In a recent article published by journalist Nana Akwa in the Daily Mail, the debate surrounding the alleged racist comments made about an unborn Archie’s skin tone by members of the royal family was addressed.

The headline boldly declares that wondering aloud about a baby’s skin tone is not racist, as the supposed racist royals were inadvertently exposed in Omid Scobie’s new book, “Endgame”.

While the revelation has caused quite a frenzy, it is important to consider whether it is genuinely racist to speculate about the skin color of an unborn child.

The Dutch, Italian, and Spanish editions of Scobie’s book all apparently named the two mysterious royal racists, causing speculation and curiosity to run rampant.

However, it is crucial to note that these allegations are still unverified, and the possibility of legal action looms.

Nevertheless, Nana Akwa argues that the focus should shift from identifying the royal racists to questioning whether it is inherently racist to wonder about a child’s skin tone.

As a black mother of two mixed-race children, Nana shares her own experience of eagerly anticipating her son’s birth and wondering how his appearance would align with his name, Ivory.

She emphasizes that regardless of her child’s skin tone, she and her ex-partner would love him unconditionally.

This curiosity, she explains, is a common occurrence in families, particularly those that are mixed-race.

Even within the same race, partners often possess different features, making it natural to wonder which traits their child will inherit.

Nana further highlights that every expectant parent wonders about their child’s appearance, contemplating which features and coloring they will inherit from each side of the family.

For mixed-race parents, the child’s skin tone becomes a fascinating mystery.

Genetics can produce surprising outcomes, even resulting in twins who bear little resemblance to each other.

It is a genetic lottery, and wondering about the child’s appearance is simply part of the anticipation and excitement.

Meghan Markle, however, chose to be offended by these speculations.

While it is easy for anyone to find something to be offended by, Nana suggests that it is more constructive to approach relationships with grace and understanding.

Instead of labeling King Charles as racist based on his curiosity about Archie’s appearance, Nana argues that his behavior and known character should be the true measure of his beliefs.

King Charles is known for his peaceful nature, respect for others, and lack of judgment based on skin color, which are qualities that contradict the definition of racism.

Nana acknowledges that discussing race can be a sensitive topic, but she emphasizes that simply wondering about an unborn child’s skin tone in a genuine and non-derogatory manner is not racist.

She criticizes Meghan for her hypersensitivity and tendency to make everything about race, suggesting that celebrating our differences would lead to a better world.

Nana highlights the difficulty in this situation, as the alleged interaction within the royal family lacks context and relies on hearsay.

Harry’s own past behavior raises questions about his understanding of racism, and Meghan’s tendency to weaponize her race further complicates the matter.

Ultimately, Nana laments the current state of affairs between Harry, Meghan, and the royal family.

When their engagement was announced, the British public celebrated Meghan’s mixed-race heritage as a positive aspect of our multicultural society.

However, the couple’s constant victimhood and complaints have hindered their ability to thrive within the royal family.

Nana concludes by encouraging readers to share their thoughts on this thought-provoking article and invites them to engage in respectful discussion.