Team Meghan or Team Windsor?

[QueenofTheCandles]

Yes - Team Meghan

No - Team Windsor

Nothing - Don’t really care!

Team
FFS
Can't be arsed.
Why are the subjects brought up in tonight's interview reduced to such juvenile behaviour?
Racism, bullying and suicide are serious issues.

No. The poster said she'd filled in a form asking for help and heard nothing so far. I don't believe a word of Meghan's claim that she couldn't get help because she was told not to, it so clearly goes against everything Harry has spoken out about.

@VanillaIce

Meghan says that doesn’t matter because Kate’s coverage was rude rather than racist.

So Meghan thinks it's a competition

I'd say it's more than "rude" that Kate got upskirted (when dating William) and most definitely more than rude when topless pictures she did not know had been taken while she was on holiday we're splashed over a magazine for the world to see.

Actually Kate was upskirted only a few years ago during an Australia tour and the photos were published in a German magazine

They should do a rerun of It’s A Knockout featuring the key players in this pantomime. That’ll settle it.

gets herself pregnant*

How the actual fuck do you get yourself pregnant lol
Pretty sure there's a male involved there as well somewhere.
In this case, her husband.

Gets "herself" pregnant. Well she'd be in the Guiness Book of World records if she did.

That's not a full understanding. The point was that he'd be entitled to the title "Prince" once Charles was on the throne: it applies automatically to the children or grandchildren of the monarch. Kate and William's first born son also has it by protocol. Their later children were granted it by exception, by the Queen, even though no entitled to it officially. The expectation that - given that the three existing great grandchildren of the monarch, only one of whom was entitled to the title of prince or princess, but despite that had all received it from birth - the other great grandchildren would be treated the same was not unreasonable. To be told this wouldn't happen and therefore he would not have any protection/ security is horrendous.

You're convoluting (as did M) the issue of security and titles.

Being a Prince/Princess does not automatically mean you are eligible for "free" personal security.

Security is provided (and funded) by the Metropolitan Police (not the Sovereign Grant) and it is reserved for senior working royals who are based in the U.K.

It is "extended" when they travel abroad - where they send a team (at great expense because they have to send enough staff provide 24hr cover - so travel, overtime, accommodation etc as they can't be "replenished" from the U.K. base where the officers go home when off duty) and liaise with local Govt security for the purposes of intel and access to "threat" data.

The Palace did not remove Archie's security. They did by moving away from the U.K. to a country where U.K. police officers are not registered to carry weapons - to country where they are prevalent.

Thus expecting the Met to provide "free" unarmed police to protect them (with limited access to appropriate intelligence data) at great expense and arguably putting those officers at risk. Or presumably footing the bill for private security at a far greater cost than the Met could provide in the U.K.

Archie being made a Prince would have changed nothing in respect of the above.

The title is not a "pass" to getting the "free" security nor is it an automatic right to expect it when you choose to upturn the chess board and move to a different country from the institution (the Met NOT the RF) that provides that protection.

So no, it's not "horrendous".

It's a direct result of H&M's failure to think through the consequences of their actions.

It's also an example of people being sympathetic to their interview without thinking through or necessarily understanding the limitations of "their truth" and how they presented it.

@DeRigueurMortis

That's not a full understanding. The point was that he'd be entitled to the title "Prince" once Charles was on the throne: it applies automatically to the children or grandchildren of the monarch. Kate and William's first born son also has it by protocol. Their later children were granted it by exception, by the Queen, even though no entitled to it officially. The expectation that - given that the three existing great grandchildren of the monarch, only one of whom was entitled to the title of prince or princess, but despite that had all received it from birth - the other great grandchildren would be treated the same was not unreasonable. To be told this wouldn't happen and therefore he would not have any protection/ security is horrendous.

You're convoluting (as did M) the issue of security and titles.

Being a Prince/Princess does not automatically mean you are eligible for "free" personal security.

Security is provided (and funded) by the Metropolitan Police (not the Sovereign Grant) and it is reserved for senior working royals who are based in the U.K.

It is "extended" when they travel abroad - where they send a team (at great expense because they have to send enough staff provide 24hr cover - so travel, overtime, accommodation etc as they can't be "replenished" from the U.K. base where the officers go home when off duty) and liaise with local Govt security for the purposes of intel and access to "threat" data.

The Palace did not remove Archie's security. They did by moving away from the U.K. to a country where U.K. police officers are not registered to carry weapons - to country where they are prevalent.

Thus expecting the Met to provide "free" unarmed police to protect them (with limited access to appropriate intelligence data) at great expense and arguably putting those officers at risk. Or presumably footing the bill for private security at a far greater cost than the Met could provide in the U.K.

Archie being made a Prince would have changed nothing in respect of the above.

The title is not a "pass" to getting the "free" security nor is it an automatic right to expect it when you choose to upturn the chess board and move to a different country from the institution (the Met NOT the RF) that provides that protection.

So no, it's not "horrendous".

It's a direct result of H&M's failure to think through the consequences of their actions.

It's also an example of people being sympathetic to their interview without thinking through or necessarily understanding the limitations of "their truth" and how they presented it.

Nope. They were told he would not receive security before he was born, while they were still "senior working Royals" and living in the UK. So that holds not water I'm afraid. Or do you believe the newborn should be working to, to get security? Did William and Kate's children begin work as newborns? Thought not.

Spurious nonsense. As I said I have no interest in the Royal family and believe we'd be better off if we abolished it entirely. I find it all rather boring. But I can spot factual inconsistencies when I see them and do know how our constitution functions so I'm afriad you're wrong about this.

Nope. They were told he would not receive security before he was born, while they were still "senior working Royals" and living in the UK. So that holds not water I'm afraid. Or do you believe the newborn should be working to, to get security? Did William and Kate's children begin work as newborns? Thought not.

Again you're focusing on the wrong thing.

He would/did have paid security whilst his parents were working royals in the U.K. by virtue of the fact his parents had that security.

They chose to remove that by moving abroad.

You're also (again like M) convoluting different issues/events to support a conclusion you've decided fits a narrative you're comfortable with/prefer.

Listen to what she and H actually said. They did not say "we were told he would not be entitled to security before he was born". They inferred that through the issue of titles which I've already explained was a moot point.

I'm no monarchist but that doesn't mean I swallow BS/misdirection from either "side".

*Nope. They were told he would not receive security before he was born, while they were still "senior working Royals" and living in the UK. So that holds not water I'm afraid. Or do you believe the newborn should be working to, to get security? Did William and Kate's children begin work as newborns? Thought not.

Spurious nonsense. As I said I have no interest in the Royal family and believe we'd be better off if we abolished it entirely. I find it all rather boring. But I can spot factual inconsistencies when I see them and do know how our constitution functions so I'm afriad you're wrong about this.*

I agree.

[quote mainsfed]@StillCoughingandLaughing

Presumably you realise ‘Fergie’ is a nickname? Not one you’d use if you were trying to distance yourself from that side of the family?

Why should she distance herself from Fergie? Shes not responsible for what Andrew did.[/quote]
I’m not saying she’s personally responsible. I’m saying that ‘What about Andrew though?’ is the response of many Meghan supporters when her behaviour is criticised - yet she doesn’t appear to be distancing herself from the Yorks.

To be fair, she could just have used the nickname ‘Fergie’ for the benefit of the American audience.

That's not a full understanding. The point was that he'd be entitled to the title "Prince" once Charles was on the throne: it applies automatically to the children or grandchildren of the monarch. Kate and William's first born son also has it by protocol. Their later children were granted it by exception, by the Queen, even though no entitled to it officially. The expectation that - given that the three existing great grandchildren of the monarch, only one of whom was entitled to the title of prince or princess, but despite that had all received it from birth - the other great grandchildren would be treated the same was not unreasonable. To be told this wouldn't happen and therefore he would not have any protection/ security is horrendous.

The big difference being that Charlotte and Louis will eventually be children of the sovereign, not grandchildren. When Charles becomes King, Archie will indeed be entitled to the title of Prince - but when Charles dies, he gets further away from the reigning monarch. Archie will be the nephew of the reigning monarch, and eventually the cousin - the equivalent of the Duke of Kent or Prince Michael. Two princes by virtue of being male-line grandchildren of George V, but exactly the kind of royalty dismissed as ‘hangers-on’ by many.

I must say I really feel for Harry in this, what a strange (albeit financially extremely privileged) life he’s had.
I can see why he’d want to leave.

It's a very carefully worked interview. No title? It's because Charles is moving toward a slimmed down monarchy. He can't remove titles from anyone already here but he can prevent them being given out. In a few decades, Archie will be the same as Eugenie and Beatrice with the same confusion over level of seniority. So it makes sense they don't want him to be a prince. As far as security goes, they could have disappeared into a corner of the UK after their marriage like William and Kate did. The press would have got bored eventually. The pregnancy stories are different, but Kate by that point had dealt with the media for over ten years, was now the future queen consort and was carrying the child who would be King. Of course they were nice about her.

Meghan also very carefully didn't say that the Royals had told her she wasn't allowed a therapist. She said she wanted to go to an inpatient therapy place and they said no because it would have looked awful. I bet they have loads of contacts she could have called to see privately at Frogmore.

It's going to be very hard for the Royals to shake off the accusation of unnamed racism and cruelty.

Their later children were granted it by exception, by the Queen, even though no entitled to it officially. The expectation that - given that the three existing great grandchildren of the monarch, only one of whom was entitled to the title of prince or princess, but despite that had all received it from birth - the other great grandchildren would be treated the same was not unreasonable.

I agree. Breaking protocol for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie, snacks of favouritism. The fact that C&L will be children of the monarchs In God knows how many years is irrelevant, it should have been an all or no one situation.

He can't remove titles from anyone already here but he can prevent them being given out.

Then protocol shouldn’t have been broken to give Charlotte and Louis titles.

An we stop talking about evil press racist press.....they print stories that sell the most papers and get the most clicks online, they’re a business their to make money for their shareholders, if makes people buy papers they’ll print it, doesn’t matter what the subject matter is.

@WhereverIlaymyhat2021 so not only is the press not racist you want to shut up anyone saying it is?! You need to read more.

@CandyLeBonBon

Yabu to have yet another thread on this whole tedious topic. Ffs

This is exactly what people were saying in the January/February 2020 as covid started... now look where we are

@mainsfed

Their later children were granted it by exception, by the Queen, even though no entitled to it officially. The expectation that - given that the three existing great grandchildren of the monarch, only one of whom was entitled to the title of prince or princess, but despite that had all received it from birth - the other great grandchildren would be treated the same was not unreasonable.

I agree. Breaking protocol for Charlotte and Louis, but not for Archie, snacks of favouritism. The fact that C&L will be children of the monarchs In God knows how many years is irrelevant, it should have been an all or no one situation.

Get your facts straight about this. The change was made in 2012 before any of George, Charlotte and Louis were born and to address the fact that the future offspring of W&K would be the children of a future monarch. That is not the case with H&M and Archie. If Harry had married Chelsy or Cressida the outcome would have been the same - this is about his position within the RF, not the nationality or race of his wife.

The U.K. position in tittles is clear - the queens grandchildren have different positions and tittles, none of which is due to racism . That is fact.

@TheWayOfTheWorld why don’t you respond to the person who made the original point that I responded to? Get your responses straight.

@therocinante glad you enjoyed my grotesque speculation but we should be able to talk about personality disorders the same way as we can talk about other mental illnesses and lose the stigma. I wonder if you would have reacted like that if I speculated she had PND.

Neither. Both as horrid as the other. The oalace is a 'firm' and is seen in their eyes as a business and will do anything to protect their name. Nothings off limits. But... she and harry are just as bad..you want privacy yet do an interview against his family and wamder why theres backlash. He saod hes worried about the same thing happening to her as his mother....so he does exactly what his mother did and go against protocol and do an interview.... should have just slunk away and got on with your life in private. All as stupid as each other. Dont get me started on andrew