Several things can be true all at once. Queen Elizabeth has an encyclopedic memory for royal history, and she is surrounded by palace courtiers who also have long, institutional memories. The Queen also keeps sh-t around forever, from carriages to cars to jewelry to furniture. It’s all archived and kept in storage with meticulous record-keeping. But I also feel like the royal family largely greeted Meghan Markle as a breath of fresh air, and they embraced her completely. So, with all those things being true (arguably), does it mean something that the Rolls Royce which delivered Meghan and her mom to St. George’s Chapel was the same one used for a notable drive for Wallis Simpson?
Were courtiers making a cruel joke at Meghan Markle’s expense before the Royal Wedding? A motoring buff points out that the Rolls-Royce Phantom IV the Royal Mews sent to deliver Meghan and her mother, Doria Ragland, to St George’s Chapel, was the same vehicle they used to convey Wallis Simpson to the funeral of her husband, the Duke of Windsor, in 1972. Like Meghan, Mrs Simpson was an American divorcee. Her marriage to Edward VIII caused the 1936 abdication crisis.
If it was a joke, it wouldn’t be the first time Meghan, whose mother is descended from slaves, has faced such poor taste since becoming engaged to Prince Harry. At the Queen’s Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace, Princess Michael of Kent chose to wear a blackamoor brooch.
For one, I’m appalled by this: “Meghan, whose mother is descended from slaves…” That’s more offensive to me than a car which was once used to ferry Wallis Simpson somewhere. Unless you’re going to introduce every member of royalty and every aristocrat as “descended from historic enslavers and colonizers,” you should really STFU. As for the Wallis Simpson thing… as I said, the Queen and her courtiers have long memories and they keep meticulous records, and they keep all of this sh-t around FOREVER. Of course the crown still owns the same Rolls Royce which Wallis Simpson used, and they probably knew that they were using the same one for Meghan. But… I bet that Rolls Royce was used for a million other things though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Isn’t one point of all that record keeping to avoid something like this? Tempest in a teapot, but with all the cars and all the records, this seems like it should have been avoided.
I like to think that the Queen does do things like this on purpose (we know she’s quite cunning with the photos she chooses to display during her Christmas address!) — not to slight Meghan in any way — I think she really seems to like MM a lot — but to change the association of that car with Wallis. To showcase Meghan as a fresh start, maybe?
I also felt this way when we were all speculating about what titles they would be given. The prevailing opinion seemed to be that any title whose previous holder was involved in some sort of scandal or awful death or whatnot should be avoided…but I think that once Harry and Meghan are given a title, the narrative changes and they will do great things, giving that title a new and positive association. Obviously the Queen went the safe route with Sussex — but if those other titles aren’t used again, their negative backstory will never change. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Kaiser, I found the slave comment as offensive as you did. I think it’s pointless to bring it up at all, but allegedly Meghan was descended from royalty on her father’s side, yet they don’t mention THAT. Disgusting to even raise the issue in the first place.
It doesn’t matter who her descendants were, on her wedding day it only matters who SHE is, and she is wonderful. But they got their dig at Meghan in.
Kate’s coalmining ancestors were repeatedly invoked in most articles during that first year that you’d think they’d left the mines the day before her wedding.
Mike’s successful background was never mentioned. It was all about Kate, *descendant of coal miners.
*Disclaimer: I realise that Slavery was/ is a much more serious nee ergregious thing that shouldn’t be invoked lightly or compared to coalmining nor am i comparing the two, but the point being made by the media is the same in the sense that they highlight these things to say that bride isn’t an aristocrat or poor. Nevermind anything the bride accomplished or wealth of their family or even distance from that history.
Deleted comment
It honestly reminded me of the book Rebecca a bit, where she comes down dressed like the late wife in the costume. Like, just WHY do that to someone when you know the conversation is going to come up? (Obviously, in the book, it was done for cruel reasons.) Use the Rolls to bring the Dorgis somewhere cute, that’ll change the narrative for sure. (Hopefully TQ had the best of intentions-IE change the narrative-as opposed to something more sinister.)
I recently bought a t-shirt to use while vacationing that says, “Fighting the war on terrorism since 1492” because many of the tours we went on would talk about colonization like it was the best thing to happen to places we visited (we went on a transatlantic cruise for our delayed honeymoon).
Please share where you got that shirt because I would like to order one! 🙂
Lorelei – try Beyond Buckskin Boutique. It features only Native American artists and designers, there’s jewelry, accessories, slogan shirts, etc… The quality is phenomenal.
That is BRILLIANT. I hope you had a blast and that your tshirt led to some interesting questions being raised and conversations being held. My family went on a tour of Monticello as part of our family reunion 15 or so years ago. The tour guide was really uncomfortable when asked about Sally Hemings. She stuttered and essentially said that topic was off limits.
I have one..I usually wear it when the conservatives are in the area. I should pull it out of the drawer for the weekend since Doug Ford and his peeps should out in full force.
I don’t think it’s a big deal, it’s only a car. Don’t see it as a bad omen.
A car that has been used hundreds of times since that date, to ferry many people to and fro. Seriously, wasn’t it chosen because of the large viewing windows? I thought I read that somewhere.
Anyway.. it is just a friggin’ car! Like Kaiser, I’m an *very* offended at how they mention Doria as “descended from slaves”. WTF??! THAT is horrible!
I mean they got married at the chapel Henry VIII Is buried in on the day Anne Boleyn lost her head. Toss in a car Wallis rode in and stir.
Henry VIII truly loved Anne, is history is to be believed as he thought she must be a witch that he was so besotted by her. Sadly she didn’t give him a son & refused to go quietly. Edward gave up the throne for Wallis and they were together until he died.
See you can take “omens” and turn them into something nice (except that little bit about the beheading, can’t really spin that nice)
Wow, I thought the same thing about the descended from slaves part. Who proof read this?
Daily Mail does not proof and everything is written to rouse the racists and deplorables.
Exactly. The reference was made deliberately. Anyone who thinks the Fail will ever write something positive about Meghan without a back-handed compliment or put-down to accompany it, or a bigoted article to follow it, is being naive. And forget the editor(s); they either approved or didn’t care what their staff or contributing writers published despite the stench of personal animosity some of the articles carried.
If this is true, there is no excuse for it and I can’t help but think someone quite enjoyed doing this to Meghan. Talk about bad karma. Honestly, it really pisses me off.
And I completely agree with Kaiser about the “descended from slaves” thing. They’re using Meghan to make themselves seem openminded, socially of the times, and everything else the BRF can’t, by definition, be.
See this is the type of crap that makes me worry about her marrying into this family. I know people say she will rise above it but she shouldn’t have too.
Ah, Rose, you, in very few words, hit the nail on the head 100%. 1. It’s cr*p. 2. It’s worrying. 3. it’s work to rise above hurt, and no question, this kind of cr*p hurts and 4. SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO!! Bang on, Rose. Well said.
There are going to be a lot of these pokes within the Palace and by the media. But Meghan is there, she’s married to Harry and she’s going to make her own life. After seeing the toxic behavior of her relatives during the lead-up to the wedding and how she shone on her wedding day anyway, I’m hoping the same keeps happening. But the knives are out for her and that can be exhausting.
One thing I will say for William’s belligerence is that it did provide some necessary protection for Kate. Messing with her meant William possibly coming out swinging at you. Harry is not the heir, though. Stories of the BRF and the courtiers do remind me of a bunch middle school kids all fighting and taking shots at each other to protect their little corner.
I can’t imagine QE2 doing something that petty…
A car that once ferried Wallis Simpson, a title of a duke with a problematic romantic life. I’m just waiting for the article that points out that their wedding date was the same day of the year on which Anne Boleyn was killed and we shall have our trifecta of snarky post-wedding articles from which we are to deduce that this marriage is doomed.
May 19th is also the birthday of Queen Charlotte, who had African ancestry (some historians have said)…Charlotte is also associated with Frogmore House…She was also the mother of the first Duke of Sussex, who was granted that Dukedom on November 27th… 1st Duke was a liberal who was against slavery…
1. I’m on the side of those historians who say Queen Charlotte had moor ancestry since it’s undisputed in her lineage.
2. Frogmore was her favourite home, not an ‘association’. Bought for her by her hubby George 3.
3. Said as much in a comment below regarding DoS’s parentage and public works.
I don’t believe so much in coincidences especially when it’s about an institution as old as the BRF. No one knows the mindset of the courtiers who arranged the car, Of all the cars available, it had to be this. Don’t forget, Richard Palmer said that behind closed doors, Prince Philip calls Meghan the Duchess of Windsor (a reference to Walis Simpson). And I read that the last royal couple to have the Sussex title ended miserablely.
Ugh…Really??? I can’t stand that man…
Re: Duke of Sussex article in the mail…..that was such an obvious clickbaity article designed to get the sort of rise it did. From fans and haters of H&M alike because it discussed only the negatives of the Duke and by extension made a dig about H&M’s marriage.
It also implied that the duke was an outlier in his family when the reality was that ALL of George 3’s sons were wastrels with multiple mistresses, illegitimate kids and illegal marriages. Why pick on just the one who was just as bad as his brothers on that front?
The article left out the positives about the Duke such as his *campaigning for the abolition of Slavery and support for the Royal society. He had such a thirst for knowledge that he had the largest library in England covering all sorts of subjects, particularly science and religion.
*Prior to the abdication of 1936, the royals were very public supporters of all sorts of issues, and campaigned for them. They navigated the fallout of the abdication by self-imposed public silence and non-intervention on anything. The Queen has reigned for so long whilst following this path of silence that it has become wrongly assumed that royals can’t campaign / lobby on anything beyond cute, bland issues eg children and animals, and only cuddly aspects of said issues. Any such lobbying is framed as political intervention even if it’s lobbying for the culling of sick badgers in the West Country as Charles once did.
This is news! Thanks LAK
@ Nelll – just because Richard Palmer allegedly says it does not make it so.
The only thing more misogynistic and racist than the writers at DM are the commenters at DM, if you have hope for humanity and you kinda want to lose it…just hop on over to DM, read the comments and there you go – it’s gone.
No need to rank them. They are eaqually terrible.
Does anyone here have suggestions as to books or sources that I could use to learn more about courtiers and their roles?
They seem to be extremely important and influential, and I only really learned of their existence a few years ago. All I know for sure is that Diana referred to them as “the grey men” or something similar. I would love to know more about how one gets to be in that position and how much power they truly have.
Do you watch The Crown? They pretty much control everything, if these dramas are to be believed!
A courtier is no different from a civil servant or white house staffer. They have a job to do.
Diana hated them because they did their jobs and didn’t acquiesce to her personal agenda. Her response was to demonise them and thus a legend was born.
That said, if you want to understand how the civil service / courtier world works, it would be more amusing if you watch the tv show ‘Yes, Minister” and it’s sequel “Yes, Prime Minister” episodes on youtube. Sir Humphrey is the ultimate civil servant.
If Meghan’s mother is descended from the enslaved SO IS MEGHAN; therefore, it makes no sense to say it unless the point is to conflate blackness with slavery.
Yup.
THANK YOU. That was just, ugh. And by the way, there is not a darn thing wrong with being a descendant of enslaved people, people who survived years and years of crimes and cruelties perpetrated against their persons when their life expectancy was 7 years. 7 YEARS. I am prouder to be the descendants of slaves than I am to have even a drop of the blood of the enslavers who raped, tortured, and murdered them. DM can suck an egg.
Well said! Also do we even know Meg is descended from slaves? Not all African Americans are and assuming so is also pretty damn racist.
I kinda feel like the Queen wasn’t sending messages. I guess there are other cars that could have been sent but maybe the press trying to make something out of nothing. I mean that car WAS used for other people too wasn’t it ? Why wasn’t every trip it made noted then. Just because Simpson rode in it does that mean it should be sold ? Eh.
Total side note but since we’re talking about rascists here too — was that awful Princess Michael at the wedding ? I never saw a shot of them walking into church and hoped that Harry was actually able to tell the Queen that that witch wasn’t invited. But maybe the photogs just didn’t bother shooting her.
Yeah she was there. Saw a pic of her, looking smug as usual.
Of course she was there…in the family seats!
@Sam, please don’t stress yourself. Stop reading the Daily Mail.
@Lak, my friend who has lived in the UK for decades tell me that most Britons read the Daily Mail and The Sun UK. How true is it?
Good advice to @ Sam, and whilst i can’t vouch for many britains actually reading the DM, it has the highest circulation.
That said, there are 3 different types of DM with different and separate editorial staff and editors.
1. The DM online is the tabloid arm of the paper. They have Piers Morgan as their editor and many ex-murdoch media staffers. That’s part of the reason it’s so tabloidy. This edition is the most widely read newssite worldwide with HQ offices in London, USA and Australia.
2. The Print edition is much more newsy in it’s output. Very little tabloid content. One page at most. If you click the ‘rightminds’ section of the online website, this is closer to what the print edition looks like. This is the version that has high circulation in physical form.
3. Mail on Sunday is the investigative edition of the paper. Anything in this edition is more or less factually correct. They have rarely retracted a story or been sued. It’s no coincidence that when the DM publishes a juicy scandal laden story about public figures, it’s in the MoS edition of the papers because they show receipts.
The online edition is not a window into Britain given it’s international in outlook. It stays within the ethos of the DM, but it is recognisably very different from the print and MoS editions. It’s extremely tabloid-y in the fashion of murdoch press which is unsurprising given the number of tabloid staffers it employs, and if you grew up with semi-nude page 3 girls in your tabloid newspapers as a normal thing, then the ticker-tape of nearly naked celebrities on the side is perfectly normal too.
The different editorial teams is the other reason the paper contradicts itself because they don’t always have the same focus or goals. And since the online edition pulls articles from the other editions with no proof-reading, it can seem like they flip-flopped over the same issue when a person who only gets the print edition or MoS edition only had one particular view on a matter and not the other views.
It is entirely possible that those “slaves” were royalty before the were captured and stolen from their home land. It is also very likely that the British Monarchy was directly responsible for enslaving them as they monopolized the slave trade for over 150 years. Perhaps they will start referring to the Queen as descended from human traffickers and racists.
I was curious about this vehicle and did some digging online. It was commissioned by Prince Philip in 1949. Only 18 were ever made and 15 sold and the family uses it routinely. The vehicle was also used to transport Prince Charles and Camilla from Clarence House to Westminster Abbey for Prince William and Kate’s wedding.
Where’s that tidbit news outlets? These arseholes in the British media just want to keep insulting Meghan.
Well I’m not sure that using Camilla and Charles is a great example, lol.
I mean, maybe not, but the point is the vehicle is still in popular use for big family events and is a rare collector’s item. I really don’t think there was an insult in this.
Can someone explain to me why the Wallis Simpson relation matters? The BED should be grateful. Without that American shaking things up, they wouldn’t be in line for the throne today
Elizabeth’s mother hated Wallis with a deep passion, as did Queen Mary. They blamed her (and David) for Bertie’s ill health and early death. Plus, she was considered a wanton woman, twice divorced etc…
Bertie never wanted to be King, QE2 it could be said, probably never wanted to be Queen either. I think they believed David’s dereliction of duty could have brought the entire monarchy down. Wallis was at the center of all that.
Seeing as Queen Mary hated Wallis, maybe it means something that Elizabeth let Meghan wear Mary’s tiara?
Wallis never wanted to marry David, she never wanted to divorce her 2nd husband but they were pushed into a corner by the King who was obsessed with marrying her (he never wanted to be King either TBH). Letters she wrote to husband number 2 were very telling about how she really felt.
Wallis is a fascinating woman, I recommend reading biographies about her. History has not been kind to her, she was made a scapegoat for a spoiled King who was a Nazi sympathiser and there have been rumours over the years that he may have been a traitor as well but thats a whole other story. Churchill allegedly destroyed evidence from that period that could have brought the Monarchy down.
Rather than blame David, they chose to blame Wallis. And never forgave her.
We didn’t need Wallis for that, she was just a convenient excuse. The real reason they got rid of him was because they knew he was unsuitable, they knew war was coming eventually, he couldn’t be trusted, he was matey with Hitler. He mixed with the wrong people. His relatives were probably in on it because their gravy train wouldn’t have survived his downfall as King but removing him could keep it all going along nicely.
As for the Rolls Royce, how many times has the Queen or Queen Mother travelled in it? I bet quite a lot. Could we read in to that they see Meghan as a Queen or Queen Consort one day (I would much prefer that to Waity). People twist facts to suit their own ends.
@Busybee, +1000
I actually like the idea that the car is getting an energetic refresher- there was an American divorcee and the resistance to her joining the royal family led to an entire change that impacted history and the lines of succession. Now, there’s a new American divorcee and she’s been welcomed with open arms because they’ve learned their lessons (and she doesn’t impact the lines of succession, so that makes it easy 😉 ).
I’m hella woowoo like that, though.
Whoever keeps writing that descended from slaves line needs a foot in their ass.
@Lak, I understand better, but is it not too far reaching when people say the British press is after Meghan? If one or two papers out of the many publish racist shit, should it be said that it’s the fault of the ‘ British Press’? I read many of the UK papers online and besides DM, most of them have been favourable.
Yes, that’s a good conclusion.
As a result of it’s visibility, there is a lazy default of tarring the british media with DM hysteria which is why i advise people who are offended by it to read other British media.
The press are noted for build ’em up knock ’em down.
The same car was used for the Queens first ever engagement. But of course everyone focuses on the Wallis part.
It’s a Rolls-Royce Phantom. I wouldn’t care if the Devil Incarnate had sat his butt in that seat before me.
@M4lificent – This! I’d be quite willing to “use” some other stuff of Wallis’s, especially if they came out of her jewelry box!
What did you expect them to do, buy another Roller? If people are determined to be offended they will aways find something to be offended about. I bet that car has been used for all sorts of occasions.
As for being descended from slaves, given what the Normans did to the locals after 1066 I would guess that anyone in England now who has Anglo-Saxons in their ancestry will almost certainly be descended from serfs – which is not that much different from slavery. I know I am going back a little further! 🙂
@Lak, well said. It’s just like the ‘data’ that has been in circulation for years (which I suspect would have come from the BRF) about how the BRF contributes to the economy through tourism, compared to the ‘mere’ 56 pennies it costs each taxpayer. Has any media house actually taken the pains to carry out research to authenticate these claims? How is it that France earns the most in tourism, yet has no Royal family?
The weather is considerably better in France!
Lol.
The information is in plain sight. Not hidden. No special skills required to unearth it.
…but the media colludes with the BRF about these stats because whatever we think about the BRF, they are the establishment and an institution. No media outlet can go against that. Not unless there is considerable gains to be made from doing so.
@Lak, how long would it continue? Could it be because of ‘respect’ for the Queen that’s why there isn’t much fuss? Do you foresee a situation where the media will grow some balls and let tax payers know how much the royal family actually cost them? Will there ever be a time when the royal family will account for misappropriated funds? Do you see this happening?
There have been moments in the past, when they have been held accountable, and those have become fewer in the past 20yrs.
Being held accountable was clearly a deeply unpleasant experience because they employed their ye old ancestors’ strategy for getting through tricky times by plugging any loopholes that would help any transparency investigations as well as ran a very successful disinformation campaign that keeps them in place whilst elevating them as essential to British life.
Media is controlled more than it ever was, and a culture of silence is reinforced by a strategy of shame (how dare they expose the royals!) and establishment exclusion for the transgressing media outlets. They keep the media owners in the fold so no one goes rogue.
As long as they keep the public distracted, no one will ever think to devote any effort to changing the system.
This car has been used for various events through the years, some of them very significant and important (it can all be found online easily), hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of times through the years for the Royal Family. I think is SO much ado about nothing. People are just looking for shit now.
Is this not the same car Queen Elizabeth rode in on her first engagement with Phillip as a married couple? I believe, back then, Wallis in this car was made a big deal because it meant something special to the Queen and it was a a sign of them finally respecting her. It has been used a few times in the past few decades.
The Daily Mail is such trash. They took one moment out of this cars decades old history and decided to connect it to Meghan as “shade”.
Give me a break.
Okay, I’ll be the minority opinion here. I think a snobby courtier thought that they would do this as a private joke for themselves and any other members of the staff who think that Meghan is somehow beneath them. I think the Queen is probably livid about it since its definitely in poor taste but I think everyone will play dumb. The Queen intentionally avoided the title of Duke and Duchess of Windsor to avoid comparisons like this, and here we are.
There was no chance in hell that Duke of Windsor was a consideration. The last Duke caused a scandal that rocked the very foundations of the monarchy and was blamed by the Queen’s family for shortening her father’s life.
There is still a war generation of Britons who remember the duke unfavourably. Recreating his title within the next 50yrs would be a huge insult to them.
Wallis Simpson was a racist.
Upon learning she rode in this car before, I kinda took it as giving Wallis Simpson’s memory the finger.
The original Duke of Sussex was considered to have liberal views,. He wanted to reform Parliament, end the slave trade, Catholic emancipation, and the removal of existing civil restrictions on Jews and dissenters.
The fact Queen Elizabeth picked that inparticular means she knew who was entering her family and has embraced it….gooooo Your Majesty!