It was “, 'a bit naughty' to imply Archie 'couldn't be a prince because of the possible colour of his skin' when it was due to strict rules,...”

[RickiTarr]

Hugo Vickers made me laugh with his phrasing. So British to say “a bit naughty”.

Also, seriously high lights how many people don’t understand the rules or can’t explain the rules well, and no American has a hope of grasping our quaint & complicated rules and institutions, really.

Sorry, it’s the Daily Fail, but funny.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9340545/Why-Meghan-Markle-bit-naughty-referring-Archies-skin-colour-prince-discussion.html

[Blueberries0112]

Is it possible to see these strict rules?

[floweryscarf]

How quaint.

[RickiTarr]

Yeah it was Letters Patent issued by King George in 1917 (although why they didn’t just issue more Letters Patent to let Harry’s kids be princess and princes, I don’t know. It would have been a good gesture towards inclusivity and sent a great message to all the Queen’s BAME subjects here and in the Commonwealth );

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race

[RickiTarr]

I don’t think the courtiers are very imaginative or outward looking. Nor many of them BAME. That’s probably the real problem, if we are being serious.

Starting a “diverse courtier” hiring initiative ASAP might be one way of addressing this mess.

[Insertfunnyname]

A bit naughty aka a disgusting outright lie!

[RickiTarr]

Maybe she genuinely was baffled by it all @Insertfunnyname ?

It must all sound bizarre to an American, let alone a natural born disruptor.

[DarkMutterings]

But in the RF it's never just about one person. For years maybe even decades Charles has been talking about sliming the RF primarily because it reduces costs and he knows that's a winner once the queen dies. If they extended titles to Harry's kids then that goes against the overall policy. The last changes that made Charlotte a princess were designed to change 100 year old rules to allow children of either gender become direct heirs. They didn't change at the same time to include great grandchildren (likely not included before because 100 years ago no one lived that long!).

From what I can see from her quotes in the interview - H&M asked for the titles to be extended, RF said no, H&M said but we need protection, RF said protection is only for titled members. H&M said but the risk isn't less because of no title (and arguably worse due to racism), RF said them's the rules. H&M said, that's not fair.

Yes a little jobs worth and yes very unimaginative regarding the potential goodwill in BAME community. But if they'd extended the titles and protection to Harry's kids, then next time Charles said he was streamlining the RF, everyone would say no you're not.

What comes over to me is that the RF are doing what they always do - looking long term at the institution, H&M are looking short term at what impacts them. Neither is right or wrong it's just two very different perspectives when it comes to decisions.

[RickiTarr]

@DarkMutterings

But in the RF it's never just about one person. For years maybe even decades Charles has been talking about sliming the RF primarily because it reduces costs and he knows that's a winner once the queen dies. If they extended titles to Harry's kids then that goes against the overall policy. The last changes that made Charlotte a princess were designed to change 100 year old rules to allow children of either gender become direct heirs. They didn't change at the same time to include great grandchildren (likely not included before because 100 years ago no one lived that long!).

From what I can see from her quotes in the interview - H&M asked for the titles to be extended, RF said no, H&M said but we need protection, RF said protection is only for titled members. H&M said but the risk isn't less because of no title (and arguably worse due to racism), RF said them's the rules. H&M said, that's not fair.

Yes a little jobs worth and yes very unimaginative regarding the potential goodwill in BAME community. But if they'd extended the titles and protection to Harry's kids, then next time Charles said he was streamlining the RF, everyone would say no you're not.

What comes over to me is that the RF are doing what they always do - looking long term at the institution, H&M are looking short term at what impacts them. Neither is right or wrong it's just two very different perspectives when it comes to decisions.

Perfect summary.

That’s exactly how we ended up here. Complete culture clash, priority clash, style clash.

[CheshireSplat]

I haven't ever posted on a thread about the Royal Family but I really don't chuckle at the phrase "a bit naughty". In fact the title of your thread sent a chill through me. Perhaps she misunderstood the protocol or whatever (it sounds like a nightmare to try and have a straight conversation) but surely the bigger story is the "concern" over the colour of the baby's skin. And it sounds like complete distraction and obfuscation from the Mail. So they win.

[fallfallfall]

i don't think it was out of order to discuss the fact that people/tabloids all over the world would be interested in Archie's coloring and to discuss with the Sussex's the press ramifications and the level of interest.
as for security, i need to know does the duke of Westminster have security?
i don't know why h&m would need more than that young fellow.

[RickiTarr]

@CheshireSplat

I haven't ever posted on a thread about the Royal Family but I really don't chuckle at the phrase "a bit naughty". In fact the title of your thread sent a chill through me. Perhaps she misunderstood the protocol or whatever (it sounds like a nightmare to try and have a straight conversation) but surely the bigger story is the "concern" over the colour of the baby's skin. And it sounds like complete distraction and obfuscation from the Mail. So they win.

Maybe you have to have a general awareness of who Hugo Vickers is to find it funny.

I can’t really pick a side in this whole business because I’ve looked at it all and think it is more misunderstandings than lies. Both sides, and it’s actually incredibly sad, but also somehow inevitable.

[Bambooshoot]

Isn't it more due to the rather questionable parentage of his father?

[RickiTarr]

As for the alleged comment about the baby’s skin. Horrific. I don’t know where telling us about it without naming names leaves us, though.

Harry said this was a pre marriage conversation and Meghan says it happened while she was pregnant and was connected to the discussion of titles. So this is all a point of maximum confusion. Harry and Meg are contradicting each other about when it happened and why it happened. Meg thinks it had a bearing on Archie’s lack of title. The rule book says that’s not why. None of us know who is accused of saying it nor exactly what was said. So maximum confusion about the worst allegation.

I don’t know how the hell anybody will get to the bottom of it.

Some people were saying they thought it was William.

[RickiTarr]

@Bambooshoot

Isn't it more due to the rather questionable parentage of his father?

You think? I think Harry is the spit of Philip.

[DarkMutterings]

I agree the bigger story is the racism - but the problem is if they are found to be exaggerating on some issues like this and the wedding, then it undermines the seriousness of the race issue.

So was it William saying 'bloody hell the press are going to have a field day with you having a dark skinned baby' or was it Kate saying 'wonder if he'll have red hair like Harry or dark like yours' or Charles saying 'I've told you I'm not extending the titles, you're not getting protection even if the risk is greater due to the colour of your baby's skin'

Or any other comment - because none of us knows so all we can do is imagine - some could be offensive, some could be poorly worded.

If we are going to trash the institution and acknowledge it's likely inherent racism - let's do it in a factual non dramatised way not with vague clues as to what was said.

[JustLyra]

[quote RickiTarr]Yeah it was Letters Patent issued by King George in 1917 (although why they didn’t just issue more Letters Patent to let Harry’s kids be princess and princes, I don’t know. It would have been a good gesture towards inclusivity and sent a great message to all the Queen’s BAME subjects here and in the Commonwealth );

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race[/quote]
They’re not strict rules.

The Queen issued LP’s to allow Charlotte and Louis to be titled so they same could have easily been done for Harry’s children.

[Blueberries0112]

I seen so many people chanting to barred them from from ever getting a royal title because of this interview. Is the queen do allowed to do that?

[JustLyra]

@Blueberries0112

I seen so many people chanting to barred them from from ever getting a royal title because of this interview. Is the queen do allowed to do that?

Archie or Harry?

The Queen could theoretically remove the Sussex title. She gave it so she can take it away. It would just mean they became HRH Prince Henry and HRH Princess Henry. Which the press would quickly turn to “Princess Meghan” so won’t happen imo.

To stop Archie being titled when Charles becomes King then the Queen could issue Letters Patent changing the 1917 ones giving automatic titles to grandchildren of the make line. However since it would only affect Harry’s children at this point it would be a very pointed move and very damaging imo as she’s shown no inclination to do that before now. In fact the only amendment she made was to issue special LP’s to cover William’s younger children and that was done in a way that only applied to them.

Harry’s title will change to HRH The Prince Henry Duke of Sussex when his Dad becomes King. Not one easily changed as all children of the monarch are entitled to be “The”.

[JustLyra]

*male line. Not make line

[Guylan]

The Queen issued LP’s to allow Charlotte and Louis to be titled so they same could have easily been done for Harry’s children.

It is widely reported Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy, probably as a bid for monarchy to survive. The King of Sweden removed Royal titles from five of his Grandchildrenin 2019, not the two grandchildren who are in direct line to the throne. So feels more probable any discussion to possibly not give Archie a title in the future was this than the claim that it was because of his potential skin tone - but obviously I can’t say for sure.

[JustLyra]

@Guylan

The Queen issued LP’s to allow Charlotte and Louis to be titled so they same could have easily been done for Harry’s children.

It is widely reported Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy, probably as a bid for monarchy to survive. The King of Sweden removed Royal titles from five of his Grandchildrenin 2019, not the two grandchildren who are in direct line to the throne. So feels more probable any discussion to possibly not give Archie a title in the future was this than the claim that it was because of his potential skin tone - but obviously I can’t say for sure.

The monarchy will slim down very naturally over the next few years because of the ages of a lot of the current working royals. The slimming down was done as soon as it was clear the York girls, and Wessex children, wouldn’t be working royals.

It’s always been viewed that he wanted to slim it down to his children and family. I think it’s highly unlikely he’d have been planning to not title his grandchildren tbh. The LP’s could have been amended completely when the addition was made for Charlotte and William’s subsequent children to remove the grandchildren of the male line rule.

If nothing else it shows that Charles hasn’t got a PR team with an ounce of savvy. Even if the plan had always been not to title Harry’s children (which I don’t believe) to continue ahead with that when Harry was getting abuse from racists for marrying a woman of colour and effectively remove any title from the first royal person of colour was always going to look horrendous.

Also the title and security issue needs to be clarified by the RF. police protection in the UK is done on the base of need. Not title.

[eaglejulesk]

They want to live a private life, they don't want to do royal duties - but they want a title for their son In other words they want the perks but they don't want to do the work!

[JustLyra]

Also the Sweden situation isn’t comparable as they didn’t have their Prince/ss titles removed, just their HRH. They were removed from the royal house and are not expected to do royal duties. That was partly about streamlining, but also massively in part to do with issues rising with Princess Madeleine’s children not being educated in Sweden, which is part of the rules of being a royal family member there. Not a similar situation at all.

[JustLyra]

@eaglejulesk

They want to live a private life, they don't want to do royal duties - but they want a title for their son In other words they want the perks but they don't want to do the work!

That’s not remotely what was said.

They said they were happy for him not to be titled. Then they were told that no title meant no security. So they said they’d prefer him to titled and safe than anything else.