White-privilege or targeting the vulnerable, regardless?

I've seen a lot of commentary about the racism at play in the press regarding Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and this article in particular emphasises the crap she's had to deal with, comparing headlines about her with virtually identical instances featuring Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
This pair of headlines from the Daily Mail sums it up rather well as they're by the same writer, only weeks apart:
"How Kate went from drab to fab! From eyebrows and pilates to a new style guru, our experts reveal the Duchess of Cambridge's secrets to looking sizzling" - Sarah Vine 14 Jun 2019
"My memo to Meghan Markle following her Vogue editorial - we Brits prefer true royalty to fashion royalty" - Sarah Vine 29 Jul 2019
If you don't want to click the link other examples include: 
Praising Catherine's simple and elegant choice of wedding flowers (inc Lily Of The Valley) to claiming Meghan put her bridesmaids lives at risk...for using Lily Of The Valley. 
Saying simply that William and Catherine would be spending Christmas with the Middletons in 2016, pointing out that they also had in 2011 - the first year they were married; but accusing Meghan and Harry of snubbing the Queen when they chose to spend Christmas with her mother in 2019 - the first year with their son. 
Positive coverage of Prince Louis' Christening (which the Queen did not attend) and criticising the Sussexes planning because the Queen was unavailable when they'd scheduled Archie's Christening.
Note: these examples are all tabloid press - The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and so on.

That stories are handled differently whether they are about Catherine (with or without William) or Meghan (with or without Harry) is pretty clear.
It is also worth noting that the press is pretty disrespectful of BOTH Duchesses - Catherine is repeatedly called Kate although she is supposed to be styled Catherine. Both are repeatedly called by their maiden names of Middleton and Markle despite being married with children - although many women choose to keep their name after marriage it is traditionally a great insult because it strips a woman of her married, and in this case Royal, status and implies illegitimacy of her children!

The question is: 
Is the press prejudice against Meghan RACIST?

Whilst quite probably there are racist motivations for the press' shitty attitude toward the Duchess it's a problematic assumption to make as nothing provably racist has been indicated; although certainly the public comments on these various stories can be overt.
I understand, to an extent, the accusation of white-privilege - that because I am white and see no racism in the press' words doesn't mean it's not there. However, the reverse also holds true - it is possible to be black (or indeed any ethnicity) and see racism which is not there. [Edit: claiming racism purely on the basis of Meghan's skin colour is itself an unfounded racial bias]

Back in the dark ages of my youth the press was being shitty to Diana, Princess of Wales (the former Diana Spencer) and Sarah, Duchess of York (the former Sarah Fergusson). The spouses of Anne and Edward largely seem to escape such attention - possibly a throwback to the idea of an heir (Charles) and a spare (Andrew), which would apply to William and Harry also.
Both of them were white but the press had a whale of a time hurling abuse at the both of them. It's easy to remember the hell they put Diana through as she died as her car attempted to out-race paparazzi but Sarah's marriage was destroyed and press attention / intrusion caused her a great deal of harm as well. I have decided to include their examples in this blog in the hope it might create a slightly better basis for comparison.

Is this 'simply' a matter of the press, limited in the shit they can throw at the royal family themselves feeling justified in targeting the 'outsiders'? In which case, why has Catherine been virtually left alone? Perhaps they decided to give her a pass because she is mother to the heir to the throne?
Certainly a lot has changed in the decades since Diana's death but the press are still happy to target Meghan - why?

If an argument is to be made that this is racism in action we'd need to exclude other factors which could cause prejudice.

First, nationality.

• Diana, British
• Sarah, British
• Catherine, British
• Meghan, American

Meghan is certainly different in this regard. Anti-American sentiment isn't usually a thing in Britain but then the last time and American got close to a Prince it almost brought down the whole monarchy. I don't really credit this theory but it can't be ignored as a factor in making Meghan an 'outsider' and a target for negative press attention.
Prince Philip similarly started out deeply unpopular because he was Greek and whether that xenophobic streak is still relevant it's hard to say. Prince Harry's former girlfriend Chelsy Davy is Zimbabwean but their relationship never reached the point where she was targeted by the press - whether she would have been welcomed (as a white woman) or vilified as a foreigner cannot be known.

Secondly, pre-marital styles and social class.

• Diana was the Honourable Diana Frances Spencer - daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer. Parents divorced 1969. Both parents remarried and her stepmother was the only child of romantic novelist Dame Barbara Cartland.
• Sarah was Miss Sarah Margaret Fergusson - daughter of Major Ronald Fergusson. Parents divorced 1974. Both parents remarried - her stepfather was Argentinian.
• Catherine was Miss Catherine Elizabeth Middleton - daughter of Michael and Elizabeth Middleton who are described as 'upper middle class' and remain married.
• Meghan was Miss Rachel Meghan Markle - daughter of Thomas Markle Sr and Doria Ragland who divorced in 1987. Neither parent has remarried.

All four are considered 'commoners' but all commoners are not created equal - Diana's father was an Earl, Sarah's was a Major. With three of them come from broken homes it seems unlikely to be a factor.
Public opinion seemed clear at the time of the wedding that sympathy was strongly with Doria - who had largely raised Meghan as a single mother (Diana and Sarah's mothers both having new partners to support them) - and against Thomas - whose heart attack ahead of the wedding meant he could not attend seemed suspiciously unverified and curiously timed as his attendance had already had doubt cast upon it. Doria has handled herself well, as has her extended family. In contrast Thomas has courted media attention, as has Meghan's half sister Samantha Markle and, to a lesser extent, her half brother Thomas Markle Jr.
Personally I find it curious that Mr Markle has been given a platform at all. Nothing I have seen from him has been in any way 'in the public interest'. Is his voice being heard because he is white? I don't think so, personally. I think he's being heard because it makes it easier for the press to legitimise Meghan as a target - a royal target they haven't had since Diana's death. I can't think of any example of a royal bride being undermined by her own family in such a way. Even Diana's dysfunctional relationship with her stepmother never sunk to such depths.

Thirdly, pre-marital life.

• Diana, age at marriage: 20, occupation: kindergarten assistant, status: single.
• Sarah, age at marriage: 25, occupation: worked various jobs which are not clearly documented, status: single
• Catherine, age at marriage: 29, occupation: worked in her family's business doing 'catalogue design & production, marketing and photography', status: single.
• Meghan, age at marriage: 36, occupation: actress, status: divorced.

Again there is a bit of variety here but three distinct factors stand out - Meghan was the oldest royal bride by nearly a decade although I have no idea why that might make any difference; she was previously in the 'disreputable' business of being an actress*; she was divorced - bringing to the fore the comparison to Wallis Simpson again.

* Although unlikely to be considered nowadays actresses were historically associated with prostitution and a career in which deception is kind of the point led to even more successful actresses being outcast from polite society. it is worth noting that whilst Meghan's acting skills have been unkindly critiqued she's also dismissed as a 'consummate actress' any time she shows emotion.

Whether any of these factors in any way explains the press vilification of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, it seems clear to me that there are multiple potential reasons why she has been singled out as a particular target, none of which can be definitely excluded.

• American (xenophobia, comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Raised by a single mother (classism, the tabloids have long enjoyed slagging off single mothers)
• Undermined by her father and step-siblings (family collusion in targeting her)
• Older bride (ageism, although unlikely relevance)
• Former actress (classism)
• Divorcee (possible classism? Comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Mixed race (racism, colourism) 

What is also clear is that Meghan herself has done nothing whatsoever to warrant such vile and unreasonable treatment.
I have every sympathy for the couple and support their decision to step back from the front line.
Whilst I fully support the Queen sharing out the workload, Charles has expressed the desire for a slimmed-down monarchy. The royal family are damned if they aren't seen to be doing enough to 'earn their keep' and damned if they want to live their own lives it seems.

Stumbled across an email about mum's stroke...saving it here as back-up

Explanatory notes:

• Email written to my younger daughter - I had only just told her about my mum's stroke and the conversation had been (from my end) at a bus stop in Central Reading...far from ideal and I was worried I had missed essential details. I did much the same over following weeks - especially when my aunt would ask if my mum was out of hospital yet...and I was worried I hadn't made it clear how serious the situation was. My aunt thinking she'd only be in hospital a week or two was a cause for concern - was I explaining it that badly?!
• Pogsy is a nickname for my dad. We have no idea why.
• Erni is a nickname for my elder daughter Erin after a preschool misspelling.
• I have taken out a bunch of names as I have mentioned immediate family before but not necessarily others.
• All changes are in [---] and I am not doing any corrections. I want to keep this true to the event.

I'm going to take things back a bit...

Grandma was in town for her dental appt. She spent Thursday & Saturday with my dad. The original idea was for me to go visit her after work Monday but as Erin was home (she's sprained her wrist by the way) we invited Grandma over for Sunday dinner. She arrived about 1130 and stayed six hours. She was fine, alert...although she did look 'tottery' as she walked out to her car but I put it down to being stiff and tired after a long afternoon sat on my sofa, and probably it was.

MONDAY

I worked a half day Monday and came home with a borderline migraine. Crawled into bed at 1530. Erni cooked dinner and I was just going for a shower at 8pm when the phone rang at 8pm. Erin answered it and a moment later, perfectly calmly she said "Mum, emergency". I took the phone. It was [mum's partner - hereafter 'N']. He said that mum had called about 3pm saying she was tired and going to rest. As the evening wore on and he didn't hear back from her he got concerned. I think he said he'd been trying for an hour and when she finally answered he couldn't understand her. Erin ran to dad's while I got dressed. Apparently Pogsy rang her, said curtly "I'm coming over" and minutes later we're in the car hightailing it over to her flat. Grandad driving while alarmed is also alarming. Pogsy wanted to go in first with me poised to call 101 (which as it turns out is the Police non-emergency number; he meant 111).

So Pogsy dashed in, Grandma was on the floor, sitting up but slumped against her armchair. Dad asked straight off if she wanted medical assistance and she replied clearly "Yes" a minute later I realised I was calling the wrong number and basically thought fukkit this is a 999 job. They kept asking questions geared at heart attacks and I realised that what I was describing didn't even sound like any kind of emergency so I said, quite truthfully, "I think she may have had a stroke". Felt awful for saying it where she could hear me but what can you do???

She was conscious or semi-conscious. She could answer some questions like the medical help one clearly enough but other words were slurred, mumbled, incomprehensible or just no response. Erin went outside to usher in the ambulance crew.

They came in and Pogsy stayed with her while she was being assessed and put into one of those chair carriers to get her out. Erin and I went into her bedroom. We couldn't find a bag or holdall so we nabbed her granny trolley (remarkably handy actually) and started packing it, she'd need fresh clothes and wash stuff for discharge if nothing else. I also called N with an update; he told me to ring whenever I knew anything. Pogsy was trying to find mum's meds etc.

I was going with mum in the ambulance, dad and Erin were coming to the hospital later...I forget why but dad wanted to come back to Woodley for some reason that seemed important at the time. Mum was asked if N or I would be her next of kin - eventually it was decided she was indicating me. It seemed to take forever to get to A&E. Mum was clearly in a bad way - groaning over ever bump and being sick. We arrived at A&E & mum was taken straight to a side room because of diarrhoea and sickness. It was bad cos she was begging for water but nil by mouth. She still hadn't been seen / cleaned up when Pogsy & Erni arrived but then she was cleaned & changed into a gown while the three of us went to the waiting area. Thankfully they let her have water then too.

After they left a doctor saw her and she was asked what happened and she was explaining away...making no sense at all. However later she was saying perfectly clearly she'd be there for hours and I should go home. It was just as confusing for me tbh.

We went through the night in much the same fashion - her practically speaking in tongues and complaining about the bright lights or other patients' bleeping monitors. She was moved to another side room in another part of A&E called Majors (as opposed to minors I presume). There was definitely some assumption that the diarrhoea and vomiting were the problem and that the state of mum was her normal condition which was difficult. Her blood pressure was really high as was her blood glucose. Another thing was she had retained urine. The scanned her bladder twice, twice on a bed pan and about half an hour on a commode before they finally catheterised her. We could have done without them 'joking' about burst bladders but I have to say I was almost as relieved as she was! There was talk of a urinary tract infection which would explain that and even the mental confusion and when mum asked "why am I like this?" that's what I told her. Dad was concerned it was related to her ongoing back pain (no idea how it could've been) and I had concerns she'd fallen and hurt herself, maybe her hip, and couldn't explain where. Broken bones can cause embolisms also resulting in mental confusion. Lots of theories, zero answers. They did however also have her on a saline drip, had given her an IV shot of antibiotics AND hooked her up to an insulin pump to get her diabetes back in check. At least once I brought up stroke and was told no, it's not that.

At 2am, probably when she was being catheterised, I nipped out to call N and Erin. But being a complete fuckup of a life my sim card had come loose and it was all I could do to get my contacts up on my phone let alone connect to a service. I called E from the reception desk and asked her to call N.

At about 0430 she was moved to the Acute Medical Unit (AMU) and again put in a side room. I moved her stuff in, established that she was staying put for the time being and left. By that point she was fast asleep. In fact, I think she slept through the entire transfer.

The buses had started running but I walked home from the hospital. It had been quite a traumatic night and I needed the air and time to do some processing.

TUESDAY

I got in and went to bed 0630...and then Pogsy rang at 0830 and that was that! Never been so grateful for a migraine nap in my life.

Don't remember an awful lot of Tuesday to be honest. Dad and I discussed a lot of the ifs buts and maybes of the situation and I started cleaning house (which was already not bad for us) with the idea that whatever happened mum recuperating at mine was the likeliest outcome. At some point Erni picked up Hennessy [our black cat] and saw blood on his hind left paw.

Erin came to the hospital with me in the afternoon. Mum was sleeping when we got there which was fair enough but when the consultant came in they could barely rouse her and things got properly worrying. The consultant was still thinking infection, I raised a number of concerns inc. stroke but again was told no. Mum could squeeze, albeit weakly, with both hands and wiggle both feet. I was told she'd be sent for a CT scan that evening.

Erni and I left, did a bit of shopping and went home again. At about 2030 I got a call from the hospital during which I got a dripfeed of info: them "what do you think happened?" me "Stroke?" them "I think you're right" then confirming that's what the CT scan showed then that it was severe. Then she asked about resuscitating her if she has a crisis: I said no. We've all talked about this for years but the doctor admitted that in my mother's situation she thought it wasn't in her interests. God knows how I held it together.

I went round to dad's just before 9pm and watched it hit him like a freight train. He swears blind I said it was a 'massive stroke' but I definitely said severe. I think he was hearing what he feared.

I was scheduled to run the shop Wednesday and it was really late to pull out so I decided to work it and then to go down to N's Thursday to tell him face-to-face.

Went home and fell apart for a bit.

WEDNESDAY

Couldn't concentrate worth a damn, stressed af and running on not nearly enough sleep.

Erni & Pogsy visited mum...during which time she didn't wake up AT ALL. Plans were changed. I called N and, hiding the situation from him suggested he come to visit for a few days so he could visit with mum properly. I needed to tell him the truth, face-to-face before letting [her brother] and [sister] know. Absolutely shitting it about making all these really hard phone calls.

I was definitely worried about telling you. I spoke to my area manager cos I had to let someone know that I might have to just drop everything at zero notice. It was her idea to contact your uni for advice.

I crashed at 9pm and got up just after Erin came in from work at midnight. I spent the night doing washing up and watching the Supernatural musical episode 😉 Back to bed at 0430.

THURSDAY 

Erni had made a vet appt for Hennessy at 9am - I couldn't be worrying about a sick cat too. We were only taking him out on the lead and he'd spent most of the last 24 hrs sleeping in his carrier. He didn't look right at all. Toe is very definitely injured. Painkillers & antibiotics for now, take him back next week if he's still bad or earlier if he gets worse. On the plus side he's walking without a limp.

N arrived at midday. by arrangement Erni popped out the back and to Pogsy's because I didn't think N needed an audience. I felt so bad for not telling him straight out but he understood why I didn't want him to hear by phone or to drive while distressed. After that Pogsy & Erni came round for lunch. The mock meat I'd bought for sandwiches wasn't vegan but fukkit for once. After that I started on the phone calls including to your uni where they advised me to tell you as I did for all I was worried about it.

I called [cousin T] to break the news to [mum's sister] and she gave me [cousin J's] number and I called him to tell [her brother]...and you know what happened??? T PHONED [mum's sister] and [mum's sister] phoned [her sister in law]! So much for me trying to get everyone told gently and in person! I was especially worried as Saturday is the anniversary of [my cousin] Allister's death.

I saw that you had a presentation so I held off until evening and that would have to be after N and I visited the hospital. Thank goodness really because I was so much happier for seeing her relatively alert. It's also a huge weight off my mind to know that most everyone knows. Actually managed to sleep fairly well last night!

N is staying here and Erni is camping at Pogsy's as you might need to if you decide to visit. We're all just doing whatever we can to help each other. Thank goodness my dad and N get on okay! They're fetching mum's car back here today so it can be kept an eye on. Dad worries about silly stuff like that; I worry about people.

So I think that's about it. Not gonna lie, this is still a deeply worrying situation. Will keep you updated.

It occurs that my grandad must've had his big stroke around the time my mum turned 40; he was in hospital that Christmas. He would have been 75 at the time. My mum's 73 and a half.

On Ethical Veganism as a Protected Philosophical Belief

On January 3rd 2020 a UK court decided Ethical Veganism can qualify as a philosophical belief protected under law https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Jordi Casamitjana believes he was sacked for being vegan; his former employer cites gross misconduct. Before the case could be heard the status of veganism as a belief system had to be established. 

Some people are purely dietary vegans - they don't eat animal products for health reasons for example - but most are, to some extent, ethical vegans - they don't eat animal products because they believe it is wrong to do so, and avoid animal products in all aspects of their life. To even the more relaxed of ethical vegans it is blinkin' obvious that veganism is a philosophy to live by, not a 'diet' or a 'fad' or a 'cult' http://theconversation.com/veganism-has-always-been-more-about-living-an-ethical-life-than-just-avoiding-meat-and-dairy-129307

Short version:

What makes YOUR belief more important than MINE?! Basically, that mindset is the entire problem with religion.

Full-length version:

Each human being lives their life by some sort of moral code, even the seemingly immoral will (usually) hold some kind of belief that they are entitled to live as they do. For many, the moral code is rooted in religion - even those whose code is founded on the laws of the land and the social norms of their era can trace those fundamentals back to religious doctrine.

I have seen a bunch of deeply unpleasant comments about this but the remarks here, by people who've declared themselves to be deeply spiritual or allied to a certain faith particularly appal me (https://www.themonastery.org/blog/veganism-ruled-protected-class-in-uk-comparable-to-religious-belief?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Agriculture+Shock&utm_campaign=January+8%2C++2020) 

The comment from Annie Macleod begins:

I have no problem with some vegans considering themselves 'ethical vegans'

and having it recognized as a religion.

That is, as long as they don't try to impose their religion on anyone else,

just as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc

should not try to impose their beliefs on others.

Right, let me nit-pick this a moment... All faiths impose their beliefs on others. Religions are, at their core, a set of rules by which to live and why most societies have or had a religion as their foundation. By setting laws we impose one set of core values on others.

Most religions also seek new members - from Sunday schools and Boy Scouts, to evangelism and propaganda - various methods are used to bring in new people. In this way a belief system maintains its hold on a society.

And most of us accept this fairly willingly. This blog will focus on 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - whether we adhere to a faith or not, most people will accept that killing another is fundamentally wrong. We impose this belief on others. Sometimes we might hold a particular view on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment or war that is at odds with someone else's interpretation of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - and we will argue our point, often heatedly, regardless of which side of the line we stand. This is an important issue most take exceedingly seriously. Our respect for the right of others to hold their own belief is sorely tried.

One key point of Veganism is that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' applies to all life, not just humans. Vegans often term this mindset as 'speciesism' and liken it to past times where Christians saw infidels or whites saw blacks or men saw women as 'other' - not entitled to the same rights and privileges. Vegans see all sentient life as fundamentally equal; Vegans see this as no different to telling you not to kill and eat your neighbour. The difference is most people don't even consider eating their neighbour if it's a human...if it's a cow, on the other hand...

Carnists (people who believe it is their right or even obligation to eat animals) often say 'you live by your principles, I'll live by mine' and this 'live and let live' argument is really galling to Vegans. The point is that YOU can live AND let ANIMALS live too.

This one from Daniel Grey is hilariously stupid:

Lolol what a bunch of hogwash! Being vegan is now like a religion in England? 

Are they mad? There is no such thing as a Vegan or Vegetarian and never will be.

It's a medical fact that the area around your face sheds dead skin cells

when you sleep. Now these cells get on your pillow and blankets

and when you move they get stirred up. And you still have to breathe as such you ARE breathing in dead skin cells,

which are considered meat; and your body is digesting them.

So unless you sleep with a vacuum over your face to suck up the skin cells,

then you DO eat meat no matter if you want to acknowledge it or not.

Jeez, dude - how DUMB are you? Who, exactly, considers naturally shed skin cells as 'meat'?! Meat is defined as the flesh of animals, flesh is defined as a soft substance consisting of muscle and fat...not as its individual constituent cells! Whatevz. If you are so stupid as to believe that inhaling your own dead skin cells is equivalent to a cheeseburger then you deserve to be killed and eaten by a peckish neighbour.

A vegan mother might well devour her placenta after giving birth as a means to ward off post-natal depression. This is 'flesh' but no animal has died / been killed to provide it. This is effectively eating your own flesh and has no ethical problem tied to it. In the same way, breastfeeding is vegan because it is your milk to do with as you wish (including wet-nursing / milk donation) but a cow's milk is not yours to take. The whole problem with meat-eating is the taking of a life, the causing of pain & suffering to assuage your own desires.

Some Vegans will even eat meat if it is naturally occurring roadkill or meat that has been thrown away and will otherwise rot. This is because their interpretation of their moral code is that they are not taking a life (directly or by supporting the industry). And before you start - Jews are protected whether or not they keep kosher, Muslims are protected for wearing hijabs despite it being a cultural and not a religious requirement - faith is protected regardless of the individual's interpretation of their faith.

Honestly though, this guy's opinion gets on my tits - how can you possibly suppose that a moral argument against killing something to eat its corpse can ever be nullified by inhaling dead skin cells?! Ludicrous! Just as a vegan is no less vegan if there's a fly in their soup - no one killed that fly, its presence is a tragic accident. The choices and deliberate actions we make are what matter.

You might imagine that religious people would be the most understanding of the rights of others to have their belief systems protected but is seems this is not the case. Many wars have been fought on a 'my-religion-is-better-than-yours' principle but bashing on veganism?! Given that many faiths have dietary restrictions in their texts it seems a bit cheeky to say the very least.

People seem very insulted by the idea of veganism having the same status as a religion...and very much unable to differentiate between faith and philosophy!

Veganism is not a religion, it has pretty much one rule which is virtually the same as the medical profession's 'first do no harm', it does not require you to pray or to build special places to worship vegetables, it is never going to encourage you to go to war with anyone, it doesn't tell you who you can or can't marry...in fact, it doesn't impact how you live your life at all beyond not harming animals to do so.

Jordi Casamitjana, by the sounds of it, is a bit of an extreme vegan - apparently he won't use buses in case bugs die on the windshield. Most vegans use public transport, drive, live perfectly ordinary lives virtually indistinguishable from anyone else's...they choose not to eat meat, dairy and a host of other animal products; they choose not to use wool, silk and leather; they choose kindness over convenience.

Yet people call Veganism a cult because their precious cheeseburgers are threatened?! And the endless asking of "but what about bacon?" like strips of salted smoked pig flesh are godly. Honestly, y'all will believe in some supreme, omnipotent yet curiously absent deity but not that animals have feelings.

People are too damn weird.