It was “, 'a bit naughty' to imply Archie 'couldn't be a prince because of the possible colour of his skin' when it was due to strict rules,...”

[RickiTarr]

Hugo Vickers made me laugh with his phrasing. So British to say “a bit naughty”.

Also, seriously high lights how many people don’t understand the rules or can’t explain the rules well, and no American has a hope of grasping our quaint & complicated rules and institutions, really.

Sorry, it’s the Daily Fail, but funny.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9340545/Why-Meghan-Markle-bit-naughty-referring-Archies-skin-colour-prince-discussion.html

If you think that BOTH H&M thought things would change when they didn’t, then say so.
Don’t have a go at the WOMAN alone all because she is American and not BRITISH and therefore clearly can’t have the brain cells to understand.
Which is what your OP was about.

BRITISH people or culture aren’t exceptional or hard to understand so that no other citizen can ever ‘get them’

Harry and Andrew have a lot in common here imo. Andrew also wanted his daughters to be treated equally to William and Harry with titles/ security etc. They both have the same sense of entitlement I think.

It isn't quite the same — if nobody requested/refused titles, and it was done just on the 'formula' Andrew's children would be Princesses (children of the son of the monarch). Harry's (children of a younger grandson of the monarch) would not be.

Edward is actually the odd one out! His children are entitled to use Prince and Princess, but don't.

@BlackBrowedAlbatross

If the rules on it being based on need have changed then that should be public knowledge.

It is public knowledge that the Royals who have their security funded by the taxpayer are the monarch, those expected to become monarch, plus any working Royal while on Royal duties. I guess you could call it those working for the nation.

We don’t give people protection here based on their title or relationship with the public.

Who is we? The Royal Family do it based on the rules above. They don't expect the taxpayer to fund their security unless they are working for us. Any of the rest of them are more than welcome to arrange security, as Andrew has, but they pay for it themselves.

It’s known that members of the royal family deemed to need security have it, including several who don’t fit into any of the categories you mentioned.

The UK. Protection is given on the basis of need. To say “yes he needs security, but no he’s not getting it” isn’t how it works. Andrew pays for security for his children because it was deemed they don’t need it.

This is one we’ll have to agree to disagree on I think

Does that no title used but entitled to one not apply to Princess Anne's children?

It’s known that members of the royal family deemed to need security have it, including several who don’t fit into any of the categories you mentioned.

Who?

@Rathmobhaile

Does that no title used but entitled to one not apply to Princess Anne's children?

No. Anne’s children were never entitled to a title because she’s female.

Without special LP’s (like the ones issued when the Queen was younger for her children) only male titles pass on.

@BlackBrowedAlbatross

It’s known that members of the royal family deemed to need security have it, including several who don’t fit into any of the categories you mentioned.

Who?

The two younger Cambridge children.

The are not monarch, expected to be monarch or working royals.

Therefore they clearly get security because they need it..

@Rathmobhaile

Does that no title used but entitled to one not apply to Princess Anne's children?

I think her children are different because she's a woman. Her first husband was offered a title but refused, so there wasn't an option for the children to have one.

*The two younger Cambridge children.

The are not monarch, expected to be monarch or working royals.

Therefore they clearly get security because they need it..*

Sorry I should have been arsed to type "and family". So Prince Philip is not monarch but gets security, plus Camilla, William's wife and children. Anyone else?

If you based it purely on 'the rules' (not updated for William's children) you'd have had:

While the Queen is alive:

Prince Charles
Prince William (Prince George, Charlotte, Louis)
Prince Harry (Archie, ?)

Princess Anne
Peter (Savannah, Isla)
Zara (Mia, Lena)

Prince Andrew
Princess Beatrice
Princess Eugenie (August)

Prince Edward
Princess Louisa
Prince James

After the Queen dies, the only ones affected would be Charles' branch:

Prince Charles
Prince William (Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis)
Prince Harry (Prince Archie, Princess ?)

@BlackBrowedAlbatross

*The two younger Cambridge children.

The are not monarch, expected to be monarch or working royals.

Therefore they clearly get security because they need it..*

Sorry I should have been arsed to type "and family". So Prince Philip is not monarch but gets security, plus Camilla, William's wife and children. Anyone else?

Philip Camilla and Kate get security as working royals and they need it.

The Cambridge children get it because they need it.

@JustLyra we are taking H and M's word that nothing was discussed. It might have been but the answers they were given weren't always the ones they wanted

The Cambridge children get it because they need it.

Well I disagree, because if that were true Archie would have it. Or I guess it could be true, but the risk to the Cambridges has been assessed as higher than the risk to Archie. I don't have access to security information about the risks to the various royals so can't say whether that is true or not.

I assume the Cambridge children get it as they are in direct line to the throne, if anything horrifically happened to any of them, Archie would then move up the line and then maybe get security

@BlackBrowedAlbatross

The Cambridge children get it because they need it.

Well I disagree, because if that were true Archie would have it. Or I guess it could be true, but the risk to the Cambridges has been assessed as higher than the risk to Archie. I don't have access to security information about the risks to the various royals so can't say whether that is true or not.

Well, none of us have information to that. It would be pretty leaky security if we did.

Which is why I’ve said, several times, the RF need to clarify the fact that Meghan and Harry said they were told that Archie wouldn’t be having security regardless of need.

Taxpayers pay for security that is needed and if that has changed, as has been suggested (if it was an accurate description), and therefore the new criteria should be detailed so the British public can decide if they’re happy to continue funding it.

@JustLyra not being goady but why do you think we should fund his security when his parents have £££££££ and are not working for the UK anymore? and live overseas? We (the UK) are on the bones of our backside with Covid and Brexit. The Sussexes could reduce the risk by staying out of the spotlight and living very well but not so extravagantly. H has paid for nothing in 36 years of life, they are nowhere near short of money

Well RF walked into this one really..it's all over twitter "Tyler Perry Provided Security And Housing For Meghan And Harry When The Royals Wouldn't"...

@JustLyra

Harry’s children, not Garry’s children 😂

[quote ChocolateSantaisthebestkind]@JustLyra not being goady but why do you think we should fund his security when his parents have £££££££ and are not working for the UK anymore? and live overseas? We (the UK) are on the bones of our backside with Covid and Brexit. The Sussexes could reduce the risk by staying out of the spotlight and living very well but not so extravagantly. H has paid for nothing in 36 years of life, they are nowhere near short of money[/quote]
I’ve actually said on several threads that I don’t think they can expect funded security while abroad.

However, I don’t think it should have been an issue while they were here, which is when Harry and Meghan were told he wouldn’t be getting it regardless of need.

People were literally sent to prison recently for threats against Harry.

If we’re spending money protecting Anne while she opens a garden centre or Edward while he’s on a DofE visit then protecting the mixed race child of the member of the family being openly threatened by neo-nazis is not beyond us.

Also if royal security is no longer allocated on the basis of need then we should know what the exact new criteria is - as you say times are tough and we should know what we’re paying for exactly.

@Rathmobhaile

Does that no title used but entitled to one not apply to Princess Anne's children?

No because Peter & Zara are the monarch’s DGC “by the female line” (ie via Anne, a daughter).

The 1917 LPs were sexist like that.

Harry (who had security) not Archie, that will have been the basis of the assessment. I would bet that PG and PC's security at school was much lighter before the 'scouting' of STB happened as well.

And another one "The fact that Tyler Perry could provide Meghan and the literal Prince of England more security than the royal family is WILD"

@ParadiseIsland

If you think that BOTH H&M thought things would change when they didn’t, then say so. Don’t have a go at the WOMAN alone all because she is American and not BRITISH and therefore clearly can’t have the brain cells to understand. Which is what your OP was about.

BRITISH people or culture aren’t exceptional or hard to understand so that no other citizen can ever ‘get them’

No, I don’t mean it like that. I think Meghan is brighter than Harry, and more analytical.

So I can see that she was questioning the logic of crazy rules in an eccentric institution, (and in a culture that isn’t her own) while he was very clearly telling us that he is passive and almost brainwashed.

The cultural divide isn’t that Americans are too stupid to understand our archaicisms it’s just that (generalisation alert) they will find lots of them silly and not see the point, and will definitely have the instinct to rationalise & modernise things, especially if the old traditions are causing problems. Or maybe that’s just the Americans that know.

I mean it’s astonishing the level of misunderstanding that seems to have gone on, but I think they’re very different people.

He told us all that MH stuff but then said he hadn’t actually TOLD anyone in the family that his wife was struggling and suicidal. That’s bizarre. Really, truly peculiar.

He told us all that MH stuff but then said he hadn’t actually TOLD anyone in the family that his wife was struggling and suicidal. That’s bizarre. Really, truly peculiar.

That really baffled me.

Given everything that’s happened he’s obviously not afraid of ruffling feathers so why on Earth not call his father or grandmother and say “this is happening and we’re being told we can’t access help”. Why would you not kick every door to get her the help?

I have to say, the interview has left me thinking that if she posted on here about him, about how unprepared she was and how he didn’t tell anyone in his family about her struggles she’d be told to LTB.