Just Stop: The Queen is Not a Racist

Just Stop: The Queen is Not a Racist

Just Stop: The Queen is Not a Racist

It appears that the “Megxit” kerfuffle within the British royal family may be coming to a thankful close. On Monday, Queen Elizabeth issued a statement on the future of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The pair have decided to cut from from the royal family ties — to a certain extent, of course.

The statement from Buckingham Palace reads, in part:

“My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time Working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

I’d say that’s generous, although the 93-year-old Queen really doesn’t want to bid adieu to them.

Our Toni discussed the racial grievance mongers who point fingers at Queen Elizabeth and the Royal Racist Family for this mess. Another voice crying “racism” emerged from Chicago on the morning of the Queen’s announcement. Dahleen Glanton of the Chicago Tribune, who sees racism lurking in every corner of the Windy City as well as throughout the entire Trump administration, says she knew right away that marriage was doomed.

Why? Because the wedding was “too black” for the stuffy royals.

“Her wedding was too black, even by most African American standards.”

I guess this soulful rendition of “Stand By Me” didn’t square with those white folks in the cathedral.

And the Brits? Well, they’re racists, too. Just like us Americans.

“Racial and ethnic intolerance has no geographical boundaries. It’s a state of mind. And the minds of many people in England unfortunately are no different than the minds of many Americans.”

Well, Ms. Glanton, if you can throw down the Black card, I’ll raise you my Brit card.

Like many Americans, I decided to research my ancestry. I then discovered that nearly all my direct ancestors on my paternal grandfather’s side had their roots in “this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.” Others came from Scotland and Northern Ireland — both of which were then controlled by the Crown.

So does that give me special insight into the mindset of Queen Elizabeth and the royals? No, of course not — just like being black doesn’t qualify Ms. Glanton and other race whiners to just know that Harry and Meghan’s wedding was “too black” for all those white English folks.

But while I’m not a Brit, and I don’t understand how the royal family fits into life across The Pond, I have learned that Queen Elizabeth sees life through a very different lens than your average American celebrity. And obviously Harry and Meghan as well.

Elizabeth has dedicated her entire life to England. For example, during World War II, the 18-year-old princess volunteered with the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service. She wore plebeian coveralls, drove a truck, and became a mechanic. She paid for her wedding dress with ration coupons, and did not take Prince Philip’s last name of Mountbatten when she married him.

Queen ElizabethPrincess Elizabeth, front row, center. Imperial War Museums, public domain.

That’s because Queen Elizabeth lives by an aristocratic code of duty and service to country. That’s not to say, however, that all the royals possess those traits; in 1936, Edward VIII gave up the British throne to marry his divorced American lover Wallis Simpson. But thank God he did: it appears that he and and his wife — like many other British “upper class twits” — were Nazi sympathizers.

In fact, Queen Elizabeth reminds me a lot of my parents: two years older than Elizabeth and raised during the Depression, they went through life with a sense of duty. My father volunteered for military service in World War II rather than being drafted. My mother’s prime responsibility were to her children and church. It’s what their generation did. And that breed, with its sense of duty, is quickly passing away.

Prince Harry and Meghan, on the other hand, live for the glitz of celebrity than duty to England and the British people. This sad incident is not about racism. Rather, as one writer put it, for these two, it’s all “noblesse without the oblige.”

 

Featured image: Queen Elizabeth II coronation, 1953. National Science and Media Museum/flickr/cropped/The Commons.

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

7 Comments
  • That really should be “noblesse sans oblige.”

    But I tend to get annoyed at language mashups like this, unlike the time-honored Anglophone tradition of knocking another language over the head and outright stealing the best parts…

  • […] Week This Ain’t Hell: Updates On Virginia Gun Issues, also, Another Two Return Victory Girls: Just Stop – The Queen Is Not A Racist Volokh Conspiracy: Public Education As Public Indoctrination Weasel Zippers: Iranian People Refuse […]

  • Darleen Click says:

    I wonder if Dahleen Glanton would recognize the name “William Wilberforce”?

  • GWB says:

    Working Members of the Royal Family
    Well, THERE is an oxymoron………

    Racial and ethnic intolerance has no geographical boundaries.
    But, for this woman, I’m betting, they DO have racial and gender boundaries. *smdh*

    did not take Prince Philip’s last name of Mountbatten when she married him
    That’s standard royalty thing. She was the heir, so she was head of the family.

    “upper class twits”
    You linked Monty Python! Beautiful. 🙂

    not about racism
    Well, yes, in one sense it might be. Because I think Markle is a racist. She’s a celebrity prog, and they are inevitably racist, believing that “lesser races” can never get ahead because the White Man is keeping them down. That’s honestly as racist as forcing blacks to use a different water fountain.

    One other aspect of this: British inter-racial relations are different from those in America. Blacks in Britain have long enjoyed a more equal status – at least among the working (blue-collar) class. But that’s for those blacks who grew up British. The influx of sh*thole non-Empire blacks and others over the last 20+ years has tended to break down that amity, though. Even former Empire members are a problem now, as places like Pakistan have gone more and more fundamentalist islamic.

    So, any American progressive who thinks they can tell what’s ‘racist’ and what isn’t, by applying their American point of view, is an ignorant fool – at best.

  • Scott says:

    To paraphrase, I believe the problem here, as it applies to Ms Markle (and I think the prince is just whipped…) is “everyone wants to be a Royal, until it’s time to do Royal stuff”..

    She wants all of the benefits, without any of the responsibility (sound familiar?) If the Queen had cut them off financially, the marriage would have ended within the year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram