In what world was the Caribbean tour by William and Kate - in which they were WIDELY criticized for engaging in acts of neocolonialism, including by the governments of countries like Belize directly - an example of a successful royal tour? The whole “analysis” willfully neglects the fact that royal tours have historically been a way to keep the colonies, then the Commonwealth underfoot so that Britain could stay a global superpower.
I’m all for thoughtful critiques of Harry and Meghan when they are rooted in actual evidence and thoughtful analysis. This is some click-baiting, poorly-argued nonsense merely for the purpose of generating some meager revenue from those uninformed.
To your other points: We referenced the 2022 Caribbean Diplomatic Visit as an example because there were legitimate reasons for it to occur. It was taken on behalf of the government and the Head of State and there was a tie in with one of the initiatives Prince William champions and had invested a million pounds into. This visit a random stopover.
I wholeheartedly agree about the importance of acknowledging the historical context of the British Empire and the colonial era but it’s as important to acknowledge that it has for the better, evolved significantly from that, as have Diplomatic Royal visits. It's also crucial to remember that not everything you see on social media is accurate.
Out-of-context clips can be easily misinterpreted and used to fuel outrage. When it comes to sensitive or controversial topics, it's essential to critically evaluate information found online and seek out reliable local sources. For example, during the Caribbean Diplomatic visit, a high-ranking female official in Jamaica faced false accusations of snubbing the Princess of Wales after a misleading clip circulated online. This newsletter was about the Diplomatic visits of this generation of Royals. As you brought up more recent trips, allow me to provide context.
The much ballyhooed open air jeep state review that the Prince and Princess of Wales took that screamed colonialism? This review was insisted upon by the Jamaican government. And as their guests, the Wales camp acquiesced to wishes of the government which invited them to their country. Additionally, a protest against the royals in Belize was swiftly followed by a much larger counter-protest, demonstrating that public opinion can be complex and nuanced. The local press in Jamaica witnessed overwhelming support for the royals, with thousands turning out to see them. https://x.com/JamaicaObserver/status/1506381776356319240 As a historian, I rely on primary sources and verifiable historical records, rather than relying solely on social media to inform my opinion. Boots on the ground and the observations they have carry far more weight. https://x.com/RoyalReporter/status/1808904434237440033
By dismissing the agency of Commonwealth nations, you overlook the voluntary nature of their membership. In recent years, countries with no historical ties to the UK, such as Togo, Gabon, Mozambique, and Rwanda, have actively sought to join the Commonwealth. This demonstrates their desire to participate and benefit from the association. It's important to recognize that these countries are capable of making informed decisions about their own futures, and that their relationships can evolve over time.
Rwanda, as I mentioned in the newsletter, actively campaigned for years to join the Commonwealth. Similarly,Zimbabwe, after leaving the organization, is now seeking to rejoin. Other countries expressing interest in Commonwealth membership include South Sudan, Suriname, Burundi, and the unrecognized state of Somaliland. Would you like to suggest that the citizens and representatives of these governments are misguided in their desire to join an association that you believe is oppressive? Who are you to make that call? Kicking South Africa out of the Commonwealth was a significant step towards showing that despite its colonial beginnings, a system based on racial subjugation wouldn’t stand.
As QEII said herself during the referendum in Australia in 1999: “I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise." Prince William said in 2022: “And with Jamaica celebrating 60 years of independence this year, and Belize celebrating 40 years of independence last year, I want to say this: We support with pride and respect your decisions about your future. Relationships evolve. Friendship endures.”
The Commonwealth has nearly five dozen nations. Only about a dozen have King Charles as their king. Whatever decisions they make will be theirs alone to make. The Royal Tours of old carried the imperial banner high. The most recent ones are far more collaborative and evolved past their hurtful and problematic origins. I put my trust in what these countries do and whatever decisions they make. The first step to disbanding all of this? There needs to be a referendum first — a vote that Barbados didn’t have. A fact that seems to escape many. It took what amounted to an executive order to bypass the will of the people for them to become a Republic because the support and appetite for it didn’t exist. It's an uncomfortable truth for many. Two years after the fact, Jamaica is no closer to a referendum as it was when they visited. In fact, they nominated a representative to hold a high ranking position in the Commonwealth of Nations. The exact opposite of cutting ties. And since the tour, more countries have requested membership and Prince William and Princess Catherine remain the most popular royals in the UK and US. We'd consider that a success.
In what world was the Caribbean tour by William and Kate - in which they were WIDELY criticized for engaging in acts of neocolonialism, including by the governments of countries like Belize directly - an example of a successful royal tour? The whole “analysis” willfully neglects the fact that royal tours have historically been a way to keep the colonies, then the Commonwealth underfoot so that Britain could stay a global superpower.
I’m all for thoughtful critiques of Harry and Meghan when they are rooted in actual evidence and thoughtful analysis. This is some click-baiting, poorly-argued nonsense merely for the purpose of generating some meager revenue from those uninformed.
If you're looking for thoughtful critiques of Harry and Meghan rooted in actual evidence, we have these aplenty:
White Settler Syndrome and Colonialism playing out this very day with Prince Harry's charity in Africa where indigenous people are being tortured and abused: https://ladysinclair.substack.com/p/prince-harrys-charity-facing-more
A FOIA order revealed how they attempted to issue NDAs to children they visited in New York and sought to embiggen their charitable efforts by way of false wordsmithing: https://ladysinclair.substack.com/p/prince-william-and-kate-middleton
Digging into the claims on Oprah and providing context as a woman of color on discussions about babies and skin color: https://ladysinclair.substack.com/p/were-not-asking-the-right-question
Hollywood insiders speaking to the press about how hard it is to collaborate with Harry and Meghan: https://ladysinclair.substack.com/p/hollywood-insiders-speak-on-the-sussexes
To your other points: We referenced the 2022 Caribbean Diplomatic Visit as an example because there were legitimate reasons for it to occur. It was taken on behalf of the government and the Head of State and there was a tie in with one of the initiatives Prince William champions and had invested a million pounds into. This visit a random stopover.
I wholeheartedly agree about the importance of acknowledging the historical context of the British Empire and the colonial era but it’s as important to acknowledge that it has for the better, evolved significantly from that, as have Diplomatic Royal visits. It's also crucial to remember that not everything you see on social media is accurate.
Out-of-context clips can be easily misinterpreted and used to fuel outrage. When it comes to sensitive or controversial topics, it's essential to critically evaluate information found online and seek out reliable local sources. For example, during the Caribbean Diplomatic visit, a high-ranking female official in Jamaica faced false accusations of snubbing the Princess of Wales after a misleading clip circulated online. This newsletter was about the Diplomatic visits of this generation of Royals. As you brought up more recent trips, allow me to provide context.
The much ballyhooed open air jeep state review that the Prince and Princess of Wales took that screamed colonialism? This review was insisted upon by the Jamaican government. And as their guests, the Wales camp acquiesced to wishes of the government which invited them to their country. Additionally, a protest against the royals in Belize was swiftly followed by a much larger counter-protest, demonstrating that public opinion can be complex and nuanced. The local press in Jamaica witnessed overwhelming support for the royals, with thousands turning out to see them. https://x.com/JamaicaObserver/status/1506381776356319240 As a historian, I rely on primary sources and verifiable historical records, rather than relying solely on social media to inform my opinion. Boots on the ground and the observations they have carry far more weight. https://x.com/RoyalReporter/status/1808904434237440033
By dismissing the agency of Commonwealth nations, you overlook the voluntary nature of their membership. In recent years, countries with no historical ties to the UK, such as Togo, Gabon, Mozambique, and Rwanda, have actively sought to join the Commonwealth. This demonstrates their desire to participate and benefit from the association. It's important to recognize that these countries are capable of making informed decisions about their own futures, and that their relationships can evolve over time.
Rwanda, as I mentioned in the newsletter, actively campaigned for years to join the Commonwealth. Similarly,Zimbabwe, after leaving the organization, is now seeking to rejoin. Other countries expressing interest in Commonwealth membership include South Sudan, Suriname, Burundi, and the unrecognized state of Somaliland. Would you like to suggest that the citizens and representatives of these governments are misguided in their desire to join an association that you believe is oppressive? Who are you to make that call? Kicking South Africa out of the Commonwealth was a significant step towards showing that despite its colonial beginnings, a system based on racial subjugation wouldn’t stand.
As QEII said herself during the referendum in Australia in 1999: “I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise." Prince William said in 2022: “And with Jamaica celebrating 60 years of independence this year, and Belize celebrating 40 years of independence last year, I want to say this: We support with pride and respect your decisions about your future. Relationships evolve. Friendship endures.”
The Commonwealth has nearly five dozen nations. Only about a dozen have King Charles as their king. Whatever decisions they make will be theirs alone to make. The Royal Tours of old carried the imperial banner high. The most recent ones are far more collaborative and evolved past their hurtful and problematic origins. I put my trust in what these countries do and whatever decisions they make. The first step to disbanding all of this? There needs to be a referendum first — a vote that Barbados didn’t have. A fact that seems to escape many. It took what amounted to an executive order to bypass the will of the people for them to become a Republic because the support and appetite for it didn’t exist. It's an uncomfortable truth for many. Two years after the fact, Jamaica is no closer to a referendum as it was when they visited. In fact, they nominated a representative to hold a high ranking position in the Commonwealth of Nations. The exact opposite of cutting ties. And since the tour, more countries have requested membership and Prince William and Princess Catherine remain the most popular royals in the UK and US. We'd consider that a success.