Gospel conductor defends Prince Charles against racism

Gospel conductor defends Prince Charles against racism


norman lebrecht

March 12, 2021

From Fox News:

Karen Gibson, founder of the Kingdom Choir — which was selected by Prince Charles to sing at the wedding of his son Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in 2018 — said Prince Charles has since “gone out of his way” to congratulate the Black gospel choir on its further success, including a record deal with Sony Music….

“Apparently [The Kingdom Choir] was Charles’s choice, apparently Charles recommended them to Harry and Meghan, which I was surprised at,” royal podcaster Emily Andrews said in 2018, according to Town and Country magazine. “I was told that by one of Charles’s member of staff yesterday.”

More here.

Meghan, in case you hadn’t heard, has accused an unnamed member of the Royal Family of racism in connection with her first baby.



  • RW2013 says:

    Sorry, but MM is the ultimate “Griff ins Klo” 🙁

  • Bill says:

    So it isn’t possible to be racist if you think a group has talent? My late grandfather (a former athlete himself) was a great fan of the athleticism of Black basketball players, but he had a pretty dim view of the work ethic of the Blacks in his city, with the possible exception of a few employees who had proved that they didn’t match his stereotype. I’ve always thought that was at least borderline racist, but I guess maybe I was too harsh?

  • Sue Sonata Form says:

    Charles will be King, or William. They won’t be bothered with underlings after that – or their self-pity and whining.

  • Andrew says:

    MeGain and Harry Hewitt’s campaign “for privacy” on the Oprah spectular was a bad pantomime. Let’s hope the gruesome twosome have had their 15 minutes now… It’s good that some people are coming out to speak “their truth” that doesn’t accord with “actress truth”.

  • sam says:

    1. OK, right, Charles schooled his future black American daughter-in-law on black gospel singers. And who was the source of this tidbit? ““I was told that by one of Charles’s member of staff”. Brilliant.

    2. No, Charles would not be consciously racist, but even if he were, he wouldn’t be manifestly racist, but even if he were, he wouldn’t be manifestly racist to a black person.

    Anyway, to paraphrase one of Charles’s most memorable quotes, “Whatever being a racist means”

    3) In any case, it’s one thing to have a black friend, quite another to have a black heir in line (however far down it is in the line) to the throne.

    4) No, the Duchess of Sussex did not “accuse” one of her in-laws of racism, she (and the Duke backed her up on this) merely reported what this in-law said.

    You be the judge of whether or not inquiring about the potential shade of the skin of an heir (possibly) to the throne is racist or not. Presumably, this person was not concerned that Archie would turn out to be albino.

    Whatever being a racist means.

  • Has-been says:

    Piers Morgan got it right !!

  • marcus says:

    Don’t think I will be touching this subject with a barge pole nailed to another barge pole.

  • anon says:

    I don’t see how this report in any way undercuts the probability of Harry and Meghan’s allegations being true. Let’s also be clear that it is not just Meghan who made this claim, Harry says he was the one to whom a family member(s) voiced concerns over how dark-skinned his child might be. And yes, it is racist to believe the color of a royal baby’s skin is anything to be concerned about, because the only reason to be concerned about such a thing is if that person thinks darker skin is somehow undesirable. Liking/supporting a Black gospel choir and holding the racist belief that one’s relation shouldn’t be darker than clotted cream are not mutually exclusive positions.

    • Vincent Freeman says:

      I agree completely. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

    • Allen says:

      If you read a transcript, it is far from clear what was said, what was meant, or how many conversations took place. Discussing hair colour, eye colour or skin colour does not automatically suggest “concern”.

      Her implication of a link between skin colour and lack of a royal title for Archie was totally unsupportable. The rules are well known, and Harry at least must have been aware of this. Pure sh*t stirring.

  • Greg Bottini says:

    The Royal Family seems to be in rather a disheveled state right now….

  • James Weiss says:

    Meghan Markle is delusional.

  • John Borstlap says:

    Must have been the queen. Or maybe it was a deep fake.


  • Dave says:

    If you are going to claim racism then name names. Otherwise shut up.

    • Vincent Freeman says:

      Naming names will not satisfy skeptics. Besides, there were probably too many names to be named in the time allotted. I’m glad they were able cover other interesting topics during the interview.

  • Maria says:

    Being the future king and the future head of the Church of England, like him or not, it is what it is for us in Britain and the Commonwealth until people choose otherwise, and have a President every few years. But Charles has always wanted to be, made it clear from a young man, and always wanted to change the wording to the defender of all faiths, not be the defender of the faith as in the Church of England being the only faith around – something that is inherent in the coronation service per se. Being defender of all faiths mean defender of all races as the majority of all faiths is south of the equator, not in the bubble of London! How could the Royal family be racist if they allowed Harry to marry a woman of mixed raced, and a divorced one at that? Going by the wedding itself, and Charles actually walking his future daughter-in-law down the aisle on the day when her father wouldn’t or couldn’t; a black bishop and a Gospel Choir, says far more than the polarised British newspaper and that awful Oprah interview the other night, blaming racism again for everything.

    • Vincent Freeman says:

      Something tells me Prince Harry was going to marry his “soulmate” (his word) no matter what. If you’re the “Royal” Family, what would you do? Probably exactly what it ended up doing. Their performances in public do not tell you what is in their hearts.

  • M McAlpine says:

    Of course, by playing the racism card MM knew she was on a winner with the woke generation as she would be believed whatever the truth or context was. I am no great fan of Charles but I would have thought the last thing you could accuse him of – if his actions are to be believed – is any form of conscious racism. Like many other things that were said in the interview by a terribly unprobing interviewer, it is very much ‘her truth’

    • Vincent Freeman says:

      1. What is this “racism card”? I wonder if it’s not some much the accusation of racist behavior or thinking but rather the reflexive defense (or defensiveness) of the accused.
      2. At the individual level, most racism* is not conscious. For example, you can have unconscious racial/ethnic prejudices against African American but still think Denyce Graves was the best and sexiest Carmen EVER (yes, I was a fan – NY, Paris, and Chicago twice).
      *From Oxford Dictionary: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized” ; “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”
      I would add that racism is also choosing who is deserving our humanity (e.g., empathy) based on their race.