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.

It is symptomatic of current political movements to care about race but not about class.

There is no appetite among ordinary people to have a ‘royal family’ rather than just a monarch, or to have to fund the whole thing.

The revelations of them being vile yet again is going to decrease public support for having a royal family at all.

Anyone who cared about social democracy, fairness or equality would be in favour of us going in the direction of Sweden or Netherlands, not having this bunch of aristocrats having any continued influence. Why should Archie grow up being any more important than anyone else’s kids?

@Andyhuman the 'slimming down of the Monarchy' is an EXCUSE. Charles eagerly changed it for Charlotte. Come on! As Blueberries said in a former thread:

Charlotte‘s position is directly comparable to Margaret or Anne in that she will be - in time- granddaughter, daughter, sister and then Aunt & Great Aunt of a monarch.

Harry is the male equivalent of Charlotte. Archie is not - he is at one further remove from the crown.

What we should all be asking is why Archie isn’t using the title “Lord”. That is the title he was entitled to from birth, not prince. The answer to that might be racist or it might not, but it’s the pertinent question.

@Marmaladeagain *Do you know who Prince Edward is, son of a our monarch. Harry would have one day been in same position when Charles takes the throne.

Edward's children could have had the titles prince and princess*

Thank you for proving that when Charles ascends the throne, that Harry's children WILL be entitled to Prince and Princess.

Exactly what we've said all along. Yet you denied this.

[quote Cokie3]@Alsohuman No, she did not lie about being 'married' 3 days before. She WAS married in the sight of God. It is very common for American and European couples to have 2 weddings. One is for themselves/private/religious, the other for the govt paperwork/public. You simply misunderstood.[/quote]
No love. You misunderstood - she thought the rehearsal meant they were married.

Thank you for proving that when Charles ascends the throne, that Harry's children WILL be entitled to Prince and Princess.

Exactly what we've said all along. Yet you denied this.

I thought everyone agrees on that bit!?

@derxa Again, you prove you have no understanding of issue. Because she is humanitarian that means she should accept herself and her son being treated differently? It's NOT ABOUT the title. It's about what being treated 'differently' MEANS to black people, as Blueberries so adequately showed. You are an example of the ignorance that exists. You simply don't get what being 'othered' means. It's not about the title. It's about what it MEANS to have something removed that others have. You just don't get it. Worse, you've demonstrated you don't want to get it.
You're absolutely right. I don't get it.

I thought I had posted this a while ago but it’s not appearing so probably thread has moved on but I’ll post anyway:

The implications of automatically believing one persons word over another purely by dint of them being a minority group, be that on colour/disability/gender/age is a slippery slope and will do nothing to make a more equal society.

An accused person is innocent until proved guilty not guilty until proved innocent. In this specific case of MM/PH the accuser hasn’t even been named.

Unless of course cokie is going to come along and tell us that the U.K. is wrong on this and every country applies the opposite so we are stupid

[quote RickiTarr]**@Andyhuman the 'slimming down of the Monarchy' is an EXCUSE. Charles eagerly changed it for Charlotte. Come on! As Blueberries said in a former thread:

Charlotte‘s position is directly comparable to Margaret or Anne in that she will be - in time- granddaughter, daughter, sister and then Aunt & Great Aunt of a monarch.

Harry is the male equivalent of Charlotte. Archie is not - he is at one further remove from the crown.

What we should all be asking is why Archie isn’t using the title “Lord”. That is the title he was entitled to from birth, not prince. The answer to that might be racist or it might not, but it’s the pertinent question.[/quote]
@RickiTarr Not true at all. Harry is the equivalent of Andrew or Edward. Archie is the equivalent of Charlotte.

The Queen CAN change the patent, as she did with Charlotte, she can change the rules and laws whenever she wants, and she has demonstrated that in the past.

It's not Meghan that heard anything , she was told about this conversation many months after the event by her then husband. Why didn't he tell her all this at the time? At least they could have had a chance to clear the air? Have a conversation about what it all actually meant?
A meeting of minds?
I know family dynamics are hard and Harry probably didn't want to confront anyone, so he just sat on it all . Harry says they had been discussing moving away for a while , then all this comes into the public domain once they do.
Yes, she is smart and well educated thanks to her dad's money, whilst once trying to claim that she had to work to put herself through college. She ' embroidered the truth ' a bit there too make herself look better to the people she was speaking to. Everyone bigs themselves up occasionally, but this was a big whopper. Called out by her sister Samantha who everyone wrote off as ' mad ' or just jealous? Reverse racism as Sam isn't as pretty or articulate as Meghan is?
Meghan may be well be smart, but she didn't explain the reasons behind the title query that well on air. She must have been told how it all works? She was just intent in letting us think it was because Archie was bi racial.
She also didn't google her husband when they first met or look up on his dubious past ( Nazi costume , calling soldiers racist names etc etc) all well documented, yet she still married him! ! Why?

How does automatically believing someone work when other people contradict them?

Well, at least on here that's when the insults start to fly and folk insist they're the one to be believed because (insert perceived disadvantage of choice)

Obviously due process doesn't work terribly well on a forum, but that's why it can be so valuable ... because it aims to find facts, and I'd suggest that the more contentious the allegation, the more important the facts become

@StormzyinaTCup

I thought I had posted this a while ago but it’s not appearing so probably thread has moved on but I’ll post anyway:

The implications of automatically believing one persons word over another purely by dint of them being a minority group, be that on colour/disability/gender/age is a slippery slope and will do nothing to make a more equal society.

An accused person is innocent until proved guilty not guilty until proved innocent. In this specific case of MM/PH the accuser hasn’t even been named.

Unless of course cokie is going to come along and tell us that the U.K. is wrong on this and every country applies the opposite so we are stupid

Thanks for that post.

@StormzyinaTCup

I thought I had posted this a while ago but it’s not appearing so probably thread has moved on but I’ll post anyway:

The implications of automatically believing one persons word over another purely by dint of them being a minority group, be that on colour/disability/gender/age is a slippery slope and will do nothing to make a more equal society.

An accused person is innocent until proved guilty not guilty until proved innocent. In this specific case of MM/PH the accuser hasn’t even been named.

Unless of course cokie is going to come along and tell us that the U.K. is wrong on this and every country applies the opposite so we are stupid

The implications of NOT believing women or those in a minority are WELL PUBLICISED in #MeToo .

Innocent until proven guilty exists is a LEGAL TERM, that exists ONLY IN A COURT OF LAW.

Not in general society.

The above post shows how much work we have to do when people are so willfully ignorant that they think it's ok to disbelieve women and minorities for no reason.

Before this thread fills up, can someone please give me a link to the entry on Meghan's blog? Because I located her blog, have searched it even with Ctrl F with the terms royal, william, kate, and have found nothing. If someone has a valid link, can they please post it?

I sincerely want to see it.

I'd give Archie six titles if I were Charles but I wouldn't be giving them what they really want which is more money.

The above post shows how much work we have to do when people are so willfully ignorant that they think it's ok to disbelieve women and minorities for no reason

It shows how much some people are incapable of analytical thinking when they believe people regardless without question.

@RickiTarr Not true at all.

Yes it is.

Harry is the equivalent of Andrew or Edward.

Agreed, yes.

He is also the male equivalent of Charlotte.

Archie is the equivalent of Charlotte.

No. Archie is the equivalent of David Linley, Sarah Chatto, Louise Mountbatten-Windsor & James Mountbatten-Windsor, most of whom use(d) Lord/Lady titles from birth.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal mechanism in a court to the effect that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

It doesn't mean that people should assume that someone has not experienced racism, sexism, homophobia, or a sex offence simply because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Let me try it this way, then @derxa

In Australia there was in 2015, a huge push to legalise marriage equality. It went through after a debate/plebiscite then a vote in parliament.

Now, gay people could get 'married' under a civil union and have the same protections legislated, but they wanted to be MARRIED, just like hetero people.

Why? Because a civil union 'othered' them. Same-but-different-. Once you create different rules for different groups, that's discrimination. It wasn't so much the title of being married they cared about, or the protections, it was that they wanted to be treated THE SAME as heterosexual people, under the SAME Marriage Act.

Do you understand now? Even a little?

@Cokie3 nobody is denying there might have been incidents of royal racism but you are looking in all the wrong places for it.

@Alsohuman

The above post shows how much work we have to do when people are so willfully ignorant that they think it's ok to disbelieve women and minorities for no reason

It shows how much some people are incapable of analytical thinking when they believe people regardless without question.

So you would not believe your friend or sister 'without question'?

Harry's children were always going to be Prince/Princess on Charles ascension. The RF want to remove that

I'll have to check the transcript again, but didn't Meghan say she thought this is what would happen?

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but it puts a rather different light on things if that's so

Archie is the equivalent of Charlotte

And Zara and Peter Philips’ children, whose names I can’t even remember. Oh and Eugenie’s new baby.

So you would not believe your friend or sister 'without question'?

Nope.