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

Archie was a baby when he was last in the UK though so wouldn’t have needed extra security because he was either with his parents or at frogmore with all the security there. Charles wouldn’t have put his grandchild at risk. Since they are now in America and probably already American citizens the security issues are now America’s problem.

@Darker

This is all a massive red herring.

Harry, Meghan, Archie and his siblings are at heightened risk because of who they are. They are prime targets for kidnap or assissination because one or all of them are Royal/famous/rich/privileged/mixed race +++

They need security, whether or not Archie is officially a Prince.

Yes, and at reportedly 2 million a year, they need to earn a lot to be able to afford that.

They are getting both the upsides and downsides of being famous. I don’t get the hate for them using their position to earn, how else will they be able to fund the security that they need?

There aren’t many 36 year olds who still expect to get an allowance from a parent.

They are using their position to earn, at the same time trying to bring down the institution that brought them that ability to earn. They have a small amount of genuinely earned income the rest other comes off the back of their royal connections or it comes from the wealth of the aristocracy. They need to find away of earning money that doesn’t involve the royal family.

“ They need to find away of earning money that doesn’t involve the royal family.”

Why? They wouldn’t need security if he wasnt royal. So he should have the downside but not the upside, which is the connections to earn their way?

You are being ridiculous. The British tax payer is not paying, so time to wind it in

And we all should be worried about a potentially racist head of state. It is an institution that is accountable to us and racist behaviour is against the law.

He would still need security because he is a very rich person, all rich people in the US need a lot of security. They have millions in the bank they need to find away of using it without damaging his family. Sensible investments could give them a 2.5 million return.

I mean this kindly, how M&H earn their way is nobody else business now. We don’t pay for their security or an allowance. They are free to use their fame and connections, as anyone else.

What we should be concerned about are our taxpayer funded institutions and whether these violate health and equality considerations. It is not simply a family, it is state institution and funded by us.

A number of commonwealth countries are reflecting on whether they want the British monarchy as head of state.

In the next few decades other countries will live on to a republican future andwe will be left manacled with an outdated not fit-for-purpose albatross

From the Guardian

After the broadcast, the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, cited it as another reason for the country to sever its constitutional ties to the British monarchy.

“After the end of the Queen’s reign, that is the time for us to say: ‘OK, we’ve passed that watershed,’” Turnbull told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“Do we really want to have whoever happens to be the head of state, the king or queen of the UK, automatically [as] our head of state?”

Harry and Meghan have been among the new generation of royals used to further British “soft power” and were deployed in the past to Commonwealth-related events with young people, businesses and volunteer groups.

But their Oprah Winfrey interview “opens our eyes further” on the merits or not of the Commonwealth, wrote Nicholas Sengoba, a newspaper columnist in the former colony of Uganda.

He cited “unresolved issues” in his country relating to the abuses of colonialism and questioned whether the heads of Commonwealth countries should still be “proud to eat dinner” with members of the British royal family, considering the accusations.

“ was a baby when he was last in the UK though so wouldn’t have needed extra security because he was either with his parents or at frogmore with all the security there. Charles wouldn’t have put his grandchild at risk“

If Meghan doesn’t have security, then how can Archie? Harry had security too but that’s gone as well.

Meghan and Harry both had security when they were working royals though and Charles paid for it for quite a while. They have enough money to pay for it themselves now as long as they are sensible. There was no need for them to bring that up in the interview presumably to make his father look bad. I do agree though I’m over invested and this isn't the biggest news at the moment and it is just a distraction. I doubt we will ever see them in the UK again not even when Philip goes.

Im assuming that they voiced it like this:
Family member - to Harry “We have concerns that if you were to have a child together, how dark would the child's skin be”.

Part of this conversation could have been during the dating period, part of it could have been when the family found out that they were going to get married and when she was pregnant. I think it really was a discussion specifically about their totally rude and racist concerns. They definitely meant it that way, to Harry hoping that he might change his mind. They never said it to her. She found out as Harry told her. I don’t think they are exaggerating at all. They definitely meant it how it sounded.

A number of commonwealth countries are reflecting on whether they want the British monarchy as head of state

Even as a republican myself I can't see that coming to much - not with the support they receive from the organisation

Australia amused me though; considering they voted to keep the monarchy even after the dodgy deal that pushed their prime minister out, it would be fascinating to see them change tack now

Australia are changing tack.

Onlyh 51% want the queen as Head of State (don't blame them, nothing personal against the Queen) and they are now saying that when she goes, they want to move on from this.

It is bloody odd that the Queen is Head of a country on the other side of the world.

I understand why, and I understand the streamlining, but the security issue is still there. I think they made the wrong call on it.

Do you think M&H then didn't choose a traditional name as a fingers up to them ? 🖕

I don’t think much will come of this regarding the commonwealth either. There is a lot of people wanting to show off their wokeness at the moment but the commonwealth benefits many people and these people would rather put their confidence and trust in the Queen and her decades of dedication then Meghan Markle.

sprining. you do know that Malcolm Turnbull isn't the current Prime Minister of Australia? Scott Morrison is the current PM.
If you have done a cut and paste, then the Guardian is sloppy.
If you have put that spin on it yourself, shame on you for writing incorrect facts.

Maybe people are against Meghan because they don't like how she behaves and not because of her race. I'm not sure why this isn't being considered. Maybe she's being criticised because she's not pleasant and her skin colour is irrelevant but whoever is too tone deaf to consider this.

I agree the Queen is well regarded. It is a question of the future I suppose

Hi, here is the Guardian article, I think they have corrected it now to say formerly PM

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/10/meghan-and-harry-racism-row-may-deepen-schisms-in-commonwealth

Former

@ineedaholidaynow

There aren’t many 36 year olds who still expect to get an allowance from a parent.

Not that many 36yr olds with Neo nazi threats either.

@Studentmidwife101

Im assuming that they voiced it like this: Family member - to Harry “We have concerns that if you were to have a child together, how dark would the child's skin be”.

Part of this conversation could have been during the dating period, part of it could have been when the family found out that they were going to get married and when she was pregnant. I think it really was a discussion specifically about their totally rude and racist concerns. They definitely meant it that way, to Harry hoping that he might change his mind. They never said it to her. She found out as Harry told her. I don’t think they are exaggerating at all. They definitely meant it how it sounded.

Exactly.

Sounds like H&M were really offended.

When ppl of colour tell you they experienced racism, believe them and just learn to be better in future.

Exactly @Mummy195 !