Edward Enninful on the attacks on Duchess Meg: ‘I wouldn’t just blame it on racism’

Arrivals for Widows - special film screening

Edward Enninful is the editor-in-chief of British Vogue. Enninful was famously the one to pitch the Duchess of Sussex on the possibility of a cover, to which she suggested that she guest-edit the magazine and do it as a “Forces For Change” issue. That issue picked up magazine awards and Enninful got a lot of praise, just as Meghan got criticized and attacked for a full month about the issue. God, I always forget just how bad that was and how gleefully people attacked her and how much of it was about race. Enninful was also very recently the victim of racial profiling, when a security guard at British Vogue’s London headquarters told him to enter the building through the back. All of which to say, Enninful knows racism when he sees it. Right? Wrong.

British Vogue editor Edward Enninful is glad he was racially profiled at work because it reminds him never to think of himself as “too successful”. Speaking to Sky News on the day that Vogue revealed its September issue was produced by a predominantly black team, Mr Enninful says systemic racism is a global problem.

The editor of the fashion bible made headlines across the world when he tweeted about being racially profiled at Vogue House when a security guard told him to use the loading bay when he arrived at work. Recalling the incident, he said he is glad that it happened because it reminds him never to think that he is too well-known. He said: “It wasn’t an isolated incident. Of course, it takes you back to all those moments in your life when that sort of thing has happened. For me, the beauty of that incident is that it just makes me aware to never think I’m too successful, that it can happen any day. I have to be really alert and deal with it.”

He added: “It’s important that something like this did happen, because it reminds me never to think I am too well-known or too established, because to somebody you are another black person.”

Breaking new ground as an editor has always been Mr Enninful’s forte and never more so than when he invited the Duchess of Sussex to guest edit the Forces For Change edition. Meghan was heavily criticised for taking on the role. Mr Enninful describes her treatment as unfair and harsh but doesn’t blame it solely on racism. He said: “The Duchess of Sussex is a brave woman. I feel that part of the problem is, it was more institutional. She walked into an institution and everybody expected her to know the rules. Sometimes it takes a minute to understand the rules. She did get very unfair treatment. It was harsh but I wouldn’t just blame it on racism.”

[From More Radio]

I saw that the Sussex Squad peeps were upset about Enninful’s denial that Meghan’s treatment was racism (or solely about racism). The man is an editor and he absolutely could have said that better and done better with that question overall. I think what he was *trying* to say that there were a lot of different elements to why people smeared and attacked Meghan the way they have, and that racism is one part of it. Sexism is definitely in the mix, as is anti-Americanism and just a flat-out nativism from British people on the whole. But mostly I think that even though Enninful is a Black man, he is still a British man and as we’ve seen time and time again, most British media peeps are just psychologically incapable of identifying racism and naming it publicly.

As for this: “She walked into an institution and everybody expected her to know the rules. Sometimes it takes a minute to understand the rules.” As we saw for more than two years, it seemed like “the rules” were made up on the spot and applied arbitrarily. That’s all I’ll say about that.

Duke and Duchess of Sussex

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

190 Responses to “Edward Enninful on the attacks on Duchess Meg: ‘I wouldn’t just blame it on racism’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. bub244 says:

    As someone who lives in the UK, I 100% agree with Edward. Racism was the biggest slice of the pie, but don’t underestimate the role of classism and snobbery alongside it.

    • Jane says:

      Agreed. Also her feminism and political activism. In the UK, female MPs are subjected to a huge amount of abuse, threats of violence, and acts of violence (remember Jo Cox?) for daring to exist and attempt to do their jobs. In fact, a group of female MPs were the only public figures to come to Meghan’s defence in the face of the hideous media treatment she received, with an open letter, because they knew exactly what she was going through. Racism is definitely a (large) factor, but it’s definitely not the only factor. It’s simplistic to say that the only problem people have with Meghan is her ethnicity.

      • Aoife says:

        Agreed. As well as the fact that she’s not from the “ideal” social class and background, she’s not British, she’s older, and she is a divorcee. Those are also seen as problems for some. And the blogger might admit that Edward may have a better grasp of how things work over there, as a Brit himself.

      • sarah says:

        Oh I so agree with Edward, this thread – and so many of the responses! There are so many (unjustified!) reasons why Meghan was attacked, and racism is only a part of that. Issues of class are real and huge in the UK (and often deeply misunderstood by Americans who don’t even hear some of the class dog whistles in the articles about Meghan). Xenophobia played a part, politics too; most of the trash tabloids are right wing news outlets, they were never going to be interested in embiggening someone they knew was both outspoken and activist on causes they were opposed to. There is nothing wrong with what Edward said (unless he said something else in the video). Racism played a part, but to say it was just racism is simplistic. It is intersectional, so you can’t say that race didn’t exarcebate or colour each of the other issues that arose but Edward never said racism didn’t play a part – its just not the whole story.

    • Lolo86lf says:

      Rascism is the biggest slice of the pie I agree. And the other big chunk is the fact she is not British, she is American for crying out loud.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Lolo86lf : My family is from Britain and my mother grew up at the same time as the Queen. So I think I have some insight into the British psyche. You cannot underestimate the issue of MM being an American who is from the dreaded “middle class”. And as for MM being an actress and influencer-blogger, I have observed that the traditional careers for royal and royal adjacent women are in the fine arts – museums, high end auction houses, art galleries, high end non-profit agencies that deal with art galleries and museums. The “ordinary” women (and men) who have succeeded in the BRF have done so by being exceptionally bland – Kate, Sophie, Tim Lawrence, Autumn Phillips. But Fergie, Diana, Meghan – not bland, not “demure” like something out of the 1950′s.

    • Lady Baden-Baden says:

      Anyone marrying Harry would’ve been given a hard by the tabloids.
      Anyone marrying Harry who was also – gasp! – an ACTRESS would have been given a worse time by the tabloids. Does she not know her place?! etc
      Anyone marrying Harry who was also AMERICAN would have been given an even worse time.
      The fact that Meghan is – shock horror! – NOT WHITE was the final straw but honestly? I doubt she was ever going to be ‘acceptable’ regardless. She’s also ambitious, presents as confident and likes to ‘show her work’ – all admirable qualities, but also qualities Brits tend to sneer at. We’re supposed to be modest and hide our lights under a bushel and all that crap.
      The few people I know here in the UK who care about the royals – and this is just random neighbors as NO ONE close to me cares about the royals! – will say they don’t like her because she’s not “one of us”. These are not white people BTW. I think that answer is not just racism but a combination of all these things.

    • Bira Kawooya says:

      Black Briton here and I totally agree with Edward. The reasons why Meghan is treated so terribly in the UK press are multi-faceted. Racism is a huge part of it but I think sexism, classism, anti-american attitudes and the fact that Meghan is incredibly spirited has also played a part. It’s not just because she’s biracial the UK just as classist a nation as it is racist.

      • MargaritasForBreakfast says:

        That Brits have “anti-American” sentiments was very surprising to me as a Black American. Americans in general are taught that we have a “special relationship” with Britain and we tend to embrace the Brits and their accents wholeheartedly. We especially embrace British actors, journalists, singers, chefs, politicos etc.

        It never occurred to me that Brits actually feel justified in looking down on Americans just for being American. That is, until Meghan married the British Prince that even Brits thought no one would marry.

        This marriage has been such a learning experience!

    • MrsBump says:

      i agree as well, i’ve lived for several years in the UK as an immigrant and there are a lot of unspoken cultural elements that i simply wasn’t aware of. The British definition of politeness is a minefield in itself. There were many times that i simply had no idea of the urgency of a particular request from my boss because it was hidden under so many layers of politeness e.g “I’m so sorry to bother you, but if you don’t mind, when you have time, could you possibly …”.
      When during the engagement interview Meghan said that she is going to hit the ground running, i thought , this is a really bad idea. To an American, it might seem like just the right amount of eagerness and enthusiasm for the job, all very laudable qualities, but it’s just not how things happens over here, not just in the UK but generally in Western Europe. I think the prevailing method is to observe, understand how things work before you even think of attempting to change things. I’m sure many here will disagree and school me on how this way is wrong, but i’m not debating the right and wrong of the approach, just explaining how it is. In the end, the institution won, it didn’t survive for hundreds of years for nothing.

      • Bira Kawooya says:

        ‘unspoken cultural elements’ THISSSSSSSSSSS! You articulated it perfectly and defining Britishness is so hard but I think you’ve nailed it. There’s SO MUCH that goes unsaid here that are are expected to just ‘know’. Which is fine if you’ve lived here all your life but if your new it must feel like a minefield. Her American-ness clashed with the UK establishment they simply didn’t know how to control her and she refused to subdue herself to fit into the system like her robotic sister in law.

      • Catlady says:

        Agree with all of this. It’s hard to describe the mix of xenophobia and classism that were, and are, a huge part of this. I totally agree with the “hit the ground running” part. It’s seen as arrogant and rude to immediately run and expect to change the ways things have been done for years. Most people and organisations in Western Europe expect people to respect their practices, observe and then offer your suggestions. Again, not saying this is right or wrong, just the way it is by and large.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Can people stop saying the institution survived for hundreds of years. The truth is, it was abolished and the king literally beheaded in public. It came back, eventually, sure. And Charles wasn’t the only English king killed by his subjects. The truth is, it’s gone through multiple cadet branches, not least when E1 died without issue, and multiple extreme changes that have stripped the monarch of all real power. The Windsors are mostly Germans, etc., etc. So all this about the institution of the monarchy surviving for hundreds of years is a bit hilarious. The English have the appearance of a monarchy without the reality. They have the pride of an empire without the reality (that most of their former colonies are now thankfully free).

      • MrsBump says:

        @Elizabeth, not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make.
        that there are offshoots , other branches , that the monarchy has had to reinvent itself into its current form, none of this negates the fact that is has survived.
        Just ask the House of Bourbon what the alternative is like

      • Edna says:

        Can someone please explain what “changes” Meghan was trying to make? All I saw was an eager young woman interested in helping out in the best way she could. I don’t see where she went in dictating to anyone they needed to change this or that and do things differently. Meghan brought her “Americanness” in her approach to doing her job, but other than that, what did she try to change?

      • Rapunzel says:

        Mrs Bump- fyi, hitting the ground running was something Kate also said she’d do. Meg was just saying what Kate did in her engagement interview. So I can’t see that being a problem.

        I don’t for one second think anyone was upset by Meg’s work ethic. I suspect a lot of that “5 am emails” nonsense was just from Angela Kelly, bitter over her tiara clash with Harry.

        I do think the causes she chose were disliked though for racist, misogynist, classist reasons.

      • Marigold says:

        This exactly. I lived in Eire for a while, and while we were there, we visited the UK several times. I spent quite a bit of time in England, particularly, and my visitors who traveled there with me (one Polish person and several Americans) on one or more of these trips always commented, “The British are so polite.”

        I thought so, too, on my first visit. By the end of my second, however, I’d figured out the game. I snorted when I heard people pull out the “so polite” after that one. I said, “No. They’re not polite. They’re well-behaved. There is a difference.”

        It’s just cultural differences. In the United States, we are simply more direct. We are unafraid of changing things, and we are unashamed of enthusiasm. In the UK, those are NOT prevailing attitudes. Same language. Same origins. VERY different culture.

        As to Meghan and how poorly they’ve treated her, it is a combination of factors. She’s too American. She’s too common. She’s too direct. But…she is also too “not white” for them. THAT was a message delivered very loudly and very clearly. It was by no means their only issue with her, but it’s the most abominable one. The reason Americans focus on the racist part of her treatment is because we’re used to our culture being labeled vulgar. We’re used to having people find us loud, too blunt, too eager, and too “happy.” We’ve heard all of that.

        But they also rejected her for being black. We see it. We know it when we see it. And we won’t forgive them for it. If Harry had married an American white actress just like Meghan, they would have been mean to her, yes. I doubt, however, that they would’ve compared their first child to a chimpanzee and chased her out of the country. They didn’t do those things because Meghan was American or an actress or common. They did it because she isn’t white.

      • MrsBump says:


        The “American” approach is precisely the change that i and the others are referring to.

      • MrsBump says:

        i wanted Meghan to do well, so when she said she was going to hit the ground running, i believed she would and she did but i felt sincerely that it wasn’t the right approach.
        As for Kate, seriously, where was there any danger that she would would hit anything running? :)
        I also don’t think it is a matter of work ethic, in fact it is rather baffling the way this 5am story is being used by a lot of Americans as proof that they work harder than the British. I have worked with both and in my little sample size experience, it is simply not true. The approach is different, but the end results are by and large the same. The Americans were more direct, but i felt sometimes that the constant show of enthusiasm was a little feigned, but that is only my perspective, it could have been totally genuine, i dont know, but it was rather tiring.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @MrsBump 100% this. And when we say ‘sorry’, it has up to 80 meanings, none of which have anything to do with apologies.

      • Becks1 says:

        @MrsBump – re: the supposed 5 am emails. I don’t think those mean that british people in general are lazy, I do think its a further sign that the KP staff is lazy as hell. I cant see Charles’s staff complaining about emails.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “The “American” approach is precisely the change that i and the others are referring to.”

        IMHO, part of Diana’s popularity in the USA was due to the more American approach she had to her work. This more American approach caused her problems with the BRF.

      • LWT00 says:

        I think you are 100% correct. I’m an American-born but hold dual citizenship with a central European nation (where I spent about half of my childhood and teen years), and on the European side there are close ties to nobility. On the American side, I’m white-passing mixed (like Meghan).

        There are tremendous cultural differences in everything from how to greet a stranger, how to present oneself as a member of a family vs. an individual, how to approach an environment in which you are the newcomer, etc. All these things should have been covered in “princess lessons” but honestly there’s SO much nuance to them that things get missed, even if the intention was to set Meghan up for success. These things are very difficult to learn unless you’ve been steeped in them from childhood. It’s an unspoken code, so much so that when pressed to describe it, code-speakers often have trouble even explaining why certain things are done or not done.

        Going by most of the comments I’ve seen on these threads… most Americans are unaware of how deep the institutional standards go. Meghan was going to court a lot of trash from the press no matter what as a non-white American actress. But coming in with the personality and drive of a successful American, who pushed and hustled her way into one of the most demanding and exclusive careers… that’s not something that is easily cast aside. And when one marries into a family like the Windsors, the centuries old tradition is to give up most of your individuality for the Family. I hope she had friends who warned her of it beforehand, but again, it’s not something one can really comprehend unless you’ve been aware of it all your life.

      • MargaritasForBreakfast says:

        “Hit the ground running” should not have been offensive to the Brits since presumably it was Kensington Palace courtiers +Harry + Charles+ Queen Petty Betty who agreed that since she was accustomed to cameras and charity work they would go ahead and throw Meghan out there on public appearances INSTEAD of shuttling them off to Anglesey for 2 years like they did with Buttons @topCEO

      • L4frimaire says:

        I have an issue with the “ hit the ground running” narrative. I don’t think Meghan wanted to fundamentally change the institution,or expect the other Royals to change. What I think is that she knew she was under an incredible amount of scrutiny and was expected to bring results. She couldn’t just ease into it or take a year off because then she’d be accused (and had been) of not wanting to do the job and only being in it for the perks. I thought that her approach to her patronage’s were more active and involved because to her, this would be her full time job for her royal life and she wanted to give back, and that is how she approached her causes before marriage. Her work ethic and the causes she champions should have no surprise to the royals if they just looked at how she worked with her charitable causes before Harry, instead of just dismissing her as a “showgirl”. Her approach to actively partner with the few patronages she had and help them to fundraise was just how she thought being patron is. I also think that the more criticism she faced, she wanted to actually work harder to prove herself and that she took the job seriously, which is very American, but was seen as too ambitious or try hard. I don’t think it was to force the other royals to change anything, especially since the others have much more ceremonial duties that her and Harry didn’t have, and their own patronages that seemed content with how things are. Expecting some basic professional accommodation and basic respect for your private life is not a big ask, regardless of cultural differences. And this resistance to her started from when they were still dating, before any thoughts of marriage. I do think it was a squandered opportunity, based on so much falsehood, presumptions and resentment.

    • bunny says:

      The press makes fun of Meg for having been ill prepared for the role and they make fun of Kate for having been groomed for it from birth. They only make up these angles because we click on the links, but the subjects are actual people with feelings. But, I thought the vogue issue she was involved in sold well and got a ton of positive press. I had no idea that it crashed and burned. That’s sad.

      • Becks1 says:

        @bunny ?? What? Her vogue issue was one of the fastest selling (maybe the fastest selling?) issue of british vogue and I think it was their best selling September issue ever. It also won several awards, just last month.

      • Sofia says:

        It did not “crash and burn”. It was literally their best selling issue in a decade and was the fastest selling issue of all time

      • VS says:

        The Vogue issue was the fastest selling issues of all time…and the best selling issue in a decade. So no, it didn’t crash and burn; people got it so quickly than even when it hits the US, it could be barely found in the stands!

      • Crbnftprnt says:

        Camilla Tominey is that u with your revisionist history or just another lying UK hack writer. The issue that crashed and burned was the one with Kate on the cover

      • GuestWho says:

        It crashed and burned so badly that they are emulating the forces for change for their next issue.

    • Nikki* says:

      That is how I interpreted his statement, rather than a negation of racism.

    • teehee says:

      Well I said this last year when it was in the first peak, that a lot of this is institutional and I denied racism playing a role.
      Since then I do believe racism is a factor but yes, still not all of it by a longshot.

      This is just alot of “usual business” for the pecking order of the palace; they will trash whoever is not supposed to be more powerful and praise whoever is next in line even if they are useless and boring… *ehem*

      Propaganda 100%. See many other royals who get more attention that the one the palace wants to promote. Suddenly they are terrible people who shouldn’t be loved by the public. Its a self-protective power move. (which has ironically weakened the palace the last 4 decades)

      • Ravine says:

        It’s definitely not the only thing. If Harry had married the cable TV equivalent of a Shailene Woodley or Jennifer Lawrence type white American actress, the media absolutely would have criticized her, made fun of her politics, painted her as gauche yet demanding, called her a showgirl, mocked her belly-cupping, accused Harry of being wrapped around her little finger, and so on. I doubt the BRF would have loved her either. That being said, of course some of the specifics would have been different, and I think it would have been way less of a free-for-all, and I don’t know that anyone would have given her dad and step-siblings the time of day. I think there would have been more restraint, since in the centrist and right-wing there’s more backlash (sadly) if a white woman is attacked than if a Black woman is.

    • bluemoonhorse says:


    • A says:

      Except racism, classism and snobbery are not separate issues that people encounter and deal with separately. Meghan’s race informs the classism and snobbery she was met with by the British, particularly by the people who population the institution of the monarchy. These these are not inseparable, they are interlinked and stacked on top of each other. They work together to create “unique modes of discrimination and privilege.”

      I hesitate to bring up intersectionality as a concept, because I do feel it became this hot button concept on the internet for a while, and so was stripped of its meaning in the process. But the way Meghan has been treated, by the monarchy, by the British tabloid press, etc., are instances where you can absolutely apply that framework to study what she went through. Because it’s not a case of one or the other. It’s a case of everything combining together to constitute the reactions she got and the way she was treated.

  2. Eleonor says:

    I have often written about “the culture clash” there might have been between Meghan and the Firm and how it might have played a role, so I think he is saying something similiar. But as an editor in chief he should use the words better.

  3. Alissa says:

    racism was a huge part of it, but I don’t think that’s solely the problem either. saying that wasn’t the only thing at play doesn’t mean that racism wasn’t still the larger issue.

  4. Redgrl says:

    He’s not wrong – racism wasn’t the only thing – sexism, classism, snobbery, anti-Americanism, xenophobia and imperialism were all also at play.

  5. Becks1 says:

    I saw that there was outrage over his comments, and then I actually saw his comments, and I think I can see what he’s saying. He’s not denying it was racism. He’s just saying it wasn’t only racism. and I think that’s true. Many on here have been saying for years that it was sexism and xenophobia and yes, racism as the biggest issue. I also think that racism just amplified everything. So let’s take those notorious 5 am emails. I get the impression the KP staffers are pretty lazy, so 5 am emails from anyone would probably get them in a tizzy, and if they had come from Kate (lol) there probably would have been some eyerolling and gossiping behind her back. 5 am emails from the black duchess made them want to “put her in her place.”

    • Becks1 says:

      To add, I do think his comments would have been taken differently had he not mentioned the rules of the institution. That just brings to mind all the stories about Meghan breaking imaginary protocol and breaking rules that kept being invented just for her.

      • Lila says:

        That’s exactly the issue I had. When people mention the so called rules, I find them naive or disingenuous. How can anyone learn the rules when they keep changing and the goalposts are constantly moving?

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree with this. The comment about it being more than just racism is accurate. There was also sexism, classicism and xenophobia that caused the attacks against Meghan for doing things other white royals did without any complaints. However, claiming there were rules she didn’t follow is bs. Meghan didn’t do anything very different than other royals in terms of work projects, except perhaps getting the cookbook out there much quicker than any married royal. Sophie and Camilla already did feminist type causes and Charles has set up innovative charity projects. It was just Kate and William who are lazy as fuck and the press felt it was easier to make that comparison instead of being accurate.

        The rules were always changing for Meghan which made it an impossible standard to meet, exactly what elites like to do to keep out outsiders.

      • Amy Too says:

        I think that’s the issue too. We are all saying “I agree it wasn’t *just* racism it was xenophobia, classism, sexism, etc,” but that’s not what Edward said. He says it wasn’t all racism it was also that she didn’t have time to acclimate to all the institution’s rules. The statement he made clearly puts a lot of emphasis on her not following, or not understanding the rules. Whether he intends it or not, it can be read as almost excusing the racism, or at least being very “both sides.” As in: “They were a little racist but it’s because she didn’t understand or follow the rules (probably because she’s black).” When we include things like sexism, xenophobia, and classism, none of those things can be twisted and used to blame Meghan for the royals’ behavior. They’re all additional ways in which she was judged and victimized and in no way can be used as an excuse for or “reason why” there was racism. If he had left it at “it wasn’t only racism…” then we could fill in the blanks with the sexism, classism, xenophobia. But he fills in his own blank, specifically saying she was treated poorly because she wasn’t following/didn’t understand the rules.

      • NatureLover says:

        @Becks1, @Lila, and @Nic919, maybe you guys can help me with this. Given that she was dating Harry, then the engagement, why didn’t someone go to Meghan and explain the rules of the institution? Since she didn’t know the rules, and no one set her aside to brush up in regards to rules/The Firm/institution, why should she be blasted for not knowing the rules and the proper steps? I don’t think it was fair for them to not give her the proper necessary rules as they throw her under the bus countless times thereafter. Seems to be, she couldn’t win no matter the circumstance.

      • windyriver says:

        “Meghan didn’t do anything very different than other royals in terms of work projects, except perhaps getting the cookbook out there much quicker than any married royal. Sophie and Camilla already did feminist type causes and Charles has set up innovative charity projects. It was just Kate and William who are lazy as fuck…”

        @Nic919, this. @nota has pointed out previously how Kate is the outlier in terms of how female family members work. We’ve talked about how low the bar is set. Well, Kate, and Will, are the ones to set that bar lower, because he’s just as lazy as she is. No intention of doing anything remotely close to what Charles has done, not even prepare for his future responsibilities re: the Duchy. They’ve said it, fewer patronages, more intensive something something blah blah. And TQ and Charles haven’t contested this, so it’s become the new standard. KP is now packed with staff with the same do nothing attitude. In comes Meghan, ready to work as other royal women have in the past. But, that makes Kate look bad by comparison. And the staff resents having to actually start doing the work they’re supposedly there for. So Meghan’s projects are held back because “other royals have something scheduled”, a mountain of imaginary protocol suddenly emerges that’s peddled to the press, and we’re off to the races. Their good luck Meghan is a middle class, biracial, divorced, American actress, so all the various -isms can be trotted out to tear her apart, in the eyes of the family as well as the media.

        What a disgusting group of people, from start to finish.

      • Likeyoucare says:

        There are no rules. The only rule is to not overshadow the heir. Meghan will always fail with what ever she did. Because the heir didnt want to do anything with his position.
        She will be a succes if she sit still for ten years and dont open her mouth while spending british tax.money.

    • 10KTurtle says:

      I never really got the 5am email thing- do they have sirens that go off when they receive an email? I get emails all night and I read them at my leisure, and I send emails whenever I want. It’s a 24 hour world.
      Harry’s partner was always going to be dragged through the mud no matter who it turned out to be, but racism made this especially nasty for Meghan.

      • Nic919 says:

        I get early morning emails from the UK head office and so I guess I should be criticizing them for not respecting the 8:30 am eastern start of the business day.

        That siren comment cracked me up. It’s pretty easy to just keep your phone off and check when the business day starts.

      • M4lificent says:

        I live in Denver and work for a UK-based company with offices and telecommuting employees all over the world. Our office IM and email accounts clearly show our geographical location, but people still don’t pay attention. One time, my Denver teammate and I got an urgent email at 1:30 AM Denver time, with a follow-up at 5 AM complaining that we hadn’t replied. And it’s not like we’re brain surgeons or air traffic controllers — nothing my team does is life or death….

    • Sofia says:

      “I get the impression the KP staffers are pretty lazy”

      I also think some staffers come to KP because it’s the “least working” office out of everyone else especially in comparison to BP, CH and St James’. So when Meghan comes along expecting to work, the staffers get mad because they just want to check Facebook all day.

      But in all honesty, I don’t think 5am emails are bad. Unless she demanded a reply right then and there (which I doubt she did). If you’re really unhappy, that’s something to take up with your boss. Don’t go running to the tabloids.

      • Nic919 says:

        Catherine Quinn came from the outside world and stayed only for the 2 year contract, leaving to “work on charitable causes”. If that wasn’t an indication of how little Kate does I don’t know what is.

    • Crbnftprnt says:

      How difficult would it have been for him to clearly say “Most definitely racism played a huge part”. He certainly was articulate when he was talking about his racial profiling.
      There is no excuse for not being prepared, given that every “celebrity” gets asked about Meghan; he worked with her for months and he was promotion his diversity of vogue – that mimicked what Meghan did. I think someone had a talk with him

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree but EE also has to deal with the white British establishment and he probably knows that confronting them about their racism makes things awkward.

    • A says:

      If Meghan had been a white American woman firing off 5 am e-mails in a tumult of enthusiasm, would she have been treated the same way she’s being treated now? Wouldn’t the expression of classism and snobbery have looked different in the instance where a white American woman is concerned?

      What if Meghan had been a biracial woman, but born and raised in Britain, and therefore fully aware and knowledgeable of British cultural mores and norms? She might not have sent 5 am e-mails, and she wouldn’t have displayed the “American enthusiasm” people are so eager to point to, but are we honestly to say that she would have been treated any better by the institution? She might have borne up under it a bit better, and she might have been someone who’s more content to accept the way she’s treated rather than call it out so publicly, but would the reactions have been any better, truly?

  6. Noki says:

    Definitely a myriad of things last but not least being racism. She is a ‘fast paced’ young American woman trying to get her message to a stuffy institution that doesnt budge to new ways.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “young American woman trying to get her message to a stuffy institution”

      I think there was a section of the UK public, a very loud section of the UK public, that did not want Meghan’s message. Of course, it is their loss as there are many thing that need to be said and heard.

  7. anniefannie says:

    I’m in complete agreement that as an editor he should have chosen his words & thoughts more carefully. Meghan represents a challenge to the patriarchy on so many levels that it’s probably difficult to parse
    I know from watching & listening to my daughter and her friends that our world is changing in the most positive and inclusive way. Our archaic assumptions of how it’s always been doesn’t apply anymore and we need to celebrate them and just get out of the way….

  8. S808 says:

    He could’ve worded it better but I also don’t think it was solely racism. MOST of it yes, but not all of it. She was dealing with a lot of different elements. Also, It’s been years and I still don’t know what rules she was supposed to know.

  9. Palmasan says:

    Agree with the posts above. There’s definitely a lot of classism at play, which is indeed greatly exacerbated by racism and xenophobia. Very British.

  10. Lala11_7 says:

    He knew EXACTLY what he was saying and why…and NONE of it surprises me 😡😡😡

    • Original Jenns says:

      LaLa: I think I’m picking up what your comment is putting down – any articles or other stories about this? It always hurts that my thoughts will go in the same direction when statements like this come out (especially about women of color), but I don’t know much about Enninful so didn’t know if that was fair.

      My thought is that his comment about her not knowing the rules (rules that were basically made up for her or only stressed because of her) is giving fire to those who say they aren’t racist it’s her fault they Just don’t like her.

    • Rapunzel says:

      LaLa- I want to hear more about this! I know nothing about EE and it sounds like you have tea. Can you spill?

  11. Priscila says:

    To be fair, he said it was not ONLY racism. As others mention, there goes classism, misogyny, snobbery,etc etc etc…my impression is that they purposely did not explain her the rules so that they could have something to talk about her because they found nothing on her personally.

  12. taylor says:

    The way Sussex fans on Twitter were talking about this I thought he was disrespectful; he’s not. I’d agree that whatever point he was trying to make was poorly articulated, however. Despite living in the UK for a year, I never grasped how deeply trenched and universal their reverence for rules and tradition was until Meghan. I can’t imagine being so repressed.

  13. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    He’s absolutely right. Racism was a huge part of it. But we have an equally huge problem in the UK. It’s called ‘knowing your place’. I’m upper middle class. I mix well with the upper middle class. The aristocracy I’ve met? Not at all. There’s an unspoken code. They’re perfectly polite but even their supposed friendliness is code for ‘you’re not one of us’. In other words, stay in your lane. Similarly, when mixing with other social classes, there’s the unspoken ‘she’s not one of us’. Perfectly polite and often very friendly, but not *friends*. To mix and match outside your background is unusual. I don’t think other nations realise just how straitened we are by class, background and education.
    Meghan came in and was a breath of fresh air to so many people, me included, but many – the middle middles like the Middletons, the lower middles who are jockeying to become middle class and must have everything ‘just so and in its place’, were scandalised. Because she’s American, and was an actress, and divorced. She didn’t compute. So they cast her as a Wallis Simpson and threw hate at the figure *they made of her*, *their perception of her*, with a huge dose of misogynoir. (Don’t forget how many women in the UK hate and resent other women.) I don’t know if she ever could have broken through the class wall, frankly. I’m just so glad she’s away from all this, and happy. I’ll have my girl-crush from afar.

    • Minal says:

      Funny thing is Brits went around the world criticizing colonial cultures like India and China as sclerotic, casteist and backward looking. Who knew they could have applied the same labels to themselves all this time?

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Minal Have you read Deana Heath’s “Purifying Empire: Obscenity and the Politics of Moral Regulation in Britain, India and Australia’? (If you have an Athens/Shibboleth account you can access the entire book via Cambridge Core.) It’s a wowser of an eye opener. And yes, I completely agree with you.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Andrew’s Nemesis – How are poor and/or bankrupt peers viewed by the aristocracy?

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @BTB Venerable. Most of them live in two rooms and wear their parents’ old tweeds. New money, on the other hand, is a scandalous thing.

    • MsIam says:

      The problem I have with this is how Bea’s husband is treated. He’s got a mixed race kid out of wedlock. Not a peep, in fact the royalist act like this is the love story of the century. Now if he was a black man or biracial would that have been fine? These people are racist as hell and I don’t know why EE is apologizing for them. But then again maybe he is worried about his dinner invitation being lost in the mail.

    • anonymous says:

      Love your writing style and your insight to the British class system. I have so many questions. You should write a manual about the pros and cons of entering/moving in Society. 👍

  14. Lainey says:

    It’s interesting that xenophobia is frequently used as an argument as if it’s somehow better than racism. No, it’s just “Racism Plus.”

    • Becks1 says:

      This is what gets me about that argument. Saying “it wasn’t just racism, xenophobia and classism played a role too” (which I think I said above, and I do think is true) doesn’t make the situation better. I actually think it makes it worse.

      • KM says:

        The “classism” claim is extra irritating. How many Black British aristocrats are there (if any)?

    • Tanisha says:


  15. Aurora says:

    Can someone tell me what grand sweeping changes Meghan was trying to make to the Royal institution? People keep implying she broke rules or wanted to “change things” but all I saw was someone doing her job better than her peers.

    • S808 says:

      My only guess is not dimming her light? Maybe she was supposed to do less as to not ruffle feathers or out due anyone. The fact that she worked and started working immediately seems to be a problem even though we know that if she didn’t it would’ve been an issue too.

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        And we can’t forget, she “clutched” her bump instead of “cradling it tenderly” like Kate, she wore an off the shoulder dress (which ALL the royal women have, but it only seemed to elicit gasps for Meg), and SHE WORE *BLACK* NAIL POLISH (HORRORS!! and it was on “private time”) instead of Ballet Slippers pink (never mind Diana wore bright red polish at times, (on “duty”), as did Kate, in a pedicure). Oh…and she didn’t wear a hat on that first engagement with Petty Betty. After all, she was TOLD TQ was wearing a hat, and Meg SHOULD”VE KNOWN that meant she was to wear one, too…w/out anyone pointing that out.

        But it’s only a crime doing it while Black apparently.

      • Crbnftprnt says:

        Whaetever she did would have been a break in protocol. @S808. remember before the cookbook came out, they were already asking what was taking her so long since she claimed she was going to hit the ground running. The cookbook dropped days later and they were pissed that she hadn’t give them a chance to analyze it (which means tear it apart) before the launched

    • Amy Too says:

      I wonder if it was actually doing things for herself. Maybe her staff were dragging their feet and being lazy and slow about setting up events and meetings with patronages, so she would just call and visit places herself. Or she just figured she didn’t need to ask a gaggle of staff to do the things she could easily do on her own. I think she did a lot of work herself directly with her patronages, because that’s the quickest, easiest, and most effective way to get things done, and the courtiers were all “but if you do things yourself we can’t guide (read: manipulate) what you’re doing! We can’t slow you down or make your projects less effective or set up all your visits to basically just be PR photo shoots!” And maybe also “but if she can do it all herself, then are we useless” I can see them complaining to the Cambridges who would agree that Meghan was “slighting” the courtiers by not relying on them for everything. “That’s not how we treat the staff, Meghan.” Kate is “horrified” because it probably makes her look lazy, uninterested, and ineffective to still be asking the staff to set up a phone call with So and So when she could easily do it on her own but doesn’t want to. Kate doesn’t want the 20 degrees of separation between her and her patronages to change.

      We know that Meghan and Edward were texting each other directly about Vogue and how she would guest edit and what the cover would look like and such. And it sounds like she visited charities and prospective patronages on her own a lot to get to know people and to decide who she would work with. She STILL has very close, friendly, working (and personal?) relationships with the people at her patronages because she actually worked with them herself, rather than going through courtiers. She made friends and allies in Britain. These patronages know her personally, and can speak up for her, and wish her a happy birthday on social media. The courtiers can’t insulate her and isolate her and control everyone she sees and what they think of her if she’s out there doing work on her own. A lot of the work very obviously showed that MEGHAN personally was inspirational, charitable, hardworking, and results-oriented, rather than THE PALACE being those things.


    He should have been more articulate. I know the issue was compounded by factors other than racism, but the way he phrased it minimized the racism aspect.

    • Mary says:

      Exactly, he was absolutely wrong in both diminishing the role that racism played in Meghan’s having been attacked in the press but in as well totally avoiding any other cause except Meghan’s not understanding the “rules.”. He didn’t say that there are other contributing factors like sexism, xenophobia, right-wing extremism . . . no, he said: BUT THE RULES !!!.

      Some of you seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt when I do not think that the jerk deserves it. I also think he said this to make nice with the Royal family because that is what matters to him – access to the Firm for future projects. The guy, after all, cried like a baby when Angie blocked him from meeting the queen, I just know he would love to hobnob with her or have Kate on the cover again. Of what use is Meghan to him now?

      The guy makes me sick, betraying Meghan like that

      • S808 says:

        At the end of the day he is also in an archaic institution, even if he is the EIC. He’ll do what he needs to do to keep his job.

      • Lady D says:

        The price the betrayer pays will be commensurate with the pain he causes.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Of what use is Meghan to him now?”

        Quite a bit when Meghan has her second child and needs to choose a British Media outlet because she wants to release pictures of her second child to upset the Royal Rota.

        Meghan has way more global followers than Kate. British Vogue like Tatler is trying to become a global publication.

  17. Elizabeth says:

    What rules?! Come on, sir.

    • Mary says:

      The one where Royals don’t guest edit magazines.

      • Tanisha says:

        But they do.. Charles, Anne etc did

      • Mary says:

        Uuuuummmmn, @Tanisha, that was my point by way of a joke. Sorry that it was not obvious enough for you.

      • Lady D says:

        Mary, it would have been kinder to end that sentence with obvious. Not everyone gets jokes the first time around.

      • Mary says:

        @Lady D, you are absolutely right and I apologise @Tanisha; while not an excuse, no coffee and a topic that gets me hot under the collar gives rise to my bitchiness! I was wrong and will try to remember to have coffee before I look at Celebitchy posts!

    • S808 says:

      The one where you’re not allowed to be in any of these spaces and be anything but white. Or maybe it’s the rule that if you are in these space and are anything but white, shut up and be grateful for whatever scraps they throw your way. Be quiet, take the abuse and hope one day they’ll find another target.

    • CC says:

      No, the rules are how to ask for something or pursue a project, etc. The British have their own way of doing stuff and they get mighty peeved if a different tack or approach is used (spoken as a Yank living in the UK)

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “spoken as a Yank living in the UK”

        You must tell us more!

        Please pour more tea!

  18. shabs says:

    But mostly I think that even though Enninful is a Black man, he is still a British man and as we’ve seen time and time again, most British media peeps are just psychologically incapable of identifying racism and naming it publicly.

    Sorry, what…. Racial politics are different in every country. Who are are you to say that a black man cannot have a legitimate opinion on race because he is British? The dynamics of racism in the UK are different and I’m sorry but one’s race isn’t the sole identifier of a person here.

    Yes, racism exists everywhere but American’s can’t expect to apply the racial dynamics of the US, built on centuries of slavery and its legacy, to other countries.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      @Shabs Bingo.
      Our culture is NOTHING like the US. We are planets away in terms of social structure.

    • Mary says:

      @Shabs, Oh, so Britain had nothing to do with the institution and continuation of slavery in what is now the United States?

      • Tanisha says:

        This. Racism in the U.K. is the same except there’s a veneer of politeness that goes with. Gaslit racism is worse imo as it makes the person experiencing it feel like they are crazy

      • Mary says:

        @Andrew, Britain’s “social structure” is based on exclusion. Birth right alone will get you in the upper class in Britain whereas in the US, our class system is based on money and, with enough, you are in the upper class. Our system may be screwed up and racism affects how we all relate within, and whether we thrive in, our social structure but in Britain racism is so institutionalized you won’t even see it because that would mean completely overhauling the system.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Mary I’ll jump in here. Sure, we instituted it. We then got rid of it, in some cases enthusiastically pursuing those still engaging in the vile trade, whether it was a Dutch slave ship or the wall of a slave-king through which the Navy put several seven pound rounds.
        Our problem is class. The largest number of people of colour coming to Britain did so in the Windrush era. They typically lived working class lives. Now, we’ve always had a hideous relationship with the working classes. The idea of the ‘undeserving poor’ continues to this day, and informed George Osborne’s hideous cuts as part of ‘austerity’. In the pages of lower-middle newspapers like the Daily Mail, the poor are relentlessly categorised as unworthy scroungers. The poor = working class. People of colour in the UK = initially working class. The intersection between classism and racism is utterly toxic. And to those who categorise people of colour, including the Muslim population which also grew significantly during the mid-late 20th century, the idea of middle class or upper middle class black citizens is a huge ‘surprise’. Hence Enninful and the tradesmen’s entrance.
        I hope that demonstrates how toxic our class system is. Again, we’re nothing like the US.

      • Mary says:


        You: The intersection between
        classism and racism is utterly

        Me: British classism = Racism (one

        Maybe we just need to agree to disagree!

      • CC says:

        No, I don’t think that’s right Mary. British classism is not racism. There are BAME individuals that are part of the elite in the UK.

      • Mary says:

        @cc, as I mentioned above, no person of color will ever become a member of Britain’s Upper Class unless they are born or marry into it; and, as the aristocrats are so great at “othering,” that is not going to happen often.

        How many titled persons of color are there in the UK? I am aware of the Bath Marchioness (or, is she a Countess?), and now Archie, but there are not many others and I don’t think that those that have made it in the club are treated equally (they don’t even want Archie back in the country).

        To be an “elite” in the UK is very different from being in the Upper Class.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Mary No, I think we’re saying the exact same thing here, but coming at it from entirely different perspectives.
        I’d also like to mention classism within classisim re BAME individuals. There are absolute stereotypes and Brits also class BAMES by social degrees. Indian = doctors, lawyers and politicians (and we have an Indian Chancellor of the Exchequer after all). Bangladeshi = educational aspirations but not perceived as highly as Indians. Pakistanis = split between cultural and educational attainment and tribal characteristics, depending on how rural their upbringing/how close they lived to particular borders. Afghans are lower on the social scale. If they speak Pashto, they’re rural. So – toxicity within toxicity. In some parts of the country the mosque you attend and the parties you give, particularly Iranians who are automatically of higher social status from a British perspective, indicates your class. There are some excellent books and case studies on this if you’re at all – I can dig out the links and titles if you like? I found the Iranian diaspora the most interesting, but you might prefer reading about other aspects of this culture-within-culture phenomenon.

      • Nic919 says:

        As a Canadian I have to remind the British folks of who set up the genocide of the First Nations people here through land grabs and reservations and since Canada didn’t actually exist until 1867… guess what it was the British. That’s a sin that Canadians are still trying to fix and it is utterly based in racism (and sexism). I am not trying to reduce the role of Canadians who continued the racist policies, but it didn’t just start on July 1, 1867. I’m sure Australia has a similar story to tell.

        While classism may be an issue on the island itself the British empire set up a legacy of genocide and slavery in all lands it colonized and they need to apologize for it. They have not.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “In the pages of lower-middle newspapers like the Daily Mail”

        I thought the Daily Mail was read by the wives of the newly rich.

      • Mary says:

        @nic919, 👋; @Andrew’s, I would love info on writings on the culture-within-culture topic. I just feel that for Britons to seriously address and try to mitigate racism, the UK would need to address and abolish it’s most visible form of institutionalized racism, i.e., the monarchy and the class system based on birthright (specifically, the aristocracy). I feel that it is from this system that so much other institutionalized racism has flowed and, in Meghan’s case, has allowed for the merciless bullying of her by those that hold up this system as an ideal that Meghan would never understand or into which she would never fit. Problem is, many Britons won’t even acknowledge that racism is a problem there.

    • Sofia says:

      Slavery happened in the UK too. Let’s not act like it was all America. And this is coming from a Brit

      • Tanisha says:

        Also this but most Brits are not taught this in school. In fact they’re not even taught about the empire in school. Sooo..

    • Marigold says:

      American’s can’t expect to apply the racial dynamics of the US, built on centuries of slavery and its legacy, to other countries.

      I’m sorry, but Imma back the truck up one second. We didn’t have centuries of slavery. Great Britain had slavery in the Americas prior to 1776. We tried SEVERAL times to get rid of it, but we had to ditch the king, first, because he liked all that cheap cotton, and he liked having us dependent upon it like his sugar plantation colonies further south. We had almost exactly 100 years of that British-imposed slavery after independence, and we ditched slavery long before the English aristocrats stopped claiming to own dark-skinned human beings in the Caribbean.

      We are STILL paying the price for it in so many ways. Slavery jacked us up three ways from Sunday, and Lord knows we’ve still got problems. We admit it. We don’t sniff from on high and act like it doesn’t live here. If you honestly think racism in the UK is cleaner than racism in the US because you lot don’t actually speak it out loud…man, you’re gonna be in for a shock when your culture finally decides to look in the mirror and deal with it.

      It’s not only our legacy. It’s the UK’s legacy, and it’s just one piece of your Roman legacy. The slavery. The imperialism. The feudalism. The putrid stench of caste and monarchy. We shook it off. We said, “no.” Millions of us died over it. Hundreds of millions of us are still living in and repairing impoverished economies and broken social structures because of it.

      I’m so dead sick of Europeans looking down their nose at the United States over this issue, as though racism only exists here. No. It just gets called out for what it is here, and we fight over and talk it out and yell it out and deal with it here. It’s ugly…but it’s not emotionally constipated. It’s honest.

      “One’s race isn’t the sole identifier of a person here,” either. It simply isn’t. That doesn’t change the fact that seeds got planted in the culture. They’re weeds now with deep roots, and pulling them out is hard, sweaty work. We don’t pretend otherwise.

      Okay, Imma put the truck back in drive now. Carry on.

      • Nic919 says:


      • Shabs says:

        There was slavery in the UK, conducted by the elite but the way it permeated is so different. The British elite endorsed and financed slavery but much of it was done abroad and was a key part of colonisation. The US did not colonise but instead used slavery to prop up it’s economy on its own land and it continued to aggressively subjugate black people far longer in very overt ways within society to justify the use of slavery and to continue the view of black people as less than.

        I’m not saying the UK doesn’t have rascism, but the the legacy of slavery is not the same, we generally do not have POC who are descendents of slaves and whose families have been in England for hundreds of years. This the dynamics of race and so different because of this and to conflate the two experiences detracts from the centuries of struggle of african-americans.

      • Nic919 says:

        You can’t ignore the slavery in the English colonies in the Caribbean, or even Canada or Australia. It only ended as a policy in the empire in 1834 and even then not all slaves were freed. Canada was only a country in 1867 and Australia in 1901, so this was all under British watch.

        Being slaveholders of people overseas doesn’t make the slavery better, just easier to forget that people were not given full rights. Or do the British just pretend that they didn’t have slavery because it wasn’t in front of their faces?

        There is a legacy of slavery that the British empire set up that goes far beyond just the US and it needs to be acknowledged. Saying racism is different in the US is not the answer here.

      • MargaritasForBreakfast says:

        I am shocked to see someone say Britain doesn’t have generations of slave descendants living with you. You do have Black British of Caribbean ancestry and you have treated them horribly! They are the descendants of the people Great Britain enslaved in the islands! When the Brits report the Windrush generation and their children you are reporting the descendants of British owned slaves. They should be classified as citizens anyway!

    • MrsBump says:

      I feel like there are a lot of American posters here and elsewhere on the internet, who negate the experience of other POC when we say that our experiences differ.
      It doesn’t matter how many times we try to explain the subtleties, our opinion is almost always steamrolled by the American POV.
      At least there is one thing that unites all Americans regardless of race, gender or political views, the desire to impose their opinions on the rest of the world :)

      • Becks1 says:

        Nah, only when people come out swinging and insisting that only America has racism and its “milder” or “different” in other countries. the US wasn’t created in a vacuum.

      • MrsBump says:

        Well, allow me to disagree.
        Racism IS different in other countries. I am a WOC from a small eastern african nation and i have lived in multiple countries over the course of my career.
        Are you telling me that my experience is wrong because it is not the American one?

        Nobody here is even remotely claiming that America is the ONLY country that has racism. We are merely trying to explain that there are sometimes other cultural aspects at play and instead of listening, americans go “Nah, this doesn’t conform with my world view, so it must be wrong”

      • Becks1 says:

        Except that MANY of the Americans here ARE agreeing that there are other cultural aspects at play. I myself have said it twice in this thread. But often those “cultural aspects” are used to downplay the role racism DID play. “the UK isn’t really that racist, its just xenophobic and classist.” that’s…..not a good look either.

        but the replies to this comment are specifically in response to this line in the original comment – “racism exists everywhere but American’s can’t expect to apply the racial dynamics of the US, built on centuries of slavery and its legacy, to other countries.”

        Now I agree that the racial dynamics are different in every country, and racism takes different forms, but I think the line about the US being “built on centuries of slavery and its legacy” was what set people off, because it overlooks….well, basically everything about European AND US history in the 1600-1800s. Like I said, the US wasn’t created in a vacuum.

      • MrsBump says:

        Just take a look further across this comments section at people accusing Edward of being a sell out for having the audacity to propose an alternative opinion based upon his experience as a black man living in Britain, and you’ll see plenty of people incapable of seeing beyond their own cultural bubble.

      • Ames says:

        “Not a good look” is charitable. Because that was some spectacularly clueless race’splaining disguised as a “nuanced” take on the matter.

        Racists love taking field trips into the weeds to argue that there are cultural subtleties *separate from racist intent* that must be legitimized and respected.

        It’s the go-to argument of the “I may have been caught doing/saying something blatantly, viciously racist, but that’s not me, it’s so much more *complicated* than that” (see Amy Cooper, et al) crowd. Like they were just moseying along, minding their business, when oops! they tripped over some racism just lying there that has absolutely nothing to do with them because LET THEM EXPLAIN.

        It’s long been the favorite argument of White American southerners to race’splain their undying, “culturally nuanced” love for the confederate battle flag. They have “alternative opinions” on the subject you simply don’t understand.

        Saying “yeah, they’re racist BUT …” isn’t examining nuance. It’s performative apologist rationalizing. And it never, ever ends well.

      • MrsBump says:

        Thanks for americansplaining it to us Ames

      • Ames says:

        You’re quite welcome.

      • Tina says:

        +1k MrsBump

  19. ABritGuest says:

    I’ve said before that if she had joined the royal family around the time of 2012 London Olympics when multiculturalism was still generally regarded as a positive thing she would have had an easier time.

    Since various terrorist attacks& Brexit referendum was announced political climate is much harsher to anyone ‘different’ & discourse is incredibly more racist, anti immigrant, xenophobic and anti Muslim. So she’s a big symbol of the current culture wars in that she’s a mixed race woman, foreigner and immigrant. She was lauding diversity & embracing Muslims. AND she was known to have backed Hillary before she got with Harry! Red meat to the right wing dominated media in the UK.

    Her tacky family didn’t help being in an elite white space that would naturally look down on her, neither did a perceived rejection of them (warranted) despite keeping her black mother close.

    So Edward was right in that it wasn’t just racism. She has faced similar to other royal wives- sexism, misogyny, body shaming, classism but also xenophobia, racism/misogynoir and opposition because of her perceived politics.

    But Edward went all tabloid when he started talking about rules for joining an institution- protocol BS has been used to other Meghan& really he should have picked up the double standards by now. The furore with Meghan guest editing Vogue compared to no fuss with Anne’s recent editing of Countrylife & a journalist saying there weren’t enough white people on its cover was prime example of racism being the issue.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      All of this theory is great and I have enjoyed reading all of it which is one reason I come to CB.

      However, I still think there was some cataclysmic event that happened between Meghan, Harry & PWT which we do not yet know about that set off this whole chain of harassment against Meghan.

      • Mary says:

        Haha, at this rate, the way the palaces are telling on themselves, every time they defend themselves, we should know soon enough!

        My latest (daily) theory is that William and Kate simply did not like how quickly Meghan got along and fit in with both the Queen and Prince Charles. Remember the corgis snuggling up to Meghan at tea time stories?

        I am curious about the supposed post-wedding “disturbing drama.” I think all will be revealed soon.

  20. Rapunzel says:

    It wasn’t just racism, but sexism, classism, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

    One thing not getting acknowledged enough as a problem is Harry. I honestly think a lot of the grief Meg got was because Harry stood up for and protected her. People simply couldn’t stand Harry developed a backbone. So they hated Meg cause they blamed her for “controlling” him.

    The press, the palace, his family- all couldn’t stand Harry started acting in his own interest and Meg was scapegoat.

    Oh and I’ll spend the rest of my life thinking the big trigger which set off the palace was Meg getting pregnant. I think at least the family were willing to grudgingly accept Meg till they realized she’d bear an heir.

    • S808 says:

      “The press, the palace, his family- all couldn’t stand Harry started acting in his own interest and Meg was scapegoat.”

      THIS! It’s soooo much easier to believe Meghan is controlling him rather than admit Harry simply chose to walk away from them on his own.

    • Rebecca says:

      Except Harry always stood up for himself. He also stood up for Kate (when the press was doing too much after George was born) and for Camilla (when the press characterized her as an evil step-mother).

      So, the idea these courtiers are suddenly shocked that “Harry has a backbone” doesn’t make sense. Harry has ALWAYS had a backbone.

      Unless, AGAIN, the issue is that he stood up for his mixed race wife and treated her as equal to the other women in the family, and dared to expect and demand the same for his wife. He’d already he’d speak up for those he feel are getting mistreated.

      I cannot express just how much this makes the institution look terrible for attacking HER because HE has her back.

  21. HK9 says:

    I think people are outraged because people have denied the racism piece even existed-and it does, so when you take that stance, some people might feel it gives people an easy way to dismiss what happened. But I will say this, she came in, worked her ass off and did well. It shocked me how people hated her for actually doing good work. I’m not sure that she didn’t know the rules, I think she does know them and beat them at their own game and that’s why they hate her.

    • 809Matriarch says:

      They really hated her for her good and effective work. People on Twitter have found a way to even minimize her Grenfell accomplishments by attributing it to “virtue signalling.” Nothing Meghan does will EVER be given credit as “good works” it is always characterized as some phony manipulation with a sinister agenda. The pretzel knots people tie themselves into to discredit her is sickening!

  22. Sofia says:

    I get what he’s saying. I don’t think he’s saying “Oh racism has nothing to do with it” (which seems to be what people on Twitter think he’s saying) but rather “Racism was not the only thing. It was other factors too.” I don’t think he’s trying to diminish the role of racism, he’s just saying it’s not the only thing and he’s right. Xenophobia, classism, sexism and just plain jealously played a part too.

    Could he have worded it better? Yes like Kaiser said. But I really don’t think he had malicious meanings.

    • Mary says:

      @Sofia, you are reading things in to what Enninful said. He did not mention those other factors. At all. As though they did not exist.

      Rather, Enninful had the audacity to blame the victim and say, basically, that it was a bit of racism and a whole lot of Meghan not following the rules.

      • Sofia says:

        But he really didn’t say Meghan didn’t follow the rules. All he said was that there are a lot of rules and noone really told her or gave her time to get used to it. And he’s partially right because from day 1 the press were on her back especially during her pregnancy (even when other royals were given a cooling time). The only thing I really disagree with is the whole “no one told her the rules” and that’s because I think most of the “rules” are made up by the press.

        Like I’ve said, he could have worded it better. Absolutely. But in the past he’s been nothing but supportive of Meghan. I don’t think he’s suddenly switched gears. If he continues to make vague and murky statements about Meghan and racism, then it becomes a different story

        Edit: Just want to add that I understand why people do not like Edward’s statement. But this is just my opinion on what he meant.

      • Mary says:

        I disagree in that I believe that Enninful absolutely implied that Meghan did not follow the rules.

        “(Meghan) walked into an institution and everybody expected her to know the rules. Sometimes it takes a minute to understand the rules.”

        Why would she have needed more time to “understand” the rules if she had been following them?

      • Sofia says:

        I agree (not with the word “rules” itself) with the “everybody expected her to know the rules”. You don’t enter an institution like the BRF without some growing pains and taking time to adjust. But she was never given that time. She was never given a grace period. She was never truly given a chance from the moment their relationship became public.

        The “understand the rules” comment is in poor taste and I agree. I wish he would have left that comment out. But other than that, I really don’t think what he said was so wrong.

  23. BnLurkN4eva says:

    @shabs, I am tired of this old argument used to make excuses for the British behavior regarding racism. Yes, America was the home of hundreds of years of slavery, but the British were the recipient of that slavery for much of it and let’s not forget that Britain had slavery for a very long time, just not in the same numbers. Then you look at the so called British empire and their actions throughout the world and no, the only difference in the British history of racism and America’s is that one acknowledge while the other deny.

    This man is an editor, he should have utilized those skills to express himself better. Yes, Meghan’s treatment was more than racism, it was sexism, classism, snobbery, anti-Americanism, xenophobia and imperialism. The current mood in Britain also contributed to the treatment she received because let’s face it, Britain has moved even further to the right than in the most recent past. I think the rise of blatant white supremacy all over the western world in recent years contributed to her treatment because it wasn’t just coming from inside Britain, but from all over the western world. Media, right wing and so called liberal media are controlled by a few people who have abused their power by controlling the content that gets out rather than informing with integrity. How many opportunities have the mainstream media missed in calling out the bullies in the tabloids for their racist sexist, classist, anti-American, xenophobic treatment of Meghan?

    Yeah, Edward E. could have been a little more eloquent about it and by adding the bit about Meghan not understanding the institution just plays to the narrative that she broke rules that no one can point out given she’s done nothing that others haven’t done since she’s been there.

    • Shabs says:

      Nobody is saying the British didn’t participate or benefit from slavery or that British colonial slavery was better because it wasn’t in front of their eyes. It’s about recognising that countries used it in a different ways and therefore the ripples of slavery and its impact are different.

      The USA had millions of freed slaves in the 19th century looking to support themselves without education and opportunity, in a society that contained a lot of people who discriminated them, and did not see them as equal. The black American experience is unique and I’m tired of arguing with people who try to a apply a one size fits all policy to race and see any discussions other wise as racist.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        Bigotry is bigotry and racism, no matter how it’s coached is still evil and awful wherever it’s found – the results are ultimately the same to it’s target. Yes, it maybe expressed differently in different countries, but generally speaking the outcomes are the same wherever racism is found. Even while with the policies surrounding the WR generation many in Britain have the audacity to pretend there’s no institutional racism with no or little push back. Deny, deny, deny is the European way (including England) when it comes to racism. I’ve lived there (in England) and currently living in America. It sucks here racism wise, but there’s an outlet to express and redress racism because it’s dealt with more openly, not so much in England. I don’t think Americans are trying to one size fits, they just know that in some parts people are carefully condition to act like if it looks like a fish and stinks like a fish, it’s not a fish.

  24. Esme says:

    Is he feeling he’s backed the wrong horse, so to speak, and is he trying to backpedal his support in order to retain his access and position in the upper class?
    I do not want to diminish his accomplishments, but could his EIC position be interpreted as tokenism? The publisher can “whitewash” their history by pointing to the black EIC… and he might be aware that he’s been granted the position “on sufferance” and has to follow “the rules”, whatever they might be.
    And the rules meant to keep the lower orders out are always unwritten, arbitrary, and communicated via obscure signifiers… which means an outsider has very little chance of fitting in, by design.
    I think Meghan did very well in leaving… why be unhappy? There’s more to life than the BRF.

  25. Blue says:

    Hey maybe people should stop telling this Black man that he needs to be more articulate and eloquent – just a thought.

    • Mary says:

      Hey, maybe people should tell this black man, who had recently been racially profiled in London, to stop blaming the biracial victim for the abuse she suffered

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Mary Seconded. We have no right to his thoughts, opinions and lived experiences, nor to embellish or misrepresent them.

      • Mary says:

        @Andrew”s, then maybe Enninful should have kept his mouth shut about Megan’s “experiences.”

      • L4frimaire says:

        Agree with Mary in that he should have said nothing, because what he said does not come across well. Does he think that institution would be kinder to him, especially when he can’t get into his own office? This reminds me of when he said that she didn’t want to be on the cover because it would be “too boastful”. Those were his words, not hers. He’s a bit of a gusher and seems to speak before he thinks. I really don’t care what he says because it’s annoying, especially since he’s still coasting on the success of that issue he worked on with Meghan. He basically made version 2.0 of it for this September.

  26. MA says:

    Still waiting for someone to explain WHAT rules she broke. The British media, tabloids, critics still haven’t been able to. Even some of her supporters saw her as someone who shook up the monarchy. The truth was that she was rather vanilla and moderated her statements while with the family, she was hardly this leftist feminist radical she’s made out to be by both her admirers and critics. They tried to depict her as this gauche demanding American but the only “proof” we have are ever changing and vague stories about tiaras and Kate crying. The one thing she did that went against the grain was being one of the few royals to have a positive financial impact on her charities. Clearly the only “rule” she broke was the melanin one.

    • Q says:

      Thank you!

    • HK9 says:

      I think she was aware of the rules. I think the establishment moved the goal posts. We are dealing with an all white world there, and her work ethic made a lot of people feel small. She she’s used to professionals and The Royal Family are not professionals, they are simply royal.

  27. ABritGuest says:

    Adding to my previous comment- Meghan’s acting career was held against her in press& apparently in the Firm. As well as her divorce And on the misogynoir- there was an article in March saying that the royal reporters said she was ’too sexy’ to be a royal. They apparently made a big thing of Kate being a mother, not noting that Meghan was also a mother.

    Makes me wonder if Meghan felt pressure to be ‘muted’ in her fashion because of her showbiz background and that’s why she wore so much blush and cream when she first married in and then lots of navy.

    But yeah sounds like she didn’t have a shot in this role.

  28. KM says:

    For those saying she did too much too soon, do yo ureally thing if she was lazy like Kate, they wouldn’t have made her to be a ‘welfare queen’? They were already whining about the price of renovating their cottage. I don’t think MM could’ve ever gotten away with not working.

    • Mary says:

      Heck, they were already b*tching about the cost of her engagement photoshoot dress. The girl didn’t have a chance – she was never given one.

    • ABritGuest says:

      This! Before the cookbook’s surprise drop the royal reporters were starting to complain about the value she was bringing . She would never have been allowed to just ease in like eg Kate was. She would have been called lazy if she didn’t show her work straight away. Hell she was called lazy for being bottom of engagement numbers for year she mainly on maternity leave (and we know not all of her BTS work/meetings were doing in the royal circular). Of course when she got stuck in ASAP- she had crazy ‘west coast energy’ & criticised for working ‘too hard‘. No-win situation.

      Years into the role they still go on about Kate growing into the role, gaining confidence Etc. Whereas Meghan didn’t have any grace for mistakes and was expected to EARN every penny spent on her in a way other royals aren’t. Part of the reason I think they insisted on paying for the Frogmore refurb.

  29. Vanessa says:

    Once again in the words of Malcolm x the most disrespect woman in the world is the black woman time and time again . Black woman have stood up fought for the rights of the black man and our community but when it comes time for black men to stand by us and support us the choose to side with the people who are abusing us .meghan was the victim of pure racism it’s had nothing to do with her being America it had everything to do with her racial background the courtiers and the royal reporters were so quick to say Meghan needs to be put her place . Why did the queen aide and William block Meghan from being allowed to wear any royal jewelry that wasn’t not given to her by Harry . Why did a radio jock think it was ok to compare Archie to a monkey why every time British tabloids reporter on Meghan they go out their to remind the public that she doesn’t belong in the royal family. British public can try to wrapped this Meghan saga into its about her Americans her outspokenness when it’s clearly to anyone with eyes it’s about Meghan races that’s what it’s been about from the beginning. If Harry would have married a white woman they would both still be in the royal family. Every black British actors and musicians has come forward talking about how racist it’s over in British How they had to come to America to get work and only then were they allowed to get parts in British works . To tried to deny and make excuse for the way Meghan was treated by the British tabloids and the royal family is inexcusable she was and still is a victim of racist abuses by the British press.

    • Nic919 says:

      Michaela Coel gave a speech at the Edinburgh festival and she outlines quite clearly all the racism she has faced in her career as an actress and producer. Frankly some of it sounds as bad as what happened to black American actors during segregation. But with this facade of politeness, it is rendered more acceptable I guess by the white establishment. In any case while EE said what he said, we can see how he would be afraid to boldly speak out because the UK has not acknowledged its role in spreading slavery and genocide all over the world. There is a reckoning that will come and it will be impolite when it happens. When the lefty Labour Party leader had to condemn the toppling of a slaveholder statue in Exeter, that’s how far behind the UK is with respect to racial politics. The world is too connected for any country to pretend they don’t have racism or that their persons of colour being treated as second class will want to accept it for much longer.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Nic919 – As it appears you are from the UK, would you please enlighten us CB Yanks with your knowledge:

        Is the Liberal Democratic or Labour Part the less racist?

        Is the Liberal Democratic or Labour Part the less classist?

        I watch two hours of BBC World News nightly and it is so very difficult to handle on what UK politicians are as they are all so polite, well behaved and civil.

        At least in the USA the politicians make no beans about what they are or are not. It is so extremely evident that you can size a up a US Congress Critter’s political beliefs in less than two minutes by watching a news interview.

  30. L4frimaire says:

    I think he meant well but it came out a little milquetoast, like he was trying to deflect. There was definitely more to it than racism, for sure. There is a deep personal animosity toward Meghan in the Firm and UK press, that seemed way beyond what she actually did or said. Yes part of it was the institution felt her to be a threat, although why that was I‘m still not clear on. I think a lot of Squaddies were upset because it seemed like he was downplaying the racism and putting some of the blame on her for not following “rules”. I also think he was not giving her enough credit, especially since she was behind their best selling issue and he knows her personally. If he said something a bit more supportive while stressing the difficulty of her being an outsider under such glare, people would feel less anger/disappointment with Enninful’s statement. This is also on top of just how bad CondéNast is in regards to Black employees in general, using black creatives and pay equity, and the problems with their magazines like Bon Appetit. Anyway, he said what he said, and it is what it is.

  31. Ames says:

    Let’s just be out with the between-the-lines truth of it all: What Enninful was *really* “trying to say” is that just as Meghan Markle will never be White in the eyes of the class-steeped colonizing “tradition” of the British monarchy (and many of its queen-besotted people), she will also never be Black “enough” in the eyes of some Black people who will never equate her struggle with theirs.

    • Mary says:

      Oooooh, good point. Never thought of that but then I am not a biracial woman who had to deal with some people who thought I was neither black nor white “enough.”

  32. Beech says:

    Interesting. Recently my aunt recounted the time she and my uncle were at Wimbledon. This was many years ago and they were at Wimbledon through their son who was and is a muckity muck. Seated in Row two. The posh woman seated next to my aunt asked how she acquired tickets. Very chilly, you see.
    My aunt and uncle are down to earth, well spoken and of great humor. American and Hispanic. And obviously gauche. My Tia did not answer the question but instead asked how stick in her bum woman got tickets. Through her husband. Tennis something association. Auntie let it be known tickets were acquired by her son and would you like to meet him, he’s here.

    Honestly, they’ll just let anyone in.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I am glad to be a Yank and live in the USA where I know if I am lucky enough to win the PowerBall big time jackpot that I will be able to buy myself into anyplace I care buy into.

      This wonderful discussion on Yank, Canadian and UK racism and classism has helped me to understand why a large number of the English middle class do not like Oprah, Gale King, Tyler Perry, Amal Clooney, The Obamas, Hillary and Nancy Pelosi.

      • Nic919 says:

        Just want to mention the book The Skin We’re In by Canadian author Desmond Cole. He chronicles one year in his experiences as a black activist in Canada and it is eye opening for those Canadians who didn’t realize just how much racism is in polite Canada.

    • Ames says:

      The upper-crust snootfest that is the British White elite has always been unabashedly racist. They pretty much invented The Karen.

  33. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Huh. Well one could say what happened to HIM wasnt just about racism as well. I mean since we’re making excuses for racism.

  34. aquarius64 says:

    Racism did play a part in Meghan’s treatment by the press. As an American I can see that racism plays out in different countries. In the US the history was slavery, Jim Crow laws; currently it’s racial profiling. South Africa had apartheid. The US has the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) , a century old plus organization established to fight for social and racial justice for African Americans. I don’t believe the UK has an equivalent.

    Classism attacks fortified by the Markles. The Markles are not only used to slag Meaghan but to put on display Meghan comes from a low class family and she should have never been allowed to marry Harry.

  35. Dizzy says:

    So you are questioning a black British man? Don’t you think he has some kind of insight?? I think he does and we should listen to him.

    • Ames says:

      Black people, and men particularly, can be notoriously dismissive of the struggles biracial women face.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Terry Crews is a Black American man going around saying that Black lives matter equals Black supremacy, should we listen to him because he is Black American and therefore according to you, should have some insights?

  36. one of the Marys says:

    Haven’t read all the comments. I have no issue with what or how he said it. It’s not *all* racism, there’s the class system and xenophobia as well. I’m shocked he’s being criticized for this statement

    • Ames says:

      The British royal establishment is so good at hiding their virulent racism behind a stodgy, bureaucratic, misguided-but-mostly-well-intentioned obsession with “rules” that even their Black subjects will defend it.

    • MrsBump says:

      Simply put, there is a prevailing group think, and anyone who expresses an alternative viewpoint, even a black man as accomplished as the Editor in chief of vogue, is dismissed as not knowing his own mind, not being able to express himself, of misogynoir, of sucking up to the royals, of being a traitor and obviously of not being able to understand racism as only an American can.
      Frankly the Americans insistence of always being right about other people’s cultures, in spite of what POC from these cultures say, is downright scary. I thought this was a republican trait but no, its an American one.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        No one is saying he doesn’t know his own mind, or that he’s necessarily wrong that it’s more than racism. I agree that classism, sexism and all kinds of other ism are at play with the treatment of Meghan. I think what most people took issue with, certainly me, was him implying that Meghan didn’t/couldn’t follow the rules because she didn’t know them. What rules did she break, everyone’s still waiting to discover these so called rules Meghan missed that justify the multi-years smearing she’s been subjected to. I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what the posters here are saying. I can’t speak for twitter comments and the like, but here the complaints are more nuanced than what you are putting forth.

      • Ames says:

        More simply put, it’s not group think to A, clock a Black man dismissing and diminishing the lived truth of a biracial woman for exactly what it is, and to B, have a problem with it. A big one.

        Valiant attempts at dogwhistling aside, I don’t deny Enninful’s accomplishments or his right to express himself. He’s free to think and say whatever he wishes. He’s also undoubtedly cognizant that rationalizing the systematic and undeniably VICIOUS abuse of a young woman by insisting she didn’t “follow the rules” was a provocative, and quite loaded, thing to say.

        And yeah, the fact that it was conveniently deposited into the conversation in the midst of another episode of the British monarchy having their soiled little knickers pulled down for the world to see YET AGAIN, that plays as toadying water-carrying to some people.

        Biracial people are constantly “othered” in media and culture – from all sides. If you’re Black, let them count the ways you aren’t Black enough. And if you’re White, can you ever really be anything but?

        Barack Obama was othered by Black American journalists with the running joke-but-not-really that there was one Black person sleeping in the White House and her name was Michelle.

        You’ll find the same phenomenon in a lot of the early coverage of this great modernizing “moment” Meghan was destined to represent in 21st Century Britain. It’s telling that Black journalists, in particular, often feel compelled to repeat an anecdote from Meghan’s childhood: That Meghan’s Black mother was frequently mistaken for her nanny.

        It is against the backdrop of this familiar push-pull of the biracial experience – She’s one of us/But is she really? – that Enninful’s comments are exposed as the paternalistic, racist apologist BS that they are. Meghan has spent a lot of her life living inside the privilege of “passing” for White, and some people aren’t about to let her forget it.

        You and Enninful, and anyone else who wants to are welcome to play devil’s advocate for racists and pretend it’s thoughtful and inclusive discourse. But it’s a thankless job.

      • Guest with Cat says:

        It’s not for me to say anything about this if its going to rub you the wrong way. I’m an American biracial woman and trust people to know their own lived experiences.

        But Houston, we have a problem. My Apple newsfeeds were stuffed with headlines that used his words to place the blame squarely back on Meghan for not following the rules.

        So anyone who considers themselves a friend of Meghan or even just a sympathetic acquaintance needs to be VERY careful in their remarks on her situation. There are predatory tabloid writers just waiting to pounce on nuanced comments and strip them of their nuance and their context to weaponize them against Meghan.

        The fact such words come from a known ally of Meghan give the words greater potency in removing racism from the equation. I know and you know what he was saying, but what got twisted into click bait headlines will be what gets into the public sphere. People won’t even read anything but the headlines and make up their own narrative that the black British Vogue editor that Meghan worked with said she messed up.

        They will do anything to push the narrative that it wasn’t British monarchy that should have done better but that Meghan wasn’t patient enough to push past the criticism to do better.

        I think it’s probably only one tabloid that said that, but others repackage this distortion for publication all over the world and news aggregator apps collect this duplicated mess into a feed of headlines. It looks ugly to a casual reader.

  37. February-Pisces says:

    Racism’s is the root of all the hatred directed at Meghan, but there are also a other reasons she has been given this treatment too. Firstly princess Diana is a reason why those evil royals and palace vipers have tried to destroy Meghan. They can’t have another Diana! Diana was technically more aristocratic than Charles. She was the only virgin who was aristocratic and up for taking on the job. She was enthusiastic about working, looked great, bore children, was a good mother and a nice person.On paper she was perfect, everything they wanted, but that didn’t stop them from treating her like crap. And why? Because of her star power. They couldn’t have another superstar in the firm.

    Along her reason Meghan is treated awfully is sexism. The comparisons between her and Kate reads like the ‘Madonna/whore complex’, where women are either wife’s and mothers (Madonna) or as sexual beings (whore). Kate is the classic plain Jane, attractive but not sexy, cute or beautiful. She’s seen as a wife/mother but not as the sort of woman men lust after. Meghan beautiful and charismatic. She’s has confidence and thus is seen as a threat to women. Meghan has all the traits of a (whore, sorry) but all the benefits of a ‘madonna’ being married with a baby. Therefore women don’t want to see her win, because where will that leave the Kate’s of this world. That’s why the ‘karens’ dream of harry fancying Kate, because they want the ‘madonnas’ to be sexy too.

    There’s also jealousy and competition in the workplace. Meghans work ethic was a threat to lazy Keenbridges who was to kick back and do the bare minimum whilst receiving maximum priase. They were never gonna allow that to continue.

    See lots of reasons, but racism will always be at the top of the list.

  38. WTF says:

    “It’s important that something like this did happen, because it reminds me never to think I am too well-known or too established, because to somebody you are another black person.”

    Bye. Somebody please come and rescue this fool from the sunken place. So if you are ‘another black person’ it is okay for a security guard to tell you to go to the back of the building?!?!? The problem isn’t the caliber of your celebrity. The problem is RACISM! FFS

  39. Lila says:

    I think it’s also interesting to note that if Harry had married, I don’t know, Jennifer Lawrence, she would get a cold welcome because she’s American, an actress and not upper class, but I doubt they would allow open season on her.

    I doubt people like Eamonn Holmes would be saying “I never spoke to her, but there’s something about her that I don’t like”. They would reel Morgan in, he wouldn’t be telling her to go back to where she’s from. Tominey wouldn’t listen to a white supremacist to write an article with the headline “Jennifer’s Mosque”.

    Black women are often stripped of their humanity and that’s what happened to Meghan. With each story they sought to turn her into a cartoon villain, a seductress who’s bewitched poor Harry and taken him away from his family (never mind that he’s 35).

  40. A says:

    I do think that, as far as the institution itself is concerned, he’s right. It had a set of rules, that are not easily understandable to outsiders. However, instead of treating Meghan with a degree of grace and understanding, they went full on guns-out at her from the very beginning. All royal consorts are treated coldly, and very few of them get much help or anything. We know this from Diana, after all. But how many of them were treated with this much viciousness? How many of them were treated this poorly by the press? That alone sets it apart from everything imo, and to Enninful’s credit, he doesn’t discount that either.

  41. You Must Be Joking says:

    Another day another tedious story about racism just like yesterday and the day before that and tomorrow and the day after etc etc

  42. Jewell says:

    You see what Meghan has had to deal with? Even the black Brits won’t stand up for her. How about the fact that institution was unwilling to stand up for her? I don’t see how she could ever be what THEY wanted without allowing herself to be wholly emotionally crushed by the institution and its passive aggressive sexist racism.

  43. Alexis Dietz says:

    It’s a yes and, not a yes but.