Royal News

CarlosTheDJ

Antediluvian
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
6,209
Likes
6,566
Points
294
Location
Sussex
I always thought 'uppity' just meant someone was being contrary. I had that Mr Uppity book when I was a kid and that's obviously what I took from it. Now I've read the Mr Men wiki entry I can see I was missing the subtext, bad form for a four year old.

I love this bit from his profile:

"Height: Normal Mr. Men height"

https://mrmen.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Uppity
 

Schrodinger's Zebra

My joints go out more than I do
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
2,759
Likes
5,556
Points
204
Location
Ute inte på landet.
I'd be interested to see the entry in the full Oxford English Dictionary. That learners' dictionary has very little detail.

Does anybody have a copy at home?

Carlos has nutshelled the English connotation for me and all I knew of the word prior to this discussion.

Well colour me completely bemused by this discussion! I, like many others on here, have always known it to mean stuck up, or snobby, something along those lines.

Anyway, in answer to your question, I thought we had an Oxford English Dictionary on our bookshelf but as I looked through it, it dawned on me that its an English to French one :sorry:


We do have a "Collins Modern English Dictionary" though, a rather hefty volume dated 1987, and if that is of any use, it has the entry thus:

uppity adj. Inf. 1. not yielding easily to persuasion or control. 2. another word for uppish.


And for 'uppish' it has this:

uppish adj. Brit. inf. snobbish, arrogant or presumptuous. - uppishly adv. - uppishness n.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
11,337
Likes
12,479
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
Havered between here and When Christians Go Mad - or whatever that one is called at the moment! These are quotes from the link. I really don't want to give traffic to the original/

The royal family is the seat of Christianity. We cannot deny the impact the royal family has had on the WASP-y culture; the White Anglo Saxon Protestant culture is a result of what has happened within the crown. And the crown has now, for the first time, been infiltrated with a bloodline … oh my goodness, that sounds racist, doesn’t it?
Don’t miss what’s going on. This infiltrator comes in, proud of her infiltration, proud of her multiculturalism. And what is that demon doing? Destroying and upsetting everything, every tradition in that royal family.
As I think I said earlier: this sort of thing has been floaring around on the Fail Online and gathering many Likes. Although even the Fail took them down.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progr...poisoned-royal-bloodline-by-being-half-black/
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,627
Likes
6,269
Points
279
Frideswide,

I had a look at your link.

And the opening blocking item has this.

..Allow sponsors to pay for your visit Simply whitelist Patheos on your adblocker and have sponsors fund browsing. ..

I suppose one can blacklist it if not happy with the content ?

But what if you are half happy ?

INT21.
 

hunck

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,639
Likes
5,926
Points
209
Location
Hobbs End
Frideswide,

I had a look at your link.

And the opening blocking item has this.

..Allow sponsors to pay for your visit Simply whitelist Patheos on your adblocker and have sponsors fund browsing. ..

I suppose one can blacklist it if not happy with the content ?

But what if you are half happy ?

INT21.
It's obvious - you greylist it, varying from light grey to dark grey depending on whether you're slightly more than half happy or less. If you're exactly half happy use mid grey.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,627
Likes
6,269
Points
279
Ah yes, the Gray Scale. I'd forgotten about that.

And the early computer monitors that had 64 shades of grey.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,627
Likes
6,269
Points
279
Going back to 'uppity'.

Who remembers the dark sitcom 'A very peculiar practice' ?

The scene where the doctors were at Dr Buzzard's home and Buzzards son was telling the group about his fathers colleagues; being too young to realise he was actually talking to them.

He said (paraphrasing) ' and the uppity dike (referring to bi-sexual Dr Rose-Marie) . tho' I don't know what an uppity dike is'.

Dr Daker steers the conversation away with ' There are a lot of them in Holland'.

INT21.
 
Last edited:

Victory

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
521
Likes
1,127
Points
134
Location
London
Hmm. I think we might have to agree to differ, on this point. It's a very loaded word. I'm really not sure I'd feel comfortable wielding it at all, let alone with reference to a person of colour.
For sure "Uppity" is very loaded with racial overtones for Americans.
You simply cannot use it there without it being racist.
But...would Eamon Homes have known this?
I actually doubt it.
 

Ermintruder

Delineated by a professional cryptozoologist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,643
Likes
7,947
Points
284
But...would Eamon Homes have known this?
Exactly. He would not. It was just a part of his lexicon.

To a close approximation, nobody in the UK or extended non-North American English-speaking world was aware of that negative connotation. In fact, I doubt that even Canadians would recognise it as a loaded term.
 

Victory

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
521
Likes
1,127
Points
134
Location
London
Exactly. He would not. It was just a part of his lexicon.

To a close approximation, nobody in the UK or extended non-North American English-speaking world was aware of that negative connotation. In fact, I doubt that even Canadians would recognise it as a loaded term.
I was aware previously, simply through having watched a lot of AmericanTV shows and films, and I think a fair few Black British people would too.
But yes, I agree, I really doubt Homes knew and most UK people would not have known about it
I give Homes the benefit of the doubt, I think he was just aligning with the Piers Morgan theme of Meghan being a social climber.
 

Ermintruder

Delineated by a professional cryptozoologist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,643
Likes
7,947
Points
284
I think he was just aligning with the Piers Morgan theme of Meghan being a social climber.
I think we need a shedload more of outré theorising as what on earth is actually going on with Mr & Mrs Harry Windsor.

Aspiring social climbers do not seek to attain fame & recognition, thenafter to reject fame & recognition.

Before romping into the more-extreme fringes of possibility (because you know I can), may I please objectively state some (superficially) indisputable baseline facts.

1. Mrs Meghan Windsor is not young, nor inexperienced. In earlier eras, women of half her age and a tiny fraction of her previous experience would've been dropped into such exaulted settings without any genuine consent and no exit options. She actively sought what and where she is.

2. Mrs Windsor is a professional actor by previous training & experience.

3. Mrs Windsor has actively-participated in paid advertising campaigns for fashion & cosmetics, and by any definition is someone who commercially benefits from her appearance and projected image: it cannot be said she is in any way a shy person in public.

4. Mrs Windsor is a woman who has elected to become a mother in her late 30s

5. Mrs Windsor is of mixed race. She is not black, in the sense that if she had a caucasian white-skinned father, and a black mother, how can that be considered to be exactly the same (genetically/ethnically) as someone who generationally has two black parents? (nb I stress, strongly, this is just a statement of fact: not any form of racism).

6. In the limited published video footage shown of Mrs Windsor (in Royal visitor/patron mode) it is inescapably-evident that she does not talk very much (in comparison with other individuals in such roles/situations) and, her mode of interaction tends to consistently-appear as if she is always at least partly disengaged or distant (yes: this is subjective opinion, but someone disagree with me, please, citing evidence or example- not mere defensive opinion).

There is either a lot more going on here than is being depicted: or a lot less. And I'm not wrong when I say that.
 

Krepostnoi

Almost uniquely humourless
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
3,114
Likes
6,186
Points
209
5. Mrs Windsor is of mixed race. She is not black, in the sense that if she had a caucasian white-skinned father, and a black mother, how can that be considered to be exactly the same (genetically/ethnically) as someone who generationally has two black parents? (nb I stress, strongly, this is just a statement of fact: not any form of racism).
:omg: We're not actually trying to ascribe any reality to notions of "blackness" or, indeed, "whiteness" beyond that which is socially constructed and contested, are we?
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,410
Likes
32,163
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I think he means that she is not black in the sense that the sun is not green; not that she does not partake of the requisite purity to qualify for the 'black racial identity'. I'm sure Ermintruder can clarify.

There are a great many shades of grey, but in most situations it's a simple enough exercise of sight to place most of the humans one sees into one of the (arbitrary but established) 'colour groups' we have worked with for a good amount of time now. It seems odd to me for people to claim colour distinctions are not 'real' because they were 'constructed'. As a social animal, the meaning of almost every catgorisation is constructed (including 'authentic/inauthentic' itself), and these categories can be 'real' enough to mean life and death at the critical moments of history. In a sense, colour and race are more real than say 'class', because they are less subjective, but anybody claiming that class isn't 'real' would be condemned as delusional.

Being arbitrary and inexact doesn't mean something can/should be disregarded, doubly not when it is embeded in thought and language. To be a human that exists in a community of language-using communities is to trade in (while mediating/negotiating) constructed concepts and categories. I'm all for teaching people to be flexible and circumspect, but without casting off history and reinventing languages, there is no chance of erasing core concepts--the alternative is silence.

Although these genetic ancestry tests are awakening the masses to the fact that comparatively few people are of one racial heritage, most people do display a preponderance of the primary physical characteristics of a single racial identity.

That said, anybody who spends a disproportionate amount of time agonising over criteria and disputing attribitions is highly likely to be a baddie.

My wife, my daughter and I are all of differing hues--it's a simple observable fact---but we place pretty much zero importance on that fact and most people we meet follow our lead.

Edit: thinking on the fly (lunch break). Critique welcome.
 
Last edited:

Krepostnoi

Almost uniquely humourless
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
3,114
Likes
6,186
Points
209
There was a time in another life when I had to engage very closely with the work of people like Benedict Anderson, Gopal Balakrishnan, Miroslav Hroch et al. I entirely agree that something which is constructed can come to be so real that it has life-or-death consequences: there would be no dulce et decorum est pro patria mori if not. Hence me saying "beyond that which is socially constructed."

But if the broad thrust of those authors and others like them (including me) is that nations are effectively constructs, created by competing narratives, then the broader categories of ethnicity and race are equally, if not more so, constructed. This is not the same as saying there are no real-world consequences.

What I am saying is that the attempt to bring in some kind of objective measure - e.g. through talk of genetics - is doomed to failure, and it is very likely to take us down some very unpleasant avenues along the way there.
 

Victory

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
521
Likes
1,127
Points
134
Location
London
I think we need a shedload more of outré theorising as what on earth is actually going on with Mr & Mrs Harry Windsor.


There is either a lot more going on here than is being depicted: or a lot less. And I'm not wrong when I say that.

On the face of it, I think what has happened is.

1.) Meghan got severe post natal depression and Harry realised she was far happier in North America around friends and family.

2.) Meghan also found it tough to adapt to the royal ways even though the royals were very mindful of what happened to Diana, and made a genuine effort to welcome Meghan.

3.) Meghan fell out with Katherine. This lead to William and Harry falling out.

So they decided to move.

But the marriage is ripe for conspiracy theories, I agree.
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
27,139
Likes
36,105
Points
284
Also ripe for divorce.

When Harry gets fed up of 'Living in the Land of the Common People'.

Anyone agree ?

INT21.
Let's be honest, no matter how much he's done a 'screw you Grandma!' .. he's never going to end up living in a rough estate.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
28,187
Likes
28,839
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
I'm not a fan of the Royals so don't normally bother with this thread. However, I was amused by this Times article today.
The drawing of the family theselves looks funny enough!

As if royal life were not animated enough, Family Guy writer takes aim


A satirical animated series about the royal family is to scrutinise the monarchy from the perspective of the young Prince George. It will have an all-star cast voicing the Windsors and the palace staff.

The Prince is the creation of Gary Janetti, a writer and producer of Family Guy, the long-running animated comedy about a dysfunctional American family.
 

oxo66

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
64
Likes
85
Points
19
I'd be interested to see the entry in the full Oxford English Dictionary. That learners' dictionary has very little detail.

Does anybody have a copy at home?

Carlos has nutshelled the English connotation for me and all I knew of the word prior to this discussion.
'Uppity' Doesn't appear in the First Edition; which including the supplement takes us up to 1933.
It does appear in the second supplement published in 1986. This is not surprising because the editorial policy had moved on by then to include more 'world' English beyond British English.

uppity colloq. (orig. and chiefly US) Above oneself, self-important, 'jumped-up'; arrogant, haughty, pert, putting on airs
First citation is Uncle Remus for 1880, then Times Lit Sup from 1933. Others include Neville Shute, Chequer Board 1947 and Bruce Chatwin, On Black Hill 1982.

The OED definition supports the naïve interpretation, but be cautious: at least one of the US citations is clearly racial.

Oxo
 
Top