title The Pope originally gave to Henry VIII when he wrote a book in support of Catholicism and against Martin Luther. Of course, that all went to pot 20 or so years later when all the divorce wrangling was taking place and The Pope took it back. When things had settled down, it was Parliament that restored it to Henry, not The Pope.
Given that even then, just 25 years after it was created, it meant something different and was in support of a different branch of religion, I think cracking on for 500 years later it can cope with having an ‘s’ tacked on the end without the sky falling in.
I'm glad you brought this up. Do you want to know what 'CV' the absolutely deranged banshees are screaming about? It's the one below...which came from a RANDOM site which creates celebrity profiles.Also people keep bringing up her CV where she said she was Caucasian. Well, if she had to pretend to he white to get jobs, that's racism.
Meghan in the doc without her hair straightened is clearly dual heritage. Archie looks like other children I know with a White and a mixed race parent. They don't look White. They look mixed race too.
I've seen that cited as 'evidence' so often. As if she created that !I'm glad you brought this up. Do you want to know what 'CV' the absolutely deranged banshees are screaming about? It's the one below...which came from a RANDOM site which creates celebrity profiles.
Do these idiots really think that a unionised actress wouldn't have an actual CV that would be circulated via her agent? It's like those dodgy websites where celebrity net worths are listed. Any rando can contribute or hazard a guess.
View attachment 1813201
I think he was regularly posting celebrities as monkeys so I don't think he meant it the way it was taken either. He shouldn't have gone there when a baby though particularly one with a mixed race mother. In the documentary they seemed to reference it as the child being a performing monkey for the RF and the press rather than as an example of racism.I do feel for Danny Baker. He's lost his livelihood. And I don't believe for a second he meant what people claim
He does apparently do it every time there is a Royal birth to signify the Royals as performing monkeys, but he is a seasoned broadcaster, and knew that there had been racist undertones to the previous coverage. He was smug and used lazy humour to make a point. He didn't use any of his journalistic skills to gauge how it would look, or how it could be perceived in this particular case.I think he was regularly posting celebrities as monkeys so I don't think he meant it the way it was taken either. He shouldn't have gone there when a baby though particularly one with a mixed race mother. In the documentary they seemed to reference it as the child being a performing monkey for the RF and the press rather than as an example of racism.
Yes, he's done it many times before. He has zero history of racism, far from it he has always been a champion of black artists. He said he had no idea MM was mixed race as he barely pays attention to the royals. As soon as it was pointed out he took it down and apologised. That should have been an end to it.I think he was regularly posting celebrities as monkeys so I don't think he meant it the way it was taken either. He shouldn't have gone there when a baby though particularly one with a mixed race mother. In the documentary they seemed to reference it as the child being a performing monkey for the RF and the press rather than as an example of racism.
Again, as a journalist, he has a duty to pay attention to the news if he is going to comment on it. Meghans Black mother turned up to her wedding with her! I'm not saying he deserved the backlash, he didn't, but he should have been doing his job properly.Yes, he's done it many times before. He has zero history of racism, far from it he has always been a champion of black artists. He said he had no idea MM as mixed race as he barely pays attention to the royals. As soon as it was pointed out he took it down and apologised. That should have been an end to it.
He's not a journalist though.Again, as a journalist, he has a duty to pay attention to the news if he is going to comment on it. Meghans Black mother turned up to her wedding with her! I'm not saying he deserved the backlash, he didn't, but he should have been doing his job properly.
Yes he's done it before and says he didn't know Meghan was mixed race. I find the latter hard to believe but suspect he just didn't think but as somebody who has spend years working in the public eye he should have thought before posting. It could however be argued that not posting would be treating this birth differently too, maybe if he wanted to post it then actually say he was posting it again as another performing royal baby had come into the world. I was unaware it was something he did and seeing the pic in isolation definitely looked racist regardless of intent. Basically think how things look if there is no context.Yes, he's done it many times before. He has zero history of racism, far from it he has always been a champion of black artists. He said he had no idea MM was mixed race as he barely pays attention to the royals. As soon as it was pointed out he took it down and apologised. That should have been an end to it.
I thought he ws. In any case, he is a seasoned broadcaster of many years standing g. He k iwshow the media works. As a public broadcaster in the public eye, blindly and lazily putting out something without context especially if you are not interested enough in the subject matter to look I to it has got him in hot water. There are plenty of other 'circus' like pictures he could have used to say the same thing.He's not a journalist though.
but humans as chimps was his thing. He's very anti establishment and anti monarchy, so I get that he wouldn't really have paid too much attention to Harry and Meghan or their wedding. He doesn't do current affairs. If he was presenting the Today programme then, yes, he should have known betterI thought he ws. In any case, he is a seasoned broadcaster of many years standing g. He k iwshow the media works. As a public broadcaster in the public eye, blindly and lazily putting out something without context especially if you are not interested enough in the subject matter to look I to it has got him in hot water. There are plenty of other 'circus' like pictures he could have used to say the same thing.
I imagine it's because her parents always called her Meghan?Does anyone know why Meghan never uses the name Rachel? It’s not like it’s a stage name thing if he parents both call her Meg
Why give her the first name Rachel then?! Seems a bit redundantI imagine it's because her parents always called her Meghan?
I know but it's more common than you think for people to be called by their second name. Usually it's because the first name is a family tradition or something like that.Why give her the first name Rachel then?! Seems a bit redundant
Sometimes stuff just happens - my cousin couldn’t say her first name so has always been called by her middle name. My friend hated her name from the minute she twigged it was her name, so called herself a different name a week at school until she found one she liked … so acquired a nickname because we couldn’t remember The Name Of The Week that she is still calledWhy give her the first name Rachel then?! Seems a bit redundant
I know a surprising number of people who have been known by different names than the first one listed on their birth certificate, some since they were small children and some through their own choice. A lot more common than you’d expect.Why give her the first name Rachel then?! Seems a bit redundant
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?