Sunday, December 3, 2017

Castling Prince Harry

As some of you may have heard, Prince Harry is getting married and, apparently, many people have a lot to say about that. Many people also have a lot to say about what other people are saying. As is not unusual for me in such cases, both sides shouting at each other are people I find annoying. One side is mad because other people have opinions on the subject and they are wrong; this is, in fact, rather out of the ordinary as a royal marriage and that can be legitimately talked about. On the other hand, the people who are complaining the most are complaining about the least important “issue” with this marriage. Prince Harry is marrying Meghan Markle next May at Windsor Castle. This is legitimately a cause for comment due to a number of reasons. Meghan Markle is a commoner (not very unusual at all anymore but still an innovation in historical terms), she is an American, she is several years older than the Prince, she is divorced, she is an actress (not a line of work traditionally considered socially acceptable) and she is of mixed-race background with a White father and a Black mother which seems to matter more to both sides than any of the other issues.

Another issue which seems to have been given no attention at all is that it was announced that Miss Markle will be baptized and confirmed into the Church of England the day before the wedding which, I assume, means she has never been a member of any Christian church before. Ordinarily, that would also be rather a big deal but it doesn’t seem to be to most, not even to the Church of England, nor does the fact that she is divorced. No, the biggest, most talked about issue is the racial issue which I have a hard time getting a grasp on simply because it only seems to be an issue because people say that it is an issue and point it out. I doubt most people would even know about it if someone else had not told them about her parentage. I think most people, knowing nothing else but what they see, would just take for a White girl with a tan. Yet, today, everyone is hyper-sensitive on this issue and so it might as well be dealt with right at the outset. Does it matter to me? Yes and no. Sorry to be ambiguous but it really does come down to being no big deal in one way and rather “problematic” in another, neither of which, it is important to add, have anything to do with Prince Harry or Miss Markle but rather with reaction to their coupling.

The reason is doesn’t matter is because interracial marriage is not anything new nor does it have anything to do with anyone other than the two people involved. It is not very common, most people choosing to marry people like themselves, nor is it “groundbreaking” even for royals. It isn’t even much of an interracial marriage given that one of them is White and the other is half White. Regular royal watchers will know that this has happened before and I don’t remember anyone making a big deal about it, perhaps because previous examples were from non-English-speaking monarchies. HRH Prince Joachim of Denmark married a woman of mixed European and Chinese ancestry in 1995, Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, (the two divorced in 2005) and HSH Prince Alois of Liechtenstein married an African-American woman in 2000, Princess Angela of Liechtenstein. It is also not completely unknown outside of Europe. The late King Hussein of Jordan married Queen Noor, an American of Syrian and Swedish ancestry, Princess Ubol Ratana of Thailand gave up her royal status to marry a White American man, Peter Ladd Jensen, in 1972. However, the princess did have to give up her status for this, her husband was given no titles or court recognition and the two divorced in 1998. The last King of Sikkim married a White woman from the United States as did the son of the last Crown Prince of Korea though he had no official status at the time and both of these marriages ended in divorce. The last Emperor of Vietnam married a French woman while in exile and I believe I recall a member of the Cambodian Royal Family marrying an American from New Jersey in 2002 (possibly not the first but don’t quote me on that). The most prolific were the Ottoman Sultans whose harems were almost completely full of women from the Balkans and southern Russia but, of course, those were not exactly voluntary marriages.

Obviously, interracial royal marriages, while not the norm, are certainly not unprecedented. In and of itself, it is not a major issue. Most, as you can see, have been second sons or granddaughters and thus not in direct line for the throne and the same could be said about Prince Harry. Were this not the case, there would probably be more uproar over it. Even for non-reigning royals, such as the heir to the Korean throne, many in the Royal Family were not pleased and pushed for ending the marriage, which was finally done on the pretext of it producing no children. It is not that out of the ordinary but neither is it terribly common and thus should not be seen as anything “threatening” to the royal line in and of itself. People should be able to marry whomever they wish and, as mentioned, most prefer to marry people who are like themselves. On the other hand, neither are most people royalty and if marriage was about romance and nothing else there would not be so many laws concerning royal marriages. For example, if Miss Markle had been a Catholic rather than non-religious, Prince Harry would not have been able to marry her or at least not without forfeiting his place in the Royal Family. Like it or not, the marriages of royals have been and in most places still are matters of state as well as the heart. However, suppose, just for a moment, that Prince Harry had proposed to an alternate version of Meghan Markle, one that was not divorced, not an American, one that was born and raised Church of England and even of aristocratic background but still the daughter of a White father and Black mother. Would there still be an issue? Yes, even though there shouldn’t be.

The problem is a societal one. The problem is that all the people saying you *have* to be ecstatic about this marriage because the bride-to-be is mixed-race are just as fanatical as those saying you *have* to be upset about it for the same reason. The problem is not these two individuals, the problem is the context in which studies have shown that the media, in Britain, have been pushing a false representation on this issue, presumably in order to foster the more rapid transition of the British Isles from one population to another. Interracial couples, while obviously more numerous in the past as the population becomes more mixed, are still quite rare and yet the media in Britain, studies have shown, portray a disproportional amount of interracial couples in order to influence people into thinking this is more common than it actually is. This puts pressure on people to conform with trend of population replacement as well as inflaming the racists who then provide just the sort of bogey man the people in power want to see (because they have always defeated them due to the fact that your average Brit is not a hateful, violent, bigot). As a result, the problem is not the couple in question but the hyped up level of virtue-signaling that is bound to go along with this as well as enabling people to call anyone who does not jump with joy over this event a racist.

Keeping in mind that Prince Harry is now quite a ways down on the line of succession (and more so since the abandonment of male primogeniture) and this really should not be such a big deal, the bottom line is that the fact that the bride to be is partly of another race than the husband to be is only a side effect of the far more central problem this is product of and why, no, I was not overjoyed with Prince Harry’s choice. First of all, in no particular order, she is an American and I have long said that it would be better for the monarchy if Prince Harry would marry a girl from one of the Commonwealth Realms as it would help strengthen ties with the monarchy in those countries. She is divorced which, in my old fashioned views, would make her unacceptable just as it once did for Mrs. Wallis Simpson. She is also common and before anyone brings up the Duchess of Cambridge, I was not exactly thrilled about her nouveau riche background either, though she had none of the other problems Miss Markle does. It is not unprecedented, in fact it is the rule rather than the exception these days, that still doesn’t make me have to like it. However, there is more to it than being common alone. This is someone who has been an actress and I don’t doubt she will probably be the first member of the Royal Family to have been seen half naked in sex scenes on television. This was another one of the things that not so very long ago would have been considered an immediate disqualifier to say the least of it. There is also the religious issue but, frankly, that doesn’t bother me as much as it probably should simply because the clergy doesn’t seem to either and that would have to be the bigger priority.

I am certainly not against interracial marriage as an individual choice and certainly not the slightly interracial marriage that this would be, it is when people start pushing it as part of an agenda that I have a big problem. I am against royals being “unequally yoked” to borrow a phrase from Scripture. As far as I am concerned, the biggest problem with this marriage is not the marriage itself, even with all of the “issues” it comes with but rather it is the more fundamental problem underlying it. That problem is the on-going leveling of the remaining monarchies of the world which has resulted in modern royals being seen as simply celebrities and thus having no problem viewing an actress as suitable material to be accepted as one of their own. I believe royals are different and can never be the same as ordinary people, that they should be set apart, exclusive, lofty and even a dramatic and overt reminder of the truth of inequality as a fact of life. That is my biggest problem with this and just as the mixed-race aspect is played up to feed a narrative that encourages something negative, it also coincides with things like royals going to school with the commoners, associating with the wealthy, liberal elite almost exclusively, with the abandonment of male primogeniture, traditional court protocols and the idea that imaginary things like “fairness” and “equality” have any part other than a destructive one in any sort of monarchy.


  1. Aside from the laudatory and agenda-pushing response ("a real representation of society" -- BBC) of the media on her race and the marriage, my issues with the marriage also come down to the inevitable response from the media of any offspring. This is perhaps avoided, given her age, but I foresee a grotesque parody of the treatment of Prince Arthur as the "red and white rose intertwined", with the House of Lancaster and York being replaced with a multicultural society. Pieces about why the cousin of Prince George, rather than Prince George himself, deserves to be the monarch because he's a "reflection of the true Britain" are bound to come out. Recently, a high-up in the Scottish Episcopal Church suggested that people pray to make the Prince gay, in order to further LGBT rights in the Church, so I don't think that sort of thing is past them.

    Except in the case of no-offspring, I can only see this ending badly for the monarchy. A non-white immediate-royal will politicise its fragile situation, and potentially ruin its rapport with the working class: those with the biggest opposition to being replaced. A divorce, which I think is the likely outcome of the marraige, carries its own dangers to the monarchy. It's a sad day.

    1. I wish I could disagree but I've seen this, small-scale, before concerning the natural son of Prince Albert II of Monaco. A very persistent Black reader was adamant that little Alexandre should be the heir to the throne and only racism prevented it. He could not or would not hear my repeated explanations that race had nothing to do with it; the child was born out of wedlock and thus had no succession rights (hardly something new in history). In Monaco, of course, such talk wouldn't be tolerated and the Sovereign Prince is practically an absolute monarch in all but name, the same of course is not true for Britain.

  2. I think the gist is the fact that royals are no more the "aristoi" or the ones pursuing "arete". They are so enstranged and away from their subjects, never having to defend God and Country for centuries (as did Constantine Paleologos for example),that they have compromised and accepted their role as something folksy. They have accepted that they are mere celebrities, nad have succumbed to big corporate interests of course always with a politically correct agenda.
    They just happened to be the offspring if royal families, yaeh they observe the protocol like puppies, but when it comes to choices , thay show that they are anything byt royal. Once again gteat article from the MM however, I cannot say that I respect the monarchies of the far east ( except for Japan),as much as the European royals.

    1. There is not much there I can disagree with, only to add that they did not come to this position all at once or totally on their own. They were partly engulfed by it and partly given no other options. For many, they want something to do but are told they cannot do anything "political" but that this rule only applies to right-wing causes, leaving only left-wing causes for them to take up. They are also educated with the liberal elites now and so it is not surprising that they espouse the views they were taught to have. I just wish people would not see them as the enemy and see them as captives of a disgusting system that they need rescuing from.

  3. I've the same background and complexion as Markle. I agree fully. Divorced actresses don't seem appropriate.

    Most of the anti-racists are just as bad as the racists in my view. Whether they are signaling virtue or just trying to offload incorrectly assumed guilt, I don't care. Identity can be such a trip. I am not sure it is a burden we need to carry into every situation.

    This is another failing of the democratic system which incentivizes divisive identity politics. Ideally people might identify with the character of the Monarch as the nation personified.

    As far as I am concerned the US should be a part of the commonwealth. Again, identity politics has intervened. Where is the state visit? If it is not politically expedient for Trump to go to London, then a royal should come to the US and get the ball moving.

    No matter how many times my origins are impolitely misread, I am committed to the Anglosphere. We are all in this together. Let's hope Markle and Harry can bring us all closer.

    1. Divorced actress is the more significant aspect. For one, Harry is far from the throne and for another, again, I don't think anyone would take Meghan for a "Black" woman if they were not told of her background. It would hardly be noticed except that people with an agenda will try to make use of it.

      Democracy does worsen the situation. In Monaco, for example, the Monegasque are a tiny minority but as they are not a democracy, their position is not threatened. However, were it otherwise, particularly as most racial groups tend to vote almost entirely for one party, tribal voting becomes paramount.

      As for the USA in the Commonwealth, it was proposed and Trump was favorable to the idea but, though he is the first president to ever be so, he's been deemed unacceptable to the rulers of Britain and after their latest scolding of him over the 'Britain first' re-tweets, the state visit has been cancelled and I doubt there will be any more talk of joining the Commonwealth. Britain would probably object to it simply out of the dislike for Trump.

      I'd also not hope for much trans-Atlantic unity from this match given that the media played up Prince Harry's comment that Trump was not invited to the wedding and Meghan has made typical leftwing, anti-Trump comments in the past one would expect from an actress, the right in America will be none too happy with them and, combined with their public coziness with the Obamas, will be seen to be in the enemy camp for conservatives in America.

    2. I be ok with her as long she she stop all the political crap.

    3. She's not and Harry is way big in lefty politics. He's a disgrace himself.

      I should say. I have much respect for English Monarchy as a whole. But the current state I have almost nothing for. I am an American but if I lived in England I think I would pray every day to bring a real monarchy back.

  4. People's (Party) magazine here in the states is revising the monarchy. I opened it up for the first time ever and it's pretty damn bold of the English monarchs to have ever wanted to be in a celebrity sphere. The magazine cites Edward VIII and him abdicating as "paving the way" for his fathers. See the psychological manipulation there? In polite words the magazine would say the Monarchy had always wished to liquidate itself. It might be the last hope that the English people will vitalize their nation will only happen when the chanting from the mosques drowns out the journalists. The English monarchy is peculiarly in the grip of these decievers, the French having done away with it a bicentennial ago and Germany in the previous century.

  5. I don't believe the potential problem may be so much with Meghan Markle herself, but rather with the potential that some people might use this as a stick to attack monarchists in both Britain and the Commonwealth.

    It's not going to change, one bit, the perception of Britain, the Commonwealth and the monarchy in the eyes of the enemies of the institution who perceive it as "racist" and "imperialist" and whatever else. It's not going to change the minds of the Marxist, anti-imperialist, Third Worldist, postcolonial crowd, Black Lives Matter, Rhodes Must Fall and the other race-baiters out there.

    Certainly as a monarchist in Australia, I know full well we're in the firing line of a Culture War being waged by the Left. Their minds are not going to be changed as they attack our national symbols and heritage, of which the monarchy is part.

    One has to wonder if the Royals themselves are aware that no amount of niceness and symbolic gestures will endear them to people who hate them and seek the liquidation of the monarchy and of British civilisation. It seems to me that non-European royalty, especially in the Middle East, possess a more acute awareness of who their enemies are and how carefully they must tread.

    As V. Chem said above, most of the people who call themselves "anti-racists" or are stirring up controversies relating to race and history are often far worse bigots than the people they claim to be morally superior to. It's always done by people with a dubious agenda.

  6. " For example, if Miss Markle had been a Catholic rather than non-religious, Prince Harry would not have been able to marry her or at least not without forfeiting his place in the Royal Family."
    I thought the succession to the crown act of 2013 removed this barrier?

  7. Gregorius Wilhelm:
    Harry was chatting up with the Stealth Marxist on a BBC interview a day or so ago.

    I guess it really doesn't matter about the marriage as Harry is already a disgrace to the Monarchy and monarchy in general.

  8. Are you alright? I know you said the holidays are difficult for you. Your readers miss your postings. Take care.

  9. In your opinion, then Edward IX and James VII should be more apropiate for being monarchs than Charles III, William V and Edward VII.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...