So, do you believe the royal couples revelations made tonight?

[selectabo]

I did. felt more authentic than I've expected. You?

I think it is their interpretation rather than a faithful representation of what happened, and really the questioning was ridiculously soft. They needed someone prepared to ask why on earth their child should be a prince when other royals out of the direct line of succession aren't, why a millionaire couple still need more money from Daddy, and could it be at all possible that Meghan is the problem given her atrocious relationships with her own family.

Alot of comments about how could she not google him, think many forget she was an actress. When your in that type of space whether you call her a celebrity or not the point is your learnt not to constantly check what is being published about you, that way lies insanity. You don't read everything about you, the comments etc. Also as we can see the media make up alot of shite, simply in googling isnt going to give you a true picture.

As for she should of known about curtesying it was eye opening to me they have to do that in private I was like her in thinking its just for fan fare when in public and I'm British!

Its not like you can Google a Bible to being royal.

Yes, I believe them 100%. The Royal Family used Diana as a broodmare; refused support to Sarah Ferguson when she was having so much trouble coping with her role while her husband was posted away from home for months, and have proven to be racist and elitist time and time again. Charles used his influence to stop people on the Duchy estate being allowed to buy the houses they lived in; the Queen has used archaic laws to hide her wealth from the public and she has recently - and shamefully in my opinion - had tax on her shooting estate at Balmoral reduced to less than the local businesses pay, and Philip has frequently committed ghastly gaffes like his "slitty-eyed" comments about the Chinese. They're toxic, and I'm so glad Harry's eyes have been at least partially opened to that fact. I find I also despise the Queen even more for allowing Harry & Meghan's security to be removed - Harry didn't ask to be born into his position but it definitely does lend itself to dangers. I think the Queen should have personally financed security for them if that was the only way to continue it. And as for refusing Harry & Meghan's children titles as is the norm, what else but racism does that smack of? Petty, over-indulged, parasites. I wish Meghan and Harry a very happy future shot of all of them.

Interesting inconsistencies beteeen their version of events and noticeably more spin from Meghan to fit her chosen narrative.

Beatrice and Eugenie are the queen's granddaughters - automatically princesses

I don't think it is automatic, is it, given that Princess Anne's and Prince Edward's children aren't?.

I think they told the truth but I don't get why they would go to the media. What are they hoping to achieve? A mea culpa from the royal family? From the media? They are just feeding the media and speculation. As seen by this thread, the responsive is divided and I wonder if it a confirmation bias more than anything. People will use the interview to confirm their views of the situation.
Also why would Harry want to go the media? After the life he has had, if he s managed to get out of the royal family, wouldn't he want to keep his life as private as possible?

and noticeably more spin from Meghan to fit her chosen narrative

Why just Meghan?
What about Harry?

No, she has repeated accusations of bullying against her going years back, the allegations against her from palace staff were not released this week but while they still lived in the uk, the media resurfaced the rumours and what is more ironic meghan supposedly stands for female empowerment yet has silenced so many women from ever speaking out about their experiences with her. She claimed to not even know of the royal family yet went on holidays as a teen to london taking photos and royal landmarks and many of her childhood friends said she had a fascination with them. Her american journalist friend stated meghan came to the uk with the intention of bagging an eligible bachelor and had directly asked her friend to set her up with harry. Multiple of her former confidantes said her goal would be to be back in the US before they even married and claimed she had never intended to stay. She stumbled across her own accusations against members of the royal family knowing full well either way they can't defend themselves and during her pregnancy no comments were made about skin colour but instead hair colour. Her own family have called her out for her actions, former friends, ex husband and former workers. Playing the victim no longer works when you upset everyone around you.

I think they told the truth but I don't get why they would go to the media. What are they hoping to achieve?

Maybe they just want to put across their side of the story when they're getting so much thrown at them.
Speak up for themselves when it's obvious so many want them to just shut up and sit down and put up with it all.
I know if I had a load of stuff out there about me I knew not to be true or if I'd been racially abused and then gaslighted about I'd damn well want to say my piece.

@LaurieFairyCake

Mammabearx1

Beatrice and Eugenie are the queen's granddaughters - automatically princesses

When Charles is monarch then his grandsons and granddaughters (like Archie) will become princes/princesses

I think She was saying that even when Charles takes the throne Archie and his sister will not get the titles even though all the other grandchildren will.

Which is why she thinks it’s down to race

@nith its automatic through the male line so you are correct that Anne's children are not prince/ss. I believe Edward's children are but are just not styled as such and are instead styled as children of Earl, his other title.

It's difficult to know what to believe really. I'm just wondering why they are coming out with it all now. I think her father is on a morning TV show tomorrow

No 🌺

It is a legal and ecclesiastical impossibility that the archbishop of Canterbury "married" them 3 days before the wedding. It would have been a rehearsal and a blessing.

@numberoneson the child isn't entitled to the title of prince seeing as it isn't currently reasonably inline to the throne until the queen and phillip die it is still eligible for other titles?

It, said twice there, he's a he

@Trickyboy

I think the tabloids are guilty of shit behaviour and that needs dealing with.

However I think both him and her are massive, privileged winging drama queens.

The big racist reveal can also be interpreted differently. I am married to a black man. When I was expecting my first child my mother said 'What colour do you think he'll be' I said that i thought he would be cappuccino colour from the experience of other friends in mixed race marriages .

My mothers question wasn't 'racist' it was a question about race . From someone asking a question. Someone who has loved their mixed race grandchildren with every fibre of her being and is definitely not racist.

It's all in the content of the question and as Meghan repeated this as secondhand news from her husband , we will never know the context of the conversation.

That's my take on it too. I know a family of mixed race adults all married to white partners, colours of the babies is a general topic of conversation, exactly the same way white people discuss hair and eye colour. Baby's been born, what weight, sex and colour is it?

I think they are blowing stuff out of proportion. I'm sure before the wedding her sister predicted that she'd cause trouble. I can't remember exactly what was said but her sister was spouting stuff that was written of by most as nonsense.
Now I wonder was she right.

I think give it a few years and Harry will come crawling back without her.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, many people have either lost their jobs or on the furlough scheme, millions have died and we have 2 rich people discuss their stupid family fallout about curtseying and not being funded for security, while you and I run the gauntlet to the shops on our own in the hope nothing bad happens to us.
Why would anyone want to listen or watch that nonsense is well beyond me.

That was to Malley's latest comment for clarity.

@Savethewhales

We are in the middle of a pandemic, many people have either lost their jobs or on the furlough scheme, millions have died and we have 2 rich people discuss their stupid family fallout about curtseying and not being funded for security, while you and I run the gauntlet to the shops on our own in the hope nothing bad happens to us. Why would anyone want to listen or watch that nonsense is well beyond me.

Agree, but the racism angle is a discussion worth having.

I believe them and feel sympathy for them on an individual level. We definitely don't have the full story though and I think a lot of their problems are due to the nature of the monarchy. It is unfair and restrictive. That's how an unelected monarchy is by its nature. Not sure why they thought that would change for them. The feeling I got was that Meghan was so good at the job that they felt they should have a bigger role/be more important. But if that was the way the monarchy works then maybe Sharon who works in Tesco would be an amazing queen but noone knows because she was never given a chance.

Plus going to HR...that's just ridiculous. The royal family is essentially a family business. My husband works in his dad's business - it's very hard work but he gets plenty of benefits that employees don't get. If he went to HR when his dad was curt with him they'd laugh at him (well not really because he's the boss and they need the job but internally they'd be thinking "this is not my job you privileged brat").

No, load of codswallop

@AviciaJones

Archie wasn’t made a prince when apparently he should have been. Then to deny him security because he’s not a prince is putting his life in danger. No wonder Meghan and Harry don’t want his face shown.

Harry has exactly the same nose and eyes as Charlie’s, he looks a lot more like Charles than William does.

The Royal Family shouldn’t be racist, as they have mixed race too, due to Philippa of Hainault and Queen Charlotte, grandmother of Queen Victoria.

That's not correct Most of these rules come from Letters Patent issued in 1917 by King George V, n which the King accords the Princely title to all children of the Sovereign, to the Sovereign’s male-line grandchildren and to the eldest living of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son. However, when the Law of Succession changed to absolute primogeniture in 2012, The Queen issued new Letters Patent to make sure that all children of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son were entitled to be Princes and Princesses. That change was necessary because if the Duchess of Cambridge’s firstborn had been a girl, she would be ahead of any younger brother in the succession, but still be titled as a Lady, while her younger brother would be a Prince. Harry is the second son of the POW and under these rules his children are not entitled to be called Prince or Princess, however when Charles is King he could give them Royal Titles as they would be the grandchildren of a reigning Sovereign

Edwards children were not given Royal titles because he is only an Earl and not a Royal Duke, that may change if he is given the title of DOE which some say he will, and Anne refused titles for her children, so there is no truth Archie is not a Prince due to his colour/heritage

@Nith Anne and Edward choose not to have the prince/princess titles for their children - Andrew wanted them for his!

@MammabearX1

Correct, although he will be entitled to one when Charles becomes king, as his grandchild

They absolutely knew that was the reason for no title of, but one could be had in the future