Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really ugly interiors. The wall paper, the seating, the rug...ugh!!!

It is very dated. But if they update, people will complain about the cost.

No. It is ugly regardless of when it was put there. The colors do not go together at all. I can absolutely understand very ornate looks as we see in many, many palaces around the world. THIS is just terrible taste.

Pp you quoted. You're right, lol.

I wonder who chose the decor? And why on Earth the photos were taken there?

Anonymous wrote:I think the baby will have beautiful curly red hair

He’s adorable already. Red haired babies are so cute.

******Coreection: Red-headed Babies are so cute....ugh iPhone typos *****

I think the baby will have beautiful curly red hair

He’s adorable already. Red haired babies are so cute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wills and Kate look thrilled...

They both seem to give a bare minimum smile for the pic. I don’t remember seeing with similar expressions in posed photos but who knows.

How can he not bother to crack a smile at his little
Brother’s sons christening? Rude!

Meh- Harry has the same grouchy look at Louis christening....

I guess they take a few photos, and choose the one where the baby has his eyes open and is looking forward, and maybe that means that it might not be the best one of some of the adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the queen?

She didn’t attend Louis’ baptism either.

Yes, it was important for her to be there for the heir and the spare, but not further down the line.

That's not true. If it was, she wouldn't have attended any of her other children's or grandchildren's Christenings which she has.

If the PP had bothered reading the thread, they would have noticed the Queen made a special effort to meet Archie when he was two days old already and she had a prior engagement on this date.

It was important to me that my grandmother came to my son's Christening, so I checked with her before I scheduled. I realize that the Queen probably has a busier schedule than my Grandma, but on the other hand, I had to take into account when the church was available, while I'm sure people were willing to flex for Megan and Harry!

The Queen is not Archie's grand mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Doria 100% AA?

Doris is 100% Black but likely an ADOS [American Descendant of Slaves], most ADOS with no recent history of immigrants in their families are at minimum 20-25% of European Descent. Thus, her marrying Thomas Märkle made it possibly for Meghan to look Southern European [at first glance] if you didn’t know her ancestry. Most biracial black people with a decent amount of European ancestry on their Black side can appear white.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jealous

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america

I don't know what you mean by "100%" if she is part European.

It means Doria is an identifiable visible Black woman. Though Doria likely has 20-25% European genes, for cultural and historical purposes she is Black. It times of slavery, the short lived Reconstruction era, and finally the Jim Crow era, ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) were whatever race their maternal side indicated. The recent box of multi-racial/bi-racial is quite new [unless you were of Creole/Cajun descent].

I loved this University blog post about Beyonce’s Formation lyrics: The notion that Creoles represent a different racial group from “Negro” has been shaped by the history of southern Louisiana. Most people who identify as Creoles of color are descendants of gens de couleur libre (free people of color), a group with roots in French Louisiana. Gens de couleur libre often had white fathers and enslaved African mothers. Emancipated by their fathers, this mixed-race population formed a separate group in colonial Louisiana. They married one another and formed communities throughout the southern parishes. Some owned land; the wealthier ones even owned slaves. Gens de couleur libre considered themselves to be neither white nor black, but a combination of both races. Their descendants, who referred to themselves as Creoles of color after the Civil War, continued to stress their racial and cultural hybridity.


DH is Louisiana Creole (French/African), very dark, and far less likely to be identified as a multi-racial black person than I am (light skinned African/Irish/Cuban), but the family histories both include at least one black ancestor who was emancipated in the very early 1800s and established as a middle class landowner. One difference is that his ancestor did it as part of a community of peers and mine did it in isolation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Doria 100% AA?

Doris is 100% Black but likely an ADOS [American Descendant of Slaves], most ADOS with no recent history of immigrants in their families are at minimum 20-25% of European Descent. Thus, her marrying Thomas Märkle made it possibly for Meghan to look Southern European [at first glance] if you didn’t know her ancestry. Most biracial black people with a decent amount of European ancestry on their Black side can appear white.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jealous

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america

I don't know what you mean by "100%" if she is part European.

I think PP mean to write 100% AA. It is possibly to have both white and black ancestry and still be AA. In fact, it was legally the rule in this nation for hundreds of years. Up through 1/16 African ancestry. Which is likely undetectable by phenotype and without DNA, entirely based on a community policing via legal records.

It’s interesting to me that the people on DCUM who want to defend Latin America as a racial paradise completely miss that the Spanish and Portuguese colonial governments established dozens of racial categories for various admixtures (castas) and even commissioned paintings to help local bureaucrats label babies accordingly. Allegedly each type of admixture produced a certain temperament and of course, the more white ancestry, the better the temperament with black/Indian seen as the worst.
See https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/early-europe-and-colonial-americas/colonial-americas/a/spaniard-and-indian-produce-a-mestizo-attributed-to-juan-rodriguez

The legality of the sistema de castas ended, but a lot of the attitudes embedded in it have remained, including the idea of improving the bloodline by whitening it. I see these attitudes still circulating in my own Cuban-American relatives and in many countries in Latin America when I worked and lived there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Doria 100% AA?

Doris is 100% Black but likely an ADOS [American Descendant of Slaves], most ADOS with no recent history of immigrants in their families are at minimum 20-25% of European Descent. Thus, her marrying Thomas Märkle made it possibly for Meghan to look Southern European [at first glance] if you didn’t know her ancestry. Most biracial black people with a decent amount of European ancestry on their Black side can appear white.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jealous

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america

I don't know what you mean by "100%" if she is part European.

It means Doria is an identifiable visible Black woman. Though Doria likely has 20-25% European genes, for cultural and historical purposes she is Black. It times of slavery, the short lived Reconstruction era, and finally the Jim Crow era, ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) were whatever race their maternal side indicated. The recent box of multi-racial/bi-racial is quite new [unless you were of Creole/Cajun descent].

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Doria 100% AA?

Doris is 100% Black but likely an ADOS [American Descendant of Slaves], most ADOS with no recent history of immigrants in their families are at minimum 20-25% of European Descent. Thus, her marrying Thomas Märkle made it possibly for Meghan to look Southern European [at first glance] if you didn’t know her ancestry. Most biracial black people with a decent amount of European ancestry on their Black side can appear white.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jealous

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america

Um, having 20-25% European ancestry does not make one 100% black.

Yes, it does. Because black or AA is an ethnicity, not a race, and in American history, people who were descendents of both slaves and slave owners were only allowed to participate in the culture of their slave ancestors, and thus are 100% ethnically black or African American.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I don't think Kate looks that great.

Meghan, Harry and Archie look the best followed by William and Charles. Doria looks nice she just doesn't look like herself for some reason, can't quite put my finger on it.

Diana's sisters look fine except I hate the cowboy-hat-fedora-pimp thing that the one is wearing.

It’s her lips. They look swollen.

Anonymous wrote:Meghans dress reminds me of her wedding dress. Same neckline and just a bit too loose.

She needs to liven up her look. She is turning into a real fuddy duddy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the queen?

She didn’t attend Louis’ baptism either.

The heir and the spare take priority over later borns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Doria 100% AA?

Doris is 100% Black but likely an ADOS [American Descendant of Slaves], most ADOS with no recent history of immigrants in their families are at minimum 20-25% of European Descent. Thus, her marrying Thomas Märkle made it possibly for Meghan to look Southern European [at first glance] if you didn’t know her ancestry. Most biracial black people with a decent amount of European ancestry on their Black side can appear white.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jealous

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america

I don't know what you mean by "100%" if she is part European.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Doria 100% AA?

Doris is 100% Black but likely an ADOS [American Descendant of Slaves], most ADOS with no recent history of immigrants in their families are at minimum 20-25% of European Descent. Thus, her marrying Thomas Märkle made it possibly for Meghan to look Southern European [at first glance] if you didn’t know her ancestry. Most biracial black people with a decent amount of European ancestry on their Black side can appear white.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Jealous

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/10/07/354310370/a-chosen-exile-black-people-passing-in-white-america

Um, having 20-25% European ancestry does not make one 100% black.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could dress Kate in a paper bag and she’d still look lovely.

This. The dress is *supposed* to look like a throwback style. It's very fashionable. Sometimes I wonder if the PPs criticizing her very elegant way of dressing would prefer her to look like this:

No, we'd prefer her to look like this -






The Queen of Spain knows how to rock modern elegance. Kate can barely color coordinate and heeps on peter pan collars, giant headbands, and lace like a 12-year-old.

Exactly. Frump ppl with no style think Kate has style. Sorry not sorry but her style doesn’t fit her smile and looks.