I don't like the Royals, Meghan, Harry or genocide - but there are some interesting things happening from a legal perspective. You cannot accidentally publish names - that's not how it works.... and Markle and then Harry were very clear in their interviews not to say that the discussions 'were racist'. They allowed that to be inferred by Winfrey and then subsequently by the press - you can drive a truck through the gaps in what they're not saying. It's very neat.

Do I think they had discussions which may have involved skin colour and the future? I sure do. Meghan and Harry have both said those things happened. Do I think those conversations were necessarily racist and bigoted? No. Because if they were, then that would've been outright stated rather than implied. The legal teams of both sets of these overprivileged twats are shit hot on litigation. So, I think there were comments about Archie, but they weren't necessarily racist. Listen to the words being said in the interviews- not the emotional response intended to be elicited by those words. This is very hedged and careful language that doesn't stray anywhere into the subjunctive.

Here, let me demonstrate - 'I think it's great that Adebayo Adeniran writes on Medium, Medium needs more black writers' - you get to decide whether that's racist or not because it does indeed mention your skin colour. More importantly, if you took that comment into the public arena, devoid of any context and simply said 'The Penguin felt it important to mention my skin colour' and gave the camera a knowing look you could certainly paint me closer to cancellation.