#Queen Speech 2019

[redgoldsparks]

My very last comic for The Nib! End of an era! Transcription below the cut. instagram / patreon / portfolio / etsy / my book / redbubble

The first event I went to with GENDER QUEER was in NYC in 2019 at the Javits Center.

So many of the people who came to my signing were librarians, and so many of them said the same thing: "I know exactly who I want to give this to!" Maia: "Thank you for helping readers find my book!" While working on the book, I was genuinely unsure if anyone outside of my family and close friends would read it. But the early support of librarians and two American Library Association awards helped sell two print runs in first year.

Since then, GENDER QUEER been published in 8 languages, with more on the way: Spanish, Czech, Polish, French, Italian, Norwegian, Portugese and Dutch.

It has also been the most banned book in the United States for the past two years. The American Library Association has tracked an astronomical increase in book challenges over the past few years. Most of these challenges are to books with diverse characters and LGBTQ themes. These challenges are coming unevenly across the US, in a pattern that mirrors the legislative attacks on LGBTQ people. The Brooklyn Public Library offered free eCards to anyone in the US aged 13-21, in an effort to make banned books more available to young readers. A teacher in Norman, Oklahoma gave her students the QR code for the free eCard and lost her job. Summer Boismeir is now working for the Brooklyn Public Library. Hoopla and Libby/Overdrive, apps used to access digital library books, are now banned in Mississippi to anyone under 18. Some libraries won’t allow anyone under 18 to get any kind of library card without parental permission. When librarians in Jamestown, Michigan refused to remove GENDER QUEER and several other books, the citizens of the town voted down the library’s funding in the fall 2022 election. Without funding, the library is due to close in mid-2024. My first event since covid hit was the American Library Association conference in June 2022 in Washington, DC. Once again, the librarians in my signing line all had similar stories for me: “Your book was challenged in our district" "It was returned to the shelf!" "It was removed from the shelf..." "It was moved to the adult section."

Over and over I said: "Thank you. Thank you for working so hard to keep my book in your library. I’m sorry you had to defend it, but thank you for trying, even if it didn't work." We are at a crossroads of freedom of speech and censorship. The future of libraries, both publicly funded and in schools, are at stake. This is massively impacting the daily lives of librarians, teachers, students, booksellers, and authors around the country. In May 2023, I read an article from the Washington Post analyzing nearly 1000 of the book challenges from the 2021-2022 school year. I was literally on route to a festival to talk about book bans when I read a startling statistic. 60% of the 1000 book challenges were submitted by just 11 people. One man alone was responsible for 92 challenges. These 11 people seem to have made submitting copy-cat book challenges their full-time hobby and their opinions are having an outsized ripple effect across the nation. WE NEED TO MAKE THE VOICES SUPPORTING DIVERSE BOOKS AND OPPOSING BOOK BANS EVEN LOUDER. If you are able too, show up for your library and school board meetings when book challenges are debated. Send supportive comments and emails about the Pride book display and Drag Queen story hours. If you see a display you like– for Banned Book Week, AAPI Month, Black History Month, Disability Awareness Month, Jewish holidays, Trans Day of Remembrance– compliment a librarian! Make sure they feel the love stronger than the hate <3

Maia Kobabe, 2023

The Nib

[inconspicious-random-thoughts]

The Hazbin Timeline

I'm just making a timeline list of the Hazbin Hell residents biological and death ages. It's fun and interesting to see who is around who time period and such.

It might make help fanfic writers with backstories to know who existed at what time.

Im making the "current" date in the Hazbin universe 2019 as that's when The pilot aired.

Oldest: Lucifer. Existed before the dawn of mankind.

Adam: First man, existed since the dawn of mankind

Lilith: First woman, Existed since the dawn of mankind.

Eve: Second woman, Existed since the dawn of mankind, after Lilith.

Zestial: Information unknown beside oldest overlord, but going by his Shakespearean speech, death around the 1600's making him about 400 years old.

Possibly witness in his lifetime: Mary, Queen of Scots, executed for treason by order of Queen Elizabeth I, Galileo's experiments, Pilgrims from England arrive at Plymouth, Massachusetts, on the Mayflower.

Charlie: Appears to be in her 20s but

Despite her youthful appearance, it appears that Charlie's age is a matter of question. Although Vivziepop thinks that Charlie does celebrate birthdays with the standard kind of party, she is still unsure of how demon years and time work for someone like Charlie. In a later stream, Vivziepop stated that demons age in "hell years"] This may hint that Charlie's biological aging is different from how humans age, although it is unknown if hell years are similar in length to Earth years.

In one of the Hazbin Hotel pilot teasers, a portrait of the Magne family taken in the year 1871 hints that Charlie is decades older than she appears. Although this detail is omitted in the final version of the pilot, Faustisse has corroborated that Charlie is over 200 years old.

Rosie: Tricky, giving by her preferred time period, her death would be about 1890ish and her birth near 1850s-1860s making her 170 years old BUT Faustisse stated Rosie never died, suggesting that she was born in Hell. Which may subject to change as the show progress but if she's Hell born, they grow slower. So if we doing the same math as Charlie, she been around for 400 years. Which is similar to Zestial but not mention she on par with him in age so I think her being Hellborn not going to be finalized in canon. Rosie human age would be a little older if not similar to Alastor mother ages which is probably why he so easily bonds with her along with similar interest.

Sir Pentious: Biologically 40s, deceased 1888 making his soul 170is years old. His birth year is in the 1840s (This guy live through over 100 exterminations, and turf wars and challenging Alastor?)

Witness in his lifetime. The great famine in Ireland, the great Chicago fire, the pony express, the civil war, Lincoln assassinated, the statue of Liberty being dedicated,

Carmilia: Going with my headcanon that Carmilla was the lead ballerina in swan lake. Swan lake composed in 1877. Also, we have to consider her daughters to figure her death as I think they all died the same day. One of them goes by the name Clara...which is character in the nutcracker composed in 1892. So their deaths are after that date. Swan lake had a revival at 1895 so we just making their deaths at that time for sake of making it easy. Carmilla is vibing near 40 but I wouldn't push her past that as I think it be tough to be a 40 year old ballerina in the late 1800's. So her birth year is 1860s So I'm just going to guess her age be no older then 35 making her soul 160ish.

Her daughters being little after that. Being 150ish years old.

Witness in his lifetime. The civil war, Lincoln assassinated, the great Chicago fire, the statue of Liberty being dedicated,

Tom Trench: Biologically in his 40s, died 1910-1920s. Assumed during ww1 making his birth year late 1870s. His soul being around 150ish years old.

Alastor: Biologically 30-40's so for simplicity sake-35. So being born just smidge before the turn of 1900s. His death is 1933. Making his soul about 120 years old.

He witnessed 3 states included in the Us (up at 48 at his death) Wright brothers flight, Titanic sink, WW1, Great depression, Woman can vote, and prohibition.

Husk: Biologically 60-70, to make is simple 65. his death in the 1970s. Making his birth year about 1910's. About a decade after Alastors birth. Husker soul age about 110 years old. Husker has nearly the same timeline as Alastor and Angel except Husker lived an additional 40-50 years. Husk is about 10 year difference between both Alastor and Angel in either direction. So Husker being one the very few characters who lived a full life could at some point crossed paths with most of the characters in his living life, especially its been noted he was a world traveler to increase those odds. Alastor, Mimzy, Angel, Vox, Nifty, and Valentino. Husker is the unique character we get to witness that he an "old soul" because he lived the longest while alive, yet is in the same soul generation as Alastor, Angel and Vox, yet one of the youngest with his afterlife and still managed to be Overlord at one point. His overlords years being in the 1980-90s. As it takes time to become an overlord with the exception of Alastor. But I believe Husk did raise to Overlord fairly rapidly but lost it nearly as quickly as it seems Alastor had him under contract for a long while. Husk was in his 20s during Alastor death, in his 30s going on 40s for Angel Death, and 40's for Nifty and Nox death. Husk and Valentino share the same Hell afterlife timeline.

Angel Dust: Stated his age is in the 30s...and it most be very early 30's because I do not get the impression of him being 30 but more in the 20's. It so weird to know Angel meant to be a few years younger then Alastor biologically. Death year 1947. Making his birth year around 1917. His soul being just over 100 years. about 20 year difference from Alastor. Alastor hitting the age of adulthood while Husker not even a preteen at the time of Angel birth. Angel was in his mid teens when Alastor died.. Alastor possibly linked to is murders at this time of death and Angel would witness the news that would arise from it. Possibly heard some of Alastor broadcast. Angel is assumed gone by the name Anthony for a few decades in Hell before adopting his porn star name when he signed on with Valentino.

Vox: Biologically 30-40's so for simplicity sake-35. Died in the 1950's. Making his birth year about 1915 his soul just over 100 years old. He was a teen at the time of Alastor death. Alastor possibly linked to is murders at this time of death and Vox would witness the news that would arise from it. Angel and Vox lives and death are about in the same timeline, Angel died no more than a decade before Vox.

Witness in his lifetime: Great depression, prohibition start and end. all of WWII, holocaust, Hindenburg, Mount Rushmore finished first motion picture with sound The Jazz Singer.

Niffty: Biologically 22. Died in the 1950's making her birth year about 1930's. Her soul is about 90 years old. She possibly the youngest biological age character we seen. She as an infant when Alastor died. A preteen to late teen when Angel died. Possibly watched Voxs programs. (I headcanon that Vox is a tv game host). Died about the same time as Vox. Husk was in his 40s at her time of Death. Husk was in his 20 at the time of her birth.

Valentino: I'm placing him similar to Vox age so 35. He died in 1970's making his birth year about 1935. Just after Alastor death. Was in his late teens at the time of Vox death. Possibly watched Voxs programs growing up. (I headcanon that Vox is a tv game host). His soul is about 85 years old. Angel is older than Valentino even if Angel biological age might been slightly younger.

Angel been around longer than Valentino and its easy to forget that. Angel been uncontracted for a few decades before Valeninto became an overlord.

In his lifetime, the last two states was added to the US. Beatlemania, the space race, woodstock.

Katie Killjoy: in her 40's and died in 1992. Her birth year being late 1940-early 1950s. Making her soul little over 70 years old.

Zeezi: No information but giving her blatant 80's style she dies in the 80's and her personality seem of someone in early 20s...she was born in the 1960's Making her soul just about 70 years old. Same age as Katie, but Katie lived longer making Zeezi a citizen of Hell longer.

Cherri Bomb: Biologically in her 20s, and died in 1980s. Her birth year being 1960s. Living the same exact timeline as Zeezi. Cherri is possibly the youngest character we witness so far.

Velvette: No real information released but appears to be in the 20s. Her "age and death age" don't really match up to her character, but since maybe that's because she just good at updating and staying on trend. I headcanon it takes a minimum for a soul to become an overlord 10 years. So going by that, early 2000s since she not a brand spankin new overlord, she vibing she been overlord for a few years-close to a decade. ? Her birth year being in the 1980's which....doesn't seem to match. But giving the show timeline is 2019 subtract having years of experience as an overlord, and years to accomative the power and climb the ladder, and add her age...its near 1980s. Only way she can be an overlord with her birth being later in the 90's and death close to current year frame is that the other Vees saw potential and her and adopted her immediately and steamline her into being an overlord. But why would they do that if they just make a deal for her soul and use her potential that way?

That it for now. Hopefully someone enjoys this or could use the information I gathered, some venture a guess on the characters timeline and who may overlap who. I hope it wasn't terribly dull.

[monarch-afterdark]

Titan History: Tiamat

Welcome once again to Monarch: After Dark, the digital gateway between you and the organisation dedicated to understanding and navigating this troubled new world we live in.

For today's communication, we find ourselves once more turning to the most recent Titan crisis, dedicating today's instalment of "Titan History" to a beast that has many people talking; the queen of the depths, Tiamat.

(Pictured above: An artistic piece depicting Tiamat on the mainland, created by former Outpost 53 operative Dope Pope)

Monarch Database File: Tiamat

Monarch Designation: Titanus Tiamat

Length: 847 feet

Weight: Unknown

Nature: Bio-Ultraviolet

Behavioural Classification: Destroyer

-----

Designated as "Titan 019" in Monarch's database, Tiamat was a colossal sea serpent, vibrant coloured scales and a bioluminescent frill granting her an almost hypnotising appearance as she cuts through the water. Those who studied her in Monarch Outpost 53 note her impressive ability to mimic the sounds of human voices. Though incapable of perfectly replicating speech, many of the outpost's staff recount being haunted by the sounds of her "Titansong".

The full extent of her abilities show Tiamat to be a true force of nature. She can blind opponents with a yellow phosphorus ink that manifests as a form of acidic breath, she possesses electrogenic cells that can manipulate electrical energy to such an extent that her storms can boil the ocean and generate steam trails that can be seen from space. Her underwater superiority rivals even that of Godzilla, able to generate maelstroms capable of dragging other Titans to the depths.

Prior to her final encounter with Godzilla, Tiamat was also shown to be capable of absorbing and generating massive amounts of energy through a natural radiation hotspot in the Arctic Circle, achieving an "evolved" state similar to what Godzilla would go on to gain for himself prior to engaging the Skar King and Shimo.

(Pictured above: Speculative artistic rendition of how Tiamat and Godzilla's Hollow Earth brawl in 2020 would have looked like, courtesy of Drew E. Johnson)

As is the case with most Titans on record, little is known about what Tiamat may have been doing prior to her containment by Monarch and awakening in 2019. It is known that, at some stage, Tiamat claimed a subterranean lair within the Hollow Earth as her domain, killing its previous occupant (an apparent ancestor to Kong), as well as various other Titans that attempted to rob her of what was her's. Drone exploration into this lair revealed a Titan graveyard of those likely slain by Tiamat, a Titanus Jinshin-Mushi Prime scattered among the remains was of particular note to Monarch.

At some stage, Tiamat would temporarily vacate this lair and make her way to Stone Mountain, Georgia, where she would later be contained by Monarch for further study.

Tiamat was part of the Titan legion awakened by Monster Zero in 2019, later pacified by the ORCA. Like most, she was not present for Godzilla's claim as Alpha Titan. She returned soon after to the lair she had claimed. Toward the end of 2020, Godzilla entered the Hollow Earth and, while Monarch are uncertain of the exact details, presumably fought with Tiamat over possession of the lair. As Tiamat was later observed leaving the Hollow Earth in search of a new home, it is clear Godzilla had emerged victorious.

(Pictured above: Drew E. Johnson's full-body sketch of Tiamat, part of a collection of drawing Titans he had been assigned to study)

Sometime before 2027, Tiamat would claim a natural radiation hotspot in the Arctic Circle, the largest known source on the planet, as her domain, resting within a particular glacier absorbing energy and building up her strength.

In 2027, while absorbing radiation to build his own strength for the coming conflict with the Skar King and Shimo, Godzilla hunted down Tiamat to her Arctic domain and attacked the glacier she was resting within to draw her out. Following a brief battle where both Titans seemed evenly matched, Godzilla fired a blast of atomic breath that tore through Tiamat's body and dismembered her. Godzilla then retreated into the glacier himself as Tiamat's remains floated to the surface.

-----

And there you go! Following news of her death, some in the public have expressed outcry over Godzilla's decision to kill her, noting that it seemed to break his pattern of only killing those who were an immediate threat to the balance of nature, and positing that Tiamat was simply keeping to herself and not being a threat.

While we cannot speculate how Godzilla truly thinks, what's done is ultimately done. Much as is the case with Scylla, this is all we can report on Tiamat unless either new findings come up or another of her species emerge.

Until next time,

Monarch: After Dark

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

They would be their generation's Andrew + Edward/Sophie. Full-time senior working royals. A very nice home on a royal estate or in close proximity to one. Attending state banquets and participating in state visits. Representing King Charles and the UK with other royal families. Titles for their children. Signature causes and projects. Well-liked by the public. Huge charities and patronages. Growing list of military honors, and Harry would probably have taken over most of Prince Philip's military portfolio.

Suppose this happened, would the brf like it? One of the squad’s talking points is that the brf got jealous. Suppose harry and meghan became successful in the brf, would the brf really not sabotage itself? Also, let’s face it, harry and meghan did get the young-ish chronically online crowd at first, would the brf like that when those people would compare the rest of them negatively meghan online. Although I guess before everything was exposed in 2019, I remember the attitude on social media, particularly twitter, was that they weren’t specifically hostile towards the other brf members yet. I guess some of the viral tweets i remember from that time were like “ex-british soldier marries successful actress” or when meghan and kate attended wimbledon together, the tweets were like “they should leave their husbands and run away together” (which was weird). I guess what I’m saying it meghan really did get that crowd at first, so would the brf like that?

Also, I remember it’s said that the brf asked meghan to continue working as an actress? How do you think that would have worked? Would she still be a working royal? And what if harry married another woman, let’s say, cressida? Would that woman also be given the option to work because as we found out from harry, charles was concerned they didn’t have enough money for harry’s wife?

No, it'd be fine. The BRF knows they have an image problem in that most of their working royals are older. As long as Harry and Meghan pulled in and kept the youth attention - eg Gen Z/Zillennials (since William and Kate had the Millennials covered) - and knew their place in the larger BRF (eg they cooperated when senior royals requested the media cycle for a speech), they weren't going to care.

Some people (cough Charles cough) might've been prickly at someone else taking their press but the overarching BRF as a whole largely wouldn't have minded. William and Kate certainly wouldn't have minded or cared.

Then for your other questions, I'll go one by one.

Also, I remember it’s said that the brf asked meghan to continue working as an actress?

Yes, allegedly Harry was told that there was no money to pay for Meghan and that she should continue working.

How do you think that would have worked?

Meghan would've kept working as an actress and accompanying Harry only to official family events (Trooping, Easter, Garter Day, Ascot, weddings, services of thanksgiving, etc.). The Duchess of Kent would be a good person to look at - she stepped down as a working royal in the 90s and became a music teacher instead.

I believe the Duchess of Kent's career is what they tried to model the then-Countess of Wessex's career on when she planned to continue working after marrying Prince Edward in a half in/half out status. Where Sophie ran into trouble with her career (she was in public relations) is that she was caught in a sting operation by a reporter pretending to be a sheik (or something like that) speaking very candidly about the royal family. Sophie quit her job, Edward quit his companies, and they joined the firm as full-time working royals in 2002 - it was spun as coming onboard for the Queen's jubilee celebrations and then they just stayed as working royals.

Would she still be a working royal?

Most likely not. If Meghan kept working as an actress, she would not have been allowed to be a working royal as well. The half in/half out experiment with Sophie and Edward wasn't successful so the BRF was not going to let anyone else try it out. They didn't even let Beatrice and Eugenie have half in/half out and that was something Andrew 100% was fighting for.

And what Beatrice and Eugenie had 2012 - 2015ish is probably what Meghan would've ended up having - a "working career" with a ton of vacation time, perma-invites to all the family events, and some personal charities.

And what if harry married another woman, let’s say, cressida? Would that woman also be given the option to work because as we found out from harry, charles was concerned they didn’t have enough money for harry’s wife?

I am fairly certain that if Harry had married anyone else - Cressida, Chelsy, heck even Sara Macklin (the model he was alledgely seeing when he started dating Meghan) - that woman would have been invited to be a working royal.

I'm sure of that because of Charles's "magnificent six" plan, which was his vision for the monarchy when he was King. He wanted a slimmed, streamlined monarchy of just him and Camilla, his sons, and their wives. The plan had been in the works for awhile, but Charles "officially" debuted it in 2012 at the jubilee balcony:

Meaning there absolutely was every intent for Harry's wife to become a working royal.

So possibly one of two things happened:

Option 1 - Everyone knew Meghan was bad news the second they laid eyes on her so "we don't have the budget for her to become a working royal so she should keep acting" was an attempt to keep her away.

Option 2 - Harry's wife was only meant to become a working royal under King Charles only. So in the meantime under Queen Elizabeth, Harry's wife - aka Meghan - needed to keep acting or doing some other kind of work to occupy her time but whatever work she did had to be in line with royal protocol (ie no merching or monetizing her status) so she could be "promoted" to working royal when the time came.

Or Harry just made it up/misunderstood the discussion. (I suspect this is actually what happened.) Someone asked something like "does Meghan intend to keep acting after you marry?" and Harry heard "Meg can't be a royal, she has to keep acting" instead.

[daisiesonafield-blog]

Hi Daisie,

do you know if any of your followers has access to the full article?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/harry-styles-album-year-grammys-speech-beyonce-white-privilege/

This doesn’t happen to people like me very often.” So said 29-year-old Harry Styles, accepting his Grammy Award for Album of the Year on Sunday night. Most normal people assumed that by “people”, Styles meant a boy born outside of Birmingham and brought up in between Crewe and Manchester, far from the bright lights of London and the Brit School. But the internet is not full of normal people, and outrage ensued, as critics claimed that Styles was ignoring his white privilege��– and, worse, having a pop at Beyoncé.

Styles also drew ire by arguing that “there’s no such thing as ‘best’ in music”, and refusing to say that he thought Beyoncé would win, instead saying merely that “you never know with this stuff”. The critics didn’t hold back. “‘This doesn’t happen to people like me’,” wrote the American podcaster Sam Sanders, “is the most white privilege-iest thing to ever be uttered at an awards show ever for all time [sic].” “Beyoncé continues to be boycotted, without AOTY [Album of the Year] and used as a token to disguise the Academy’s racism,” complained the pop-culture website Pop Tingz. 

Styles may have had a wobbly night – not least because the turnstile on which his dance number was meant to be performed rotated in the wrong direction – but an attack on “Queen B” this was not. To most Britons, Styles’s accent is the clue that he’s different from many a young London silver-spoon star; yet this subtlety is almost entirely lost on Americans. True, that Cheshire accent has been muddied by his recent attempt at a transatlantic twang while filming Don’t Worry Darling. 

And having a finance director for a father hardly puts you in league with British pop’s history of working-class heroes, from The Beatles to Oasis. Yet these days the industry has changed, and Styles is quite clearly different to the likes of Florence Welch or Marcus Mumford, who seem to fit into the world of fame as if they were born to it.

We’ve been here before. In 2019, when Sam Fender, born in North Shields, dared to explain why “white privilege” sounded like a difficult concept to the white men with whom he grew up, he was labelled tone-deaf and racist. This is the success of the “white privilege” label: admit it and you’re damned, deny it and you’re deluded. But in importing a particularly American brand of racial politics, discussion about success within the British arts only becomes skewed. 

Unlike in the States, class is a greater defining factor of success in Britain than race or gender are – a fact that many commentators seem to want to forget. “The debate raging online about where Styles sits on the class spectrum is a fascinating insight into Britain’s class obsession,” wrote one writer in The Guardian. That sound you can hear is a nation of working-class music-lovers choking on their own scorn.

Styles, in truth, is both right and wrong. Poor boys and girls have often made it to the top, though often that has been on account of the sheer tenacity of their talent. Barry Keoghan is currently flavour of the month in Ireland for his performance in Martin McDonagh’s film The Banshees of Inisherin, despite his extremely tough and poverty-stricken upbringing, which involved going in and out of the care system. 

Bands have often capitalised on class difference, too – admitting whether you were an Oasis or a Blur fan was as much a class signifier as the tea-vs-supper debate, and it did neither band any commercial harm. Some fans have also pointed out, amusingly, that Adele, who was also up for Album of the Year at the Grammys, was born and raised in Tottenham.

A working-class hero Harry Styles may not entirely be, but he certainly isn’t a white-privilege villain either. And we would all do well to remember that awards ceremonies, and the speeches made at them, may be full of glitz and glamour, but they bear little relevance to the politics of the real world – or to the real people who live out there.

Full article. Link here. No paywall link.

[sassyfrassboss]

I really am curious about why she looked the way she did when she visited New Zealand House in London. Like she was crying or was at the verge if bursting into tears at any moment. No writers have ever addressed that and I cannot stop being a busybody 😄

This one?

So...the "tea" on this...man do I remember.

On this particular The Queen and Catherine had their first ever engagement with just the two of them. Remember, Meghan had hers within weeks after the wedding (it was said because they were trying to fix the narrative of TQ hating Meghan after the wedding glare went viral).

So The Queen and Catherine were opening the Bush House at King’s College London. Afterwards, Catherine had a solo engagement which was equally important, a visit to the Foundling Museum in London where she made a speech I believe.

But her engagement with The Queen was a BIG DEAL. Such a big deal in fact that it was relayed to the other royals to not schedule an event on this day, except William who had an investiture ceremony.

From the rumors, it is said that Meghan was explicitly told to not pull any shit because at this point it had become more than obvious she was making surprise appearances on the same day Catherine would be having important events. Plus, at the time Meghan was already on maternity leave so the BRF figured that she would actually listen for once...but boy did she not!

So Harry was asked to visit NZ House later in the week to present a wreath/flowers for the Churchill shooting (happened on Friday) and pay his respects. It was supposed to be kind of a casual pop in/pop out thing. But on Tuesday, March 19, 2019 Meghan decided it was the perfect time to pay HER respects.

Now this is where I am fuzzy but I think the details were something along the lines of this:

Meghan tells her assistant she is going to pay her respects. Her assistant advises against it stating that she was told to not do anything on this day and that it was Harry who was asked, not Meghan. Meghan bullies her assistant and demands that preparations are in place for her to leave. Someone calls Harry and informs him of Meghan's plan. Meghan cannot be talked out of said plan. Harry decides he better join as well at least that way he can try and control the situation and be better able to defend her actions.

At some point, I think as they were on their way there, they were contacted by William or maybe a staff member of TQ and were told to not do this. They did it anyways.

Later it was said that TQ had words with Harry in regards to his wife's actions, again.

[folditdouble]

Women in Film Challenge 2023: [56/52] The Warrior Queen of Jhansi, dir. Swati Bhise (India/UK, 2019)

Until the day the foreigners dare not attempt to control our thoughts, speech, ideology, and impose rules on our rights, we must fight for the cause of freedom. Our feet will never falter!

[catherinetheprincessofwales]

My Favourite TV Shows and Movies about British Royals in Chronological Order:

The Hollow Crown: Richard II (2012)

The White Queen (2013)

The White Princess (2017)

The Spanish Princess (2019)

Wolf Hall (2015)*

The Tudors (2007-2010)*

The Favourite (2018)

The Madness of King George (1994)

The Young Victoria (2009)*

Victoria (2016-2019)*

Mrs Brown (1997)

Victoria and Abdul (2017)

The Lost Prince (2003)

W.E. (2011)*

The Kings Speech (2010)*

The Crown Season 1 and 2 (2016-2017)*

The Queen (2006)

The Crown Season 6 part 2 (2023)

*some overlaps in era.

[andiatas]

Masterpost: Royal Authors

This is a text version of the original list I curated, which can be found here. The royals are listed chronologically based on their first name (not title). The books are listed with the oldest book first & most recently published book last.

Some of the mentioned people have published books or lent out their names for books as private citizens; this post & the original list only cover royal members & books published under their royal title. This means that some books & some people have been excluded due to not falling under those criteria.

Note: Some of the following links are affiliate links, which means I earn a commission on every purchase. This does not affect the price you pay.

Princess Akiko of Mikasa

Reconsidering early modern Yamato-e: perspectives from Japan, the UK, and the USA (2013)

Japan: Courts and Culture (2020)

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester

The Memoirs of Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester (1983)

Memories of Ninety Years (1991)

Catherine, Princess of Wales

Hold Still (2021)

Puzzles for Spies: The brand-new puzzle book from GCHQ (2022)

King Charles III

The Old Man of Lochnagar (1980)

Tomorrow is Too Late - A Celebration of Our Wildlife Heritage (1990) (with Sir David Attenborough, among others)

The Prince's Choice: A Personal Selection from Shakespeare by the Prince of Wales (1995)

Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World (2010)

Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World - Children's Edition

One Is Deeply Concerned: The Prince Charles Letters, 1969-2011 (2011)

The Prince's Speech: On the Future of Food (2012)

The list is too long; that man puts his name on literally everything. Check the page for more.

Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson

Days at Drottningholm (2016)

Diana, Princess of Wales

British Sign Language: A Beginner's Guide (1988)

PEOPLE OF THE 90's: In Aid of the Malcolm Sargent Cancer Fund for Children (1995)

Hannah Riddell: An Englishwoman in Japan (1996)

Head Injury: A Practical Guide (1997)

King Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor

Launch! A Life-Boat Book (1932)

A King's Story: The Memoirs of the Duke of Windsor (1951)

The Crown and the People, 1902-1953 (1953)

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent

Jackie Stewart's Principles of Performance Driving (1986)

Australia Bound!: Story of West Country Connections, 1688-1888 (1988)

Deep into Blue Holes: The Story of The Andros Project (1989)

The Institution of Industrial Managers: A History 1931-1991 (1991)

The Story of E. H. Shepard: The Man Who Drew Pooh (2000)

Tribal Odyssey: A Photographic Journey Among Tribes (2000)

Chasin' the Sound: Tales and tunes from the career of Pipe Major Brian B Heriot, Scots Guards (2016)

A Royal Life (2022) (his memoir)

One Crew: The RNLI's Official 200-Year History (2024)

Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother

The Country Life Book of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (1978) (actually by Charles & Godfrey Talbot, not her)

Henrik, Prince Consort

Fit for a Royal Dane: Gastronomic Views and Recipes of Prince Henrik (2002)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Together: Our Community Cookbook (2018)

Princess Michael of Kent

Crowned in a Far Country: Portraits of Eight Royal Brides (1986)

Cupid and the King: Five Royal Paramours (1991)

The Serpent and the Moon: Two Rivals for the Love of a Renaissance King (2004)

A Cheetah's Tale (2017)

Princess Märtha Louise

Why Kings and Queens Don't Wear Crowns (2004)

The Spiritual Password: Learn to Unlock Your Spiritual Power (2014)

Emperor Naruhito

Costume at Castle Howard (1975)

The Thames and I: A Memoir of Two Years at Oxford (1993; 2006; 2019)

Queen Noor

Art of Jordan: Treasures from an Ancient Land (1991)

Landmines and Human Security: International Politics and War's Hidden Legacy

Leadership and the United Nations: The International Leadership Series (2003)

Leap of Faith: Memoirs of an Unexpected Life (2003)

Breaking Ground: From Landmines to Grapevines, One Woman's Mission to Heal the World: Transforming Mines to Vines (2020)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

The Duke of Edinburgh's World Tour 1956-1957 (1957)

Selected Speeches 1948-1955 (1957)

Prince Philip speaks: 1956-1959 (1960)

Environmental Revolution: Speeches on Conservation, 1962-77 (1978)

Men, Machines and Sacred Cows (1984)

Down to Earth: Speeches and Writings of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, on the Relationship of Man With His Environment (1988)

Survival or Extinction: A Christian Attitude to the Environment (1989)

The list is too long. Check the page for more.

Queen Rania

The Sandwich Swap (2010)

Prince William, Prince of Wales

Blown Away: From Drug Dealer to Life Bringer (2022)

Puzzles for Spies: The brand-new puzzle book from GCHQ (2022)

Earthshot: How to Save Our Planet (2021)

The Earthshot Prize: A Handbook for Dreamers and Thinkers: Solutions to Repair our Planet (2023)

(this post & the original list is a work in progress & will be updated whenever "new" books come on my radar)

[april-is]

April 7, 2023: Insha’Allah, Danusha Laméris

Insha’Allah Danusha Laméris I don’t know when it slipped into my speech that soft word meaning, “if God wills it.” Insha’Allah I will see you next summer. The baby will come in spring, insha’Allah. Insha’Allah this year we will have enough rain.

So many plans I’ve laid have unraveled easily as braids beneath my mother’s quick fingers.

Every language must have a word for this. A word our grandmothers uttered under their breath as they pinned the whites, soaked in lemon, hung them to dry in the sun, or peeled potatoes, dropping the discarded skins into a bowl.

Our sons will return next month, insha’Allah. Insha’Allah this war will end, soon. Insha’Allah the rice will be enough to last through winter.

How lightly we learn to hold hope, as if it were an animal that could turn around and bite your hand. And still we carry it the way a mother would, carefully, from one day to the next.

--

More like this: Kul, Fatimah Asghar

Today in: 

2022: To the Woman Crying Uncontrollably in the Next Stall, Kim Addonizio 2021: You Mean You Don’t Weep at the Nail Salon?, Elizabeth Acevedo 2020: Let Me Begin Again, Philip Levine 2019: Hammond B3 Organ Cistern, Gabrielle Calvocoressi 2018: Siren Song, Margaret Atwood 2017: A Sunset, Ari Banias 2016: Coming, Philip Larkin 2015: The Taxi, Amy Lowell 2014: Winter Sunrise Outside a Café Near Butte, Montana, Joe Hutchison 2013: The Last Night in Mithymna, Linda Gregg 2012: America [Try saying wren], Joseph Lease 2011: Boston, Aaron Smith 2010: How Simile Works, Albert Goldbarth 2009: Crossing Over, William Meredith 2008: The World Wakes Up, Andrew Michael Roberts 2007: Hour, Christian Hawkey 2006: For the Anniversary of My Death, W.S. Merwin 2005: The Last Poem About the Snow Queen, Sandra M. Gilbert

[andreeamq]

A fun fact! During the State Opening of Parliament a hostage from the Houses of Parliament is taken just before The Queen leaves for Parliament and is held at Buckingham Palace. This tradition, which dates back to the reign of Charles l, is a reminder that the Sovereign and Parliament did not always share an easy relationship: the 'hostage' guarantees The Queen's safe return to Buckingham Palace. Rest easy, though: the 'hostage', who is usually the Vice-Chamberlain of The Queen's Household and a government whip, is entertained with tea and biscuits while he or she watches The Queen deliver her speech on television.'

‘The Other Side of the Coin: The Queen, the Dresser and the Wardrobe’ by Angela Kelly (2019).

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Coleman Hughes

Published: Oct 27, 2019

In 2016, Ibram X. Kendi became the youngest person ever to win the National Book Award for Nonfiction. His surprise bestseller, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas, cast him in his role as an activist-historian, ambitiously attempting to make 600 years of racial history digestible in 500 pages. In his follow-up, How to Be an Antiracist, Kendi––now 37, a Guggenheim fellow, and a contributing writer at The Atlantic––reveals his personal side, weaving together memoir, polemic, and instruction as he invites the reader to join him on the frontlines of what I like to call the War on Racism.

If the book has a core thesis, it is that this war admits of no neutral parties and no ceasefires. For Kendi, “there is no such thing as a not-racist idea,” only “racist ideas and antiracist ideas.” His Manichaean outlook extends to policy. “Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity,” Kendi proclaims, defining the former as racist policies and the latter as antiracist ones.

Every policy? That question was posed to Kendi by Vox cofounder Ezra Klein, who gave the hypothetical example of a capital-gains tax cut. Most of us think of the capital-gains tax, if we think about it at all, as a policy that is neutral as regards questions of race or racism. But given that blacks are underrepresented among stockowners, Klein asked, would it be racist to support a capital-gains tax cut? “Yes,” Kendi answered, without hesitation. And in case you planned on escaping the charge of racism by remaining agnostic on the capital-gains tax, that won’t work either, because Kendi defines a racist as anyone who supports “a racist policy through their actions or inaction.”

Hailed by the New York Times as “the most courageous book to date on the problem of race in the Western mind,” How to Be an Antiracist is certainly bold in its effort to redefine a concept that bedevils American society. On his unusually expansive definition, Kendi sees racism operating not just behind niche issues like the capital-gains tax but also behind problems of civilizational significance. “Racism,” he writes, “has spread to nearly every part of the body politic,” “heightening exploitation,” causing “arms races,” and “threatening the life of human society with nuclear war and climate change.” How, exactly, racism is behind the threat of nuclear holocaust is left to the reader’s imagination.

At times, it’s hard to know whether to interpret Kendi’s arguments as factual claims subject to empirical scrutiny or as diary entries to be accepted as personal truths. Indeed, much of the book reads like a seeker’s memoir or a conversion story in the mold of Augustine’s Confessions. Raised in a rough part of Queens in the 1990s, Kendi recounts his long journey from anti-black racism to anti-white racism, and eventually, to antiracism. In high school, Kendi delivered a speech bemoaning the bad behavior of black youth; by college, he had outgrown that phase and become anti-white, convinced at one point that white people were literal aliens but later scaling down to the belief that they were “simply a different breed of human.” A New Yorker piece cites a column he wrote as an undergraduate, in which he argued that “white people were fending off racial extinction, using ‘psychological brainwashing’ and ‘the aids virus.’”

Having matured out of his anti-white phase, Kendi takes a refreshingly strong stand against anti-white racism in the book, rejecting the fashionable argument that blacks cannot be racist because they lack power. He reflects with embarrassment on his old beliefs, avoiding condescension by lecturing his former self instead of the reader. Still, certain autobiographical details call for embarrassment but don’t get it. He recalls, for example, his first night living in Virginia as a teenager, during which he stayed up all night, “worried the Ku Klux Klan would arrive any minute.” That took place in 1997.

The book is weakest in its chapter devoted to capitalism. “Capitalism is essentially racist,” Kendi proclaims, and “racism is essentially capitalist.” To test this claim, a careful thinker might compare racism in capitalist countries with racism in socialist/Communist ones; or he might compare racism in the private sector with racism in the public sector. Kendi does neither. Instead, he presents the link between capitalism and racism as self-evidently true: “Since the dawn of racial capitalism, when were markets level playing fields? . . . . When could Black people compete equally with White people?” Kendi asks, implying that the answer is “never.”

I can think of several historical examples in which capitalism inspired anti-racism. The most famous is the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case, when a profit-hungry railroad company––upset that legally mandated segregation meant adding costly train cars––teamed up with a civil rights group to challenge racial segregation. Nor was that case unique. Privately owned bus and trolley companies in the Jim Crow South “frequently resisted segregation” because “separate cars and sections” were “too expensive,” according to one scholarly paper on the subject.

A lesser known example is the South African housing market under Apartheid. Though landlords in whites-only areas were legally barred from renting to nonwhites, vacancies made discrimination against non-white tenants costly. As a result, white landlords often ignored the law. In his book South Africa’s War on Capitalism, economist Walter Williams notes that at least one “whites-only” district was in fact comprised of a majority of nonwhites.

History offers little evidence that capitalism is either inherently racist or antiracist. As a result, Kendi must resort to cherry-picking data to demonstrate a link. Citing a Pew article, he asserts that the “Black unemployment rate has been at least twice as high as the White unemployment rate for the last fifty years” because of the “conjoined twins” of racism and capitalism. But why limit the analysis to the past 50 years? A paper cited in the same Pew article reveals that the black-white unemployment gap was “small or nonexistent before 1940,” when America was arguably more capitalist—and certainly more racist.

Kendi also cherry-picks his data when discussing race and health. He laments that blacks are more likely than whites to have Alzheimer’s disease, but neglects to mention that whites are more likely to die from it, according to the latest mortality data from the Center for Disease Control. In the same vein, he correctly notes that blacks are more likely than whites to die of prostate cancer and breast cancer, but does not include the fact that blacks are less likely than whites to die of esophageal cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, ovarian cancer, bladder cancer, brain cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and leukemia. Of course, it should not be a competition over which race is more likely to die of which disease––but that’s precisely my point. By selectively citing data that show blacks suffering more than whites, Kendi turns what should be a unifying, race-neutral battle ground––namely, humanity’s fight against deadly diseases––into another proxy battle in the War on Racism.

Worse than the skewed approach to data in Kendi’s book are the factual errors. Citing an entire book by Manning Marable (but no specific page), Kendi claims that in 1982, “[President Reagan] cut the safety net of federal welfare programs and Medicaid, sending more low-income Blacks into poverty.” I could not find any data in Marable’s book showing that the black poverty rate rose during Reagan’s tenure. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, according to the Census Bureau’s historical poverty tables: the black poverty rate decreased for every age group between 1982 and the end of Reagan’s tenure in 1989.

Also erroneous is Kendi’s claim, for which he offers no citation, that “White women” are the “primary beneficiaries” of “affirmative-action programs.” Judging from a similar claim made in Vox, this myth seems to come from a paper published by the critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw in 2006. Crenshaw’s paper, troublingly, contains no data and no empirical analysis. However, a group of political scientists did conduct an empirical study on the relationship between white women and affirmative action in the same year. They found that employers who supported affirmative action were no more likely to employ white women than employers who didn’t. The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action—at least in university admissions—are, in fact, the black and Latino children of middle- and upper-middle-class families.

What Kendi lacks in empirical rigor he makes up for in candor. Whereas many antiracists dance awkwardly around the fact that affirmative action is a racially discriminatory policy, Kendi says what they probably believe but are too afraid to say: namely, that “racial discrimination is not inherently racist.” He continues:

The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. . . . The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

Insofar as Kendi’s book speaks for modern antiracism, then it should be praised for clarifying what the “anti” really means. Fundamentally, the modern antiracist movement is not against discrimination. It is against inequity, which in many cases makes it pro-discrimination.

The problem with racial equity––defined as numerically equal outcomes between races––is that it’s unachievable. Without doubt, we have a long way to go in terms of maximizing opportunity for America’s most disadvantaged citizens. Many public schools are subpar, and some are atrocious; a sizable minority of black children grow up in neighborhoods replete with crime and abandoned buildings, while a majority grow up in single-parent homes. Too many blacks are behind bars.

All this is true, yet none of it implies that equal outcomes are possible. Kendi discusses inequity between ethnic groups––which he views as identical to inequity between racial groups—as problems created by racist policy. This view commits him to some bizarre conclusions. For example, according to 2017 Census Bureau data, the average Haitian-American earned 68 cents for every dollar earned by the average Nigerian-American. The average French-American earned 70 cents for every dollar earned by the average Russian-American. Similar examples abound. Is it more likely that our society imposes policies that discriminate against American descendants of Haiti and France, but not Nigeria and Russia—or that disparities between racial and ethnic groups are normal, even in the absence of racist policies? Kendi’s view puts him firmly in the former camp. “To be antiracist,” he claims, “is to view the inequities between all racialized ethnic groups”––by which he means groups like Haitian-Americans and Nigerian-Americans––“as a problem of policy.” Put bluntly, this assumption is indefensible.

What would it take to achieve a world of racial equity? Top-down enforcement of racial quotas? A constitutional amendment banning racial disparity? A Department of Antiracism to prescreen every policy for racially disparate impact? These ideas may sound like they were conjured up to caricature antiracists as Orwellian supervillains, but Kendi has actually suggested them as policy recommendations. His proposal is worth quoting in full:

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principles: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined).

Kendi’s suggestion that “racist ideas” would or could be rigorously defined is cold comfort, given his capacious definition of racism. In his book, Kendi calls belief in an achievement gap between black and white students a “racist idea.” Does that mean that President Obama would have violated Kendi’s antiracist amendment when he talked about the achievement gap in 2016? Would we have to overturn the First Amendment to make way for the anti-racist amendment? 

Kendi’s proposal continues:

[The anti-racist amendment] would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

Kendi’s goals are openly totalitarian. The DOA would be tasked with “investigating” private businesses and “monitoring” the speech of public officials; it would have the power to reject any local, state, or federal policy before it’s implemented; it would be made up of “experts” who could not be fired, even by the president; and it would wield “disciplinary tools” over public officials who did not “voluntarily” change their “racist ideas”—as defined, presumably, by people like Kendi. What could possibly go wrong?

The odds of Kendi’s proposal entering the political mainstream may seem miniscule and therefore not worth worrying about. But that’s what people said about reparations as recently as two years ago. In the long run, American public opinion on race will change. In five, ten, or 50 years, supporting an anti-racist constitutional amendment might become the new progressive purity test.

Kendi, however, doesn’t think it’s likely. Despite the wild success of his own book tour––drawing crowds “so large that bookstores have resorted to holding readings in churches, synagogues and school auditoriums”––he nevertheless thinks that the antiracist project will probably fail. For one thing, he doesn’t believe that people can be persuaded out of racism. “People are racist out of self-interest, not out of ignorance,” Kendi writes. Thus, racists can’t be educated out of their racism. “Educational and moral suasion is not only a failed strategy,” he laments, it’s a “suicidal” one.

This is a tough claim to square with the rest of the book, which contains story after story in which Kendi gets persuaded out of his racist beliefs––including one where a friend named Clarence reasons him out of believing that white people are extraterrestrials. Indeed, what makes Kendi’s personal story so compelling is precisely the fact that he’s constantly changing. That said, when reflecting on his college days, Kendi describes his former self as “a believer more than a thinker,” so perhaps not everything about him has changed.

How to Be an Antiracist is the clearest and most jargon-free articulation of modern antiracism I’ve read, and for that reason alone it is a useful contribution. But the book is poorly argued, sloppily researched, insufficiently fact-checked, and occasionally self-contradictory. As a result, it fails to live up to its titular promise, ultimately teaching the reader less about how to be antiracist than about how to be anti-intellectual.

==

"I would define [racism] as a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas." -- Ibram X. Kendi

-

"I take umbrage at the lionization of lightweight, empty-suited, empty-headed mother-fuckers like Ibram X. Kendi, who couldn’t carry my book-bag." -- Glenn Loury

[thislovintime]

undefined

Missed, loved, remembered with infinite gratitude and respect — always. February 21st... sending thoughts to Peter’s family and friends.

(This video features footage from the '60s through 2016, and also includes James Lee Stanley's 1997 onstage intro for Peter, and some song snippets.)

"Scary to cope to have to deal but sometimes it works out, gets real. Don't quit just before the miracle." - Peter Tork, Justus liner notes, 1996

"If you want to hear from someone who’s older than you, you’ve come to the right place. That ‘Don’t quit before the miracle,’ which of course is not remotely original with me, is maybe one of the best general advises I have. (Can that be the plural of ‘advice’? ) Another, which kind of is a bit more original with me, is, ‘Be a hero to yourself.’ By that I mean, regard your life’s story in the same light as those tales of Greek and Roman heroes, who were born to kings and queens and found their lives dashed down to humble circumstances, and who redeemed their lives thru heroic deeds (with a lot of help). Those heroic stories, it turns out, are everybody’s stories, and it’s deeply useful, I am convinced, to regard ourselves as that kind of hero. Hang in there, and don’t quit just before the miracle. Peter" - Ask Peter Tork (x)

“You know, I always have this closing message that I like to do. It actually came out of my mouth spontaneously at one of these interviews — ‘Be a hero to yourself.’ And I kind of, part of me was waiting to be asked, and part of me was surprised to hear it come out. And I later on ended up giving a graduation speech on the topic. The point being that everybody yells at you from the time you’re 2 — ‘Share, share, share, what makes you think you’re different from anybody else? How dare you take what isn’t yours.’ And kids who are not psychologically ready for that kind of approach are really befuddled. And they grow up in confusion, not knowing that, in fact, you are different from everybody else, and you are in charge of yourself, and you are responsible for this thing that is called your life. And you have to be a superhero. You have to have a cape and a blazing symbol on your chest and be in charge of the life that is yours, against all comers. There are evil-doers and there are people who are telling lies and mean well and people who are telling the truth and don’t mean well, and you have to sort it all out for yourself. And there will be help — you can’t do without help — this is the other half of the equation: You can’t do this without help. Because that’s part of the nature of being human. But you are still the hero. So that’s my message.” - Peter Tork, LeHigh Valley Live, 2012 (x)

From 2011, Peter performing "Til Then": here. (The video was also included in the Mike and Micky Show; as Michael put it to the Courier Mail in April 2019, “We have a video of a song Peter wanted to sing as his swan song. It’s a very sweet, very touching moment.”)

(A playlist from 2023's birthday tribute post: here.)

[saintmeghanmarkle]

📃 Megalist of 𝑭𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝑳𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒔 and Other 𝑵𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑵𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒔 in H&M’s Political Orbit 📃 by u/SeptiemeSens (Part 1 of 3)

📌 Link to Tumblr post Part 2 of 3

📌 Link to Tumblr post Part 3 of 3

📌 First Ladies:

Akshata Murty - Multimillionaire heiress and wife of Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the UK. On May 8th, 2024, Akshata attended Harry's Invictus Games 10th anniversary service at St Paul's Cathedral in London. Also in attendance: uncle Charles Spencer, auntie Lady Jane Fellowes, and other Spencer family members [source]

Hillary Clinton - In 2019, Hillary accepted Meghan's invitation to visit Frogmore Cottage where she met Meghan and 6-month old Archie. Following the Oprah interview, Hillary commented: "It just was heartbreaking that this incredibly accomplished woman Meghan Markle, who falls in love with Prince Harry, was not fully embraced by not just the so-called Firm, which is the name for the permanent bureaucracy that surrounds the royal family, but by the media in the UK." Hillary also participated in Meghan's 40x40 project [source 1 // source 2 // source 3]

Jill Biden - At an awards ceremony following the Oprah interview, Jill wore an Oscar de la Renta lemon dress pattern. It was similar to another Oscar de la Renta lemon pattern dress Meghan wore to a Spotify event the month before. Sewer Squadies claimed that Jill's dress was a subtle nod of support to H&M. Meghan even sent Jill a basket of lemons in thanks. After the funeral for the late Queen Elizabeth II, H&M reportedly asked to fly back to the US on Air Force One but they were denied [source 1 // source 2]

Michelle Obama - When Meghan guest-edited British Vogue's September 2019 issue, she lied about a "casual lunch of chicken tacos with Michelle Obama". In reality, it was an email interview. Following the explosive interview, Michelle thoughtfully responded: “My hope is that when I think about what they’re going through, I think about the importance of family, and I just pray that there is forgiveness and there is clarity and love and resolve at some point in time,” Michelle Obama said. “Because there’s nothing more important than family.” The Obamas are hold great respect and admiration for the late Queen Elizabeth II [source 1 // source 2]

Oluremi Tinubu - Following H&M's tour of Nigeria, First Lady Tinubu gave a speech in which she remarked: "We don't accept nakedness in our culture." Her comments were widely interpreted as a critique of the Meghan's clothing choices in Nigeria. Nearly a week later on May 30th, in an *alleged* email reply to AFP Fact Check reporter Tonye Bakare of Nigeria, the office of the First Lady *allegedly* clarified: "At no point did she say anything about Meghan's dressing." [source]. Was this the sinister work of Misan Harriman, Christopher Bouzy, and the Sussex Censorship Industrial Complex? Plausible deniability by First Lady Tinubu? Was First Lady Tinubu silent or was she... silenced?

Sophie Grégoire Trudeau - Former wife of Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. Meghan's 'dear friend' Sophie participated in the 40x40 project and the Archetypes podcast. In May 2024, Sophie publicly distanced herself from Meghan: "I know her,” she says, before adding that they haven’t spent much time together, and telling me how terrible she feels for Kate Middleton after her cancer diagnosis (“my heart just sunk when I saw what was happening.”) [source]

Zita Oligui Nguema - First Lady of Gabon, photographed with H&M during their May 2024 visit to Nigeria [source]. Will First Lady Nguema invite H&M to visit Gabon for their next faux royal tour?

post link

author: SeptiemeSens

submitted: June 04, 2024 at 11:46AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[royal-confessions]

“Queen rania stated in her public letter in 2019”I find myself living in dual realities the virtual world where I read cynicism and harshness & the real world where I find only affection & sincerity in every city,village & house I visit”I feel sorry for her but honestly you reap what you sown she & her team fools Jordanians with finely edited videos & speeches to portray a particular image for foreigners & deceive Jordanians so they play the same game with her,the truth is her people dislike her” - Submitted by Anonymous

[beardedmrbean]

I testified Thursday against the City Council Fair Chance for Housing Act, my second time in Council Chambers. The first was in May 2019 when I spoke personally and passionately about protecting New York City’s specialized high schools.

The bill, also known as Int. 632, is another City Council measure designed to protect lawbreakers at the expense of the law-abiding. It would prohibit criminal background checks on prospective tenants and buyers of residential housing.

After testifying, I left City Hall. It wasn’t until hours later that I heard the racist response to my testimony from Douglas Powell, who spoke on behalf of city-funded nonprofit Vocal-NY. He and his organization want individuals such as Powell, who has a criminal record and is a level 2 registered sex offender, to be able to access housing without criminal background checks.

His testimony laid out his criminal-justice experience and his lived experience of anti-black discrimination at Asian stores — culminating in a racist attack on the Asian community where he lives. In his three-minute tirade, he called Queens’ Rego Park the most racist neighborhood because it is majority Asian. “It’s not their neighborhood — they from China, Hong Kong,” he said. “We from New York.” 

Convicted sex offender spews anti-Asian slurs during NYC Council meeting — and pols do nothing to stop him

This anti-Asian, perpetual-foreigner, “You don’t belong here” rhetoric is dangerous hate speech that incites violence. Unprovoked attacks on Asian New Yorkers are on the rise.

Powell’s racist rant was delivered in the presence of three councilmembers without interruption or admonishment. Committee chair Nantasha Williams even thanked Powell for his testimony. It’s as if his anti-Asian hate speech in the chamber was unremarkable white noise. It took hours, after online pressure from constituents, for those present to issue generic disapproval statements, retweeting other electeds’ condemnation, and say “both sides” share blame for systemic racism.

Like many Asian Americans, I am a property owner and small landlord. When I graduated, my parents encouraged me to live at home, pay off my debt and save to buy a property. I lived at home for a few years and paid off my student loans as quickly as I could. Decades later, I bought my first investment property. I rented mostly to young men and women at the start of their careers. As a landlord, I treated my tenants the way I wanted to be treated: fairly and responsively. I’m fortunate real-estate brokers and condo management could conduct criminal and credit checks, not only for my benefit but for the safety of neighbors in the building.

Powell spewed hateful, anti-Asian rhetoric at the council meeting.Stephen Yang

Asian Americans have the highest rate of home ownership in the city, 42%. The stability of owning property as a means of building wealth is deeply rooted in Asian culture. New York’s pro-tenant policies, especially the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, have resulted in heartbreaking stories from small-property landlords. The laws, intended to help tenants, some of whom lost jobs during COVID, disproportionately hurt immigrant landlords. Not only have they not been paid rent for three years; some living in multi-family units are terrorized by tenants who know they can’t evict. Many Asian property owners are working class, and their modest rental income helps pay for the mortgage, property taxes and unit upkeep.

While bad tenants existed before this bill, it would make things worse. Private-property owners should not bear the burden of unknowingly renting to convicted arsonists and murderers and letting them live next door to New Yorkers who want a safe place after a long day braving our unpredictable city streets and subways. We worry about higher insurance, liability in endangering other tenants and frivolous lawsuits in tenant-friendly courts. That becomes a cost-benefit question for owners — whether it’s worth it to rent with little profit.

Like most landlords, I don’t live in the building I rent, but I do worry about the tenants I rent to. I think of the kindhearted young Asian professional who pleaded with me to let her have a Hurricane Sandy rescue dog. I worry about the wheelchair-bound young man grateful to find independence in living in an accessible building and appreciative of me letting him install an automatic door opener for his convenience. I want them to have the peace of mind that when they return to their small haven in the city, they will be safe, among neighbors who won’t pose a risk to them.

The fight to save specialized high schools that brought me to council the first time galvanized many Asian voters who had never been involved in city politics before. I am one of those newly politicized voters. This year, I co-founded Asian Wave Alliance to make sure that Asian-American New Yorkers’ needs are not ignored by the very councilmembers who sat quietly and listened to Powell’s racist attacks.

This time, I went to council to convince the Committee on Human and Civil Rights and the bill’s sponsors that the Fair Chance for Housing Act is not “fair” at all to small landlords and already-existing tenants. Getting rid of reasonable safeguards like criminal background checks is not “fair” to the city’s law-abiding citizens and will put people in danger. True fairness requires listening to all New Yorkers and prioritizing safety and transparency.