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.

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

No, not changing the established plan. Changing the change to the established plan. By the established plan, Archie would have become prince when Charles became monarch.

Only someone very ignorant of racial issues could call that racist.

Some Brits will hear it as a genuine misrepresentation, though

Some Brits will hear what they choose to hear, and use anything as a stick to beat someone of different ethnicity with.

It is a genuine misrepresentation of the religion she got married in.

If you don’t believe marriage is a sacrament, don’t participate in a sacramental marriage, particularly not televised for millions of people to watch.

See? @Tzigane & @Firstbellini ? You both answer my last post with completely different angles on it. Total opposites and I don’t believe either of you have I’ll intent. It’s just a cultural divide.

By the established plan, Archie would have become prince when Charles became monarch.

But that's the "established plan" they wanted to change - they wanted to get rid of the law that would make Archie a prince when his grandad was crowned.

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum

I'm not the one who needs to educate myself, (or indeed needs to learn how to spell my username correctly.)

Generation is not the key issue here. Harry will be son of a king, Zara will not.

2011 is when Eugenie and Beatrice's security was stopped. E was 20 and B 22 and both still at uni.

‘Total opposites and I don’t believe either of you have I’ll intent. It’s just a cultural divide.’

But not an American and British cultural divide. It is a divide between people who belong to sacramental churches and people who don’t.

Americans half half of the religious anulments in the entire world, because many of them care very deeply about sacramental marriage and can’t have one without an anullment.

It is completely ridiculous to paint it as an American and British divide.

I know loads of British people who have ‘weddings’ which were actually just blessings and did not count as religious or legal weddings, because they were not held in a registry office and the church would not conduct a marriage ceremony without an anullment.

I listen to lots of US religious media. Plenty of Americans understand these distinctions and plenty of British people do not.

He should have said Harry was the one in trouble with being racist in the past. People in glass houses.

@Ohforarainyday

By the established plan, Archie would have become prince when Charles became monarch.

But that's the "established plan" they wanted to change - they wanted to get rid of the law that would make Archie a prince when his grandad was crowned.

That's the established rule that Charles wanted to change. He appears to have decided to make the change without discussing the matter with Harry beforehand, so it came as a shock to him.

Whereas Prince Edward and Sophie had already agreed with the queen at the time of their marriage (when their own titles were decided) that their children would not become princes and princesses.

@RickiTarr

See? *@Tzigane & @Firstbellini* ? You both answer my last post with completely different angles on it. Total opposites and I don’t believe either of you have I’ll intent. It’s just a cultural divide.

We're commenting on different things.

Firstbellini is a good example of my point.

And while the secular understanding of marriage is no less valid than the religious understanding in many scenarios, it is if you are married to a potential future head of the church by the Archbishop of Canterbury!

It’s like saying we can have different understandings of how a goal is scored, and that is true and fine. But if you are playing in the World Cup then one meaning matters more.

Meghan and Harry had the World Cup of religious marriages.

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?

The US has a much looser interpretation of the whole thing. Aside doe, the no duchess thing, you can have a religious marriage in the US with a pastor on a beach.

It's more like having different interpretations of the offside rule and arguing whether a goal is actually a goal.

With some people arguing it was not a goal because the striker was mixed race. (Not that they would admit it of course).

‘Aside doe, the no duchess thing, you can have a religious marriage in the US with a pastor on a beach.’

You can have all sorts of religious marriages in the U.K. in all kinds of venues too.

But if you are a member of a sacramental church in the U.K. or the USA then you can’t. You have to be married by a priest in a sacramental ceremony.

That means all Orthodox, Anglican (including Episcopalian) and Roman Catholic marriages.

That includes all royal marriages.

You can sling as much mud as you wants.

I am very aware the royals are a bunch of racists. I doubt we have heard the half of what they did to Meghan. She is no doubt only revealing part of the horror of it for the sake of Harry.

I am not going to deny the whole basis of my religion just because you don’t understand the beliefs of different denominations and religions.

Meghan started the 'game' of 'speaking her truth' and expecting to be believed without evidence. No reason William can't respond. In any case, he was hardly sent out, he was asked the question by a journalist and responded with his opinion, just as Meghan and Harry gave theirs.

Generation is not the key issue here. Harry will be son of a king, Zara will not. He might be he might not. The Queen might outlive Charles, Charles might decide he's had enough and pass it to William, unless you have a crystal ball all you can say definitely is that Harry and Zara are the grandchildren of the Queen.

[quote Overcastcloudy]@TillyTopper The RF discussion everything, even the photos they display or the broach the queen wears seem to have a significance.

Well I would have expected that sort of preparation, too. But then PW ran with the 'not racist' line. So maybe not.

For the record, there is no non-offensive way to ask the parents of mixed-race children about the likely colour of the baby's skin. It is both racist and monumentally stupid: they have no way of knowing!! It doesn't show up on the fecking ultrasound.[/quote]
Why is it racist to wonder what skin colour a baby will have? We do it with hair colour, eye colour and all other sorts of physical attributes. I'm genuinely interested in why it's such a banned subject. And don't answer me something like 'seriously?', or other vague responses. I'd actually like to know why.

@Tzigane

It's more like having different interpretations of the offside rule and arguing whether a goal is actually a goal.

With some people arguing it was not a goal because the striker was mixed race. (Not that they would admit it of course).

Or just maybe some people will think it wasn't a goal because they think it wasn't a goal and they couldn't give a toss about the race of the striker. (Not that you'll admit it of course.)

It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't give a fuck about Monty Python hairsplitting on religious matters that few, even those who have strong spiritual beliefs, actually think are of any importance.

I don’t see how it matters.

She had to have a big wedding because of RF protocol

She considers the private ceremony more meaningful

So...the whole point I presume is to nit-pick so as to discredit her?

’t the main thing that she felt isolated, bullied, suffered racism and trauma?

Some people seem to have an empathy bypass where MM is concerned. It is sickening ‘othering’ behaviour

@ancientgran

Generation is not the key issue here. Harry will be son of a king, Zara will not. He might be he might not. The Queen might outlive Charles, Charles might decide he's had enough and pass it to William, unless you have a crystal ball all you can say definitely is that Harry and Zara are the grandchildren of the Queen.

The whole discussion, if you read it, was of Archie becoming a prince on Charles becoming king. That's what my comments referred to.

If Charles abdicates or William dies in a freak gardening accident, all bets are off.

@Tzigane what a horrid way to view the world and people at large - as if you know what goes on in everyone else's mind and their experiences or motivations for thinking what they think or react to.

Someone disagreeing with your interpretation of something does not make them "bad" or "wrong" or "racist" etc.

Someone puts themselves on world stage - people have opinions - you're not the arbiter thank God - critical thinking 100% absent in any of your posts.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least three particularly awful things Meghan decided to do in that interview. The vague insinuation of racism that leaves many under suspicion and nobody able to refute it. The personal attack on Kate. The petulant attempt to negate the experience of a royal wedding for a family and nation.

I wouldn't quite go so far as to say these are unforgivable, but to be forgiven, she would now have to go back on the same platform (Oprah) in front of the same number of people and make a genuine retraction and apology. I think we all know that's not going to happen.

So there's no road back here for Meghan. And sadly, once she's got all she needs out of Harry (who'll be a right useless fish out of water in LA), it's very hard to see a road back for him that doesn't leave him a pretty broken shell, if he's not already.

It's all so sad for Charles and William.

She had to have a big wedding because of RF protocol

Why?

Plenty of the RF have had more modest affairs, and while some of them have been a lot further down the "pecking order", that hardly applies to Anne as the Queen's own daughter.
And her second marriage couldn't have been quieter if they'd tried