Sussexes to blame for witch hunts for racial slurs – .

Sussexes to blame for witch hunts for racial slurs – .

It was never going to be the perfect week for Prince Charles to learn from a new book that he was accused of questioning the future skin color of Prince Harry and Meghan’s children.

After all, he was arriving in Barbados to represent the Queen in a momentous ceremony marking the Caribbean island’s transition to a republic and where issues of race and identity politics are central.

Whether the assertion of American author Christopher Andersen – made with his usual bold assertions from impeccable sources – is true is quite another matter.

It immediately earned the contempt of royal officials, with one describing it as “fiction.”

And it is certainly convenient that the book, Brothers And Wives: Inside The Private Lives Of William, Kate, Harry And Meghan, is published in the United States safely, out of the reach of the prince’s lawyers.

Andersen has a habit of writing books about the royal family that draw on the most surprisingly intimate – some would say controversial – information.

In a 2001 book titled Diana’s Boys, he claimed that William and Harry insisted on walking behind their mother’s coffin when in fact they only agreed to do so the day before the funeral when their grandfather, Prince Philip, had offered to walk with them.

For Charles, the timing of this last volume, as improbable as the content is, is unfortunate in two ways.

The accusation comes as Prince Charles (pictured) takes part in a diplomatically sensitive engagement in Barbados – the first country to impeach the Queen as head of state since 1992

Having such a grotesque accusation hanging over him as he embarks on one of the most diplomatically sensitive missions – Barbados is the first country to impeach the Queen as head of state since 1992 – is enough. serious, but against the backdrop of last night. Controversial BBC documentary probing Harry and Meghan’s media relations, it’s a mischievous distraction.

But the way the story has traveled the world on social media hints at the potential damage such accusations can have, even against the one character who has done more than any other member of the royal family to promote tolerance. racial.

The tragedy for Charles is that, crude as the allegations are, the responsibility for it all is much closer to home.

It was Harry and Meghan who sparked the mystery “who was the royal racist” in their interview with Oprah Winfrey last March, when it became an open season for any writer to line their pockets with spurious speculation at the expense of the Royal family.

According to Andersen, the catalyst for Charles’ alleged remarks was the engagement of his son and former actress Meghan almost exactly four years ago, on November 27, 2017.

He claims that within hours of the announcement the prince asked the Duchess of Cornwall over breakfast: ‘I wonder what the kids will be like? Camilla would have been “a little taken aback” and would have replied, “Well, absolutely beautiful, I’m sure. “

The prince, according to the book, lowered his voice and added, “I mean, what do you think their children’s skin tone might be?” “

It sounds very tempting, but can it be true? It’s hard to think of a more crass conversation than the one imagined here – even though Andersen claims the prince’s words were done innocently – not least because it requires a considerable leap of faith.

A source quoted in Brothers and Wives: Inside the Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry and Meghan by Christopher Andersen (pictured), makes the accusation explosive

Who the hell has heard this confidential breakfast-time discussion, complemented by a voice-lowering inflection, before, as Andersen puts it, “scheming courtiers” give Charles’s words “a racist twist”?

Can we even be sure that such exchanges have taken place around the breakfast table? The point is, the couple tend to have breakfast separately – the prince prefers tea and toast, while Camilla often has hers “on the go” or skips it.

No wonder Clarence House assistants are looking at the couple’s diary from November 28, 2017, which suggests they would have had little time for such a languid discussion over toast and marmalade.

Charles and Camilla traveled to Stoke-on-Trent for a pottery engagement day in which the Duchess gave an interview in which she spoke of their joy over Harry and Meghan’s engagement.

If there is any solace for Charles, it is the opinion of those close to him that the quotes attributed to him are so improbable and so irrelevant.

No one has worked harder to improve community relations; he is the founder of the British Asian Trust, which aims to fight inequality of poverty and injustice in South Asia, and for years he has forged the strongest links with the Muslim world.

He was the first senior royal to appoint a black press secretary, the very capable Colleen Harris, he currently has an Asian police bodyguard and he has had and continues to have other BAME (black , Asian and ethnic minority).

The problem for Charles is that the fallout from the racist royal dispute long predates Andersen’s Boiler. It all started with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Oprah show.

The issue regarding royal racism began after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sat down with Oprah Winfrey in March this year (pictured) and said a member of the royal family asked what the skin color of their children but refused to name it.  was

The issue regarding royal racism began after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sat down with Oprah Winfrey in March this year (pictured) and said a member of the royal family asked what the skin color of their children but refused to name it. was

It was by far the most explosive and blatant of their so-called “truth bombs” and contributed to the palace’s ironic observation that “memories” of what happened “may vary.”

Like many of the couple’s claims, this has been cleared for the most part without challenge. They told Oprah that at least one member of the royal family was concerned about the ‘dark shade’ of their children’s skin.

But they were not prepared to identify the individual involved. A point not lost for the Duchess, who added: “It would be very damaging for them. “

Meghan insisted that the questions about Archie’s complexion were also motivated by racism (as opposed to, say, curiosity).

At one point, Oprah told him that “they were worried that if he was too dark it would be a problem.”

She replied, “If that’s the assumption you’re making, I think it sounds pretty safe. “

But remember that two very different versions of events were presented to Oprah – by Harry and Meghan – during their interview.

The Duchess claimed that “several conversations” about Archie’s skin color had taken place “in the months I was pregnant”.

Harry, meanwhile, said there was only one conversation “right at the start” of their relationship, “before we even got married.”

A more forensic interviewer than Oprah might have questioned this obvious inconsistency. Because while Harry and Meghan were only “telling the truth”, they cannot both be right.

Still, it was quite overwhelming and acted out for this gallery of Meghan devotees who believe she has been the victim of prejudice within the royal family.

And, of course, that triggered a guessing game that Harry’s intervention, saying that neither his grandmother nor grandfather was responsible, failed to prevent.

According to Andersen, Charles’ “innocent” question was picked up “less innocently in the halls of Buckingham Palace” and “armed” by courtiers.

He further claims that Harry confronted his father with anger, Charles telling him that he was “too sensitive”.

Prince William, who denounced the claims with his intervention “we really are not a racist family”, reportedly described his father’s comments in the book as “lack of tact but not a sign of racism”.

Palace insiders doubt US-based Andersen’s knowledge of these intimate family exchanges. And William, who fiercely protects his privacy, has yet to comment.

Andersen, as you might expect, stood by his assertions yesterday.

For Charles in Barbados, there was hope that diplomacy would replace “fiction”, for at least one night.

But nine months later, the fallout from that toxic Oprah interview shows no sign of abating.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here