Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 6     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote  #61 
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/progressives-hailing-radical-royalty-misguided/news-story/4a5dcaaebde428bee3c1271b8371970a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miranda Devine
WHETHER Prince Harry and his new bride Meghan Markle intended it or not, she has become the royal pin-up girl for Social Justice Warriors.

It began with the celebrity-studded royal wedding guest list and an inappropriate sermon by progressive American preacher Michael Curry which went on far too long.

At 14 minutes, it reportedly took more than twice as much time as he was allocated, and Curry seemed so pleased with his own oratory that he was oblivious to the discomfort evident in the faces of many of the guests. In another context, fine, but it wasn’t his day.

The choice of Curry, an advocate of same-sex marriage and other progressive social causes, was a political statement.

But it wasn’t made by the bride and groom. They hadn’t chosen Curry. He was suggested by Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“They were hardly in a position to know or refuse,” writes Gavin Ashendon, the former chaplain to the Queen.

“When Justin Welby suggested Michael Curry as the preacher on this astonishing worldwide stage, he was also signing up one of the most effective street fighters for progressive, distorted Christianity.”

Judging by the embarrassment on Harry and Meghan’s faces, they hadn’t signed up for the full Curry.

Then there was the web page for the new Duchess of Sussex that popped up hours after the wedding on the official royal family website, describing her as a proud “feminist”.

Twitter went into paroxysm of delight. “The Duchess of Sussex is here to SLAY” was one comment.

“Meghan’s page on the official Royal family website leaves Kate in the dust,” was another. “This is what happens when you WORK and care about others aside from your grasping family. Take note, Kate”.

With such headlines as “Step Aside, Kate. Meghan Is the New People’s Princess”, the media has been trying to engineer a rivalry between Meghan and Prince William’s wife, Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, even though the two women appear to get on well.

And progressive activists hope that Meghan is the answer to their dreams that conformist Kate is not, a left-wing Mata Hari to infiltrate one of the last conservative bastions in Britain.

But they are sure to be disappointed.

Harry might be the closest thing to a rebel the royal family has today but he has chosen his wife well. She will make as much of a success of her new role as she did of her acting career. And that does not include being a bomb-thrower.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #62 
Nasty little piece. I shouldn't think Gavin Ashenden is privy to too much inside information; he is an ex-Anglican as well as ex-chaplain, and it's probably his guesses being presented as fact here. I don't actually know whether Bishop Curry overran his time, but certainly the service seemed to pick up smoothly immediately after and no one appeared to feel things were running behind. Nor did I detect any embarrassment on the part of the couple. A little bemusement, maybe.

It is true there are signs of an attempt to whip up a fake war between the junior and senior Duchesses. I doubt there is any genuine rivalry, and certainly on Saturday the Duchess of Cambridge seemed concerned to stay out of the spotlight as far as possible and not draw any attention from the bride. So that far I do agree with the article, also that the new Duchess will not be any kind of metaphorical bomb at the heart of the royal family. That we have already had in the form of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and though some blast damage is still visible the edifice as a whole remains intact.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote  #63 
I don't think you get what we're trying to say here. None of the members of the Royal Family may even want this, but it can't be denied that there are certain people who will try and exploit the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for their own selfish agenda, with potentially terrible consequences for the monarchy and monarchists. They expect that the Megahan, Duchess of Sussex will be a rabid SJW that they hope, even though she very likely will be constrained in any case. This, despite the fact that Harry as Duke of Sussex is 6th in line to the throne, and he and any descendants of his are extremely unlikely to reign.

Don't underestimate the ability of the media to create havoc for the Royal Family either, especially as we see the increasing derangement of the media on international issues. Their capacity to create fake issues surrounding anything, not just the monarchy, is limitless. The fact is that they could well try and use Meghan's background as a stick to beat anyone who doesn't conform to their view, including monarchists like myself.

Our duty as monarchists, and the duty of those in the Palace, is to protect the Royal Family from this sort of thing. We should endeavour to protect Harry and Meghan, as we do with William and Catherine, from this kind of harmful endeavour.

What is more worrying is this. Supporters and opponents of the monarchy, grounded in ideological politics, know what the monarchy represents to them. We know that people who already hate the monarchy are not impressed and will never be won over. Look at the vile statements by one of the grandees of identity politics, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (which I won't bother to link here but she has form), no doubt parroted by her mini-mis in other countries who have the same hatred for Britain and Britishness. The postcolonial identity freaks aren't changing their mind. I hope the Royal Family recognise this too.

The problem is that some people, clearly, have an agenda to try and use the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to further their agenda and cause more tension and subversion. Our duty, as is it hat of the Royal Family, is to prevent this. Their goal is not just the monarchy, but also to undermine confidence in the monarchy among monarchists of every stripe. There are people at two extremes intent on causing division and hatred, let us not play their game.

The other issue here concerns black Americans in general, given Meghan's background. Black Americans have long been the "template" for victimhood and identity politics, which unfortunately has done much to inspire victimhood among minorities in other countries including Britain and Australia (with Muslims among the most recent to play that game, along with indigenous peoples). They wield considerable cultural influence through celebrities and sports stars, far from being powerless and disenfranchised, and many of those use their status to further the victim mentality and thus continue the game of division and tension. Perhaps it is to be hoped that a union like this can lessen the incentive for those playing the victim card. But we're now seeing a growing resistance to the siren call of identity politics, as Candace Owens and now Kanye West are showing. It is not racist or singling out anyone to make this statement of fact.

Peter, I understand and respect your liberal sensibilities. However, liberals like yourself really should wake up and see that it is well past time. You cannot let those sensibilities blind you to the potential dangers in your midst.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #64 
I don't think the dangers are all that great. And it's very early days to be reaching conclusions about the role the Duchess of Sussex will play within the royal family and how far-reaching or indeed what her influence will be. To me there seems every reason to be positive, and I certainly don't intend to get over-anxious about the writings and sayings of fringe commentators with axes to grind.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote  #65 
Except Miranda Devine is not a fringe commentator at all. And very likely a number of mainstream commentators will have similar concerns to her, and me.

I prefer, of course, to bask in the fact that the monarchy looks as secure as it's ever been in Britain and the realms.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #66 
Well, yeah. Which is why I'm not too worried. I'd never heard of her but since she's Australian that's not too surprising. But it wasn't really her I had in mind anyway, she seemed to be supportive of the monarchy even if she was using it as a vehicle for her own viewpoints. I was more thinking of people who oppose the monarchy but use it the same way, like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Of whom I'd also never heard, even though she is British and seemingly quite prominent. Then again, I see no particular reason why I should pay attention to such people.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #67 
Monarchists come in all flavors, so if the left of center crowd of monarchists find a favorite royal in the Duchess of Sussex, I don't think that should matter to the right of center monarchists.  Monarchy is an umbrella spread over all political opinions, so if the Duke and Duchess appeal to the left, and it strengthens monarchist loyalty on that end, then that is a good thing.  I don't think it's realistic for everyone on the right to expect that all the royals toe a political line to their liking.  They are a royal family not a Politburo.  

It is being said that the Duke and Duchess want to take up a  Commonwealth focused role, and that this has reportedly pleased the Queen a great deal.  The types of interests that the Duchess has shown in the past seem to be well suited to something like that.

Quote:
The other issue here concerns black Americans in general, given Meghan's background. Black Americans have long been the "template" for victimhood and identity politics, which unfortunately has done much to inspire victimhood among minorities in other countries including Britain and Australia (with Muslims among the most recent to play that game, along with indigenous peoples). They wield considerable cultural influence through celebrities and sports stars, far from being powerless and disenfranchised, and many of those use their status to further the victim mentality and thus continue the game of division and tension. Perhaps it is to be hoped that a union like this can lessen the incentive for those playing the victim card.


With all do respect David, you'd have to experience the day to day experience of being a person of color in the United States to understand where this comes from and why it resonates.  When I first arrived in the U.S. I didn't understand it either.  Being pulled over by the police for no reason, followed around stores, being arbitrarily searched and accused... Being asked what I was doing in a neighborhood that I lived in... things like that have changed my perspective.  I do not buy into all of identity politics, but its causes are very real and very difficult to deal with day to day.  Muslims in the U.S. and anyone who appears to possibly be Muslim (Sikhs especially) are even more targeted.  The former priest of my Orthodox Church was harrassed daily for wearing his black cassock and beard being told "go home Muslim" for quite some time.  So don't discount the very real resentment this has caused and which undermines cohesion in western society today. 

Kanye West is a nut job.  I wouldn't use him as an example for anything.

 

Quote:

“Meghan’s page on the official Royal family website leaves Kate in the dust,” was another. “This is what happens when you WORK and care about others aside from your grasping family. Take note, Kate”.

With such headlines as “Step Aside, Kate. Meghan Is the New People’s Princess”, the media has been trying to engineer a rivalry between Meghan and Prince William’s wife, Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, even though the two women appear to get on well.

 
I find the nasty remarks directed at the Duchess of Cambridge and her family to be reprehensible.  There has always been an element of snobbery directed at the Middletons, accusing them of being social climbers and "grasping".  The Duchess of Cambridge has been a huge asset to the royal family, and has conducted herself with dignity.  Her family having climbed the economic ladder thanks to their hard work should be commended.  That they have climbed the social ladder by their daughter becoming the future Queen-Consort, and their grandson a future King is a matter of fate.  People being nasty to them about it however is a choice, and those types of people are loathsome.  The Duke and Duchess of Sussex during their engagement interview spoke about how wonderful and welcoming the Duchess of Cambridge has been to Meghan.  Some people have even snipped at the Duchess of Cambridge for wearing a dress to the wedding that she had been seen in twice before (most notably at Princess Charlotte's christening).  Others have indicated it was a very considerate thing for her to do.  Wearing an appropriate outfit that had been seen on her repeatedly would divert attention of the press from what she was wearing (an obsession of certain sections of the press) and focus it even more on the bride.  Now that my friends, is class.


__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,095
Reply with quote  #68 
The monarchy is certainly a big tent, and should aim to embrace people from all over the political spectrum. That does become problematic, though, when an ideological position has principles opposed to monarchism. Many left-liberals today are supporters of absolute democracy and egalitarianism, and are rabidly anti-traditon. This is arid soil for monarchism to grow. The royal family will have to navigate between embracing enough of contemporary mores to remain popular and following bien pensant opinions that are at core hostile to monarchy.

On minorities in the US, if there is racialism and ill-treatment, this should be stamped out. But I think you'll be hard to presses to find better raise relations than the modern West. If people are worried about stamping out discrimination globally, they should start with groups like the Copts of Egypt. The obsessive focus of identity politics on the West as the great evil, seems out of all proportion to the facts, and representative of ideological blinkers.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote  #69 
I haven't been to the US for fifteen years. But before that I travelled there extensively, visiting over 30 states at one time and another, and not as a tourist but in the company of Americans, seeing the country from the inside as far as is possible for one who is at core an alien. My feeling was that the US was way, way more racially divided than Britain, most noticeably in the Mid-West and South but to some extent everywhere. Ethiomonarchist's testimony seems to suggest that nothing much has changed in the last decade and a half, even with two terms of a black President. I certainly agree about the Copts and the Christians of the Middle East generally, what little is left of them. But that doesn't mean the problem no longer exists in the West.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,095
Reply with quote  #70 
I agree America probably has the most racial problems in the West (though that doesn't mean all you hear on CNN is correct), although it has come a long way quickly, let's not forget. But I also think the West is by far the best area in the world when it comes to getting rid of racialism, even including America, even though they have often experienced rapid mass immigration from all over the world. East Asian, South Asian, Near Eastern, and African countries are all far more racialist, although some partly solve this issue by radically limiting immigration (e.g., Japan). I would even go so far as to say that countries like Britain, Canada, or Australia are as non-racialist as any nation is likely to be. Sure, it's important not to be complacent, but the energy Western pseudo-Marxists ideologues put into the issue, and their focus on the West, is out of all proportion to the reality.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #71 
Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex has been granted a coat of Arms.  It appears that this is a personal grant, and not one that was granted to her family (as was done for the Middletons).

https://www.royal.uk/her-royal-highness-duchess-sussex-coat-arms

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5771667/The-coat-arms-created-Meghan-approved-Queen.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5771667/The-coat-arms-created-Meghan-approved-Queen.html

 

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Admiral_Horthy

Registered:
Posts: 44
Reply with quote  #72 
Wessexman, RE post 70:

Do you believe the indigenous people of Great Britain (the English, Welsh and Scots), a small landmass in the grand scheme of things, have any sort of right to their native homeland and any right to continue to exist as a distinct people?  You speak of non-racialism as if it were a great thing. If the primary purpose of the monarchy is to provide continuity for a distinct people and culture what is the point if that people and culture are to be subsumed by totally alien peoples?
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 378
Reply with quote  #73 
Here's a paternal lineage (from Genealogics.org) from King Edward III to Meghan:

King Edward III
Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence
Philippa of Clarence (b. 1355)
Elizabeth Mortimer (b. 1371)
Elizabeth Percy (b. 1395)
Mary Clifford (b. circa 1420)
Elizabeth Wentworth (b. circa 1457)
Joan de La See (b. circa 1480)
Isabel Hildyard (died circa 1540)
Joan Legard (b. England)
Edward Skepper (b. England)
Rev. William Skepper (probably born in England, immigrated to Massachusetts)
Jane Skepper (b. circa 1634, Massachusetts)
Jane Brown (b. 1653, Massachusetts)
Jane Lunt (b. 1693, U.S.A.)
Abraham Drake (b. 1726, New Hampshire)
Martha Drake (b. U.S.A.)
John (V) Smith (b. 1792, New Hampshire)
Mary Smith (b. 1823, New Hampshire)
George David Merrill (b. 1851, New Hampshire)
Gertrude M. Merrill (b. 1887, New Hampshire)
Doris M. Sanders (b. 1921, U.S.A.)
Thomas W. Markle (b. 1944, U.S.A.)
Meghan Markle, now Duchess of Sussex

I'm just guessing, but judging from the location that they settled in, and their time of arrival, Meghan's early American ancestors likely were Puritan religious dissenters. 

Here's a maternal lineage for Meghan (from Genealogics.org) that I think traces back to slave ancestors, though I'm not certain. Some of these individuals were likely of mulatto (mixed negro/caucasian) descent, as are many African-Americans:

Richard Ragland (b. U.S.A.)
Steve Ragland (b. U.S.A.)
Jeremiah Ragland (b. 1883, Georgia)
Private
Alvin A. Ragland (b. 1929, Tennessee)
Doria Ragland (b. 1956)
Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex

There are other maternal lineages for Meghan on the Genealogics website that probably also trace back to slave ancestors, but I think that this one goes back the furthest. It seems that, though deriving from slave ancestors in Dixieland, the maternal family ascended into middleclass bourgeois respectability, and Meghan's mother was the only member of her family present at the Royal Wedding. The paternal family, with origins in medieval English royalty, judging from the recent tabloid accounts, has degenerated into West Coast pseudo-rednecks. Such are the vagaries of our bloodlines.




__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #74 
Why oh why won't the Markle clan just go away?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5981693/Samantha-Markle-admits-cashing-Meghans-marriage-Prince-Harry.html

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote  #75 
Seriously, they are like a really trashy reality show.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5992139/Meghan-Markles-sister-law-Im-worried-think-domestic-violence-arrest.html

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.