[/QUOTE]
Where are the limits on that? I have a framed photograph in my kitchen, taken in China I believe, of some kind of wall opening and garden scene and around the corner of the wall is a young Chinese girl peering at the cameraman. Is that demeaning? I could take it down.
The broach is beautiful and I am sure collectible as many similar pieces are. But if Brits are going to be sensitive to their “new royal” probably best to put it away or gift it to a museum. I personally don’t think hiding history makes a ton of sense, but clearly it can trigger some people or the tabloids would not have made it “news worthy”.
There was a time when it was popular in England to have elaborately dressed African servants, often children, simply stand behind you when you sat for a meal at a social function. I believe this was during the 16th and 17th centuries. The darker their skin was, the more it was a status symbol for their white employers (or owners).
That’s what the brooch reminds me of. Like the controversy over “black Pieter” in the Netherlands, it shouldn’t be sugarcoated.
Here is an article of about Princess Pushy berating black customers. Also has a picture of her high ranking SS officer dad. Simon Wiesenthal hunted him down.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5206991/Princess-Pushy-told-black-diners-colonies.html
I liked the brooch too. I’d like to know the history of it.
The lunch was not for Meghan, it was the Queen’s Christmas party for her relatives. Meghan was the newbie.
I have a Chinese child too, She loved dressing up as Disney princesses, including some that weren’t Mulan
I agree that the piece is beautiful and appears to be a richly dressed, patrician black person.
But the wearing of this piece of jewelry seems, at best, off. If I had a brooch of a Native American tribal chief, would you give me the side-eye for wearing it? Would I be able to defend myself by saying that the chief was richly dressed and noble looking, and the brooch was pretty?
@TooOld4School, you’re right about slavery and India. However, I don’t think there was anything terriibly “free” about the conditions of servitude imposed by the British, and those who resisted and kept a degree of power did so through struggle, not because of the respect and generosity of the British. And yes, people from the Commonwealth still immigrate to the UK, just as people from Africa still immigrate to the United States despite our history of slavery and inequality. I also think it wouldn’t send a great message for, say, a white member of Congress to wear a Confederate Flag pin or an antique brooch depicting a nineteenth century southern black person regardless of whether their actual inner motives were noble in some sort non-white-supremist way honoring some aspects of history.
I lived for more than three years in a former British Protectorate of West Africa and traveled a good bit in both former French and British colonies, so I do know something about this. The Portugese and Dutch may have done the most horrendous things, but the British were not exactly angels. And I’m saying this as a bit of an Anglophile.
@momofthreeboys. I also don’t think we should hide history…that doesn’t mean we should “wear” it as adornment in situations where it’s not appropriate and actually appears to be strategically chosen to send an intimidating message by someone who has a history of doing such things pretty blatantly. I don’t think she’s some innocent.
@sylvan8798 your photo is probably beautiful and respectful and lovely. Plus, it’s a photo of a real person and not a stylized coolie or other Asian stereotype. And mainly, you’re not wearing it on your person at an event that could make someone uncomfortable.
I don’t pretend to know all the answers and I don’t want to come off as insufferable. There are many shades of grey where the answers are unclear. …I ask myself this stuff all the time too. I have photos, artifacts, artwork, textiles, masks, etc etc that I acquired traveling that I love. What’s respectful to have and to display and what’s not? There’s a big difference between museums (that exist to educate and provoke thought) and decorations that exist to adorn, entertain and label one’s taste, values and and status. Honestly, I don’t always know.
I’m going to go on a tangent but it’s not, really, I’m trying to draw a parallel:
We all know about evil predator men who do things to women to intimidate and show their power over. Then there are the happy clueless jerks who cross boundaries just for fun…a pinch or pat or grab or too-sexy comment…and believe that because THEY don’t see the problem…that THEY don’t mean any harm…that since THEY are doing it out of affection or admiration or attraction, thier “beneficiaries” shouldn’t mind, should be flattered! Does it make it OK? Or does the woman have a say…do her feelings in the matter count?
So, along those lines, I wonder… how does Megan Markle…and other people of color feel about the brooch? Do those feelings matter?
Why you shouldn’t wear blackamoor. Fetishize slavery, considered dated, racially insensitive and taboo. Ask Dolce and Gabbana http://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a14481097/princess-michael-of-kent-racist-brooch/
http://peopleofindia1868-1875photos.blogspot.com//2011/04/british-raj-life-of-british-army-html
And, I’m not at all sure of this source, but it seems that there may, in fact have been extensive slavery under the British in India. This source (if it’s correct, I can’t verify now) says that the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 included a clause that allowed slavery within India and enslavement of Indians for colonial markets through the East India Company:
Would be interesting to find out more. In any case, I don’t think the Indians were happy campers under the thumb of the British.
Thank you @gearmom for linking that bazaar article that explains much better than I could why the broach should not be worn.
It’s not just that Princess Michael wore it, you have to put in context with her former behavior and that her father was a Nazi officer. And that a biracial women is joining the family. It’s not just about the broach unfortunately, in her case.
Odd to tell Americans to go to a colony, when they are already in one.
Consolation - post #33, (and anyone else) if you didn’t read about this exhibit and conference at the time and have any interest:
And no. She shouldn’t have worn it. Inexcusable in her case, for the event. imo.
People are assuming that Markle was offended. She might not have been even though others were or she might see it as a teachable moment and welcome the opportunity.
And even if Meghan was offended, she may have the class to not say so in public. 
Prince Harry was 21 at the time, and while old enough to know better, was still at the age where one makes stupid mistakes. Princess Michael of Kent is 72.
A woman in her position will take great care when choosing what to wear anywhere, let alone to an event everyone knew would receive a great deal of press.
In my opinion, wearing the broach was a deliberate act meant to provoke, offend, or at the very least to draw attention to herself.
She has most likely worn it before without comment so this time it was inappropriate because of one bi-racial American? Perhaps it shows a lack of sensitivity to how Americans view things these days, but a global kerfuffle…probably not. Or perhaps she was making a subtle passive agressive statement about the prince marrying an American and a bi-racial one, no one will ever know but her. Oh the intrigue lol.
^
_ That “one” biracial American’s entry into their orbit is one of the biggest events to affect the royal family in some time. The event may have been the Queen’s annual luncheon, but I think it was also the first large, formal occasion in which Meghan was included with the extended royal family. So, anything that could signal the degree of welcome (or not) by members of the family is notable.
-I’m not so sure, on a global scale, that Americans are viewed as being so sensitive these days.
-Just looks to me like someone of the old guard not taking kindly to her diminishing sense of elite social power. We can at least be grateful that the queen, herself, is paving a more gracious path.
Harry is sensitive and especially seems to want to protect his loved ones. He couldn’t protect his mother. He even wrote a letter last year asking for kinder treatment of Meghan. An unusual action. He must be mortified by this but more importantly THE QUEEN must be so embarrassed. The press has gone wild over this and it has overshadowed her kind and inclusive attempt to welcome Meghan early into the family. Princess Michael will be persona non grata. Her father’s past is a big problem for me. Disgusting how SS officers simply got away with it. And her mother who had all the privilege of a high ranking SS officer’s wife during the war while others faced horrors. The rats who scattered when the ship sank.
Re: the Queen…a few years ago I read an article about the queen’s image/clothing choices. It claimed that Queen Elizabeth’s somewhat stodgy image is deliberate. Of course, I’m paraphrasing, but in effect, it quoted the queen as saying that there’s something inherently unkind and unapproachable about being very fashionable, and that a queen must never be seen as unkind. (Not that fashion-conscious royals Diana and Kate were/are viewed as unkind, but I still found the queen’s take on her sense of duty in that regard to be interesting.)
I’m outta here…going to walk away from the electronics to be with family… Happy, Hanukkah, Merry Christmas Eve, Happy Kwanzaa, and a hopeful post-solstice, everyone! Very much looking forward to the light of longer days ahead 
@momofthreeboys This isn’t about “hiding” history, but about sensitivity.