Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Team Meghan or Team Windsor?

999 replies

QueenofTheCandles · 08/03/2021 10:13

Yes - Team Meghan

No - Team Windsor

Nothing - Don’t really care!

OP posts:
pabloescobarselasticband · 10/03/2021 10:33

@prawntoastie

Think they brought up the skin of archie comment because people are sick of being shamed about calling out racism and being accused of pulling the (imaginary) race card. Racism does exist and should be called out.
Or the weaponised race politics to suit their own ends?
StatisticallyChallenged · 10/03/2021 10:43

Her husband could have got her help - he took her to the Albert Hall instead. Awesome supportive behaviour there.

The keys, passport etc just doesn't even make sense in the way it's described. She was clearly travelling and able to travel. Asked to leave passports with someone so they're available for organising travel? Perfectly feasible. They're took my documents and keys and wouldn't let me out? Not buying it. Some of the papers are already saying they were offered numerous pap shots of her out and about on unofficial stuff but refused to buy them.

She also chose to use a different medical team for her pregnancy to the main royal crew - how did she manage that if she had no say over her medical care?

Other parts of the interview are demonstrably untrue, they can't even agree what their own story is, so I'm not taking this as gospel.

StillCoughingandLaughing · 10/03/2021 10:46

Nope. She explicitly said that they had been told that would not happen. They are changing the rules. Funny that the first person this will apply to is mixed race.

She didn’t say that. She said they’re changing the rules, meaning he won’t be a Prince(ss) like Louis and Charlotte - but she’s wrong. Them becoming Prince and Princess; THAT was the change in protocol. THEY are the exceptions, not Archie - for Archie they’ve simply reverted to protocol.

DrSbaitso · 10/03/2021 10:53

The Queen's other great grandchildren, apart from William's, aren't princes or princesses either. As a PP said, the change applied to Charlotte and Louis, not their cousins. And Charles has been talking about slimming down the monarchy (good idea) since long before Meghan and Harry met.

She has absolutely been subjected to a racist press campaign ("black sheep", "racy", "straight outta Compton", endless references to her maternal heritage and so on) and it's disgusting. But there's truly nothing to suggest that the reason Archie isn't a prince is due to his black grandmother. Though I can see why, having been subjected to our fine upstanding press, she may be convinced that it is.

I think people are sometimes confused because they're looking at Archie's connection to William's family, rather than his connection to the Queen, which is the one that matters.

StatisticallyChallenged · 10/03/2021 10:54

Charles has been talking for decades about slimming the monarchy, and it's known he had issues with B&E being princesses. He may well have had the intention to revise and tighten the rules when he comes to the throne - and have had these since long before M was even on the scene. Archie and his future sister are the equivalent of b&e so if he considers them too distant for their title then he may well have been considering a revision to make it children of the current or future sovereign only.

M herself said that the supposed skin colour conversation and the future title conversation weren't the same discussion, and Harry then suggested that they were actually completely separate and months (at least) apart.

ancientgran · 10/03/2021 11:06

@Malteser71

The sermon was ridiculous. Even Harry and meghan themselves poked fun at it afterwards.
Well that doesn't reflect well on them does it. Presumably they chose the man and they made fun of what he said. They really do get worse.
DrSbaitso · 10/03/2021 11:11

Oh poot, if they had said the sermon was wonderful you'd all be criticising them for being self important by thinking their wedding was deserving of a long speech. They can't win.

Roussette · 10/03/2021 11:13

What?
Who said they poked fun at him? I need to see a link of that.

They were happy and married and probably delighted with his sermon.
I doubt they picked someone to give a sermon so they could ridicule them.
You people are getting desperate.

MagentaZebras · 10/03/2021 11:23

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Nope. She explicitly said that they had been told that would not happen. They are changing the rules. Funny that the first person this will apply to is mixed race.

She didn’t say that. She said they’re changing the rules, meaning he won’t be a Prince(ss) like Louis and Charlotte - but she’s wrong. Them becoming Prince and Princess; THAT was the change in protocol. THEY are the exceptions, not Archie - for Archie they’ve simply reverted to protocol.

You've missed the point. Yes - an exception was made for the Cambridge's second and third children to give them the titles Prince/ Princess now. But the existing protocols would automatically have entitled them to those titles anyway when Charles accedes to the throne (as grandchildren of the Monarch). Archie likewise would automatically become entitled to the title Prince at that point too, being also a grandchild of Charles. The issue is that Meghan and Harry were informed that these ancient protocols would be changed so that Archie would not be allowed the title of Prince (should he want it) when Charles becomes King. Yet Charles other grandchildren will continue to have those titles. It's not difficult to see why changing the protocols specifically to exclude her son from that title while also speculating in multiple conversations on how dark his skin might be combines into an impression of racism.
HmmmmmmInteresting · 10/03/2021 11:27

All this poking fun at the sermon is thinly concealed racism because black churches are known for sermons such as the one he gave. PP using words like 'unconventional'- we know what you really mean.

aSofaNearYou · 10/03/2021 11:28

I think this is very true. I'm finding it very hard to marry together the attitudes people have on here (and elsewhere) about M&H, vs the attitudes people normally have about the issues they discussed. Besides being brainwashed by the media, I really don't understand why seemingly intelligent people are so determined to see M&H as bad people and find ways they are fabricating things, when they are describing things that are usually taken seriously.

I think it's also a bit misplaced to focus too much on blaming the royal family. I think they have a lot to answer for internally regarding how they treat and look after their own (which I thought was quite apparent even before this interview, tbh), but at the same time even Meghan made it pretty clear that the reason she was thrown under the bus by them, essentially, was due to how the RF felt they had to behave to avoid vulturous press, that routinely turn against people and essentially destroy their lives, to satisfy the general public's insatiable desire to judge them.

To my mind, any or all of them are most likely flawed people who have done less than perfect things, but the one thing that IS pretty apparent is the horrific and damaging effects of the media and paparazzi going too far in it's treatment of people. This has been seen to cost lives and people's mental wellbeing so many times in other well known cases, yet the general public seem so willing and keen to lap up the deflection the media offers, rather than analysise their own complicity in this culture. Do we really care whether Meghan or Kate was the one to make the other cry before the wedding, in the face of such a serious subject going on alongside it?

I really do not understand why people are so willing to lap up the diversions from the part of this that really matters, in favour of focusing on what is essentially a family spat.

ancientgran · 10/03/2021 11:30

@DrSbaitso

Oh poot, if they had said the sermon was wonderful you'd all be criticising them for being self important by thinking their wedding was deserving of a long speech. They can't win.
Why would they need to comment on it, if indeed they did. Sometimes people will say how much they liked a sermon but generally people don;t comment do they?
sst1234 · 10/03/2021 11:36

She seems to pick things to sound a certain way l, omitting parts of the story. It really brings her integrity into question. Like some have said, the wedding before the wedding, furore over Archie’s title is totally misleading and disingenuous, now having looked up Harry and not knowing anything about RF is surely just a bare faced lie, not being allowed to check into MH facility and equating this with not being able to see a doctor. She has unwittingly brought everything she said into question, rather than being honest so that the truth could stand out on its own. There was no need to lie and embellish it when the actual issue is with the printed stories.

sst1234 · 10/03/2021 11:39

Either way, the palace statement is the true mic drop moment in all this. No amount of interviews can compete against that. With each interview they give, and there will be many, they will start to sound more and more ridiculous, like hooligans throwing rock at someone’s house, and the homeowner coming out every now and then to shoo them away.

StillCoughingandLaughing · 10/03/2021 11:43

The issue is that Meghan and Harry were informed that these ancient protocols would be changed so that Archie would not be allowed the title of Prince (should he want it) when Charles becomes King.

Well I didn’t hear either of them say that - just that he wasn’t being made a Prince like his cousins, even though he was going to be the grandchildren of a sovereign one day. Unless I missed a bit, neither of them every actually said ‘We’ve been told he won’t even be a Prince once Charles is on the throne’. And all the press coverage has pointed out that Archie being a Prince now would be against protocol - surely at least one media outlet would make reference to the fact that he’d been specifically excluded, forever?

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 10/03/2021 11:43

More important issues are at stake. They are diplomatic.

US politicians and media are turning on us. Serious questions are being asked about systemic racism at the heart of the UK establishment and media. 'I don't believe her' does not absolve us of responsibility: they are questions which need taking seriously and answering. Systemic racism isn't an albatross we want hanging around our necks on a global stage.

In the meantime Son #2 continues to hide behind the establishment. That's not to mention other family friendships with highly dubious kids' entertainers.

What exactly will it take to convince people this family are a diplomatic liability, and needs to go?

Felifox · 10/03/2021 11:47

°Racism: agree with the female journalist that said it was due to nationality rather than colour(Journalist was mixed race)
• Skin colour was mentioned before Harry married. It can be a fascination as to how genetics work. There is a white woman married to a black man and they have a white twin and a black twin.
°Married 3 days before, normal to have a rehearsal. I had both a civil and religious ceremony due to my religious ceremony not being legal.
° A title for Archie surprised me as I'd thought neither of them would have been bothered
° Security is only for working royals

They wanted privacy but have got themselves talked about throughout the world. They got married far too quickly as Meghan had no experience of living in the UK let alone in the archaic institution that is the RF. I wish Harry hadn't agreed to this because Meghan has damaged his relationship with his family and it may well come back to haunt her. I think they could have asked for a period to live privately while they had their family, given themselves time for Meghan to understand royal life. She could have done so much for women within the UK and internationally. Mixed race people have a certain privilege as part of two races they can bring two cultures together. It's a lost opportunity

LolaSmiles · 10/03/2021 11:48

sst1234
Someone on the news this morning made a valid point that the more interviews they do, and the more this becomes a culture war, the more the far right will be able to thrive as it's this sort of divide that can be easily capitalised on.

From that I think the more extremes on either side will thrive. I've seen people I know on the left full of zeal with the view that they are on the right side of history, anyone criticising Meghan and Harry are obviously racist, identity politics central.

It won't take long before the racists on the right are able to turn to people who have reasonable criticisms of the couple and say "look, you're being marginalised, nobody can even have an opinion without being deemed racist. They (the left) are more concerned with virtue signalling than discussion. That's why they close discussion down and brand you bigots".

It's fertile ground for more divisive ideological warfare and it doesn't benefit moderate centre left to centre right people.

MagentaZebras · 10/03/2021 11:48

@StillCoughingandLaughing

The issue is that Meghan and Harry were informed that these ancient protocols would be changed so that Archie would not be allowed the title of Prince (should he want it) when Charles becomes King.

Well I didn’t hear either of them say that - just that he wasn’t being made a Prince like his cousins, even though he was going to be the grandchildren of a sovereign one day. Unless I missed a bit, neither of them every actually said ‘We’ve been told he won’t even be a Prince once Charles is on the throne’. And all the press coverage has pointed out that Archie being a Prince now would be against protocol - surely at least one media outlet would make reference to the fact that he’d been specifically excluded, forever?

Watch it again. She specifically mentioned the George V protocol which would automatically make Archie a Prince when Charles becomes King (if Archie chose to take the title) and that they had been informed when she was pregnant that this protocol would be changed when Charles accedes the throne to prevent that happening. Meanwhile discussions about Archie's skin colour were taking place.
DrSbaitso · 10/03/2021 11:48

Why would they need to comment on it, if indeed they did. Sometimes people will say how much they liked a sermon but generally people don;t comment do they?

Oh for...and if they had never said anything someone would have complained that they were ungrateful or that they didn't like it. Maybe they were asked, maybe it came up in conversation. I couldn't tell you exactly WHY I've made every comment that's ever passed my lips.

Just accept that whatever they do, you will think it's wrong.

Emeraldshamrock · 10/03/2021 11:49

She could have done so much for women within the UK and internationally. Mixed race people have a certain privilege as part of two races they can bring two cultures together. It's a lost opportunity
Lost opportunity due to the press.

HmmmmmmInteresting · 10/03/2021 11:53

They wanted privacy but have got themselves talked about throughout the world.

They have never said they wanted privacy. Watch this clip which wasn't shown
twitter.com/maatty15/status/1369236022064713731?s=19

TheOnlyKoiInAPondOfGoldfish · 10/03/2021 11:55

@StillCoughingandLaughing

The issue is that Meghan and Harry were informed that these ancient protocols would be changed so that Archie would not be allowed the title of Prince (should he want it) when Charles becomes King.

Well I didn’t hear either of them say that - just that he wasn’t being made a Prince like his cousins, even though he was going to be the grandchildren of a sovereign one day. Unless I missed a bit, neither of them every actually said ‘We’ve been told he won’t even be a Prince once Charles is on the throne’. And all the press coverage has pointed out that Archie being a Prince now would be against protocol - surely at least one media outlet would make reference to the fact that he’d been specifically excluded, forever?

Yes you missed a bit - it was towards the end iirc. Very explicit, they were told there was going to be a rule change and the usual protocol re GC of monarch would NOT apply to Archie.
sst1234 · 10/03/2021 11:56

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

More important issues are at stake. They are diplomatic.

US politicians and media are turning on us. Serious questions are being asked about systemic racism at the heart of the UK establishment and media. 'I don't believe her' does not absolve us of responsibility: they are questions which need taking seriously and answering. Systemic racism isn't an albatross we want hanging around our necks on a global stage.

In the meantime Son #2 continues to hide behind the establishment. That's not to mention other family friendships with highly dubious kids' entertainers.

What exactly will it take to convince people this family are a diplomatic liability, and needs to go?

Really, you think this family spat is likely to damage US UK diplomatic relations because the US will be upset about how racist our institutions are? For a country which is grappling with its police force killing black people, I think they have bigger issues to worry about.
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread