The white “love child” and the biracial “other” child
Nina (a returning MMW guest contributor!)
Here is an interesting piece I came across…..In the June 19 issue of People Magazine there is a story on Prince Albert of Monaco and the children he has fathered out of wedlock.
The article is primarily about his recently revealed 14 year old white daughter who lives in California with her mother and uses the Prince’s family name, Grimaldi. Captions under her photograph say things like “love child” and “father meets daughter.”
On the other hand his biracial 3 year old son (mother is from Togo) is referred to as “the other child” by the magazine. I find this ironic at best considering the son was born during a 5 year relationship whereas the daughter’s mother was involved with the Prince for only 3 weeks during a vacation in Monaco. Does a shared race make one a “love child” and one “the other child”?
The magazine also reports that the son has been denied use of the Grimaldi name but does not explain how or why the daughter is able to use it though it does state, in parentheses in a side box, that she does not have permission from the royal family. There is all sorts of other coded text but this is just another example of sloppy reporting and the “black is bad” scenario that is so prevalent in the media and the world at large.
Merq wrote:
I don’t know (seeing as I haven’t actually read the article yet… rushing out to work) but I took that whole “the other child” reference to mean “the love child we already knew about.”
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 7:42 am ¶
lemure wrote:
I don’t know about that, if the other child is not allowed to use his name though, seems suspicious.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 9:58 am ¶
bertie wrote:
I don’t know either–the article’s author referring to the kid as the “other child” and royal family not allowing the son to use the name are 2 separate issues/actions by 2 separate parties. Maybe “other” is just used to distinguish between the kid previously referred to in the article. Also, It seems that the daughter doesn’t have permission to use the name either–she’s just doing it (why she or the son need permission I’m not sure since kids can take their father’s name even when born out of wedlock..at least in the states.)
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 12:02 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
But according to the article, the daughter isn’t allowed to use the Grimaldi name, either. I think it’s more about the mothers, and who pushed harder to use the name (at least, as far as the article goes).
Of course, one could easily look at it from a very different standpoint. The son was made public before the daughter, and they were adamant that while he would be “cared for,” he could neither use the name nor claim heir status. So chances are, the daughter was indeed allowed to use the name back when things were still on the hush.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 12:49 pm ¶
Charlette wrote:
Perhaps its legalities the royal family is more worried about. If and only if because we don’t seem to know for sure, if the out of wedlock daughter might not be able to sue for royalty later on, per some agreement, or just the fact that he sired her on a weekend. The out of wedlock boy might be able to fight for his crown later on and that just isn’t acceptable according to the royal family. If the prince has been seeing this woman with color for five years you think the royal family didn’t know about her? Yea right! they did and they don’t want her in the family where the white mother who has money and the daughter and who knows what other goodies to remain in the background are doing fine.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 12:59 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
Charlotte has a point. Some of the different treatment may be the result of how the mothers carried it. One stayed quiet and kept a low profile for many years–the other went straight to the media after the kid was born.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 1:48 pm ¶
Gandalf Mantooth wrote:
Noooo. Differential treatment is based on who will get the throne after Albert dies. Only a male aire can take the throne. Seeit? NO BLACK PRINCES IN THIS COUNTRY! We CANNOT have him coming in with his crown tilted to the side! We will not stand for it! [sound of lots of royal harumphing].
IIRC they passed some quickie laws to cut the kid out. Well, he will still be living well, who needs a throne, anyway?
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 3:14 pm ¶
Nina wrote:
I totally agree with Bertie and others who state that the magazine labeling the son “other” and the use of the Grimaldi name are two separate issues by 2 separate parties. That is why I submitted the article as an example of bias in the media and in the world at large. The reporting leaves so much unexplained and open for interpretation. Did People magazine really use the term “other” in the innocent manner that Merq suggests above? Is the writer biased? Or are they just too lazy (or caught up in Brangelina baby photos) to make a more careful word selection? I still believe the article as a whole is more favorable towards the white mother/child duo. It stated that the biracial child and mother are living in a $2.5 million home that the Prince gave them, but doesn’t explain how the white mother, a former waitress, is living in an upscale gated community and sending the daughter to a private school. And again the disparate use of the Grimaldi name (with or without permission) should have been further investigated and reported. Finally, if all parties were of the same race who do you think would be treated more favorably by the magazine, the mother who had an affair while married to another man and then ambushed the Prince at a public event, or the mother who had a 5 year relationship with the Prince and stayed quiet for some time?
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 3:23 pm ¶
Johnnie wrote:
Trust me the last thing the little boy needs to be is associated with the inbreds of Monaco. Hell his dad is gay anyway it’s just amatter of time before the closet flings open.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 3:55 pm ¶
Mulatto - no ODR wrote:
Gandalf Mantooth,
Of course no black prince. Little Alexander is not black he is mulatto. His father is white, his mother is black = mulatto. No racist, global one-drop-rules, please! Also as we know there was already a mulatto prince in Europe who had the same name: Alessandro de Medici, also italian just like the Garimaldis.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 7:06 pm ¶
Gandalph Mantooth wrote:
Turn on those sarcasm detectors, people
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 7:10 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
I’ve seen more pics of this girl on another site, and she looks biracial to me. So much, in fact, that other people even commented on it. Also, neither child can use the Grimaldi name or have claim to the crown after Alfred dies, and that’s not because of race, but because they are illegitimate. I think that Princess Stephanie’s children is in the same boat, and they are all white. They both, however, will get money from his estate and be supported by the Crown.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 7:47 pm ¶
dcase wrote:
Mulatto - no ODR :
Gandalf Mantooth,
Of course no black prince. Little Alexander is not black he is mulatto. His father is white, his mother is black = mulatto.
I caught Gandalf Mantooth’s sarcasm here but I’m a little unsure about this assertion by Mulatto-no ODR. You may have not sought to develop a mathematical proof here; however, I’m not sure being mulatto defines a mutually exclusive set. We can get a bit more formal if you want and it might be illustrative. If one assumes that, as many here do so implicitly in their discussions, a biracial child consists of the intersection of two parents- for those of you who don’t remember from math, the intersection of two sets A and B is the set of points that exist in both A and B- then it means said child is in both race A and race B simultaneously. Thus, saying a biracial child ( the intersection) is of race A is logically true without negating the fact that said child is also of race B. Of course, this can generalized to many races, I only chose biracial child for simplicity. The point, I believe, of developing multiracial identity is to suggest something that has been somewhat heretical in this society: that people can enjoy the membership of multiple races simultaneously without having to negate one for another.
Posted 15 Jun 2006 at 10:11 pm ¶
brad wrote:
Hmm…When it comes to last names, I didn’t think that there was a law in the U.S. that prevents children born out of wedlock to be given or take their father’s last name. Frankly, couldn’t anyone just go to court and her/his name changed? Casius Clay became Muhammad Ali.
Posted 16 Jun 2006 at 12:12 am ¶
bertie wrote:
I think legally, a child can be given any sur-name the parents choose. Whether as a “Grimaldi” you are entitled to the loot and the throne–I guess that depends on the succession laws in Monaco.
Posted 16 Jun 2006 at 10:22 am ¶
Bohwe wrote:
We can say that this little boy is not black but mulatto, well the boy is black. In Europe, the little boy will be considered black. We can say that this is only a U.S. notion of race, ok that’s fine. Go to a German Nazi, or a Russian Nazi or take that boy around any European in Europe, and they will say he is black. If the notion of race did not exist in Europe, than bi-racial children would not be mistreated in Europe, especially those of Negro descent. We can embrace this whole idea of being b- or multicultural, but in the eyes of Europe, anyone who isn’t pure 100% white is a half-breed, and is associated with the other race.
And as far as Prince Albert son not being able to inherit the kingdom. Albert is probably looking out for the child best interest. He knows that if he would leave the throne to his son, there will be a major uproar, and some psycho might try anything. So, he’s doing the right thing. He takes care of the son and the mother. He gave the mother his apartment, car, and an account. The boy isn’t poor. He just won’t receive the prince title. Who would want to be associated with that family, anyways? If they weren’t royality, they would be considered low class. And if Prince Albert were to claim any black child, and give them a royal title, I think it would be a child he would have with Naomi Campbell, he seemed somewhat sprung over that girl, back in the day. Not to sound crass, but maybe ol girl from Tonga didn’t put it on him.
Posted 16 Jun 2006 at 3:17 pm ¶
Merq wrote:
Togo, Bohwe. Togo
Posted 17 Jun 2006 at 1:10 am ¶
theresia wrote:
I as being black do belive that the reference as to the other child implies he is of a lesser persons because he is biracial and this is even more proven in the refusal of the name.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 6:10 pm ¶
hmmm... wrote:
well if the child is treated as a “lesser person” in comparison to his half-sister, then whose fault is that? His mother knew what she was getting into. If she had any respect for herself, she never would have had a child out of wedlock with a man who obviously had no intention of marrying her.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 7:48 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
Brad:
It does not matter what her mother named her. Just because her mother named her Grimaldi does not mean that she will even have claim to the crown, unlike the other child. IF she ever went to Monaco she would NOT be considered one of the Grimaldis legally, even if she IS related by blood.
The way it works in Europe (or any other monarchy) is that only LEGITIMATE children can have the father’s last name and claim the crown. The reason why is that over history, there were assassination attempts made by illegitimate members of these royal families hoping to gain power, and at times the entire royal families were killed. And unlike other monarchies who would have hidden the children or even worse, sought out and killed mother and child or disavowed responsibility, these children are being taken care of and have trust funds already set up in their name, they will never want for anything. The only thing that they cannot do under Monaco’s current constitution laws is inherit the crown or titles.
If Monaco’s laws change, the little boy CAN have a claim; also, if the Prince marries his mother he will automatically be legitimized and be an heir to the Crown. Unfortunately, the daughter will never have such status because she is a child born from adultery (mom was married at the time she was conceived) and that is looked upon VERY differently.
Alfred has never NOT claimed the boy, he sees his father on a regular basis and he’s in a better position for royalty than his half-sister is. I think that People referred to him as being the “other child” because they did a HUGE article when that scandal broke.
Posted 19 Jun 2006 at 8:10 pm ¶
Gandalf Mantooth wrote:
Kaonashi, did you read the article?
Posted 20 Jun 2006 at 1:00 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
Yes I did, and I came to the same conclusion as Merq.
Posted 21 Jun 2006 at 12:15 pm ¶
Liz wrote:
Kaonashi, thank you so much for schooling some of us here on the way it works in Europe!
But Bohwe, I gotta ask: are you mixed, or African-American and have you lived long enough in Europe to prove your point? I mean, like, for years? My father, who’s a medium brown African-American -to sum it up-, moved to France in the 70s and hasn’t permanently returned since. And guess what? People can NOT accept that he is “Black” and insist on calling him “mixed”. So this whole thing about people in Europe… Puhh-leeze! (And don’t you know there was no such thing as Russian nazis, and that since WWII ended over 60 years ago, it is very unlikely that most Europeans would sympathize with Aryan views these days?) As for me… I’m light skinned and,were I to call myself Black, the only reaction I would get from people in Europe, be they Causasian or Black, is a good laugh to my face, and then they would say I’m too-light-to-even-be-mixed-so-that-must-mean-I’m-White (that is, in spite of the beige-ish complexion and the curly hair). The thing is, many White people in Europe think they know about color, while people of African descent can have a true claim to that descent, not like those of us that were brought to America centuries ago, and therefore don’t always like it when lighter people say they’re Black. And then again, many US-centered Americans think they know better than the rest of the world…
Posted 18 Aug 2006 at 10:23 pm ¶