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

Just seen an article in the guardian about the security the RF has, with a former RF protection officer estimating cost at around £2.5m per year plus more when they travel . So, yeah I can understand why they might feel the need to do some deals with Netflix if they've got to pay that just to stay safe. Amd why the title=security might be an issue for them. The risk is there because of who they are and the narrative that surrounds him (he's not akin to Zara, Beatrice et al, not least because of his parents' own media shitstorms that have driven and perpetuated the media interest). Working royals or not, they're not safe without security however much they try and lie low - maybe in 5-10 years it might die down, but maybe not.

@SallyLockheart

Has it been formally announced that the right of grandchildren of the monarch will not be given the title Prince/Princess? Is Meghan and Harry just making this up?

There's been no formal announcement.

Much the same as there has been no actual announcement or confirmation of Charles' much talked about wish to slim the royal family. We'll only know if it happens.

“Don’t give a fuck about the suicidal woman”

😞 like some in-laws, they just don’t care. Hey who cares if their mother died and they will forever be haunted by it

I’m happy for the American tax payer or any rich friend to pay for their security fully. I’m sure Charles will be delighted too.

Much the same as there has been no actual announcement or confirmation of Charles' much talked about wish to slim the royal family. We'll only know if it happens.

I posted a whole bunch of links from the 90s earlier on another thread. The reform of the monarchy, steered by the Way Ahead Group, championed by Charles, has been regularly reported on for more than 25 years.

Royal cousins lost their peppercorn rent tenancies to palace apartments.

The Queen started paying tax.

The civil list was slashed and then replaced the other the sovereign grant.

A long running dispute about Princess Beatrice & Eugenie’s adult roles and police protection rumbled on from their childhoods into their uni years. Andrew and Charles fought about it for years.

An overall plan was made after Diana died to rescue the monarchy from unpopularity by modernising and shrinking it.

This has all been in the broadsheets for decades.

From all of those things we know that the Queen knew how unpopular they were after the Windsor fire and made major changes to their finances.

We know what changes the Queen has made and over time we'll know which changes Charles will make.

My point actually was that they don't often come out and say "We announce we're going to do X, Y and Z..." we only know when it happens.

Oh yes ISWYM.

Here is a transcript of what Meghan and Harry said- sometimes it helped if you read it: www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974706009/in-a-2-hour-prime-time-interview-oprah-talks-to-meghan-and-harry

“Don’t give a fuck about the suicidal woman”

😞 like some in-laws, they just don’t care. Hey who cares if their mother died and they will forever be haunted by it

He's the President of the US, being asked about some random person he hasn't (I think?) ever met. Why would he care more about her than the American citizens who are dying from COVID/lack of healthcare/ any other issue you mention? No doubt he is human enough to recognise any of them as desperately sad for the people involved, but he is not personally involved.

Jill Biden has been quite close to Harry and they have spent time together

www-hellomagazine-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/royalty/20210121104922/prince-harry-us-president-joe-biden-sweet-friendship/0-505-388/harry-joe-biden-t.webp?filter=high

yes, Hello magazine, that beacon of objective reporting...

www.shethepeople.tv/news/full-interview-transcript-of-oprahs-interview-with-meghan-markle-and-harry/

www.google.com/amp/s/www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20210121104922/prince-harry-us-president-joe-biden-sweet-friendship/%3Fviewas%3Damp

Not sure if the previous link works. Perhaps this will. Harry and the Bidens have known each other for a while

People seem to be missing the bit where Harry said the conversation about colouring came up before they were married, not when she was pregnant as a hateful "we don't want your black baby" rhetoric. Not callously discussing how dark the child she was carrying might be. A discussion before they were married which could even have been "I wonder what any children will look like? Maybe they will have their mums dark skin and your ginger hair. Or would they have lighter skin because you're the father?" The kind of musings you'd often hear from an older, less mixed generation. I doubt very much that it was "your kids will be too dark to have titles, Harry. That's the price you'll pay for marrying this mixed race divorcee!"

If they were racist, Meghan wouldn't have been anywhere near Harry. You think they can't make people go away? They can. Or the Queen could have refused permission. He had to ask for it and she, with a racist eye on the future (or her son, as he certainly gets a say) could have refused, wishing to keep the royal line pure. But she didn't. Meghan is a divorcee, and a royal trying to marry one almost trashed the monarchy in the 30s. They had that as a stand-alone reason to refuse, based on old prejudices and precedence, but they didn't.

@Allington, shooting the messenger won’t change the message. There are plenty of other sources, just google.

President Joe Biden and his wife Jill have known Harry for quite some time. Pic: AP
Harry's past work on military issues bought him into close contact with the Bidens, and First Lady Dr Jill Biden has been a supporter of the prince's charity work since meeting him in 2013 during the his visit to Washington DC.

Harry sat with the Bidens at the Invictus Games in Orlando in 2016 - with Joe Biden joking that his wife "spent too much damn time with Prince Harry", and again at the event in Toronto in 2017 - the event the couple first made their relationship public

Sky news.

www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/harry-and-meghan-the-celebrities-and-influential-figures-who-make-up-their-la-inner-circle-12239863

@Sprining - even if they are BFFs, Biden (and the team around him) are smart enough to recognise the difference between personal friendships and fulfilling a role. As President he did NOT endorse them, he (via an official spokesperson) endorsed anyone speaking up about their difficulties and mental health, and said that they would not comment on private individuals sharing their own story.

He may, or may not, have been on the phone to them congratulating them and telling them how great they are - but the official response very carefully does not endorse or criticise them.

Did these 'close friends since 2013' go to their wedding? Can't find any info on that...

You said ‘He's the President of the US, being asked about some random person he hasn't (I think?) ever met.‘

I’m pointing out that this is an inaccurate representation.

In general though, I don’t know why it bothers you that the President of US may have a personal interest or be sympathetic to H&M

Political figures, including Obama’s could not be invited.

@Allington, I really have nothing more to say. I dislike people who want to pull others down and that’s it from me to you

I used to work (20 years ago) in major donor fundraising, which included working with Royal Patronages. By major donors, at that time, it was someone who could give £10,000 without it being the slightest problem. Probably more now, given inflation.

The first thing you learn is the fiction of public relationships. If the donor mentions their mother is unwell, their child applying to such-and-such universities etc etc you record it. Next time you meet them you ask about it. People with that level of wealth expect that level of personalised care - they know you are not their friend, but they expect that sort of service. It looks very intimate - it's not.

That means you know if they have met your royal patron before ('we met at the XYZ charity polo cup in '99). So, when royal personage is doing the rounds at your event, you say to royal staff that you would like to introduce Mr and Mrs X, big supporters of the charity, who met Prince Y in '99 at the XYZ charity polo cup. The royal staff inform the royal personage and brief them quickly on the facts you have given them.

Prince Y and Mr and Mrs X, in front of the cameras, remember their meeting and are delighted to exchange reminiscences and say how wonderful the charity is.

Hello magazine print it up to imply that they have been BFFs since '99, bonded over their shared love of polo and their commitment to the work of the charity.

In reality, if they met in the street without an entourage they wouldn't recognise each other.

I am not pulling people down, I am being honest about these types of celebrity relationships. The true relationships happen in private.

The fact is that it would have been simple for her Maj to extend titles to Charles grandchildren, given that they would get them when he becomes King.
The fact that she didn't leaves a whole heap of questions.

Yes, if you want to see something suspicious. Alternatively, royalty is based on birth order, and William came first so he and his children matter.

There is nothing reasonable and fair about an inherited system, but don't take the benefits and then whinge about it when you don't come first.

Oh FFS. Harry would definitely have been aware of the ‘rules’ even if Meghan wasn’t. He wouldn’t cut his whole family off over a simple misunderstanding.