PDA

View Full Version : Why no Black or Asian UK royals ?


MrQwertyasd
07-19-2013, 10:25 AM
Is there still the assumption, as there was just a few short years ago when the British Empire was still an active force, that dark foreigners are inherently inferior, and therefore have no place within the royal family ?

Is it right to have these sorts of family values and traditions at the heart of a state ?

Amateur Barbarian
07-19-2013, 10:32 AM
Because there weren't any African, Asian or subcontinent ancestors in Britain a hundred years ago and prior. You do understand that royalty, especially the British form, involves having very highly placed parents?

You're welcome to check back in another hundred years and see if George XIII has 'M'Boko' or 'Tsiang' in his absurdly long given name. I wouldn't bet against it.

Marley23
07-19-2013, 10:34 AM
The UK is overwhelmingly white. That probably has a lot to do with it. I don't know if the upper classes and more or less diverse than the population as a whole.

Marley23
07-19-2013, 10:35 AM
Some (insane) people do disagree with your thesis. (http://boards.academicpursuits.us/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544874) ;)

Malden Capell
07-19-2013, 10:35 AM
I imagine eventually a black or asian person will marry into the royal family, and welcome they should be. Until then, we'll let this happen naturally.

pancakes3
07-19-2013, 10:39 AM
Would you ask the same of every other racially homogenous family? Not just whites, but say... my 100% Asian family why there are no Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, Inuits, Pygmies, Aborigones... etc on our family tree?

Rune
07-19-2013, 10:39 AM
Is there still the assumption, as there was just a few short years ago when the British Empire was still an active force, that dark foreigners are inherently inferior, and therefore have no place within the royal family ?

Is it right to have these sorts of family values and traditions at the heart of a state ?Probably for the same reason that there are no white Asian or African royals. Because the UK royal family is European. Btw. there is a half-chinese in the Danish royal family (Alexandra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra,_Countess_of_Frederiksborg)).

Marley23
07-19-2013, 11:00 AM
Probably for the same reason that there are no white Asian or African royals. Because the UK royal family is European.
I assume the OP is asking why nobody of Asian or African ancestry has married into the royal family (or at least they haven't as far as I know), not why the royal family is white. And I think this is a matter of Europe ancestry, not being European.

John Mace
07-19-2013, 11:15 AM
Because there weren't any African, Asian or subcontinent ancestors in Britain a hundred years ago and prior. You do understand that royalty, especially the British form, involves having very highly placed parents?

You're welcome to check back in another hundred years and see if George XIII has 'M'Boko' or 'Tsiang' in his absurdly long given name. I wouldn't bet against it.

Kind of a nit pick, but there were plenty of African, Asian and subcontinent (I assume youi mean India and Pakistan) ancestors in Britain 100 years ago. It's likely that Africans have been in Britain since Roman times. Indians and Pakistanis more recently, but certainly more than 100 years ago.

bienville
07-19-2013, 11:43 AM
I had thought of starting a Thread way back during the Royal Wedding hoopla asking what public opinion in the U.K. would have been if William had wanted to marry a black girl.

In addition to wondering about public reaction, would the Royal family have happily allowed him to marry whoever he happened to fall in love with? Or would there be any family attempt to strongarm him into breaking off the relationship?

Bryan Ekers
07-19-2013, 01:07 PM
The royal family certainly wouldn't be unique if they'd tried.

pancakes3
07-19-2013, 01:12 PM
Solomon broke the color barrier back in the day

Amateur Barbarian
07-19-2013, 01:20 PM
Kind of a nit pick, but there were plenty of African, Asian and subcontinent (I assume youi mean India and Pakistan) ancestors in Britain 100 years ago
Sorry, I assumed context there - I meant in the royal lineage.

SanVito
07-19-2013, 02:33 PM
I had thought of starting a Thread way back during the Royal Wedding hoopla asking what public opinion in the U.K. would have been if William had wanted to marry a black girl.

In addition to wondering about public reaction, would the Royal family have happily allowed him to marry whoever he happened to fall in love with? Or would there be any family attempt to strongarm him into breaking off the relationship?

I have long had the impression, from reading sites such as the Dope, that mixed race relationship on TV shows and the like are still a big deal in the USA. There is considerably less shock about such a relationship in the UK.

Now, clearly the Royals are something different, and William marrying a black or Asian girl would certainly keep the media in jobs, but I doubt it would cause outright scandal. And I'm quite sure no one much would care if Harry chose a non white spouse.

SanVito
07-19-2013, 02:39 PM
Is there still the assumption, as there was just a few short years ago when the British Empire was still an active force, that dark foreigners are inherently inferior, and therefore have no place within the royal family ?

Is it right to have these sorts of family values and traditions at the heart of a state ?

There's clearly a huge assumption in this statement that the Royal family is racist. I think that's a pretty wild judgement.

Like most of us, the Royals tend to marry from within their own social circle - in their case, the aristocracy and the privileged. In the UK that tends to be white people, who also constitute about 90% of the general population. The pot will no doubt melt somewhat as time goes on.

John Mace
07-19-2013, 02:47 PM
I have long had the impression, from reading sites such as the Dope, that mixed race relationship on TV shows and the like are still a big deal in the USA. There is considerably less shock about such a relationship in the UK.

Now, clearly the Royals are something different, and William marrying a black or Asian girl would certainly keep the media in jobs, but I doubt it would cause outright scandal. And I'm quite sure no one much would care if Harry chose a non white spouse.
But wouldn't they be "out of line" by marrying a Commoner? How many non-white non-Commoners are there?

SanVito
07-19-2013, 02:48 PM
What do you think Kate Middleton is?

MrQwertyasd
07-19-2013, 03:02 PM
Would you ask the same of every other racially homogenous family? Not just whites, but say... my 100% Asian family why there are no Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, Inuits, Pygmies, Aborigones... etc on our family tree?

Well.... if you have any nice aunties we could start a new branch....

MrQwertyasd
07-19-2013, 03:08 PM
There's clearly a huge assumption in this statement that the Royal family is racist. I think that's a pretty wild judgement.

Well, I didn't really say that's how they are now, perhaps they are reformed and modern characters - one would hope so wouldn't one ?
But it's within my Grandfather's lifetime, and certainly within the lifetimes of the older royals, that the British Empire was about bringing civilisation to the childish and racially inferior natives.

Was this a view forced upon them, that they didn't really believe but merely found useful, or was it the mainstay of their lives as ulers of empire ?

Amateur Barbarian
07-19-2013, 03:13 PM
What do you think Kate Middleton is?
The family has just barely gotten to the point where a bride doesn't have to physically prove she's a virgin. I think the point where she doesn't have to prove she's pure northern european is a ways off.

Martin Hyde
07-19-2013, 03:24 PM
I have long had the impression, from reading sites such as the Dope, that mixed race relationship on TV shows and the like are still a big deal in the USA. There is considerably less shock about such a relationship in the UK.

Now, clearly the Royals are something different, and William marrying a black or Asian girl would certainly keep the media in jobs, but I doubt it would cause outright scandal. And I'm quite sure no one much would care if Harry chose a non white spouse.

Oh yes, if people of different race even look at each other in the United States we round up a mob and lynch them and/or burn them alive.

Novelty Bobble
07-19-2013, 04:46 PM
Oh yes, if people of different race even look at each other in the United States we round up a mob and lynch them and/or burn them alive.

Well, I was surprised to learn, (only a short time ago), that the USA had laws against mixed marriages right up until the 1960's. :eek:

Scratch that, I wasn't surprised, I was stunned.

Are you saying that a mixed race couple is not a issue at all in the media or in public life? If so then it seems you've come a long way in a short time.

Marley23
07-19-2013, 04:50 PM
Are you saying that a mixed race couple is not a issue at all in the media or in public life? If so then it seems you've come a long way in a short time.
No, it's not an issue. The president comes from a mixed-race background and so do a lot of star actors and athletes. You can find lunatics who go crazy about the idea of interracial relationships, but for most of the public it's way past its expiration date.

Northern Piper
07-19-2013, 05:25 PM
Actually, a recent report indicates that Prince William does have some Indian (i.e. South Asian) ancestry, via his mother, Princess Diana:

http://cnn.com/2013/06/14/world/europe/britain-prince-william-india

miss elizabeth
07-19-2013, 05:36 PM
Oh yes, if people of different race even look at each other in the United States we round up a mob and lynch them and/or burn them alive.

Have you seen the reaction the the Cheerios ad that had a mixed-race family? It was pretty bad. I mean, yes, things have improved. But mixed-race couples are FAR from universally accepted in America.

Buck Godot
07-19-2013, 05:36 PM
Are you saying that a mixed race couple is not a issue at all in the media or in public life?

By the general public no. It might be noted as unusual but not in a negative way. Admittedly there are still some people still around who would have a problem with it but they would for the most part keep their mouth shut unless they are sure they are only in the presence of like minded bigots.

Lord Feldon
07-19-2013, 05:38 PM
Have you seen the reaction the the Cheerios ad that had a mixed-race family? It was pretty bad.

It got bad comments on YouTube. All it takes for a video to get flooded with comments is for it to be shared on StormFront or a similar site. A few dozen committed people can completely jam things and make it appear as they're the only reaction to the ad.

Really Not All That Bright
07-19-2013, 05:41 PM
It's certainly a bigger issue here than in the UK, though not one that pops up in everyday life. I can probably count the number of times my Swedish/Welsh-descent wife and I (South Asian) have had any issues. The one that springs to mind is the country club whose management clearly weren't comfortable hosting our wedding, though they didn't tell us outright that we weren't welcome or whatever. It worked for both sides since their banquet hall was pretty dingy.

Gratuitous wedding picture. (http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/dutchboy208/NeilandKimDinner.jpg)
No, it's not an issue. The president comes from a mixed-race background and so do a lot of star actors and athletes. You can find lunatics who go crazy about the idea of interracial relationships, but for most of the public it's way past its expiration date.
You may have missed this (http://nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/cheerios-ad-with-interracial-family-brings-out-internet-hate.html?_r=0).

ETA: ninja'd on the Cheerios.

The short answer to the OP is that there are very few black and Asian hereditary peers. Now that royals aren't as constrained about marrying commoners that will change.

Marley23
07-19-2013, 05:46 PM
You may have missed this (http://nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/cheerios-ad-with-interracial-family-brings-out-internet-hate.html?_r=0).

ETA: ninja'd on the Cheerios.
No, I was aware. That's why I added a comment about lunatics. You can find assholes who will freak out over interracial relationships or other equally innocuous things, and you can find people who say terrible shit for no particular reason other than knowing it will upset others. But interracial marriage isn't a subject of national controversy.

Really Not All That Bright
07-19-2013, 05:50 PM
It was controversial enough to keep black male/white female relationships off the screen until the 1990s.

Marley23
07-19-2013, 05:54 PM
It was controversial enough to keep black male/white female relationships off the screen until the 1990s.
I understand that, but SanVito asked if it's still a big deal in the media (not if it it was touchy 15-25 years ago) and Novelty Bobble was also asking about the present day.

Really Not All That Bright
07-19-2013, 05:55 PM
Fair enough. It's a bit of a regional thing, too.

Blakeyrat
07-19-2013, 05:56 PM
Well, I was surprised to learn, (only a short time ago), that the USA had laws against mixed marriages right up until the 1960's. :eek:

Scratch that, I wasn't surprised, I was stunned.

Are you saying that a mixed race couple is not a issue at all in the media or in public life? If so then it seems you've come a long way in a short time.

The UK was slaughtering whales and selling whale oil well into the 1950s. From the perspective of someone in the US (where it was banned since the 1920s) that might make you seem primitive and backwards.

As far as the attitude about mixed-race couples: it greatly depends on where you are. The US isn't as homogeneous as the British Isles, so if you ask in (say) South Carolina you'll get a much different answer than if you ask in (say) Seattle.

But for God's sake, don't judge ANY country based on YouTube comments.

Martin Hyde
07-19-2013, 06:44 PM
Lots of very famous and popular people have been mixed race since before the television era. While it's an ugly history most of even the racist Americans from the past for some reason were perfectly fine with a white man impregnating a black woman, but not a black man impregnating a white woman. In fact many of the slaveowners had children with black women.

But it's shocking to me you guys think this is both the 1960s and the entire country is the old south. Barack Obama had a white mother and a black father. Let me know when the British PM can claim that. A great number of actors and athletes and politicians are in interracial marriages. I can't remember who now, but one of the Asian American women in the Bush Cabinet was married to a white guy who was an elected member of Congress. In parts of the country there have literally never been laws against miscegenation.

You guys are acting to the equivalent of how I'd be acting if I said most of the British hold to racial views of the BNP.

alphaboi867
07-19-2013, 08:05 PM
...In addition to wondering about public reaction, would the Royal family have happily allowed him to marry whoever he happened to fall in love with? Or would there be any family attempt to strongarm him into breaking off the relationship?

Well they tried that with Prince Charles; look how well that turned out. William is not his father; I could see him forcing his family's hand as a last ditch option to marry who he wanted. If he went public by notifying the Privy Council of his intent or petitioning Parliament to remove him from the line of succession the scandal would destroy the monarchy.

...But it's shocking to me you guys think this is both the 1960s and the entire country is the old south. Barack Obama had a white mother and a black father. Let me know when the British PM can claim that. A great number of actors and athletes and politicians are in interracial marriages. I can't remember who now, but one of the Asian American women in the Bush Cabinet was married to a white guy who was an elected member of Congress. In parts of the country there have literally never been laws against miscegenation...

Places like Hawaii; there were 16 states Ann Dunham and Barrack Obama were banned from marrying in (or even setting foot in together) in 1961.

suranyi
07-19-2013, 08:28 PM
Well, I was surprised to learn, (only a short time ago), that the USA had laws against mixed marriages right up until the 1960's. :eek:

Scratch that, I wasn't surprised, I was stunned.

Are you saying that a mixed race couple is not a issue at all in the media or in public life? If so then it seems you've come a long way in a short time.

Not the USA as a whole, of course, just the last hold-out states. There were 16 states left in 1967 which still prohibited mixed marriages when the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional.

Damuri Ajashi
07-19-2013, 09:01 PM
Sorry, I assumed context there - I meant in the royal lineage.

Genghis Khan never made it that far north and most of the raping in that part of the world was done by vikings.

njtt
07-19-2013, 09:09 PM
Kind of a nit pick, but there were plenty of African, Asian and subcontinent (I assume youi mean India and Pakistan) ancestors in Britain 100 years ago. It's likely that Africans have been in Britain since Roman times. Indians and Pakistanis more recently, but certainly more than 100 years ago.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "ancestors" here (when you come down to it, we all have African ancestors), but teh implication that there were "plenty" of African and Asian people in Britain 100 years ago is incredibly misleading, unless "plenty" means a few dozen, or at the outside a few hundred, in the population of tens of millions. There did not begin to be significant numbers of people of fairly recent African (or, more often, Afro-Caribbean) or Asian extraction in Britain until the 1950s and '60s. These days the numbers are quite significant, enough to make Marley23's assertion that "the UK is overwhelmingly white," also quite misleading. 100 or even 60 years ago, most British people probably never seen a black or brown face in their lives. These days, very few British people will not see numerous black or brown people every day.

Marley23
07-19-2013, 09:13 PM
I can't remember who now, but one of the Asian American women in the Bush Cabinet was married to a white guy who was an elected member of Congress.
Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is married to Senate Minority Tortoise Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky).
In parts of the country there have literally never been laws against miscegenation.
At various times interracial marriage (to whites, at least) was illegal in almost every state. It's just that most of those laws were already gone by the time Loving v. Virginia made those laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took care of the last 16 states, and yes, it was basically the Old South.
These days the numbers are quite significant, enough to make Marley23's assertion that "the UK is overwhelmingly white," also quite misleading. 100 or even 60 years ago, most British people probably never seen a black or brown face in their lives. These days, very few British people will not see numerous black or brown people every day.
According to the statistics I'm seeing, the country is a little more than 90% white. I'm not suggesting you never see minorities in Britain, but you'd think that would make it a little less likely there would be an interracial marriage in the royal family. It'll probably happen at some point anyway.

even sven
07-19-2013, 11:12 PM
I am not quite sure what you mean by "ancestors" here (when you come down to it, we all have African ancestors), but teh implication that there were "plenty" of African and Asian people in Britain 100 years ago is incredibly misleading, unless "plenty" means a few dozen, or at the outside a few hundred, in the population of tens of millions. There did not begin to be significant numbers of people of fairly recent African (or, more often, Afro-Caribbean) or Asian extraction in Britain until the 1950s and '60s. These days the numbers are quite significant, enough to make Marley23's assertion that "the UK is overwhelmingly white," also quite misleading. 100 or even 60 years ago, most British people probably never seen a black or brown face in their lives. These days, very few British people will not see numerous black or brown people every day.

This doesn't seem to jibe with what I've been reading, which claims there have been both black and Asian communities in Britain from around 1600 on.

Really Not All That Bright
07-19-2013, 11:23 PM
Not significant ones. Until about 1950 the only South Asians in Britain were stranded (or deserting) lascars (contract sailors). There were a few thousand of them in the Docklands area and Southampton; certainly no more than 20,000 at any time. There was a roughly equal number of blacks, who were mostly Afro-Caribbean slaves (emancipated and not).

even sven
07-19-2013, 11:33 PM
Not significant ones. Until about 1950 the only South Asians in Britain were stranded (or deserting) lascars (contract sailors). There were a few thousand of them in the Docklands area and Southampton; certainly no more than 20,000 at any time. There was a roughly equal number of blacks, who were mostly Afro-Caribbean slaves (emancipated and not).

That seems more reasonable. The quoted poster was positing a few dozen, which didnt seem right.

Really Not All That Bright
07-19-2013, 11:38 PM
Obviously there weren't any non-emancipated slaves in England in 1950, lest my poor sentence construction confuse anyone.

China Guy
07-19-2013, 11:51 PM
Probably for the same reason that there are no white Asian or African royals. Because the UK royal family is European. Btw. there is a half-chinese in the Danish royal family (Alexandra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra,_Countess_of_Frederiksborg)).She's ex.

John Mace
07-19-2013, 11:52 PM
I am not quite sure what you mean by "ancestors" here (when you come down to it, we all have African ancestors), but teh implication that there were "plenty" of African and Asian people in Britain 100 years ago is incredibly misleading, unless "plenty" means a few dozen, or at the outside a few hundred, in the population of tens of millions.

I was responding to someone who said there were none. Zero. So, "plenty" means significantly more than zero. The Africans who were present in Britain in the earliest days probably interbred such that one could show up there in the 1400s and remark that there were no Africans in Britain.

As for numbers at later dates, estimates range from 1 - 3% of the population of London was black in the 18th Century. Link (http://press.jhu.edu/timeline/sel/Bartels_2006.pdf). That's more than "a few dozen". And that was well over 100 years ago.

thicksantorum
07-20-2013, 12:54 AM
Because none of their cousins are black or Asian.

Nava
07-20-2013, 04:04 AM
According to the statistics I'm seeing, the country is a little more than 90% white. I'm not suggesting you never see minorities in Britain, but you'd think that would make it a little less likely there would be an interracial marriage in the royal family. It'll probably happen at some point anyway.

What statistics and what are the divisions available? Take into account that in many countries, someone from Magreb or most of the population of India would be considered white.

SanVito
07-20-2013, 05:00 AM
What statistics and what are the divisions available? Take into account that in many countries, someone from Magreb or most of the population of India would be considered white.

According to the office of National Statistics, 91% of the UK regard their ethnicity as white. This is self-assessed, although Indian, Pakistani etc are listed as separate options. The Asian subcontinent accounts for 4.6%, Afro-Caribbean or black British 2.3%, mixed race 1.4%, East Asian 0.8%.

BrainGlutton
07-20-2013, 05:21 AM
Actually, the OP presents an interesting question. For many centuries it was the custom of European royalty of all countries to marry foreign royalty. This not only seemed proper, but could be used for purposes of diplomacy and dynastic politics. But only European royalty. Because only fellow Euros were Christians, of course; no political/dynastic advantage to be gained by putting your princess-daughter in the Sultan's harem. But after the Age of Exploration opened, Euro royals did not intermarry with the royal families of the countries they colonized, or of any nonwhite countries at all -- not even if the royals in question had converted to Christianity. Why not, eh?

Ximenean
07-20-2013, 05:40 AM
But after the Age of Exploration opened, Euro royals did not intermarry with the royal families of the countries they colonized, or of any nonwhite countries at all -- not even if the royals in question had converted to Christianity. Why not, eh?
Because those countries had no power, I would guess.

SanVito
07-20-2013, 05:43 AM
Actually, the OP presents an interesting question. For many centuries it was the custom of European royalty of all countries to marry foreign royalty. This not only seemed proper, but could be used for purposes of diplomacy and dynastic politics. But only European royalty. Because only fellow Euros were Christians, of course; no political/dynastic advantage to be gained by putting your princess-daughter in the Sultan's harem. But after the Age of Exploration opened, Euro royals did not intermarry with the royal families of the countries they colonized, or of any nonwhite countries at all -- not even if the royals in question had converted to Christianity. Why not, eh?

No political advantage. They married into other Royal families to create allies within their most important territory - Europe. They don't need an alliance with people they had conquered. And of course feelings of European superiority over other races played a part. You're not going to marry your subordinate.

Of course, that's history, they did things differently there. I don't think it's just to judge the current royal family by the actions of their ancestors. We would ALL be racist if we had to live by the opinions of our great grandparents.

BrainGlutton
07-20-2013, 05:44 AM
Because those countries had no power, I would guess.

Perhaps not, but there are ways the Brits might have strengthened their rule in India or Africa by intermarrying their royal and peerage families with Indian or African princes, and similar possibilities for other empires on other continents. But, they didn't.

If they had . . . that might lead to an interesting alternate history scenario, a world of peasant-commoners of all nations ruled by a multicultural, multinational, multiracial, and perhaps even multireligious class of traditional landowning royalty/aristocracy/gentry, the ruling class (but not the lower classes) being knitted together by a global network of marriage alliances.

BrainGlutton
07-20-2013, 05:50 AM
Perhaps not, but there are ways the Brits might have strengthened their rule in India or Africa . . .

Or in Ireland, come to think of it.

BrainGlutton
07-20-2013, 06:11 AM
Perhaps not, but there are ways the Brits might have strengthened their rule in India or Africa by intermarrying their royal and peerage families with Indian or African princes, and similar possibilities for other empires on other continents. But, they didn't.

If they had . . . that might lead to an interesting alternate history scenario, a world of peasant-commoners of all nations ruled by a multicultural, multinational, multiracial, and perhaps even multireligious class of traditional landowning royalty/aristocracy/gentry, the ruling class (but not the lower classes) being knitted together by a global network of marriage alliances.

In fact, that appears to be exactly what is emerging (on a continental but not yet global scale) in S.M. Stirling's Emberverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emberverse) series.

Novelty Bobble
07-20-2013, 06:45 AM
The UK was slaughtering whales and selling whale oil well into the 1950s. From the perspective of someone in the US (where it was banned since the 1920s) that might make you seem primitive and backwards.

I don't think equating treatment of people with animals eve goes across well, so bad example I think.
(Plus this would be coming from a country that still allows hunting with bow and arrow so........yeah, cultural perspective is a strange beast.)

The better example for you to use would be that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until relatively recently (See the current Alan Turing thread) and I can't reconcile the fact that the same country that recently waived through full gay marriage equality with barely a public murmur is the same one that outlawed it a scant few decades ago.

Both of our countries were "primitive and backwards" in many aspects and we shouldn't be shy of admitting it. The most important thing to me is how far and how fast we all progress (and that progress is being made at all). I hear some of the political debates coming out of the USA and have to scratch my head at how barmy some of these discussions are and remind myself that it really isn't a single country at all and re-calibrate my expectations accordingly. New England is not New Mexico and all that.

My own thoughts are that a mixed-race royal family or PM (and family) would be worthy of remark, but ultimately perfectly acceptable to the public. As would be a gay prime minister or head of state. Of course we've had powerful female leaders for centuries so that hurdle is well past.

Lord Feldon
07-20-2013, 06:48 AM
The better example for you to use would be that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until relatively recently (See the current Alan Turing thread)

But that wouldn't make Britain seem backwards from the perspective of the US. 1967 is positively radical compared to the US, where it was illegal in some states until 2003.

Bozuit
07-20-2013, 07:05 AM
Actually, the OP presents an interesting question.

Depends on your definition of "interesting". It's not really a great debate, is it?

In the past: A mix of religion, racism, and little to gain.
In the present: It just hasn't happened yet. We haven't exactly had a lot of weddings since religion and racism stopped being factors.

Martin Hyde
07-20-2013, 09:07 AM
At various times interracial marriage (to whites, at least) was illegal in almost every state. It's just that most of those laws were already gone by the time Loving v. Virginia made those laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took care of the last 16 states, and yes, it was basically the Old South.

Actually a decent portion of States never passed anti-miscegenation laws (Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont) and many had repealed their laws before the end of the 19th century (New Mexico, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Washington.)

While most of the west eventually had miscegenation laws, they actually came late there. Interracial marriage was a common and widely accepted thing on the frontier, in fact a good example is Confederate General Pickett. While on the frontier prior to the Civil War he had a native wife and even fathered a son with her. It would not have been considered scandalous at all where he lived at the time. (Later, his white wife he married later on who lived in the Southeast took pains to hide the relationship, because in the post-Civil War South such a thing was scandalous.) It was actually a shift (and a relatively brief one) when anti-miscegenation laws became the norm in the frontier/western states.

MrQwertyasd
07-20-2013, 11:40 AM
Because those countries had no power, I would guess.

Partly, but the British would have said that lack of power is due to innate inferiority, or conversely that the British could succeed in taking power because they were superior.

Lamia
07-20-2013, 11:41 AM
I used to teach English in Japan, and one of my teenaged students joked that her reason for wanting to learn English was so she could attend a British university, meet and marry either Prince William or Prince Harry (she said she'd wait until she actually met them to decide which one she liked better), and thus become a princess and perhaps someday queen. I can't find the thread now, but I remember this inspired me to ask on here if there would be any legal barrier to one of the princes marrying a Japanese citizen. IIRC, the answer was that the Japanese bride's religion and not her nationality would be the real issue, but that if she converted to the CofE then that would be fine.

My student was of course a commoner, but if the British royal family wanted to marry its sons off to foreign royalty then it seems to me that some of the Japanese princesses would be pretty good choices. There are several unmarried princesses in their 20s and early 30s, and one of them (Princess Akiko) even has a degree from Oxford. Perhaps most importantly, the Japanese Imperial family makes the Windsors look like a bunch of hippies. Handling the media might be a different story, though -- the Japanese press is pretty restrained and respectful when it comes to their royal family.

MrQwertyasd
07-20-2013, 11:54 AM
Of course, that's history, they did things differently there. I don't think it's just to judge the current royal family by the actions of their ancestors.

Hmm, sort of. Those imperial ancestors aren't all that distant. Some of the royals are old enough to have actually had an empire under them. QEII for example, was still a princess before the loss of India.
Would she not have been taught that she was in her position due to her racial superiority ?
Have they really moved on ? Hope so.

MrQwertyasd
07-20-2013, 12:01 PM
Perhaps most importantly, the Japanese Imperial family makes the Windsors look like a bunch of hippies.

I'll bet they do. Have the Japanese never had the sort of loss of empire and heavy immigration that made UK confront itself to a high degree ?

MrQwertyasd
07-20-2013, 12:06 PM
We haven't exactly had a lot of weddings since religion and racism stopped being factors.

True enough. Are any of them even dating or flirting with non-whites ? Diana was the last one to do that, no ?

Dangerosa
07-20-2013, 12:20 PM
Hmm, sort of. Those imperial ancestors aren't all that distant. Some of the royals are old enough to have actually had an empire under them. QEII for example, was still a princess before the loss of India.
Would she not have been taught that she was in her position due to her racial superiority ?
Have they really moved on ? Hope so.

For the English, it seems to have been less racial superiority than national superiority.

The British royal family is heavily German, there isn't even a lot of anything other than German and French there - go back ages to get Spanish or French. Prince Philip is a member of Greek and Danish royal families - both of them are heavily German.

Also, the definition of royal is pretty slim in the UK. Here is a wiki list. You pretty much need to be a direct male line descendent of George V to make the cut on a list today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family. So lets say that in 1740 you marry off Princess Caroline to a maharaja. (She died unwed and childless). Her children would not be British royals.

LavenderBlue
07-20-2013, 01:08 PM
Until fairly recently they could barely marry anyone. George III put the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_1772) into place. Royals were not allowed to marry all different kinds of people without the monarch's express permission. So they mostly married fellow German protestants from certain families and that was it. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mum was one of the few people allowed to marry into the royal family in 1922. She was an Earl's daughter and from an ancient UK family but she was still seen as a commoner by the royals. Part of the reason she was probably allowed to marry the future king is because everyone expected his older brother to take the throne. No one expected the brother to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson.

Tara57
07-20-2013, 01:27 PM
A Maori New Zealander married into the extended royal family:

http://gettyimages.com/editorial/lady-davina-lewis-pictures

http://theroyalforums.com/forums/f31/lady-davina-windsor-and-gary-lewis-31-july-2004-a-3106.html

DeptfordX
07-20-2013, 07:05 PM
Until fairly recently they could barely marry anyone. George III put the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_1772) into place. Royals were not allowed to marry all different kinds of people without the monarch's express permission. So they mostly married fellow German protestants from certain families and that was it. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mum was one of the few people allowed to marry into the royal family in 1922. She was an Earl's daughter and from an ancient UK family but she was still seen as a commoner by the royals. Part of the reason she was probably allowed to marry the future king is because everyone expected his older brother to take the throne. No one expected the brother to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson.

I suspect World War One might also have had something to do with non-German protestants suddenly becoming acceptable :).

I also suspect the whole CofE thing is one of those archaic but still on the books laws, that would be rapidly be repealed if it ever became an issue with a future wedding.

BrainGlutton
07-20-2013, 10:31 PM
Both of our countries were "primitive and backwards" in many aspects and we shouldn't be shy of admitting it. The most important thing to me is how far and how fast we all progress (and that progress is being made at all). I hear some of the political debates coming out of the USA and have to scratch my head at how barmy some of these discussions are and remind myself that it really isn't a single country at all and re-calibrate my expectations accordingly. New England is not New Mexico and all that.

No, it is a single country, but also a really big one. I daresay the regional diversity between New Mexico and Massachusetts is no greater than that between Cornwall and Yorkshire. Not geographically or climatically, but culturally.

Tamerlane
07-20-2013, 10:44 PM
But only European royalty. Because only fellow Euros were Christians, of course; no political/dynastic advantage to be gained by putting your princess-daughter in the Sultan's harem.

Just a note on your specific example here - a few early Ottoman sultans up through at least Murad II did in fact marry Byzantine, Serbian and Bulgarian princesses, so not so clear-cut I'm afraid. All of these were European powers in either serious decline or effective vassalage of course, so the reasons for the marriages were fairly obvious - currying favor with the local dominant power.

MrQwertyasd
07-21-2013, 08:22 AM
No, it is a single country, but also a really big one. I daresay the regional diversity between New Mexico and Massachusetts is no greater than that between Cornwall and Yorkshire. Not geographically or climatically, but culturally.

I've lived in Cornwall and Yorkshire for years and there isn't a great difference. They all have the same laws- they aren't different states.

Dangerosa
07-21-2013, 10:17 AM
And a few women of the peerage married Arab men - Jane Digby being the most famous. They aren't royals though.

Best Topics: pun bar names snoodle definition toilet guts gc fees japanese nipple polly and digory slept 24 hours la cucaracha marijuana unclog toilet drano half-fast wisconsin songs fltreasurehunt legit bme urban dictionary wooo song bleeding out death park light car sword license na zdorov'ya chinese gravestone football comedian skit vanilla sky ending gusset underwear old subway sandwiches k pro computer overdeveloped girl tudom ny woodstock snoopy dice superstitions wifi sar chicken choker bug ketchup on pizza peanuts raisins and m&ms are weber grills worth the money hair growing out of pimple bearer bonds die hard gillette fusion vs mach 3 when did mervyns close bent tire rim repair cost why is massachusetts so liberal how long do ro membranes last how to make little caesars pizza taste better how much water to irrigate an acre filing exempt for 3 months do you tip airport shuttle drivers post nasal mucus plug does mr pink get away with the diamonds best sex lube at walmart how do you like me now toby keith what does voldemort mean cat eats dog food side effects why are liquids incompressible po folks restaurant wiki is it ok to eat peanut shells maynard g krebs quotes removing moles from face cost what is limp wristing library due date card chief editor vs editor in chief scalp oozing clear fluid my name is puddintane ninny threadgoode is idgie well water holding tank cleaning fresnel lens boiling water cold stone creamery tip song how to get rid of a blank page in google docs federal jury duty on call