When Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah premiered back in March, viewers were stunned by the Duchess’ claims about the abuse that she endured during her short time as a senior member of the royal family.
While the conversation contained a number of shocking revelations about cruelty and insensitivity from members of the Windsor clan, one segment of the interview was widely agreed to be more appalling than all the rest.
We’re talking, of course, about the moment when Meghan revealed that during her first pregnancy, one of her in-laws expressed concerns about baby Archie’s skin tone.
“In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time—so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title,’—and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born,” Meghan told Oprah.
Meg swore that she would never reveal the identity of the royal racist, but it was widely assumed that the anonymous bigot was someone quite high up in the family.
Now, it seems those suspicions may have been confirmed in a new book by author Christopher Andersen.
A portion of Brothers And Wives: Inside The Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry and Meghan was published by Page Six this week, and the excerpt leaves little doubt that it’s Prince Charles who made the appalling inquiry about his future grandson’s skin tone.
“I wonder what the children will look like?” Charles is quoted as asking his wife, Camilla Parker Bowles.
Bowles was “somewhat taken aback” by the question and replied, “Well, absolutely gorgeous, I’m certain.”
“I mean, what do you think their children’s complexion might be?” Charles allegedly asked, clearly oblivious to the opportunity to walk back his rscist remark.
For obvious reasons, Buckingham Palace is not thrilled with this version of event, and a spokesperson for Charles has already denied the allegations.
“This is fiction and not worth further comment,” the spokesperson told Page Six.
Andersen makes a point of arguing that Charles’ is more old-fashioned than bigoted, and the author claims that the Prince of Wales spoke out of genuine curiosity, rather than bigotry.
Andersen says it was royal gossips and advisers who learned of the the conversation and circulated in such a way as to suggest that Charles is wilfullu disparaged his unborn grandson.
“The question posed by Charles was echoed in a less innocent way throughout the halls of Buckingham Palace,” the author writes.
It seems that a group of royal traditionalists known as “the Men in Grey” interpreted Charles’ comments in the most cynical possible fashion and began to express their own concerns about how the royals would “look to the rest of the world” following Archie’s birth.
Obviously, Andersen’s argument that Charles’ is the victim of a misunderstanding is not a very compelling one.
Even if there was no malice behind his remark, it’s simply not the sort of concern a non-bigoted family member expresses about an unborn child.
Of course, it’s no surprise that staunch royalists took Charles’ comment as permission to be more outspoken in their own bigotry.
The situation serves as a reminder that the behavior of Harry’s family left the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with no choice but to flee the UK for the sake of their children.
And the attempt by a royal biograhpher to dismiss Charles’ bigotry reminds us that the British tabloid press can be just as vile as the royals they so revere.
Source: HollyWood Gossip
