The Sun ran a racist front page headline about the Duchess of Sussex & Archie

sussex the sun NYE

For years now, two huge things have been happening simultaneously in the UK press regarding the Duchess of Sussex: 1) the tabloid press has thrown racist tropes, racist dog-whistles and flat-out racist sh-t at Meghan, Harry and Archie and 2) the British media has denied that they’ve been at all racist in their coverage, gaslighting the Sussexes and acting as if the Sussexes are crazy for even suggesting that the treatment they’ve gotten in the media is in any way unfair, racist or disgusting. Remember that Rebecca English article in the Mail? Well, the Sun wanted to one-up that sh-t. So this is their cover today (above). Racist as f–k. And just like Becky English’s use of “niggling” months ago, they absolutely, 100% know what they’re doing.

In other dumbf–k news about how British tw-ts treat the Sussexes, these asinine quotes have been making the rounds this week as well:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are ‘pointless in self-exile’ and it would have been ‘great to have heard’ the Duke supporting the NHS during the Covid-19 crisis like the Cambridges have, a royal biographer has claimed. The Duke, 36, and Duchess of Sussex, 39, are currently living in their $14 million Californian mansion with eighteen-month-old son Archie, having stepped back from royal duty in March.

Royal expert Hugo Vickers said Prince Harry is ‘isolated from his family, the army, his friends, the Commonwealth’ in the US, telling The Telegraph: ‘It’s a pointless existence in self-exile.’

Meanwhile he compared the Duke’s actions to those of Prince William, 38, and Kate Middleton, 38, adding: ‘During the NHS clapping, I thought how, after the Cambridges clapped, it would have been great to have heard from him.’

Hugo said Prince Harry had been doing ‘such a good job’ and ‘getting a lot out’ of royal life ahead of Megxit. He explained that the Duke’s success in the army had been ‘good for him’, while the Invictus Games was ‘hugely successful.’ The royal expert said it ‘would have been great’ to hear Prince Harry support the NHS at the height of the Covid-19 crisis, like the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge did.

[From The Daily Mail]

I mean, the “point” of the self-exile was to go out on their own terms before Prince Incandescent With Rage found a way to exile them to an African backwater (William considered sending them to Australia or Canada, but thought they would get too much attention). The “point” of the self-exile was to walk away from the racist, sexist and toxic abuse they suffered at the hands of the press, the courtiers and the royal family. So the exile isn’t “pointless.” And if the British people are satisfied with Will and Kate clapping once for frontline workers while also going on a superspreader Covid Choo-Choo Tour, so be it. I mean, I get it, Will and Kate are all you have left. You have to kiss their lazy asses. *chuckle*

ZB68_347887_0030

The Commonwealth Service 2020

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

Related stories

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

292 Responses to “The Sun ran a racist front page headline about the Duchess of Sussex & Archie”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. InVain says:

    This is so disgusting.

    • jbyrdku says:

      This doesn’t happen often, but I’m truly shocked. They knew exactly what they were saying when they ran that headline.

      • mynameispearl says:

        Ok I googled, did not know nappy was a reference to afro hair, genuinely I have only known a nappy to be a nappy (a diaper as its called in the usa).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @mynameispearl – When I read the headline in The Dim, I thought the same as you that the paper was referring to Archie’s diaper. I say this because on all the anti-Sussex social media sites, there is still constant reference to Archie wearing a “loaded nappy” or “dirty diaper” in the video for the children’s book reading.

        I think The Dim used the term “nappy” to get double mileage out of the slur. Nappy in the USA conjures up negativity to people of color where in the UK the term “nappy” conjures up negativity to Meghan being a neglectful mother due to being falsely accused of allowing her child to wallow in a “loaded nappy” many many moons ago. It is amazing to me how much mileage the “dirty diaper” falsehood is still getting and the number of comments it is still generating. I actually read some newly posted comments on this falsehood today dredging up the same old worn-out lies.

        Either way, the editors of The Dim are some sick puppies.

      • AnnaKist says:

        Same here, Pearl. It’s not a term we use in Australia, either. A “nappy” to us is what Americans call a diaper. The British press can be utterly vile at times, and as we’ve seen one could be just minding one’s business, not offending anyone, yet once they’ve got their claws in, they’ll use them to hold you down while they continue to put the boot in. So Harry and Meghan decide to walk away with heads held high, and that only serves as an invitation to attack them for leaving. How many times have we said it on here: Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. They can’t ever win.
        We’ve clicked over, so Happy New Year to everyone! Be safe. Be well. Be kind. 🎉 🎊 💥

      • Killfanora says:

        Why are people calling this media rag the Dim? As a Brit I genuinely don’t understand. This rag is called The Scum in the UK and that just about describes its fetid garbage to the vast majority of Brits who wouldn’t even wipe their shoes on it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Killfanora – Yank here. It is just the nick name I have always used. I will now call it the “SCUM”

        The Daily Mail = The Daily Fail
        The Express = The Slow
        The Sun = The Dim but from here on out will be The SCUM!

        Thank you for the heads up.

      • Amy Too says:

        Kilfanora: the sun is bright and shiny. The opposite of bright is dim. Dim also means stupid, not-very-smart, holding backwards views. So that’s the explanation for if you honestly didn’t understand why it was being called the Dim.

        If you’re just saying that the Scum is a much better name so you don’t get why anyone would call it the Dim, then, I kind of agree. But I like that variety of insults, too!

      • Yvette says:

        I still don’t understand how some Brits (not our peeps here nor many other good-hearted Brits) can still claim that Meghan never experienced any racism from the British press and that people are just playing the ‘race card’ on her behalf.

    • Bettyrose says:

      I don’t even know what to say, so just co-signing your post. This is beyond.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        Surprisingly I am not at all shocked. I have seen far, far worse and there will be more to come as M and H’s fortunes continues to rise. The Sussexes know this and are prepared. Until the RF call off their attack dogs, Archie will not be setting foot on that island anytime soon. By the way, it was Sarah Vile who used the word niggling about Meghan.

      • bettyrose says:

        I guess I’m not really shocked either, having lived through the last four years on this planet, but still a bit stunned to see a cheery cover like that be so deliberately hateful. It’s really ugly.

      • clomo says:

        I’m pretty shocked, I’m an English expat, (not the Baldwin type of ex-pat hehe) and they knew as news writers, that word has gotten famous people fired in the U.S. for using. To even discuss diapers in the headline, especially as he is going to be outgrowing those soon is weird. Now if it was the Goselings (sp?) when they had there first year with the sextuplets understandable, but for a toddler of a black woman from America, this is unbelievably vile.

    • Madelaine says:

      I have been dreading this unwarranted outburst of unashamedly backward-looking,
      avowedly supremacist, spitefully biased, glaringly heinous bitterness from the gutter press … And there it is.

    • Freddy says:

      I can’t even….I’m never shocked by the British tabloids or their racism…but DAMN…color me shocked as hell by how racist this sh*t is….

    • Lorelei says:

      I had a to read it a few times because I wasn’t understanding why it was racist, assuming it just said Happy New Year (haven’t had caffeine yet). I thought maybe the issue was that it was somehow snarky for not including Harry in the picture as well, and the message was something like, “It’s a happy new year since Meghan and Archie are gone!” and maybe that’s why it was bad?

      But THEN I looked more carefully and got it, and holy sh!t is that blatantly disgusting. I actually gasped. I fully can’t comprehend a “professional” coming up with that, thinking it was a good idea, then it getting past how many other editors, etc. before making it onto the front page. He’s a BABY.

      The only silver lining to this bs is that hopefully it continues to reinforce to the Sussexes (even though I’m quite sure they already know; this is just more confirmation) that they absolutely made the right decision in getting out of there. Jesus Christ

      • Mindy_Dopple says:

        Same Lorelei! I had to read it a few times before I landed on the NAPPY part. Gasping is appropriate because that’s disgusting. I’m sure they used it because as many have pointed it out – it serves two purposes. One is a horrible racist purpose and the other will be used to deflect and explain that it wasn’t meant THAT way. Just another reason for Megan and Harry to stay far FAR away from the UK and especially if the silence from the Queen and KP is continued.

      • GuestwithCat says:

        My brain did that, too! I kept seeing “Happy”. Lol maybe we are just optimists!

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Don’t forget…same “professionals” (and BRF) were all ok with them printing the pic of M&H holding the hands of a CHIMP a day or two after Archie was born!! They are DESPICABLE! No one said a WORD then, and they won’t now.

    • Sayrah says:

      Holy crap! I gasped when I saw that. This is so offensive that’s offensive isn’t even a strong enough word.

    • marehare says:

      Daily Mail was really racist and attacked Megan every day. Glad Harry and Megan escaped the racist non royal leeches in UK.

    • My Two Cents says:

      I’m copying Lesley’s comment from the bottom in case not everyone makes it that far. I’ve just sent my complaint! Thank you Lesley, great idea!
      Lesley says:
      January 1, 2021 at 7:02 am
      To make a complaint about something you’ve see in a British newspaper go to ipso.co.uk

      I’ll be making a complaint when I’m in a place with better internet connection.

      Not impressed Dan Wooten, not impressed at all.

  2. sunny says:

    Racists are ALWAYS telling on themselves. In case the dumb British press still doesn’t get it, this is why Harry left.

    The British media is so stupid, and so racist. I know Petty Betty isn’t bright but the Commonwealth is full of non-white people(mainly black), and we see this garbage.

    • Seraphina says:

      @Sunny, I have a friend who always says that: Let them talk long enough and a racist will tell on themself. TRUTH.

    • Betsy says:

      “Telling on themselves” implies that they wouldn’t just tell outright, when I think it’s clear that there’s only a crusty, flaking veneer that people can point to and pretend they’re not racist.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      It may sound mad but the British media are actually PROUD of their racism and wear it like a badge of honour. The best thing for M and H to do is to become even more successful and make more money. There is nothing that drives the racist Brit mad than an intelligent, proud
      and successful black person who does not beg for their crumbs and outwits them every time. It really gets under their skin. Hence why they really hate Lewis Hamilton.

    • Myra says:

      Let’s not forget all the ‘I’m not racist’ crowd who buys this rag and laps up all their racist attacks on Meghan and other Black/mixed race celebrities, including those who pile on online and interact with these shoddy royal reporters and editors.

  3. Jane Doe says:

    Is hate speech a crime in the UK?

  4. Eleonora says:

    Just read their podcast is in the top 10 in the UK. Can only imagine lots more will listen as people start talking about it.

    At least they’re working for their money, and I found their message inspiring. Much more inspiring than doing the bare minimum and making a mess of that.

    • Bettyrose says:

      LOL! D’oh! That’s embarrassing for the tabs who call them “pointless.”

      • Eleonora says:

        Yes, and I’m not even British, so if it’s news here it is big. Can only imagine it will bigger.

        I even took time away from an live, online concert I’m watching to share it here, and of course Celebitchy has the perfect article to respond too. Must be tough that those tabs’ narrative doesn’t reflect reality.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Much more inspiring than doing the bare minimum and making a mess of that.”

      More inspiring than hand claps???? LOL! LOL!

      • Eleonora says:

        Lol, definitely.
        But I always found Meghan inspiring.
        I said this in another article at Celebitchy as well: I like the kind of hopeful, uplifting way of inspiring people that Americans are good at.

    • Freddy says:

      I heard the podcast and loved it. H&M are inspiring folks in a way that W&K will NEVER be able to do.

      • Lorelei says:

        Harry and Meghan’s 29-minute podcast was more impactful and memorable than all of the speeches given by that entire family put together. Even Archie’s three words and a giggle got more press than 99% of the “work” the BRF does in an entire year.

        They are screwed and they know it. Instead of trying to change course, clearly they’re just going to double down and continue lashing out. I only hope it doesn’t get even worse as they become more desperate.

  5. Nev says:

    TRASH.

    This is why they left as we know. WOW.

  6. Harper says:

    No words for that headline. Do note that it is the Sun, Willileaks’ favorite go-to for Sussex smearing, and the type of racist humor that he has been caught engaging in.

    And the pointless existence comment is trying to purposely paint Harry as an exiled Duke of Windsor type, as that was how the former king’s life was regularly described after his abdication.

    • Ginger says:

      The RF are trying SO hard to change the narrative that Harry was exiled and try and come out on top. The racists will believe this but everyone knows that Harry chose to leave and is doing really well for himself.

  7. Lillyfromlilooet says:

    OMG.

    • Aidevee says:

      Ok, I am a British person and I feel.i need to put my tuppence worth in here.

      I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why this headline is racist. I have never heard the word nappy refer to someone’s hair- in the uk it is what literally everyone calls a diaper. Diapers don’t exist here, in the same way that we have curtains instead of drapes and pavementa inatead of sidewalks. On that basis, it is too much of a stretch to assume that your average Sun reader would make the connection between the word ‘nappy’ and a derogatory term for a person’s hair in a foreign country.

      I don’t think this is a dog whistle at all. The headline writers at the Sun are famous here for their punning skills – they are razor sharp. If they’d wanted to have layer racist undertones in there, they’d have done a much better job at it than this. I honestly don’t think this is a thing to be mad about in this context.

      • Dee says:

        They know what they’re doing. That is racist to the core.

      • L84Tea says:

        Razor sharp indeed. You’re giving those writers WAY too much credit. This was so very deliberate.

      • MM2 says:

        I’m going to cut & paste @Julie’s comment from above here in response to your comment because it was stated so well. These are career journalists, a major newspaper & they’re “razor sharp”….they knew what they were doing. Maybe you should google what you don’t know, and then add your tuppence? This word is very well known &, unfortunately, commonly used in the US.

        From @Julie: This is a classic dog whistle. Racism designed to be deniable. Everyone on either of the discussion immediately gets it but because the majority are totally oblivious (and unwilling to disturb their placid existence by educating themselves), the racist gets away with it.

        ***The worst part of a dog whistle isn’t even the racist act, it’s the ignorant running up to defend the racist act and gaslighting the victims.***

      • Chicken Tetrazzini! says:

        but…. she also had a miscarriage and lost a baby, so I’m having a hard time seeing this as harmless on many, many levels

      • tcbc says:

        You’re being naive. The point of the dogwhistle is that the racists know what they’re doing, the oppressed know what it means, and the nonconfrontational whites can pretend that it wasn’t what everyone else knows it was.

        PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY IS THE POINT.

        Furthermore, these aren’t hayseed Brits who don’t know what words mean in an international context. These are sophisticated, educated, worldly members of the media WHO ARE PROFESSIONAL WRITERS AND EDITORS. They know damned well what they’re doing.

        STOP GIVING RACISTS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is absolutely a deliberate racist slur, just as the ‘Straight out of Compton’ headline was. The UK tabloids know exactly what they are doing, which is why they are doing it.

      • Kebbie says:

        Not the point of your comment and I get your point but both of your examples exist in the US. I’ve never used the word drapes in my life. I’ve always said curtains. And pavement is used here too, not to mean sidewalk but as a synonym for a concrete surface.

      • Olivia says:

        Please spare us the British-splaining. It IS a thing to be furious about. Full stop. It’s racist and it’s intended to be racist. Period. I did a short term assignment in London a few years ago and honestly I found it shocking how adamantly Brits refuse to engage in uncomfortable conversations about race/class/gender. This country is like the poster child for white fragility I’m sorry. Always under the banner of god forbid we be rude, and it’s rude to talk about these issues. I found my time there miserable to be honest. The USA OBVIOUSLY has not made progress about this but at least we’re having the conversation, messy and uncomfortable as it may be.

        And as a former colonial power y’all are not excused from any of this because of this ridiculous “oh but it means diaper!” Just stop. The USA wasn’t even a country in 1619 when the slave trade started, who do you think was the economic powerhouse of slavery? Europeans. There is blood on your hands too. You don’t live in some sort of post-racial harmonious society you can explain away with “oh but the word doesn’t mean that here.”

        The word was used about the only Black member of the royal family by a global tabloid newspaper that 100% knows what they were doing. Not some small town rural newsletter that made an honest mistake.

        So just stop. No one’s buying it. Stop.

      • Amy Too says:

        What about your average black reader in the UK, though? This is targeted to hurt Meghan. She is black. Black people will be familiar with the two definitions of “nappy.” And this is an internationally circulated paper. It’s all over social media, too. The fact that people immediately put two and two together and realized it was a racist dog whistle, obviously means that people WILL recognize nappy as being a racist pejorative. It’s meant to hurt black people and black people know what nappy means. It doesn’t really matter if the average white UK Sun reader will get it. It’s meant to be a sly “othering” insult to the exact people who WILL KNOW what nappy means in the context of black people.

        I read this story to my white, American husband. I asked him what “nappy” meant to him and he said diapers and black hair. When I told him that the Sun was trying to claim it was just diapers he said “But words are literally their business! They must know what words mean.”

      • superashes says:

        Stated differently for those in the back: “I didn’t read it as racist, therefore it can’t be racist. It doesn’t matter that virtually all Americans agree it is racist, and lets also just overlook that Meghan and Archie are Americans. I don’t see it, therefore it isn’t a problem. Carry on.”

        I’m sure the British would have the same forgiveness of an American publication calling one of the royal children a ‘Muppet’.

      • windyriver says:

        @Aidevee – Do you know where Compton is? More specifically, did you know four years ago? As a British person, very possibly not. Very possibly too many younger Americans didn’t/don’t know, and most significantly, aren’t aware of why it was once especially well-known. Even I hadn’t thought about it in years, and yet, was aware of it because I knew a family member once lived there (late 1940’s-50’s).

        Compton became particularly notorious in the 1980’s; with a majority black population, it was known for a very high level of crime and gang violence. That reputation stuck for a very long time, especially for people old enough to have been around at the time. “Straight Outta Compton” was a rap album that came out – in 1988.

        There was a 2015 film that dramatized the story of the group that created the album, which may have been how the population in general, and British media in particular, became aware of Compton. It was well received and nominated for an Academy Award (for original screenplay). I didn’t see the movie, but reading a synopsis tells me it wasn’t the story of a bunch of Sunday school (or yoga) teachers.

        And yet, “Straight Outta Compton” was one of the headlines that greeted Prince Harry’s reveal that he was dating Meghan Markle. Yes, I’m sure the BM writers are fond of their little puns and jokes, and maybe the British population as a whole didn’t quite get it. But no way were the media unaware of what that headline meant, or the fact that it would receive international attention. Just like this Sun headline.

        What I can believe is, the editors enjoy their clever puns and seemingly inside jokes, and are just fine with the racist undertones, because that’s how they roll – but don’t really understand just how egregious this is, and how disgusting it is to involve a toddler (see: previous chimpanzee remark about a baby). Time to wake up to what your media is really doing.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        It’s not directed at their readers, it’s directed at Meghan. When people are letting you know how they experience the world and therefore seeing an intended message, you should listen.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Aidevee— this just doesn’t apply here. I mean, yes, there are lots of examples of words having duel meanings in America and in the UK (what we call potato chips, they call “crisps,” I think) but this is not one of those times. This is pointedly racist.

        I am not someone who automatically attributes every single negative thing said about Meghan as being racist, but there’s no getting around it here.

        Even if they did mean “diaper” (they didn’t), can you explain why that’s funny or clever or on the front page?

      • Lanie says:

        You don’t think it’s a dog whistle, and yet, here you are explaining away racism.

        Dog whistles work. Well.

      • Laura says:

        You pretty much said it they’re experts at crafting headlines there’s no way this wasn’t intentional it’s disgusting and indefensible, period.

      • Pink says:

        @aidivee completely agree, people are doing mental gymnastics over this – have they ever SEEN an average Sun reader?! No offence but they would NOT get this reference. If The Sun is gonna be racist they are blatant about it because that’s the level of their readership, they don’t do subtle. Proof of point: their Straight outta Compton headline. That’s obviously racist and anyone arguing Britain wouldn’t know that is an idiot.

      • Passerby says:

        Ok Adivee, keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the average Sun reader wouldn’t read it a nappy hair. I’m 100% sure that headline was SPECIFICALLY for Meghan. And she 100% read it for what it is. Racist.

    • Godwina says:

      I’d be curious to see the stats on how many Brits generally know the US connotation of the word–I’m Canadian and didn’t know it was used as a (racist, derogatory) term for Black hair until the last few years, myself. I think thanks to that Chris Rock doc about hair and racism? Conversely, I’ve known about the nappy/diaper dichotomy since forever.

      I know some Americans can be outright imperialist re. English language and vocab (insisting that the US terms/usage are international and everyone should know that and/or adopt their meanings–fucking yikes, and PS that’s not how language works), so I’m a bit torn on this one too.

      I do think any editor (!) of a paper has the duty to freaking know as many usages as they can of words, and yep, that press has a dreadful racist track record in general and when it comes to MM–but Aidevee’s point about the general readership not being able, in all likelihood, even to pick up on that US connotation as a dogwhistle is one I’d be interested to see that poll on. I truly have no idea, but non-Brit commentators aren’t the ones in a position to shed light on this.

      • MM2 says:

        I’d be curious to see how many Brits who are journalists & editors, who don’t know the double meaning of this word. This was not written or approved by the Sun’s “general readership”, it was written & approved by seasoned journalists who should be aware of the common racist tropes used, especially after an uptick in it’s use with the blow back from the BLM movement.

      • Alibeebee says:

        @ Godwina I’m in Canada, born and raised here … and I know Nappy as a derogatory term. it is racist, full stop. but I’m black so this was a punch in the gut when i saw this.

      • Watson says:

        I’m Canadian and know both definitions of nappy. This headline was disgusting. It’s one thing for a layperson not to know but the writers and editors of this shit rag definitely knew what they were doing. Hope Twitter does it’s thing.

      • ProfPlum says:

        @Godwina. While most Brits might be ignorant of the second Americanized meaning, I guarantee that Black Brits will know that “nappy” refers both to a diaper AND African-textured hair. The term is common in the West Indies—ground zero for British imperialism. As several commenters have noted, the point is plausible deniability. You fell for it.

      • Jaded says:

        I’m Canadian, 68 years old and have known about the term nappy since my teens when Stevie Wonder used it in a song. The Sun is not fit to be cat pan liner and the racists who wrote that should be fired immediately. This is deliberately and maliciously racist and one of the vilest front page comments I’ve ever read.

      • Rita says:

        @Godwina – good point about the new imperialism of language.

    • Cairidh says:

      I’m British. I’d never ever heard the american use of the word nappy. It’s very likely the sun journalists hadn’t either. That’s not a term ever used in Britain.

      • Likeyoucare says:

        When POC said the words is degoratory and hurt them, please believe it. It doesnt hurt you, it hurts them.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Fail knew Straight out of Compton was racist; the Sun knew this was racist.

      • Alibeebee says:

        if they commented about the whole don ismus debacle.. they knew FULL WELL what the word means..

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        “Straight outta Compton,” “Harry in the Hood,” “Nappy New Year.” They knew what they were doing and truly it’s almost as insulting when people continue to give these media the benefit of the doubt when they’ve shown their arse repeatedly.

      • Seraphina says:

        https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/08/09/412886884/the-racial-roots-behind-the-term-nappy

        This article is a good read. Stumbled across as I searched the meaning of nappy. It also means unruly thread in fabric. So the excuses don’t float. The article further goes to explain that in Britain Nappy means diaper and UNRULY or DIRTY. Is this true???
        If it is, then we have quite a few issues to discuss ………………………..

      • Jaded says:

        The Sun journos know EXACTLY what the meaning of “nappy” is and it’s not just British slang for a diaper. It’s a direct insult to Meghan and Archie and I can’t believe the gutter press has sunk to a new low.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Cairidh…when everyone is explaining repeatedly and in detail exactly why this is racist and wrong, maybe reexamine your opinion? I’m white and the racism jumped out at me off the page as soon as I realized it didn’t say “happy.”

        Just because you aren’t familiar with both meanings doesn’t mean everyone isn’t. They clearly knew what they were doing here.

      • Bohemian Angel says:

        Bullshit! I’m black British and I know what the word ‘nappy’ means when used as an insult. I’ve known exactly what that word means for decades now as do many of my friends here black and white after watching many African American comedies/films and also films about slavery.
        This my American celebitches is typical white British denial about racism, us black people hear it ALL the fucking time, apparently they want the world to believe that the U.K. has no racism and it’s one of the most tolerant countries in the world, look what’s happening in America blah blah blah!
        Look at Brexit and the real truth as to why it happened, look at sussexist and the real truth as to why that happened, look at the hateful comments on Twitter black people in the public eye get, look at the hate Diane Abbot, Lewis Hamilton and Diversity to name a few get and the real reason why. These white folk like to bury their head in the sand about their beloved Great Britain, I don’t see anything ‘great’ about it and before any of you come after me and ask if I hate it so much why don’t I leave… BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY I’M TRYING!!!

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Cairidh, I’m in my 60s, white, and American. This is racist. No one should be excusing it. I know we still have work to do here in the US, because we’ve got a long ways to go before we get it right for equality for EVERYONE. But, I really think that this time we’ll get there. It will take time and work, but we will get there. If the British have their heads so far up their a** that they can’t tell what this is, that’s alright. The rest of the world will tell them. The Scum should have thought of that, because I guarantee that the journalists in this Country, and many other countries, see exactly who and what they are. They confirm over and over again the reason the Sussexes left. I hope that if Harry and Meghan return to the UK that they do it on the DL, because I really worry about their safety there.

      • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

        Just because you’ve never heard of it, doesn’t mean it isn’t a thing. I’m in the backwater of NZ, and knew about it, because it’s something that a person would just pick up in the course of just reading books and magazines, and seeing TV shows and documentaries. The Sun know perfectly well that there’s a benign meaning to use as the stalking horse for a racist attack, and they’re relying on ignorant white people to make excuses for them and deny the obvious.

      • HeatherC says:

        The Sun knew. It commented on the Don Imus scandal when he used the word nappy in a very targeted derogatory way toward female black athletes. They don’t get a pass. This was a dog fog horn.

        https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10629135/don-imus-dead-radio-host-imus-in-the-morning-dies-hospital/

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Aidevee – I understand what you are saying.

      However, the majority of the Dim’s online readership and click$ come from North America (primarily USA and Canada) and India. The editors of The Dim know this and knew exactly what they were doing with the “pun” headline.

      • Aidevee says:

        I had no idea the online Sun had such a readership in North America and India. Yikes!
        Anyway, this was in the print edition and I stand by my point that the average British Sun reader (they aren’t generally very bright or well informed) will not recognise this as a racist insult. If these journalists and editors are so clever, they haven’t done a very good job of racially trolling Meghan if their British readership can’t even detect they have done it. And done it so obviously they have in in the past. Of course you are right to educate people about the term, though, so now we know. I genuinely had no idea until today that nappy had any other meaning than what babies wear.

      • Amy Too says:

        Aidevee: you keep saying that the average British sun reader won’t have been seeing all the racist trolling. Are there no black people in Britain? Are there no brown people in Britain? You seem to be using British as a synonym for white. Black and brown people all over the world know what nappy means. This is meant to hurt black people, specifically Meghan. It’s meant to be a threat/insult/warning that one *could* say in front of other people but that the person it’s directed at will immediately understand. Like if someone saw a woman emerging from a hotel room with a man not her husband and this person then wanted to blackmail her, he could slip in things like “I hope you enjoyed your stay at the Ritz,” or “It’s so interesting the people one can run into when staying at a hotel, isn’t it?” at a 20 person dinner party. All the other people at the party won’t know what it means but the person being blackmailed will and it’s MEANT to come off as threatening to them, as a sly way of making that person feel supremely uncomfortable and to remind them that they’re in that person’s debt. It’s like that movie “I know what you did last summer.” Innocuous sounding to those who don’t know the full meaning of the phrase, but absolutely meant to instill terror in the person it is said to. And these aren’t even great examples because in both cases the person being threatened did something wrong. This is just Meghan (and others) living life as a black person and having to read a dog whistle insult on the front page of their newspaper that reminds them that they are other and less desirable and not qwhite right. And then a bunch of white editors and commenters will come in and say “they didn’t mean it like that. You’re being overly sensitive. There’s nothing offensive about a diaper pun.”

      • Lorelei says:

        @Aidevee that actually raises an interesting question, imo. For argument’s sake, let’s say you’re right and most Brits will read this as “diaper.” So what will they take it to mean? It’s not clever, it’s not a joke — it’s just rude and stupid either way, and certainly not fit to be splashed on the front cover of the paper.

        I’m not being snarky, but genuinely asking you what the reaction would look like if someone believes the “diaper” argument? It makes absolutely no sense.

      • windyriver says:

        It’s not about the average (white) British Sun reader. It’s directed at Meghan as payback for the fact the Sun (favorite mouthpiece for KP leaks) is out of the loop, and are reduced to reporting things like the worldwide news about Archie’s first public words, and their Xmas card, from secondary sources. It’s petty, vindictive, and extremely nasty, while appearing just a little silly and cutesy on the surface. It’s undoubtedly directed at Harry too, who will be incandescent on his wife and son’s behalf. But he’s not in the actual picture, because the party line for months has been, Harry’s welcome back – alone. So we’re visually directed towards Meghan, who, the story line is, has stolen away Harry from his rightful family and country.

        Again, the underlying message isn’t directed at white readers, who like you won’t see the full meaning of the term. POC in Britain will, but it’s not a mystery that the British press is racist. What’s amazing is, the RF, and Charles, the head of the Commonwealth, doesn’t get how truly damaging this is.

        This type of tactic has always worked in the past, and the RF and BM just aren’t getting that something has changed, that Harry and Meghan have built a reputation and following that they aren’t going to be able to damage in the usual way.

      • 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼Once again, thank you Amy Too and WindyRiver for excellent and thoughtful comments !

    • Aidevee says:

      @lorelei- to answer your question about what people would think.
      Well, I saw this in the queue at Tesco’s this morning and I thought nothing beyond ‘oh look, they’ve punned happy with nappy. That’s a pretty lazy effort from them’ and I moved on, thinking that it was a typically shameless move to put Meghan on the front page because she helps papers to sell. That’s literally all I thought and I assumed that, generally, the Sun’s readers (who don’t tend to be critical thinkers either for the best part) would think the same. However, now that I have been made aware of the other meaning of this word, I can clearly see that, for Meghan and other people of colour, it’s breathtakingly offensive. But until this afternoon, I just havent been aware of the term ‘nappy’ in that sense. I have two kids under 5 so, to me, here in Britain, nappies are for sticking on kids’ bums. That may make me completely ignorant and if, so, then I apologise for that. But it will definitely have gone over lots of other people’s heads too.

      So maybe it’s best for people like me (white, naive and in a Scottish bubble) to call it out. I’ve emailed the Sun to ask them for their thoughts so, if they reply, I will let you all know what they say. It’s not so easy to blow a dog whistle if people are watching. In the meantime, Harry, Meghan and Archie are living their best life in sunny California while the Sun editor who signed this front page off is dodging covid in the bleak, frozen wasteland that is post-Brexit Britain, so H&M can hopefully ignore this and get on with their lives.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Aidevee thank you so much for this reply! I’ve also been wrong about (many!) things, but learned from other commenters here why I was misinformed. The commenters here on CB really are so smart! I’ve learned so much from them about all sorts of different topics over the years.

        Now that you explained more, I totally see where you were coming from with your original comment and it doesn’t seem to me that you had any malicious intent at all; as soon as you read more here and realized why it was so offensive, you admitted it and didn’t double down, insisting that you were right all along.

        It’s so nice to be able to engage in a civil conversation with someone like you who posts a response like this, because so much of the time (not just here, but online in general, and especially Twitter/FB), people immediately get defensive and insist that whatever they’re claiming is fine even when *hundreds of people* are explaining to them in detail why they’re wrong. But you admitted that you read and listened and changed your opinion accordingly, which so many people would never do, and I really admire that.

        Also, I am L.M.A.O. at your last sentence,

        “In the meantime, Harry, Meghan and Archie are living their best life in sunny California while the Sun editor who signed this front page off is dodging covid in the bleak, frozen wasteland that is post-Brexit Britain, so H&M can hopefully ignore this and get on with their lives.”

        It’s so true and for once, they’re all getting what they deserve. Happy New Year : )

  8. Kiera says:

    How can the royal family not issue a statement condemning that cover. It is unquestionably racist drivel. You know if that was a picture of George or Charlotte there would be an uproar.

    • Nev says:

      WORD UP.

    • Jessica says:

      They would never dare do it to George and Charlotte, the future future future king and his cute sister, who have none of that “exotic DNA” they speak of.

      • Harla says:

        I don’t know about that. Gary Janetti has used Prince George as a means to ridicule and harass female members of the BRF for years and his parents haven’t said boo about it. But let Tatler write a snarky article about Kate and all hell breaks loose.

    • Lorelei says:

      I remain shocked that they didn’t issue a statement about the chimpanzee photo. Even just from Charles. If they didn’t say anything then, they certainly won’t now.

      @Harla I do not and will never understand why Janetti gets a pass from everyone. I think his “work” is grossly offensive and can’t believe HBO gave him some sort of deal. But a lot of people who love the BRF think he’s just great. It’s baffling to me.

      • Sofia says:

        It’s because he hates on Meghan. That’s why they’re there. However he hasn’t made a single Meghan post since the BLM protests which could suggest she won’t really be involved on his show. And once his “fans” realise that, they’ll leave and he’ll be back to being a relatively obscure writer.

        Plus his Instagram and show is just “Family Guy: Royal Edition” which makes sense I guess because he’s a writer for Family Guy but it’s not going to be sustainable in the long term because a) royal watching is a niche and the amount of people who would watch/like the show is small and b) it’s a Family Guy copy so people who like that show will just stick to the original.

  9. teresa says:

    OMG, I cannot believe an editor allow someone to publish that!

  10. Snuffles says:

    By the way Brits, you can miss me with the “nappy” means diaper in the UK excuse. It doesn’t apply in this context AT ALL.

    From day 1 they have been demanding to see Archie not only because they want to monetize him, but because they want to see his skin color and hair texture. They want to see how much of his black DNA is on display.

    And I see the RRs are still on their crack crusade trying to convince themselves that Harry is miserable. When it’s patently obvious he couldn’t be happier and made sure the world knows it with his pointed comments on their podcast.

    The Firm and the RRs are still insisting the Sussex’s want to come back and that the royal family have any say. This dumb ass “reporter” even said out loud the family wants to clip Harry and Meghan’s wings.

    https://twitter.com/pagantrelawney/status/1344579026455818240?s=21

    🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

    You can’t make this shit up.

    • Britt says:

      I still think that reporter did that on purpose. He knows the reputation the RF have by the Crown, Diana and now Meghan. He knows that does not make them look good. His paper has been salty because Harry and Meghan have them on their banned list. These reporters are angry and ticked that nothing has brought the Sussexes to heel and the RF has not delivered them back. It’s clear that family is trying to buy time because the media is getting desperate and angrier by the day. It’s clear that there were promises that haven’t been fulfilled. They all backed the wrong horse and it’s only a matter of time before that media turns on them. This has nothing to do with Harry and Meghan anymore. This is a bigger problem between the RF and Rota.

      • Snuffles says:

        Agreed! I think William straight up lied to them saying that Harry and Meghan wanted an extension and that things were being negotiated. I can’t believe anyone bought it for a second.

        It’s gonna be UGLY when they realize they’ve been lied to.

        Harry is NEVER returning to the fold. The most they can hope for is Harry returning for the occasional event (like Diana’s statue unveiling or Philip’s 100th).

      • Ginger says:

        Didn’t a source for the Sussex’s tell the times that there will be no extension and they will be back for Phillips b day and the Diana statue but only if it is safe to travel?

        It’s known Harry didn’t even want the review. They have multi million deals for years. Why on earth would the press say Harry wants an extension? The RF clearly want to ride off Harry and Meghan’s success.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Snuffles- my thoughts on the “review”:

        1. Harry and Meg didn’t ask for it.
        2. BRF probably didn’t mention it to Harry and Meg.
        3. The idea was floated by the media and BRF to make the BRF look like they were still in control of H and M, and to tell Harry that he could still return to the fold if he left Meg and Archie and came crawling back.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        It’s also the government using the Royals to distract from Brexit and such. The train tour was likely Boris Johnson’s idea. I don’t think W&K came up with it on their own. It’s pretty clear that Sturgeon was also using them because she was caught breaking protocols very shortly after. They use the BRF as a shield fairly often.

    • Seraphina says:

      Snuffles, AGREED!!!!

    • Nic919 says:

      For a second I thought “why are they talking about Archie and diapers?” But yeah this has an obvious double meaning and they know what they are doing here. There are a ton of people who will try to defend this garbage. It’s the Sun and they have gone full racist before so they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt here.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I saw that video clip. Russell Myers said exactly what is being said by the courtiers. Harry and Meghan’s popularity is a threat to the Royal Family. They’ve done all they could to undermine them and further damage their reputation with the hope that Harry and Meghan would fail and come crawling back to the UK. The extension talk comes from the palace and it’s another attempt to undermine them. I believe that the Royal Family is trying to get Harry to re-join the family by using his military ties and it’s starting to look like the Palace are now open to half in/half out as they have now realised that they have no control over Harry and Meghan if they remain non-working royals.

      • Britt says:

        I also think the media have been threatening them behind the scenes. The media is desperate to get Harry and Meghan back. These people realize they have lost and aren’t gaining anything with the bores they’re left with. Both of these entities are stuck and have no idea what to do next.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Britt. Definitely, the last two weeks are clear indications that the Royal Family is under-pressure from the press. The train tour, the new firm pictures and the pantoland red carpet appearance were done because Christmas at Sandringham was cancelled and this new talk about an one year review extension is to pacify the press who are now realising that Harry and Meghan are not coming back. The press have no information on the Sussexes and are now forced watch on the sidelines while news about them breaks in US publications. You can see why the British press is pissed off and are probably behind scenes urging the Royal Family to find away to get Harry and Meghan back in the fold.

      • Lorelei says:

        Wow, even Russell Myers said that??

        Re: the extension — imo it’s complete bullish!t but they need to write *something* about the Sussexes to keep the clicks coming, and since the trial was postponed, this is all they’ve got. They’re making it into a way bigger deal than it actually is.

    • Mina says:

      I’m sorry but I come originally from the Balkans and English is my third language. And I KNOW what nappy’s second meaning is. Isn’t this part of the problem? The fact that POC are obviously discriminated and you can only fight this with information. What have you even tried to learn about other people’s ( living next door to you) culture if you don’t even know what are the words that could be offensive to them? I didn’t know about the second meaning as justification is equally bad. How much are you willing to actively learn so you don’t hurt people even without a bad intention? Obviously, not much.

      • Dee Kay says:

        @Mina, THANK YOU.

        When minority ppl say they are offended by a term/phrase/word, please believe them, look up the word if you don’t know it, and try to develop some comprehension of the history of the racist term. Don’t just brush off ppl’s lived experiences w racism by saying, Oh that person wasn’t being racist.!!!!

      • 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Excellent Mina. Well said. I couldn’t agree more.

      • Haapa says:

        Thank you!! The people here saying, “I had no idea of the meaning,” are simply advertising their oblivous privilege. Why would you know what it means if it’s never been weaponized against you? That doesn’t excuse using the word!!!! You’re just telling us all that you have no POC friends nor do you care to learn about their lived experiences. FFS. STOP DEFENDING THIS ABHORRENT BEHAVIOUR.

    • PrincessK says:

      @Snuffles….what you say is true. They only want to see Archie’s face to comment on signs of ‘blackness’.

  11. Amy Bee says:

    Harry and Meghan were the first in the family to talk about COVID-19 and they were the first to publicise the clap for carers campaign on their instagram. Furthermore, I think it’s clear the Royal Family tried to make it difficult for Harry in the Army by using their influence to prevent him from being deployed to Iraq and he had to fight to get deployed to Afghanistan. The leak that he was in Afghanistan probably came from Clarence House and it’s likely that he was only allowed to do the Invictus Games if he promised to leave the Army the following year. We all know that he was forced to resign from the Army and the palace has been trying to undermine his reputation with the military this entire year. So Hugo Vickers is talking a load of nonsense.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Harry wasn’t allowed to go to Iraq because public opinion had turned against the war. He alluded to it in an interview. He didn’t have to fight to go to Afghanistan the first time, but he did the second. The second time he went, his base was attacked specifically because he was there. It was a complete disaster. So, he was never going to be deployed again. He tried a few different desk jobs before he decided to leave. He didn’t want to be behind a desk for the rest of his career. He wasn’t forced out. He just knew he could do more good if he wasn’t stuck behind a desk. His family wasn’t happy about the decision at all. They wanted him to have a long military career. It’s easy good PR for the firm. He was allowed to do the Invictus Games mainly to clean up the PR around his second tour. The attack on the base was a huge hit to not only him, but the government as well. It was the US side that was attacked. So, we weren’t happy with the government allowing him to go. Not to mention Vegas had happened just before he went. No one really remembers those things now when they think of Harry and the military.

  12. TeamAwesome says:

    How on earth is filming a segment clapping with the Cambridges better outreach than handing out meals on wheels, and bags and boxes of supplies for kids and families in need, and just straight up giving money like the Sussexes? Clap for carers didn’t mean shit when you joke about Covid, hide that you HAD Covid, and then commence a “tour” on the Covid Choo Choo!!

    And yes, a nappy is a diaper, but there’s only one reason to use that headline next to a picture of Archie and the Duchess IN AFRICA. Bunch of mean girl racist trash.

    • Ann says:

      I’m American but my husband was born in a Commonwealth country and I learned the term “nappy” (as in diaper) from him. So my first thought when I saw that headline was “what a deeply unfunny joke.” Then the other inference hit me. Good Lord!!!!

    • Lorelei says:

      @TeamAwesome: because they’re white and were standing on British soil (so “duty!!”) when they did their little wave. That’s it. That’s how small-minded people like these think.

    • Nic919 says:

      Meanwhile the London hospitals are running in disaster mode. Their super spreading clapping tour did sweet eff all but provide more mixed messages about being out in public and created more patients for the NHS.

  13. Seraphina says:

    I find it too coincidental. Too scared to show themselves for what they are and so they hide behind words that have double meaning.

  14. Sofia says:

    I live in the UK. Wanted to get that out of the way before some people try to “UKsplain” me how and what certain words mean.

    Now nappy does mean diaper in the UK but because this the Scum, I would not put it past them to use “nappy” in a derogatory way (like others have described above)

    • Belli says:

      Also from the UK and they’re 100% just giving themselves plausible deniability.

      They’re dogwhistling while giving themselves the out of going “Well I didn’t know it meant that in America, in Britain it means something different and innocent!”

      But trust me. They know and it’s intentional.

    • Lanie says:

      UKsplain is the perfect word. It’s like when people in various European countries try to explain away/claim there is no racism, but when you talk to the black people living in those countries, they tell the reality.

      I have a low opinion of people making excuses. They know what nappy is in relation to black people. They’re just playing dumb. Like when white people in the US pretend they don’t know blackface is offensive. Even when their great great great grandpappy is Al Jolson or DW Griffith.

      • Lorelei says:

        IMO it’s obvious that even in the UK, they know full well what’s offensive; they knew exactly what they were doing with the “Straight Outta Compton” article, so why would anyone assume that all of a sudden they don’t know what an American slur is, even if it’s not commonly used in the UK?

  15. MerryGirl says:

    ‘Niggling’, ‘Nappy, ‘Compton’, ‘Exotic DNA’…it’s all the same racist UK talking points and belief that people of colour are not welcome in UK and especially not in the Q-white Royal Family. Nothing will change in that Tory island so thank God, Harry & Meghan left and took their adorable son out of that racist, classist and ugly shithole.

    • Amy Too says:

      “Harry has gone to the Dark Side,” picture of a chimpanzee to represent Archie being brought home from the hospital, articles about Meghan’s “dreadlocked” mother supposedly going to the laundromat, “Harry in the hood,” they described Meghan as being only X-generations removed from slavery, after Meghan left and all the senior RF women wore white to an event the headline was: “ALL WHITE.” There is an obvious pattern here.

      • Amy Too says:

        I went back and read some of the older headlines too to add to the list. “Dirt poor in the Deep South on her mother’s side,” “wrong side of the tracks,” “here’s a list of all the gang related crimes that have taken place around Doria’s house,” “from cotton slaves to Princess in just X years,” Meghan’s “VERY unroyal” family will certainly “liven up royal Christmases,” “the type of woman who would have only been a mistress 60 years ago,” lots of stuff about her “unconventional family.” But sure, nappy is just an accident and it’s a coincidence that is has a racist meaning.

  16. Shoo fly says:

    It’s the perfect British tabloid headline, where they can pretend that Britain is somehow above racism. Yet The Sun covered the firing and death of Don Imus last year and his “racist comments” about the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team. The infamous comment called the team “nappy headed” among other things. So, spare me. I am sick of the UK press’ alleged inabilities to look through their own archives or achieve a modicum of editing. Catching this is an editor’s job.

    • Nic919 says:

      Good to know they covered the Don Imus story because there is no excuse to pretend they don’t know what this word means.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Don’t forget that the Sun is the sister paper to the NY Post and regularly share stories, so there’s no way that the editor of Sun didn’t know what he was doing.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Dim Online new EXACYLY what is was doing and it was done on purpose.

    • Tessa says:

      Imus was suspended (I don’t recall if he was fired from the station and then was hired by another later) he went for counseling and he publicly apologized to black leaders and met with them. This was a VERY VERY serious matter.

  17. Jessica says:

    The point of a dog whistle is the plausible deniability that comes with it. Something to consider before rushing to point out the double meaning of the term “nappy”. The double meaning is the point, the same reason “niggling” was deliberately chosen. It’s called a dog whistle because the intended audience can immediately glean the meaning (just as a dog can hear the whistle), even if many others cannot.

    Interesting how the pic was cropped to only include Meghan and Archie. HmmmT.

    (This reminded me of when Don Imus was fired from MSNBC years ago because he referred to Black women basketball players as “nappy-headed hoes”. He tried to say he was “joking,” but he was shitcanned with immediate effect. It wasn’t just the misogyny in “hoes” that people caught, it was the racism in “nappy-headed”.

    EDIT: I see the person who commented above me remembers this too, sorry didn’t mean to disregard your comment!)

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I am so glad that Imus was shit-canned because it gave us Mika & Joe on the replacement show “Morning Joe”.

      FYI: “Joe” is also Yank slang for coffee. Morning Joe = Morning Coffee or Cuppa Joe = Cuppa of Coffee. Joe Scarborough has said this himself and also said that it was just an added bonus that his name is also “Joe”

  18. ABritGuest says:

    I would think it’s just the sun doing usual ‘clever’ play on words ‘nappy’ (what brits use for diaper) instead of ‘happy’ because of hearing little Archie speak. But knowing Brit tabloids are the king of dog whistling, the grudge they have against the Sussexes, cutting Harry out of the picture, and the black footballer Marcus Rashford next to the headline: I would lean to this being deliberate & evoking ‘nappy’ as the derogatory way to refer to Afro hair.

    As for Vickers’ comment, if having two charities, helped establish mental health training for the U.K. army, setting up a production company and a non profit that’s just announced it will fund four relief centres in disaster areas= pointless existence then sign me up!

    • sunny says:

      Also it was a picture of Meghan and Archie from the Africa trip. I mean, this is not a coincidence.

      It is just awful.

      • Harper says:

        Exactly. It is an old picture that has nothing to do with closing out 2020. Would they think to grab an old shot of George, Charlotte or Louis for this headline?

      • Lorelei says:

        I realize I keep asking this, but so far no one has answered— but if they did indeed mean “diaper” (which, again, they did not), what about that is worthy of being printed? It’s not cute, or witty, it’s just stupid and rude at best. Can anyone explain the joke? What did they think the reaction of their readership would be?

  19. Noki says:

    I knew they have lost the plot and have no boundaries when there was a state dinner and Meghan was absent. All the female senior royals wore white and the headline was ALL WHITE,so shameless and hateful.

  20. Shoo fly says:

    I’ll note too this brings to to something I’m generally uncomfortable with with the British press – they take Americanism (and I would assume other countries’s isms) in people’s DIRECT QUOTES and change them to Britishisms. Our press doesn’t do the same. No British celebrities’ talk of “mum” becomes “mom.” But American celebrities in the UK tabloids suddenly say “mum” and “going from strength to strength” and they’re not saying those phrases; Americans don’t use them, at all. It’s uncomfortable and bizarre. It really goes to the fact they have no relationship with the truth. Just like how they steal quotes from other papers and then claim the person spoke to them. It doesn’t happen in America, I think because the papers see themselves as competitors and relish the mistakes and fall of their other competitors rather than see them as all parts of the same cabal of lies

  21. equality says:

    IF they thought they were using it in a reference to diapers that is still no excuse. It just exposes yet again, ignorance and xenophobia. It is extremely simple to search word meanings on line and find out if there are any negative connotations to anything and they should have editors and fact-checkers capable of doing things of that sort. On a simple search, I found out that in Scotland the term is used to mean liquor (which I didn’t previously know). This is a global world now and the BM needs to realize that.
    And he found it so wonderful that W&K clapped for the NHS? Fergie (another ex-working royal) did far more from the start of the pandemic. She was organizing companies to donate food and personal care items to front line workers throughout. That was far more useful than W&K clapping or even their big one-time splashy toy giveaway.
    It also is like the idiot doesn’t realize there is a pandemic. Of course, everybody is isolated, wherever they are. Excuse H&M for not doing the equivalent of the Covid train tour and hopping on a plane to visit friends and family.

  22. Mar says:

    This makes me want o call the magazine my damn self and tell them to go to hell.

  23. Jane Doe says:

    It was intentional, it wasn’t a mistake. They know exactly what they were doing with that headline. It is very racist.

  24. Shoo fly says:

    And one more thing – the majority of the Daily Mail’s online traffic comes from the United States. The Sun undoubtedly would like the same. This was absolutely deliberate and designed to appeal to the same audience.

  25. kelleybelle says:

    OMG, again? Lest we forget how much their house cost? Remind us again! F*ck them. William and the RRs obviously still have a knot in their collective faces. Let’s show the world exactly how idiotic, jealous and petty you are. Keep it up.

    • equality says:

      Really. Let’s report how much Anmer Hall is worth and Gatcombe Park. But, of course, royalists say the recipients “work” for those. Because, you know, in the real world somebody who works the hours the royals “work” would be worth millions also.

      • kelleybelle says:

        Naturally, because you know, “Kate and William do twice the work now that Harry and Meghan have left!” Yes, someone actually spoke those words. Ever notice how no one squawks for Andrew to lose his title after the mess he’s made of things?

  26. OriginalLala says:

    Holy crap – that is insane! Way to fly the racist flag proudly. This is disgusting.

  27. Snuffles says:

    @ginger Yes, they told the Telegraph but that fact isn’t getting around enough because the tabloids are running with this “extension” story.

    If they keep pushing this false narrative, Harry might need to put out a more official statement.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I’m hoping Harry makes a public announcement early in the new year that they won’t be returning as working royals because if he doesn’t, for the next three months, the press is going to pushing this extension narrative and in the end will turn it into the Palace punishes Harry and Meghan and rejects their request for an extension when the real story will be that Harry and Meghan don’t want to return. I suspect that Harry may have already told the Palace that they don’t intend to return as working royals.

  28. Rapunzel says:

    This wasn’t self-exile. Harry and Meghan wanted to stay!! They offered to be part time, and remain partially under the family’s thumb and in England.

    It was Petty Betty who said “nope.” The Sussexes were exiled by GanGan. She left them no choice.

  29. Linda says:

    I am going to write to the newspaper and voice my objection to the double entendre headline. Bitching about it in a celebrity gossip site has little impact. Also boycotting the clickbait or not reading the articles at all will be helpful. There are literally millions of people that like the Sussexes. Stop feeding the media trolls. The only thing that will stop this is when they no longer have readers of their garbage.

    • equality says:

      I usually block the outlet on any page, like Yahoo, that links to hateful stories about M&H. You can also report on SM if somebody posts the headline. I’m not sure how much good either does. I hope that Twitter will get tired of certain people being reported and take better action.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Linda I think that’s exactly the reason a lot of us are on this site to begin with — we want to be able to discuss these things without giving them any clicks.

      Kaiser gets the story and then hundreds of us can read it here so the Sun or the Fail or whatever doesn’t get tons of clicks so they can profit from people like us. This is a site designed to generate comments; we’re not “bitching.”

      Also, the fact that we’re talking about it here doesn’t preclude us all from taking other actions, just like you are.

  30. CN says:

    The use of the word “nappy” here is for sure a dog-whistle and it is quite disturbing that they would do this concerning a baby. It’s really disappointing and I’m glad that Harry and Meghan left.

    I’d like to point out that the use of the phrase “African backwater” is not great either for similar reasons.

    • Kaiser says:

      Prince William literally wanted to send the Sussexes to an African country so the Sussexes would get less attention. I did not say Africa was a backwater, or all African countries were backwaters.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      That was the plan for H/M and in the minds of those planning to exile H/M to “Africa” the intention was that “Africa” is a backwater where no one would hear from them again. This site has discussed this at length at the time and the writer was just alluding to that in this post, not calling Africa a backwater. I hope that help.

  31. Linney says:

    This is so disgusting. I find it incredibly hard to believe no one at this publication knew this is a racist dog whistle. As an American, I have been listening to this garbage for the past few years and no one is fooled by the double speak, gestures, etc. . Can you imagine if The Sun used a similarly derogatory headline about Kate? We’d get the “incandescent with rage” and “how dare they” and “stop being mean to the poor girl” etc. On the other hand, we know that members of the royal family threw fits over stories about William’s alleged affair and Kate’s hair extensions, etc. The Windsor “Never Complain Never Explain” motto doesn’t come into play there.

    • Lorelei says:

      Kate’s fans literally try to argue that her being called “Waity Katie” is equally as offensive as everything that’s been said about Meghan in the press. People like that will never be able to be won over by facts or logic; they see what they want to see and stick to it.

  32. Jane Doe says:

    The individuals who are asking people to explain the connotation and those that are denying the intent of the connotation-please consider that you are asking some of the Black commentators to PROVE and JUSTIFY why this is a racist term, when they KNOW it is, from their own experiences of being harmed. That is hurtful.

    • lanne says:

      Exactly. If you don’t know what it means, google it. Stop expecting POC to do your work for you. It’s a big deal because it’s an American slur, and Meghan is American. It would be different if it were an obscure reference, but it isn’t. Here’s another example: isn’t a Fanny a reference to a woman’s privates in the UK? In the US, it’s a pretty innocuous word for rear end. Imagine a US paper putting Kate on the cover with Williams hand on her lower back with the headline: Prince William puts his hand near his wife’s Fanny. It would be a diplomatic incident. Yes, people in the US don’t necessarily know what Fanny means in the UK, but editors of international newspapers sure do. Heads would roll. No one would claim ignorance because it’s your damn job to do due diligence. You don’t smear an American with an American slur, then feign ignorance.

      • Pink says:

        Not everyone can be expected to know different cultural terms around the world, how ridiculous of you go have a go at people like that. I knew what it meant but not everyone does, leave it out.

      • Amy Too says:

        Pink, come on. She is literally not saying that all. She is saying that it is understandable that not everyone will know all meanings of every word, but that at least one of the many writers/editors whose literal job is words should know when a word has an internationally known racist connotation. But if you, a random reader, come to a post about how the Sun wrote a racist headline with the word “nappy” in it, and you don’t understand how or why “nappy” is racist, maybe you should Google it and try to educate yourself rather than jump in with “Explain to me how this is racist because I don’t think it is.” That’s asking people who are already hurt by being the target of the racism, to justify to someone who is privileged enough to not even be aware of this type of racism, why they are hurt and offended by the racism. So if an entire article has been written about how the headline is racist and 200+ commenters are saying that they are shocked at the blatant racism, maybe you shouldn’t come in with “But since I personally didn’t know this was racist, I don’t think it can be racist, and I need people to convince me that it is racist.” The thread then goes from being a sort of support thread for the people who were hurt by the racist language to a “we all need to stop and take time and energy to dredge up our painful shared and personal histories in an attempt to try to 1) explain this racist trope and the concept of dog whistle racism, 2) convincingly argue why this dog whistle has been used on purpose to be racist, and 3) justify why that racism is harmful, to a naive white woman who will never experience racism in her life and for whom this is all just an ‘interesting’ cultural debate that has absolutely zero bearing on her life or well-being.”

    • Green Desert says:

      This all day, Jane Doe. I can’t begin to explain how exhausting it is to have to try to talk people into believing racism. Those on here who are so f*cking confused about it…you know that phone glued to your hand all day? GOOGLE.

    • Sofia says:

      Agreed. I understand the initial confusion but if you’re trying to justify it after numerous people have explained it’s a racist term, you’re not being innocently misinformed but dangerously ignorant.

  33. Coco says:

    Is it midnight yet? Can 2020 end already?

  34. Cat says:

    That’s the best they got? Fvck them! Thirsty little b!tches. We’ve had worse things tossed at us as a people and if they aren’t even going to attempt to hide their robes I can’t say I can muster the effort to feign shock.

    • Seraphina says:

      Sad isn’t it, that they best they have is to go low and make discriminatory remarks in regards to a baby. Meghan is too good for England and so is Archie and Harry.

      • Laugh or Cry says:

        @Seraphhina, they know know they cannot “break” her, so these CHILD ABUSERS abuse their baby. A baby. They will not even dignify Archie has a whole entire father who loves/cares/ protects wife and son.

      • Tessa says:

        I notice that the Social media comments of the Queen “having custody” of the great grandchildren” is being repeated. This seems to apply just to Archie by those who bash Meghan.

  35. lanne says:

    This is vile. Comparing Archie to a chimpanzee, nappy new year, niggling doubts. God I hate the British media. They know damn well what they are doing. Just come out with it already. Tell the world that you hate Meghan and Archie because they have African ancestry. I would have more respect for them if they just came out and said it. All the BM has done this year is confirm that the Sussexes made the right decision. What’s to go back for? It’s like an abusive spouse begging his victim, who has moved on to a new life and a new relationship, to come crawling back. The world media needs to talk about this in terms of abuse, because that’s what it is. The BM and the RF are the abusers, following the playbook exactly. No one in the legit media will say it bc they fear not getting their CBE or OBE or whatever ( I think that’s what’s keeping Brit public figures silent). But the American and commonwealth media need to start saying it because it’s true.

    • Laugh or Cry says:

      Yes, it is abuse and by their silence they are in agreement. I say this as a WOC, they view them as runaway “property “bring them back at whatever the cost. They cannot be allow to be free let alone thrive.

  36. Isa says:

    This reference to hair isn’t just a US thing, it’s spread throughout the former British empire. So, a British newspaper should absolutely know better.

    This is The Sun, people. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt. This gross tabloid absolutely meant to degrade Meghan racially. The British gutter press trades in racial hatred, sexual oppression, and disgusting or horrifying stories like animal sexual abuse. They just want to titillate their readers. They don’t care about news in any honorable or high-minded sense. They’re criminals who’ve lost court cases for their tactics.

    • Islandgirl says:

      Isa…agreed. Not from the US….
      am from the Commonwealth and I saw the headline and the first thing that came to mind was the “hair” connotation.
      Does the UK have any kind of journalism standards- that journalists are supposed to adhere to. I feel like I am using the word journalist here quite loosely.

  37. Prof Trelawney says:

    A bit OT but I just noticed for the first time how his jacket lining matches her green dress. I love that, says it all in a way, how much he supports her, wants her to shine, isn’t intimidated by that…

    I feel too like since she came into his life, he’s finally seen the truth of who his family really is, who the whole BRF and the RR really are, and the scapegoating role he was intended to play in support of it. And now he’s over it. I’m sure it still stings at times, but I don’t think it confuses him anymore. When dealing w toxic abusive narcissists like the BRF, best to do just what M&H are doing and not engage.

    I think of Maya Angelou, “Still I rise…” I’m actually excited to see what all H&M do with their freedom, I find it all inspiring. And with all of the new, much more interesting, much better allies they’re surrounding themselves with too.

  38. Amy Too says:

    “Harry was getting so much out of being a royal: the army and Invictus.” Neither of those things are connected to his being in the BRF. Anyone can be in the army. Invictus was made to purposely be OUTSIDE of his “royal work” so that it could never be taken away from him, he would never have to fight for royal or Duchy funding for it, and so that none of the royals could tell him to skip it, or minimize it, or horn in on it, or take it away from him in order to embiggen William.

  39. Rapunzel says:

    Brief PSA-
    1. Just because you aren’t aware of the racist connotations of a word, doesn’t mean others are ignorant of these connotations too.

    2. Just because you aren’t aware of the racist connotations of a word, doesn’t mean it’s not racist.

    3. Just because you aren’t aware of the racist connotations of a word, doesn’t mean you have the right to tell others they shouldn’t be offended.

    4. Just because you aren’t aware of the racist connotations of a word, doesn’t mean it’s not a dog whistle. You not hearing the racism is actually proof that it is a dog whistle, cause that’s the point of them.

    5. Just because you aren’t aware of the racist connotations of a word, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect better of a global publication.

    • Lanie says:

      Yes to all of this.

    • Sofia says:

      6. Just because you aren’t aware of the racist connotations of a word, doesn’t mean it’s not racist anywhere else in the world

    • S808 says:

      PERIOD.

    • Green Desert says:

      Word.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Yeah this.

    • February-Pisces says:

      Yes. It’s their way of ‘saying it’ without ‘saying it’. Racists want their racism to live and breathe yet they themselves don’t want to be accused of actually being racist. That’s why most of them always say “what racism?”, “playing the race card”, and “I don’t see any racism”. If you accidentally used an offensive slur without realising wouldn’t you be apologetic or explain that you made a mistake? Will the Sun do that? NO. Did Eamon Holmes do that when he was called out for using the word ‘uppity’? No, he said if people think it’s racist than that was their problem, or something to that effect.

    • PrincessK says:

      Very true.

  40. Kalana says:

    OMG to that headline.

    Tell me again why the Sussexes should have put a clear picture of Archie out in their Christmas card.

    And tell me again how the white duchess Kate had it just as bad. Kate with her art history degree who displayed a racist painting when hosting the Obamas.

    Racism is a cancer.

    • Lanie says:

      And it’s never accidental.

      • Kalana says:

        Right! Why are lay people comparing their experience to people who do this for a living? How willfully naive can you get or how underhanded can you be about gaslighting people?

    • Nic919 says:

      All they did was block the name plate too. They have a ton of servants that could have replaced the painting with one that didn’t have a slave boy in it. I bet it’s still there with the name plate uncovered.

  41. aquarius64 says:

    What is the reaction on SM? Any one dragged?

  42. Snuffles says:

    Archwell just launched!! Yeah, ain’t no way they are returning!!

  43. S808 says:

    I’m so glad she’s out of the UK. This kinda shit doesn’t hit nearly as hard since she doesn’t take up residence there anymore. Compared to the US/global news, this shit from the UK is background noise. They’ll always be mad that the half black American had the nerve to not only occupy such a prestigious(to them) all white space, outdo everyone in it and then reject it cause be she knows her worth. They will never forgive her for that. They’ll never forgive her for not being less so they can feel better about their mediocrity. Doesn’t matter though. They’re no longer in the drivers seat, or even the car for that matter. They’re being completely drowned out.

    • Nyro says:

      All of this! She’s greater than they could ever be and they all know it. And they can’t stand that she’s a confident and smart woman who knew her worth and left instead of taking the abuse and groveling for their approval. They’re pissed that unlike dimwitted and talentless Doormat and Fergie, she had options, greater options than wearing a stolen jewels and cutting ribbons. They’re pissed that unlike Diana, she wasn’t a trapped 19 year old with not a soul in her corner against the establishment. Meghan beat their sorry asses at their sorry ass game designed to ruin her and they’ll never get over it. She and Harry are free and in total control of their lives and there’s not a damn thing the royal family and the British establishment can do about it.

      • booboocita says:

        That’s the aspect I love the most about Sussexit. Neither Meghan nor Harry are now condemned to a lifetime of ribbon cutting, plaque presenting, balcony waving, and chutney making. They’re doing real good, and making real good.

    • TJ says:

      Exactly this! It angers them that even though they consider her inferior due to her skin colour, she still knows her worth. She rejected everything the white duchess worked so hard ( lol) and gave up every ounce of her dignity and self worth for. They hate her for that. That she’s not the gold-digger who is desperate for riches and prestige; they hate that the white duchess isn’t Meghan. If Meghan was white, trust, there would be absolutely no issue with anything, in fact it would’ve been the opposite. But because she’s not white and her work ethic and overall personality makes the white duchess look bad and just plain mediocre, it’s a problem. Harry and Meghan will continue to thrive not just survive; as for will and Kate; it’s sure as hell not going to be pretty when the media turns on them. It’s just a matter of time.

  44. Carrie says:

    Any person who is a reader and has even average general knowledge would know that nappy has two meanings.
    Incredibly mediocre British media resorting to the only tool they are honed in using. Racism.

  45. MM2 says:

    I’m reading some of these comments & thinking “damn, the abusive narcissists in your life must love you!”
    Some people’s sudden reaction to defend racism in others (rather than pause, think & educate themselves) is mind boggling, and incredibly sad.

  46. Maliksmama says:

    The BRF is playing the short game. They’re in cahoots with the British media to make sure enough is being done to make sure H&M never return. And not realizing this hurts them in the long term. They’ll see the results of their campaign within the next five to ten years. The Cambridge kids won’t be enough to save the institution.

  47. Green Desert says:

    This is beyond disgusting, infuriating, and yes, racist. The BRF will refute media claims that Kate has had Botox and extensions, but radio silence on something like this that is actually damaging to a person. The only appropriate thing to do is for the queen, Charles, and William to release a joint statement condemning this continued abuse against Meghan and Archie. But I won’t hold my breath.

  48. Molly says:

    As crazy as things are in the USA at this moment the Brits have somehow surpassed our crazy and have gone far beyond. Who knew that racism was allowed to thrive in the UK and go unchecked.

  49. Carine says:

    This was on Forbes 20 notables things in 2020. I’m so happy others media are speaking about the hate British’s media are creating around Megan.

    “Members of the Royal Family aren’t really supposed to do anything, beyond existing as a ceremonial celebration of unearned wealth and privilege; hence, when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced they were leaving Britain to forge new careers, royalists lost their minds.
    The British tabloids collectively decided to place the blame on Markle, crafting breathless accounts of the imagined power imbalance between her and Prince Harry – much of it reads like fan fiction, but written by middle-aged newspaper columnists instead of horny tweens, and subsequently, far less interesting.”

  50. RoyalBlue says:

    Horrible! Just horrible. And to put her and her son on the front page while printing that? Which other child in recent memory have they done this to? There is no ethics anymore, and this is not being called out by the other media?

    Arbiter sounds like an ass as usual. They wanted Harry to fall in line and walk always one step behind his brother. If his brother claps, that is the signal for him to speak. Not one second before and not doing something with his wife after.

  51. CS says:

    This is disgusting on every level.

  52. Watson says:

    This just rammed home why the Sussex’s left and why their goal is to have archewell be compassion in action. Their new website statement is fantastic. The Scum can eat their dust!

  53. Gail says:

    Speaking as a black woman , I saw this headline that Kaiser posted and was immediately pissed to the point of shaking. I am so f———-ing angry right now . No, you don’t get to continue this cunty behavior towards Meghan and her son in 2021. Yet the monarchy, Harry family continues to say absolutely nothing. Well on behalf of a fellow nappy, the British media, British royalist and British monarchy can all go and f themselves.

    • Alibeebee says:

      I’m with you sis! this was a punch in the gut. the sick rotten core is on full display. poor Meghan and Archie! and Harry ! I have always know as a black person what nappy meant .

    • Gingerbee says:

      Amen Gail, and yet people on this thread are making excuses for those racist rotten rodents SMFH🤦🏽‍♀️

  54. February-Pisces says:

    It’s absolutely disgusting. It’s passive aggressive racism but in the most obvious way. Racists, haters and trolls will say “what racism?” Or “it’s not racist, nappy is because he’s a baby” but we know exactly what they were saying, the same way that eamon Holmes knew what he was saying when he called her “uppity” on national tv. They are so desperate to call her the N-word.

  55. Mignionette says:

    This is essentially the same modus operandii as the Eamon Holmes “uppity” quip.

    Basically these papers have cultural advisors to ensure they don’t make these mistakes. But this WAS deliberate and supposed to start a race row and to bait Meghan.

    This is coded but very blatant racism all at once. A bit like when someone is being bullied in the presence of others but the others do not know what is going on.

    They have done this bc most Brits (90%) will see it as benign and then the uproar will go against Meghan and she will be called overly-sensitive. This is gas-lighting 101 in public.

    They hate this woman bc she wouldn’t bow to them or give them access. She will continue to make a lot of money and sue the shit out of them and there will never be any love lost. Meghan and Harry have worked that out and have just decided to live their lives.

    Now we know why they chose ‘Stand by me”. They saw all of this shit coming.

    • Southern Fried says:

      I keep thinking they probably suffered all kinds of racist abuse from the Royals that we don’t even know about. Guessing it started day one. They should never let their darling son set foot on British soil ever again and I’m serious as a heart attack. Harry’s own family won’t speak up, they are all racist trash. None of his ‘friends’ even speak out. And screw his nasty cousins, racist grifters all of them. I’ll never pretend any of them are worthwhile.

      • Mignionette says:

        I think they definitely have.

        One thing that always struck me was that Bill and Katie did not expect Harry to ever marry Meg.

        I say this bc Meghan was not invited to Pippa’s wedding as a plus one. Instead she was invited to the evening shindig. I believe they paid back the favour by inviting the Midds to the wedding and wedding breakfast but not the reception.

        I am sure that Kate (and WIllima) would have selfishly perceived that as a slight.

        I think we all know now that Meghan was never really welcome. That family sickens me. They are not fit to rule the country with these sort of attitudes in 2020.

        I notice the NY’s honours list is chock full of brown faces in 2020. They know that people regard them as racist. Anyway they chose a hill so they can just die on it for all I am concerned.

      • Lorelei says:

        Truly. Considering how horrendous everything we know about is, I can’t begin to imagine what went on behind closed doors.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Am British and agree that most Brits won’t know of the racist meaning of the term ‘nappy’ (in addition to what we know its meaning to be) – I will admit that I did not know that it was used as a derogatory term about afro hair and I have found this whole post/thread educational. I love this site because of how educational it is, and how intelligent and informed the other commenters are.

      Happy new year fellow celebitches and I look forward to more intelligent and informative conversation with you all in 2021.

      The BM has always been racist and classist – thats why I don’t look to them for my news. The internet has pretty much made those ‘journalist’ irrelevant anyways – this and Brexit has made me ashamed to be British.

      Am off to the internet bar – anyone want to join me?

  56. LOLikes says:

    What if an American newspaper referred to the Kambridges youngest as “Prince LOO-ie.” It might go over some Americans’ heads but I’m sure the Royals might take offence. And the American media could excuse it as a typo, misspelling etc. But as an African-American female I was immediately offended by the “nappy” new year and I got the message. BM to Meghan: “Yeah we’re racist and don’t you forget it. You were never accepted and we will never accept you or baby Archie!”

  57. kerwood says:

    I was born in England and sometimes I use the word ‘nappy’ instead of diaper but most of the time I say ‘diaper’. I’ve also used the word ‘nappy’ when I’m talking about Black hair.

    This dog-whistle can be heard at the North Pole. I don’t believe for a single minute that the people at this newspaper don’t know the double meaning of the word ‘nappy’. And for all the folks who claim that the headline is referring to ‘diapers’, I have to ask ‘THEN WHERE IS ARCHIE’S DIAPER?’? He’s fully dressed. You can’t see his nappy, diaper or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

    There’s no way an American newspaper would ever DREAM of putting out a headline like this. Britain. It’s a shame ‘Great’ Britain has sunk so low. They DESERVE the monarch they have.

  58. TheOriginalMia says:

    So happy Meghan, Harry & Archie are away from these racists.

  59. Mamasan says:

    Harry and Meghan keep moving forward…and let the bitches keep grumbling. Thank heavens they got out when they did.

  60. The Recluse says:

    I suspect that Harry is so much busier than William, so much so that he doesn’t have time for this foolishness that encouraged him to take his family and leave in the first place. We’re glad to have him and his civic minded activism here – where it’s appreciated.

  61. bettyrose says:

    This has been such an interesting thread to read. I think for Americans, who don’t call diapers “nappies” and only have that one awful association within the word, the headline is really shocking. For all the cultures who don’t know that association, or who have multiple associations with the word, it wasn’t as easy to detect. But Meghan is American and this publication – even if not American – knew *exactly* what it was doing. Most posters here aren’t professional journalists, but we all know to choose our words carefully for sensitive subjects, so there’s no making excuses for a professional publication.

    • Lorelei says:

      @BettyRose I agree with everything that you said. The commenters here are so smart and I also end up learning so many new things from fellow CBs.

      And as far as this debacle goes, there is absolutely no way this wasn’t done purposefully. It’s racist and vile and I can’t understand why anyone is trying to defend it, especially considering the source.

  62. L4frimaire says:

    The British press really won’t stop with their BS. They really are the worst.They blatantly lie, are so obvious with their racism, and think they are doing something good. Pure toxicity.It really is disgusting this vendetta they have. I think that experience in the UK and the viciousness of the press toward Meghan has left deep scars and it will take a long time to recover from that.

  63. One of the Marys says:

    I know this was aimed at Meghan but I do feel for Harry, he must be raging and heart broken at how his family and country are treating his wife and child. I’d be sorely tempted to never bring Archie to England. But living well is the best revenge so my hope for them is they keep looking and moving forward.

    • bettyrose says:

      Truth. Being female and American, I tend to relate more to Meghan, but no doubt it must be hard for Harry that he’s the reason she’s a media target in Britain. That he questions whether he fully prepared her for it. But in fairness to Harry, he knew what happened to his mom, he knew what was possible, but he didn’t know for certain how awful they’d be to Meghan. It was also possible they’d see in her what he sees in her and it would be okay. I doubt Meghan has regrets about marrying him, but I can see how he’d worry.

  64. Tigerlily says:

    Canadian here, biracial (Caucasian and Indigenous). The headline hit me like a hard smack to the head. Yes I’m aware that nappy is diaper in UK. However ‘diaper’ was furthest thing from my mind when I saw the headline. It takes a lot to shock me, especially in 2020, but OMFG. To anyone who has lingering doubt: yes it’s racist FFS.

  65. HK9 says:

    The Sun and those who run it are a POS. I’m glad they left.

  66. Kate says:

    I’m a white, 35 year old engineer living in the US. I haven’t read a book for pleasure in 15 years – not a brag – but I’m not someone who has a diverse knowledge of colloquial terms.

    I knew both definitions of “nappy”. I expect a professional journalist AND editor (and whoever else reviewed this) would without question.

    Further, this cover wasn’t directed at the general reader. It was directed at Meghan, Harry and Archie. And it is disgusting.

  67. The British media is so mad that it’s gone insane over the fact that Baby Archie is a star and more famous globally than all the Cambridge children combined. The launch of the Cambridge children’s first public speaking exposure at David Attenborough’s video documentary hardly created a ripple worldwide. With Archie’s first public speaking engagement he didn’t even have to show up and yet, by just his mere voice, the whole world has gone wild about the boy. And the British media don’t like this. That’s why they bully the innocent Archie and his family. Heartless and mean BM.

    • Amy Too says:

      And we haven’t even seen so much as a picture of Archie in nearly a year. Yet he is STILL more famous and bringing more joy than the literal (3rd) heir to the throne and his official Prince and Princess siblings. And he’s being included in a completely non-controversial way—not trotted out at a public event in the middle of a pandemic maskless so that the U.K. media can take video of him, not being used and photographed to promote a random friend of his parents’ documentary, not being dragged around to shake hands with strangers against his will and inclination. I just love that. Archie is literally front page news for the newspapers and yet the papers have to use a picture of him that’s over a year old! He’s like the frickin Wizard of Oz: he could stand behind a curtain his entire life and STILL be the most famous kid in that family.

  68. Jack says:

    Aidevee, I absolutely agree with you. I’ve been wandering on this planet for 50 years now and I too have never heard of the word nappy used in any other context than as something to cover a baby’s bottom.

    • TeaForTwo says:

      The fact that you don’t understand the racist doublespeak is NOT THE POINT. Over 250 comments, the majority of which explain the issue in great detail, and this is all you gleaned? You didn’t ‘get it,’ thus it’s not racist? JFC.

    • ennie says:

      I am not a native speaker, Actually, I live in an altogether different country. I have been learning English, both American and British for pleasure and for my work and I have long been knowledgeable of the term nappy for hair first, as One of the first books I ever read complete in English was The Color Purple, by Alice Walker.
      I read the article entry, and I opened the page and I could not believe my eyes at how despicable, disgusting this tabloid is.
      My husband like royalty, and we had been thinking of going to visit landmarks in the UK for a while, before covid, well, we’ll visit royalty landmarks in other countries first, when we can. Not the UK.

  69. Laugh or Cry says:

    I’m reading the comments from the end up, so someone may have mentioned this already. That tabloid paper is Cain’s mouthpiece right? I take this is coming from a wicked future ruler. They champion this vile man, well they are vile people but just like these Vichy republicans, that reprobate WILL turn on them well. We reap what we have sown, it is a spiritual law as well as a natural law. Truly grateful they have have their home base out of that toxicity. In their(BM/and extended family) craven minds, they want to bring them down a peg to steal their joy and success. And oh, for people who poo poo this isn’t racist comment away, you are just as racist and arguably worst than this disgusting lot.

  70. JRenee says:

    How vile and ignorant!
    What bottom feeding trash!

  71. Catherine says:

    Given that the SCUM led the way in analyzing Archie “American” accent. It’s impossible to believe that this is not deliberate. This passive aggressive plausible deny ability is so typical of British ways of communicating. Not to mention it typically considered gauche to refer to nappies. The Cambridge children have been been in the scene not one reference to nappies. They had to do something to try to taint the moment. To feed the trolls who thrived off the hatred. This is typical of the tabloids also. Like with the playhouse. One day it was a costly extravagant inappropriate gift then the next day it was cheap compared to other “celebrities” children’s playhouses. At this point I’m glad that the tabloids just keep showing their a***s.

  72. Lizzie says:

    I think this settles any fantasy that Harry intends to make some deal to return part time at the review. The silence from his family is deafening.

  73. Shannon says:

    I had to take a deep breath after “$14 million Californian mansion” and it just kept going downhill from there.

  74. blunt talker says:

    The powerful in this country who see this article confirms to them why Meghan and Harry left-Why would tabloid rag print such a disgusting headline about a mother and her child-Since they are so smart about language they know how the word nappy can be defined-Make no illusions about the British-Have they ever used this term towards Kate or any other royal family member-NO-They are really stupid people from prehistoric times-You just got Brexit and need to figure this out-Need to do a trade deal with the US-Covid is ravaging the country-They spend time making disgusting racist tropes at Meghan and her son-May God have mercy on their souls-EVIL TRULY LURKS IN THE HEARTS OF SOME PEOPLE-

  75. Lesley says:

    To make a complaint about something you’ve see in a British newspaper go to ipso.co.uk

    I’ll be making a complaint when I’m in a place with better internet connection.

    Not impressed Dan Wooten, not impressed at all.

  76. Pink says:

    I think you’re reading WAY too much into this. And disclaimer: I cannot STAND the Sun. However this is typical of the type of sh*tty puns they use for their headlines, there is such little wit and intellect that goes into them that I actually don’t think they’re deliberately referencing nappy hair. I think it’s typical Sun journo “hur dur he’s a baby and he said happy new year, happy rhymes with nappy” because that’s literally the level that Sun readers are at.

    If you honestly think your average Sun reader would read between the lines and think they’re referring to nappy hair you’re giving them WAY too much credit.

    And please don’t come at me saying there’s no way I could possibly be right, I’m British and have grown up around this terrible paper. When they wanna come for people they’re not subtle about it at all because their readers don’t get subtlety.

    • Ed says:

      Not at all

    • Lizzie says:

      From the comments I’ve read here it seems that black people in UK were very offended. That leads me to believe it is not such an unknown use of the word nappy in the UK even if you and other posters are not aware of it. There is no need to read between the lines.

    • BlackBrit says:

      Nah. I’m Black and British and no one I am aware of is talking about this. There isn’t some clanmour from Black Brits about this headline – there has been plenty regarding the other racist headlines directed towards Megan, Doria and Archie (e.g. the monkey photo, a traditionally British racist trope.) Black Brit twitter didn’t go off. Pink is right. This term just isn’t commonly used in the way that it is in the USA. Britain has other racist terms for us. Also – we don’t have a onedrop rule, and Archie isn’t regarded as a Black baby. He is the son of a white man and a mixed race woman.

  77. Just A Thought says:

    They meant it in a negative way. Race baiters do understand what they are doing.

  78. NewKay says:

    Nappy in the Uk means diaper. But I also believe that the Sun knows FULL WELL the meaning in the US and used that word deliberately for its double meaning. No question. They are disgusting.

  79. Victoria says:

    Wow. The Sussexes don’t bother anyone.

  80. Kono Berry says:

    I just looked up Hugo Vickers, “royal expert” and his claim to fame seems to be writing a few books about the royal family. One of them was authorized by Prince Philip, so that should tell you what kind of reading material we’re dealing with here.

    Basically he’s a late generation, out of touch bootlicker, and according to Twitter he *hateshateshates* the Netflix series The Crown. It’s no surprise he’s huffy that H&M made a break for freedom. It makes him clutch his pearls and drop his monocle.

    P. S. chucklehead, they’ve created a whole fundraising foundation whose purpose is to “uplift and unite communities—local and global, online and offline—one act of compassion at a time.”

    But, yeah “pointless self-exile”, sure.

  81. WTF says:

    And to anyone still arguing this isn’t about race, let’s remember that Archie is not a newborn. He is 18 months old. Why would a headline be about diapers for a kid that old?

  82. L84Tea says:

    It doesn’t say “Happy”. Look more closely again. I was missing it at first too. Absolutely disgusting.

  83. Lillyfromlilooet says:

    It took me a minute too. “Nappy” is the Anglo-English word for diapers, and carries no racist markers at all. “Nappy” is also a word to describe the hair of black people, as in “Nappy-headed” and is used disparagingly to refer to a wooly afro that is perceived as unkempt (not in shaped in a smooth orb).

  84. TeaForTwo says:

    The word. It has two meanings, one benign, one not so. Look it up. It will be educational.

  85. Ang says:

    In America they say “diaper” not “nappy”. And “nappy” is the term used in America in the old days to describe a black person’s hair.
    Im not as convinced as others that this was an intentional snipe about race. More about their using the baby to make money or something. At least, I hope so.

  86. Nev says:

    The slave master used to call us “nappy headed fools” or “nappy” referring to our wooly hair texture. its derogatory. and I figure because Master Archie has some black in him they just couldn’t help it. First they refer to him as monkey now this. Unreal.

  87. Lemons says:

    Nappy is often associated with Black hair. Nappy hair is often seen as “less than,” difficult to manage, unkempt, etc. Nappy is difficult to comb through…nappy=bad.

    Considering that both countries are perfectly aware of the connotations behind the word nappy, there’s no excuse for the headline to appear on the front page of a nationally-circulated newspaper. None. Nappy=diapers…Have you seen any photos of Prince Louis with the word nappy talking about his sh*t-filled diapers? I think not.

    It’s not a clever play on words. It’s not cute. It’s just another way for them to remind their readers that Meghan is Black (being biracial must be non-existent to them) and Archie is Black (whitest Black baby I’ve ever seen, but we know how the UK and the US feel about the one-drop rule).

    I imagine this is their version of revenge for not having new Archie photos. But I sincerely hope someone is fired. No one should get paid for such incompetence, ignorance, or willful nastiness.

  88. Passerby says:

    Google, bing, Alexa and Siri is available

  89. mynameispearl says:

    I took it as a lazy Sun Pun, baby says happy new year, baby = nappies, so nappy new year, a nappy being a diaper in the UK context.

  90. Cee says:

    I still don’t get it. Is changing the H for an N an allusion for the N-word?

  91. L84Tea says:

    @Cee, in the US, the word “nappy” is a derogatory word to refer to black peoples’ hair. Like the racist radio dj (can’t recall his name) who referred to an all black women’s college basketball team as a bunch of “nappy headed ho’s”. The BM’s use of it here is very purposely done, and they are for sure using the UK’s use of the word as a diaper as their cover. But we all see what they are doing. It simply doesn’t get more racist than this.

  92. Jamie says:

    You’re thinking of Imus. Thank goodness he’s gone now.

  93. Cee says:

    TY, L84Tea. No one deserves to endure acts of racism but to aim racism at a child seems even worse.

  94. Lorelei says:

    Apparently a lot of us missed it initially because we’re decent human beings whose brains don’t automatically jump to comprehend that level of racist cruelty.

    ETA: @Jamie that Imus thing just made me ragey all over again. That was heinous. HE was heinous.

  95. PrincessK says:

    I first came across the term when Stevie Wonder’s ‘I Wish’ came out, and the very memorable line ‘ Looking back on when I was a little nappy headed boy‘. It was a monster hit in the U.K., so many people would be familiar with it.

    So for the Sun to do this intentionally, is very cruel.

  96. Tessa says:

    Yes, I remember the IMUS episode, he got some counseling, and apologized to black leaders like sharpton. How does the Sun get away with this?

  97. Lauren says:

    Either they meant the american nappy so it’s racist or they are making a reference to Meghan’s miscarriage when she wrote that she was changing Archie’s diaper when the pain started. Either way this is disgusting.

  98. sunny says:

    It is about race-1000%. I know some Brits want to give it the benefit of the doubt but you cannot use “nappy” in the context of blackness without it being a pejorative. It is incredibly loaded.

    And I would argue that the term isn’t historical, it is still used today. Often in the context of insulting black people.

  99. Julie says:

    This is a classic dog whistle. Racism designed to be deniable. Everyone on either of the discussion immediately gets it but because the majority are totally oblivious (and unwilling to disturb their placid existence by educating themselves), the racist gets away with it.

    The worst part of a dog whistle isn’t even the racist act, it’s the ignorant running up to defend the racist act and gaslighting the victims.

  100. Ginger says:

    I think they meant both. They will say they were referring to diapers but they must be aware how this comes across. This is the same country that had a headline that read “Prince Harry has gone to the dark side” they are VERY aware of how this come across and don’t care.

  101. Lawcatb says:

    This is absolutely a racist snipe disguised as a harmless pun of a British colloquialism. The Sun knows exactly what they’re doing here. This way they can be racist, but feign innocence when called on it.

  102. Harper says:

    It’s a swipe. How can a newspaper editor, whose job it is to be fluent in word choice and exact meanings, claim this was accidental and no harm intended?

  103. BayTampaBay says:

    The Dim Online is a global media publication so The Dim trying to say it is “British” slang does not hold water. The Dim know the majority of their online click$ come from the North America and India and therefor know their readership. The Dim Online knew exactly what they were doing.

  104. Amy Too says:

    The target that they’re hoping to hurt here is Meghan. They could have used a picture of the whole sussex family. They could have used a picture of Harry holding Archie. They could have used a picture of just Archie. They used Meghan and Archie’s picture. The only two black people in the RF and then wrote “NAPPY” in huge letters under them. Meghan is American. Meghan will immediately think if the American definition of “nappy.” I think that this is meant to maybe go over the heads of most Brits, probably most people in general, and is instead meant to be threatening, racial bullying that is targeted directly at one person in the hopes that she will see it and know what they mean: Meghan.

  105. Lizzie says:

    Harry is cut out of the pic because they are referring to black hair. The podcast had nothing whatsoever to do with diapers. To me this is clear.

  106. Lorelei says:

    @Lizzie ITA. It’s 100% about race, and they can claim plausible deniability by bleating that they meant “diaper,” but that’s disingenuous AF, and even if true (which it is not) is STILL gross.

    It’s like the photo of the chimpanzee leaving the hospital. NO amount of explaining it away is plausible. They knew exactly what they were doing and in this case both meanings are horrible and unacceptable.

    Pathetically unreal that they’re *still* so pressed by Meghan that they put it on the front cover almost a year after she left. Unreal. I hope Harry never sees that or they’ll hear his screams of rage from across the ocean.

  107. BnLurkN4eva says:

    I stopped giving the British media the benefit of the doubt a long ways back. They know what they are doing and they also know there will be people like you who will give them the benefit of the doubt and others who haven’t been paying attention to the gaslighting of H/M who will not see the insult they intended.

  108. Lorelei says:

    @Ang in this case it is absolutely meant as a racist slur. Amy Too describes why very well — Meghan is an American (as are many of her fans) and they knew full well what meaning we, and poor Meghan, would immediately think of.

  109. KW says:

    Ok, can we stop giving this racist headline a pass? It’s disgusting and the more people keep giving them a pass for maybe referring to diapers are also a problem. The intention to grab attention for all the racist reasons is the only thing we need to discuss.

    I am disgusted and raging at this moment. This is the same damn paper in bed with the FF Keen and Kween and this tells me that it is met with RF (also now known to me as Racist F@ckers) approval. This family needs to exit left or just piss off, the lot of them.

    I hope 2021 and the powerful people who are rallying and supporting Meghan and Harry start using their voices and their dollars to cut this old world bullshit out. Let’s all stand for each other as people, as humans, as decent humans and start honouring Harry and Meghans mission to spread love and compassion.

  110. Julie —- Your comment above is spot on. “Dog whistling designed to be deniable.” This is dog whistling at its worst……the racists use words that have multiple meanings and thus feel free to say what they want and then tell you they are not being racists. What they are are racist cowards clothing themselves in smoke and mirrors.

  111. HeyJude says:

    The thing is Archie is about 19 months old, well into the toddler stage rather than a “baby”, and very possibly potty training (thus he might not even be using diapers). So it’s all well past the stage we typically see a small one and think of “nappies” as in diapers. That’s why I’m inclined to think of it as not so innocent.

    They also very pointedly only include Meghan and Archie the one’s with African American blood in them in the photo. Why no Harry if it’s not a racial barb?

  112. JanetDR says:

    @Hey Jude, my thought as well. He’s probably at least in pull ups. It is appallingly awful. I can only imagine what was going on in their daily life before that we don’t know about.

  113. MJM says:

    It is absolutely a racist slur. The Scum knew exactly what they were doing but will use the alternate definition of the term as a defence against any accusations they were racist. We know better. No decent, respectable paper would feature a picture of a black woman and use the term “nappy” associated with it. It is beyond the pale.

    I have heard the term “nappy haired” used by racists in the U.K racists speculating what Archie’s hair would be like.

  114. Cee says:

    Thanks for the context, Nev.
    I just can’t with the BM and the RF. They deserve each other and it shows. They’re so preoccupied with The Crown but not with the racism directed at Archie and Meghan.

  115. TeaForTwo says:

    This. All day and all night. It is beyond anything I have ever seen, and it is being directed at a CHILD. Just sit with that for a bit and think about it.

  116. Seraphina says:

    @Nev, yes, that is how it has been explained to me. Thank you for explaining it here as well.

  117. Gingerbee says:

    Exactly Nev. Those racist rotten rodents was not referring to a diaper.

  118. Lorelei says:

    I just…it would still be horrific if it was only a photo of Meghan. We would all still be outraged and disgusted. But to also target a BABY? It’s unfathomable.

  119. Athyrmose says:

    +1000

  120. FC says:

    This. Front pages of huge rags go through a LOT of approvals before they go to print. There is zero chance every single editor who signed off would miss the racist connotation.

    Now they play dumb and retweet over and over that “it’s a diaper in the UK”.

  121. Lorelei says:

    I can understand not getting it initially. But when almost *every single person* here explains to a commenter over and over again exactly why it’s racist and they still deny it, they’re being willfully ignorant imo.
    They don’t want to see it, so they’ll twist themselves into pretzels coming up with alternative meanings. Occam’s Razor, guys. It’s racist. The End.

    It’s like the “Straight Outta Compton” headline. It’s racist, full stop.

  122. SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

    The Sun has been increasingly aiming for a USA readership, so their justification that the word is UK/Commonwealth word for diaper doesn’t really hold.

    Kiddo is of an age that he’s probably no longer even wearing a diaper/nappy, so the whole headline is an excuse to deploy the racist dog-whistle.