Look, here’s my considered decision regarding the monarchy:
Queen - keep
Phil - keep
Charlie - ditch
Andrew - ditch
Anne - keep
Edward - ditch
William - keep for now, monitor future activities
Harry - ditch
All others: offspring to follow their parents, lesser hangers-on - ditch.
So we’re left with four (plus their immediate offspring) to continue to maintain.
We don’t really need the rest.
Intriguing
Perhaps better placed than many to give her opinion on what is racist or not.
Rose is sure that Meghan would have received some ‘excellent advice’ from people in the Royal Family. But — based on her own experiences — this is what she, as a fellow African-American, would have suggested, if asked, to ease the transition.
‘My advice would have been to understand the structure in which the Royal Family operates in and to do your best not to take anything personally,’ she says.
‘I would have encouraged her to understand the sensitivities around primogeniture, second sons, service and duty and to seriously consider all she would be giving up for love.
‘She would have been the first acknowledged member of the Royal Family with African descent and with that comes great responsibility, followed by anger, jealousy and people trying to push her to fail just to prove that everyone’s “concerns” were correct.
‘She would have to always be one step ahead and to rise above all the challenges and represent with dignity and prove everyone wrong who doubts that she is not suited for this role and position.’
Finally, Rose adds: ‘I would have suggested she finds a confidant inside the family that she could trust and always speak to if things became too difficult, and to prepare herself to set aside her political voice, her opinions and life she previously knew, to serve the Queen with humility, dignity and duty.’
Cannot imagine that is the way Duchess of Sussex planned her role. This opinion from a fellow American likely some of her husband’s aristocratic point of view.
What everyone seems to have missed with this ‘’’‘interview’’’’ is that has nothing to do with Meghan and the Royal family as such but more to do with the continuing persecution of whites. A lot of people of colour appear determined to destroy anything traditionally British, we have seen it with the removal of statues and the constant changes to the English language. [Kew Gardens are currently changing the names of their plants because it upsets certain groups of people].
My guess is that the vast majority of people supporting Meghan are black Americans jumping on the BLM bandwaggon. Meghan played a ‘blinder’ when she mentioned the discussion about the baby’s skin colour. Oprah’s well rehearsed reaction was pretty good too although it never fooled me.
I agree with you.
But why do such black people wish to destroy anything traditionally British?
Is it some sort of ‘punishment’ for our ancient history of slavery? If so, why don’t they try to punish the Arabs too, who have had a longer history of slavery than us.
At the same time, do they also forget the advantages they have gained by being taken from their third-world countries all those many years ago and, admittedly in more modern days, given a far easier lifestyle in first-world countries.
Obviously, it also escapes them that no living person today has participated in slavery, yet they want to punish us for the activities of some of our long-distant antecedents.
And finally, does MeMe and others of her background hope to make us like and respect her more by such statements?
Who knows? I would love to ask someone who would be prepared to give a truthful answer. We all knew the day was coming but it’s just a lot quicker than I imagined. 
Wait…what?? How on earth can anyone be offended by a plant? I need to look this up, hang on…
…Ok so I found Sugar Cane as one example. Now when I think of Sugar Cane, I do not immediately think of slavery.
World has gone bonkers.
You can’t say ‘Bonkers’, it has sexual connotations. :-p
Hahaha! Ok, I shall infer that the world has gone a bit skewiff. I take no responsibility for offending anyone with that word.
Oh, I thought the more obvious culprits might be blackberries and blackcurrants.
But black is a colour, same as white, isn’t it? Blackboard, black sheep, etc
Don’t they call these “chalkboards” these days - just because some flakes were upset?
We’d have to rewrite the whole flipping dictionary.
Interactive whiteboards, smartboards etc are prevalent nowadays.
Isn’t that racist for the same reason? 
Yes I know Dex, but I suggest not many parents can afford one for their toddler to use at home.
On reflection Percy, I think people get around the term whiteboards by using the phonetically nearly identical wipeboards.
Not sure, but paper is still used by the more affluent middle class parents, with less well off families resorting to an iPad and related app:mrgreen:
Believe it or not, ‘blackboards’ were once banned in schools and compulsorily replaced by ‘chalkboards’. It was whilst I was teaching, so I know.
Since then, common sense has returned… at least for now.
I never did know that! I’m glad it was restored. Chalkboards is also correct I suppose, but…still…to have banned them for being “offensive” I mean, really!
Whilst I was teaching, we had interactive whiteboards installed. I was quite happy for that as I also received a new computer!
On the other hand, of my three boards, I retained two blackboards; not because I felt it a matter of ‘equality’, but because when computers go tits-up chalk still functions.
No, they never actually banned them, at least in my knowledge. They just changed the name to keep certain people (probably more white people than black) happy.
I remember when I was at grammar school, we actually had green blackboards. Nothing politically correct, of course, as this was well before the ‘politically offended age’.
Oddly enough and like you (I’d imagine), I never heard a board complain about it being called black.
