To think that if the only black adult in your family says they have experienced racism...

[Overcastcloudy]

... it's counterproductive to send a white man out to say, We're very much not racist?

That just is never going to end well. Ask Ian Murray how it worked out for him.

I couldn't care much either way about the Royal Family. Just baffled at the headline of William saying this.

Except it's been established that Charles had been considered changing long before Harry met her

You've discussed that with Charles have you?

And y'know even considering Charles is not a bright man it might have occurred to him that distinguishing between brothers, one of whom has married a foreigner who is being hacked to death in the tabloids, was not a great idea. He might also have considered discussing it with Harry beforehand to sound out how he might feel about it.

And he might have rethought given that his new grandchild would have mixed racial heritage so that withholding the title might appear related to that.

@Tzigane

My inference is that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy to ensure its survival. That led to him deciding to recognise William's kids as princes when he takes the throne but not Harry's.

Personally I think that kind of distinction between brothers is not wise. Particularly given that one of them is married to a woman who is not white and is being bullied and harassed in the press. Get rid of all the extraneous princess Michaels and Eugenies etc, but the two sons of the king should surely be treated equally.

(Or as in my view as a republican, get rid of the whole thing).

You’re completely contradicting yourself here. How can you say you want to treat the sons of a king equally, yet say in the same sentence you want to get rid of the ‘extraneous’ princesses? You do realise Eugenie and Beatrice are princesses precisely because the sons of the sovereign - the current one, not a future one - were treated equally? Princess Michael, who you also reference, is only a princess by virtue of her marriage... to the grandchild of a sovereign.

You don’t want equal treatment for Archie at all - you want special treatment.

There is a distinct legal difference between wedding and a blessing.

And as I and several others have said, blessings aren’t a typical reference in the States. Also, a wedding in the States done the way Meghan has described would be considered invalid not illegal.

Well I don’t think it’s ‘illegal’ here either.

@Imnotdeadyet

could be Prince William genuinely wasn't aware any racism had occurred towards Meghan from his family.

Maybe it did happen when he wasn't there to see it? Maybe it didn't . We don't have all the facts, we weren't there either!

If that is the case, he could have said he wasn't aware of any racism. But instead he claimed the RF are not a racist family - when that is demonstrably a lie (eg Prince Philip, Princess Michael and that's just the ones we know about). So he certainly spoke in bad faith.

Blessings are a typical reference in the Episcopalian church, and are different to the sacrament of marriage, and as Meghan had the USA primate of the Episcopalian church at her wedding doing the sermon, it’s fair to say Americans do actually understand.

I am sure there are Americans with little knowledge of religion, just as there are many British people with little knowledge of religion.

It doesn’t change the fact that she can’t be married twice to Harry, that she was married at the royal wedding by the spiritual head of the Anglican Church, in front of the secular head of the Anglican Church and in the presence of the primate of the Episcopalian church and a senior figure from the Orthodox Church.

It is therefore a stretch to the point of incredulity to pretend Meghan and Harry haven’t had a religious marriage and blessing and can just start using the words to mean some totally other thing without raising questions.

You’re completely contradicting yourself here. How can you say you want to treat the sons of a king equally, yet say in the same sentence you want to get rid of the ‘extraneous’ princesses? You do realise Eugenie and Beatrice are princesses precisely because the sons of the sovereign - the current one, not a future one - were treated equally? Princess Michael, who you also reference, is only a princess by virtue of her marriage... to the grandchild of a sovereign.

You don’t want equal treatment for Archie at all - you want special treatment.

No I'm not, you've completely missed the point.

We're talking about what happens when Charles becomes king. In normal circumstances Archie would then become a prince.

Beatrice & Eugenie are already princesses by virtue of that rule and they have not had their titles rescinded, merely their funding and protection ended. (They were never fully funded as they were not working royals).

It is therefore a stretch to the point of incredulity to pretend Meghan and Harry haven’t had a religious marriage and blessing and can just start using the words to mean some totally other thing without raising questions.

I think the questions raised are with regard to the racial agenda of a person obsessing over the use of words of mixed race couple to paint them as liars.

They had a private ceremony that would count as a wedding in the US and a blessing here. No-one is disputing the main ceremony and legal marriage was in church.

I haven’t missed the point at all. Your exact words were ‘Get rid of the extraneous princesses’. How else can that be interpreted?

Yes get rid of the extraneous princesses from the royal payroll. You must be aware they are still princesses no?

Beatrice & Eugenie are already princesses by virtue of that rule and they have not had their titles rescinded, merely their funding and protection ended. (They were never fully funded as they were not working royals).

However, Prince Edward's children are not a prince and princess or HRH's

‘They had a private ceremony that would count as a wedding in the US and a blessing here. No-one is disputing the main ceremony and legal marriage was in church.’

The issue is the word marriage not wedding. The difference isn’t between countries but between people who belong to sacramental churches and those who don’t.

I don’t believe Meghan Markle is a liar. I do find it annoying that other people are trying to gloss over the religious meaning of marriage for someone who is sixth in line to be head of the Anglican Church!

If she has already been married in a prior ceremony the entire church wedding would be a fake, which it clearly wasn’t.

I don’t understand this. They both clearly said they didn’t want the title of lord,
This is from their Friend Scobie at the time baby Archie was born,:
As we expected, Harry and Meghan forgone a courtesy title for their child. All part of giving him as normal a life as possible

Why change tune now? Harry has some serious issues .

@Tzigane

And he might have rethought given that his new grandchild would have mixed racial heritage so that withholding the title might appear related to that.

But changing the established plan because the children would have mixed heritage would be racist.

@Tzigane

Yes get rid of the extraneous princesses from the royal payroll. You must be aware they are still princesses no?

But you didn’t make any reference to the payroll... and none of the royals you referenced receive official public funding anyway. (How much of their income comes from the Queen’s funds is a different issue.)

@CecilyP

Beatrice & Eugenie are already princesses by virtue of that rule and they have not had their titles rescinded, merely their funding and protection ended. (They were never fully funded as they were not working royals).

However, Prince Edward's children are not a prince and princess or HRH's

By Edward’s choice.

@Tzigane

So as I said not her fault - she called it a wedding even though it was not.

She called it a wedding because in the US it would be a wedding.
And, if H & M have religious or spiritual beliefs, they would be married in the eyes of God. The legal aspect in that case is not the most important.

She called it a marriage. A marriage is a legal contract.

@Tzigane

And he might have rethought given that his new grandchild would have mixed racial heritage so that withholding the title might appear related to that.

So planned slimming down doesn't happen because of a childs skin colour! I think the child getting teated the same no matter what skin colour is definitely the least racist thing to do. He is a person not a upgrade to the family brand.

@StillCoughingandLaughing By Edward’s choice

In the context of what is in the best interests of the monarchy and its future survival, which means seriously cutting back on the number of HRHs who are not in the direct line.

@Tzigane

You’re completely contradicting yourself here. How can you say you want to treat the sons of a king equally, yet say in the same sentence you want to get rid of the ‘extraneous’ princesses? You do realise Eugenie and Beatrice are princesses precisely because the sons of the sovereign - the current one, not a future one - were treated equally? Princess Michael, who you also reference, is only a princess by virtue of her marriage... to the grandchild of a sovereign.

You don’t want equal treatment for Archie at all - you want special treatment.

No I'm not, you've completely missed the point.

We're talking about what happens when Charles becomes king. In normal circumstances Archie would then become a prince.

Beatrice & Eugenie are already princesses by virtue of that rule and they have not had their titles rescinded, merely their funding and protection ended. (They were never fully funded as they were not working royals).

They are the same generation as Harry when it comes to titles. It is the next generation that is getting a reduction of titles. Zara's children for example.

The security issues have been very badly made to mislead people. Eugenie and Beatrice were told that once working as civilians they had to pay for their own. This is despite still living in the UK. The family have helped them out with this in the past. As Charles's did when the police withdrew Harry's security.

If you are going to argue about this stuff. Please educate yourself on it first. Making opinions on newspaper headlines or that daft fairytale interview is very naive.

‘She called it a wedding because in the US it would be a wedding.
And, if H & M have religious or spiritual beliefs, they would be married in the eyes of God. The legal aspect in that case is not the most important.’

They do have religious beliefs. He’s sixth in line to be head of the church he belongs to and and she invited the Episcopalian primate, and in the eyes of the God of both of those denominations they weren’t married in that private ceremony.

If people are not arsed about the actual meaning of being a Duchess of having a religious marriage or any of these other things, why care about any of this or do any of this?

You don’t approve of an elitist and archaic institution with specific rules and positions of power that can be wielded?

Then don’t participate in them.

I just thought she meant a blessing and don't see why people are making such a big deal about that

Her mentioning it when she knew people were very invested in the wedding. That was selfish and unthoughtful. Which is a pretty good description of her really. She deserves the spare part prince.

The whole thing about the “secret wedding” perfectly illustrates how differences in culture and personal mode of expression are exacerbating the conflict and mutual misunderstanding.

I just thought she meant a blessing and don't see why people are making such a big deal about that

See if my sister said something like that to me and called it “a wedding”, I’d pick her up on talking nonsense.l, because were all quite pedantic and we all live in the U.K. and that would make no sense at all.

However, I’m aware that in the US you’ve always been able to get “a preacher” to marry you more or less anywhere anytime, often in a living room or garden and that witnesses don’t seem to be necessary. Or at least that’s the understanding I’ve picked up from books, films, acquaintances over the years) so I am vaguely able to realise what she means in her American cultural terms.

Some Brits will hear it as a genuine misrepresentation, though.

It depends on what knowledge you happen to have stumbled across from the other culture and it works both ways.

This is the “two cultures divided by a common language” thing kicking in to complicate an already fraught situation.