Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

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,...”

802 replies

RickiTarr · 09/03/2021 02:42

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
ineedaholidaynow · 09/03/2021 04:53

Archie will be titled when Charles becomes King though won’t he

WhiskyWhiskersdottir · 09/03/2021 04:56

Exactly @JustLyra

There have always been ways to disguise racism with talk of protocol, precedence, privileges and etiquette. It’s basically disguising racism as classism. Both are disgusting.

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 04:59

@ineedaholidaynow

Archie will be titled when Charles becomes King though won’t he
Yes. Unless the rules are changed, which Meghan said they were told they will be.
ineedaholidaynow · 09/03/2021 05:02

Where does it say that @JustLyra?

DylGordon · 09/03/2021 05:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 05:12

@ineedaholidaynow

Where does it say that *@JustLyra*?
Where does it say what?

Grandchildren of the monarch are automatically entitled to the HRH Prince title under the 1917 LP's. So when Charles is King all of his grandchildren will be entitled to it.

The comment about that being changed was said by Meghan in the interview.

ineedaholidaynow · 09/03/2021 05:16

Isn’t the comment about Archie not having a title because he wasn’t going to get one at birth

UsedUpUsername · 09/03/2021 05:19

let alone a natural born disruptor

Translation from the wokish: total drama queen

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 05:21

@ineedaholidaynow

Isn’t the comment about Archie not having a title because he wasn’t going to get one at birth
No, she also mentioned when Charles becomes King.
Hoorayforsunshine · 09/03/2021 05:24

Thé point is not that he wasn’t a prince at birth. It’s that under the 1917 letters patent he would have become one when Charles becomes king. That has been removed, so he can never be prince - that is the change they objected to. Not the lack of prince title at birth (which the queen could still have done as for Charlotte / all Williams children). So Vickers is misrepresenting the complaint.

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 05:25

@Hoorayforsunshine

Thé point is not that he wasn’t a prince at birth. It’s that under the 1917 letters patent he would have become one when Charles becomes king. That has been removed, so he can never be prince - that is the change they objected to. Not the lack of prince title at birth (which the queen could still have done as for Charlotte / all Williams children). So Vickers is misrepresenting the complaint.
It hasn’t been removed, but they were told it would be.

Changes to LP’s are issued so that change hasn’t happened yet or we’d know.

Awalkintime · 09/03/2021 05:28

Meghan - couldn't speak up when lies were said about her.

The palace never protected her and spoke up.

Doria was dignified in her silence.

Someone was racist in the RF.

They can't speak up to say it wasn't them.

Doesn't like things said about herself when she can't deny it wasn't her but does it herself to others.

Hoorayforsunshine · 09/03/2021 05:30

Yes, I meant removed - told it would be removed. I agree it hasn’t happened yet which is why it could be reported at the time with suggestions that it was their choice that he had no title- clearly not the case.

ineedaholidaynow · 09/03/2021 05:33

Is that them saying it would be removed the same as them saying they were married before they were married, a little bending of the truth

YesItsAPeacock · 09/03/2021 05:35

It’s the idea that there could even be “strict rules”, or any meaningful rules, that is completely bananas. Are they on stone tablets handed over by god?

All of it is made up and can be - has been - changed whenever it suits.

People fall back on the idea of immutable rules when they don’t want to make changes.

sashh · 09/03/2021 06:10

Grandchildren of the monarch are automatically entitled to the HRH Prince title under the 1917 LP's. So when Charles is King all of his grandchildren will be entitled to it.

Peter and Zara are the Queen's grandchildren. The Wessex children are a Viscount and a Lady

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 06:23

@sashh

Grandchildren of the monarch are automatically entitled to the HRH Prince title under the 1917 LP's. So when Charles is King all of his grandchildren will be entitled to it.

Peter and Zara are the Queen's grandchildren. The Wessex children are a Viscount and a Lady

Sorry, when talking about Archie specifically in that post I missed “of the male line”.

Peter and Zara have no title because Anne is female.

The Wessex children have the HRH Princess and Prince titles, but don’t use them at the choice of their parents.

MrsTabithaTwitchit · 09/03/2021 06:25

It’s only children of male children of the monarch ( this was changed in 2012) so Zara and Peter would have had to be given titles.

Edward rejected the Prince/Princess titles for his children and they are titled as an Earls children .

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 06:27

@MrsTabithaTwitchit

It’s only children of male children of the monarch ( this was changed in 2012) so Zara and Peter would have had to be given titles.

Edward rejected the Prince/Princess titles for his children and they are titled as an Earls children .

The LP’s regarding titles didn’t change when the primogeniture rule changed. It’s still the case that only male line children automatically get title.

Edward’s children use titles of an Earl’s children, but they have the full title.

Quote from an interview with Sophie Wessex confirmed as much...

Sophie opened up about why Louise and James do not have HRH titles in a rare interview last year.

She told The Times: "We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living.

"Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles.

"They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely."

Theunamedcat · 09/03/2021 06:27

They also stated on their own Instagram that they didn't want a title for him so which is it

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 06:29

@Theunamedcat

They also stated on their own Instagram that they didn't want a title for him so which is it
Meghan stated in the interview they were happy with no title until they were told that no title meant no security.
ChameleonClara · 09/03/2021 06:29

I'm always amazed how many ordinary people are on the side of the tabloids.

The way they treat this country and hold us all in contempt, why do you believe them?

I thought the interview was really sad.

If you read the DM, you're a wally.

NuclearDH · 09/03/2021 06:34

Yes, she definitely said in the interview that there was a discussion about the fact Archie may not get a title when Charles becomes king even though under current rules he’s entitled to it.

She says because he may have dark skin.

But it doesn’t add up to me. Because it was never going to be an issue before he was born. So even if someone in “the firm” was being as racist as fuck wouldn’t they just wait until the baby was born and make a decision then? Why would someone alert the parents to the fact that the decision may be based on Archie’s skin colour? It just sounds unbelievable.

I think it’s far more likely there was a conversation about it possibly not happening due to the slimming down of the monarchy.

Plus what she said about if he gets the title he gets protection and if he does have the title he doesn’t get protection also doesn’t add up. Because if he gets the title and that isn’t until Charles is king would it really be the case he doesn’t need/get protection until the Queen dies but then overnight when he’s 5 or 6yo or whenever she dies suddenly he does get protection?

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 06:37

I think it’s clear from what was said that Harry and Meghan expected that their child would be treated the same as Charlotte and Louis and be given the title early (only George was entitled to it going by the LP’s).

It seems they weren’t bothered by the fact that there was no title to be given, although surprised, but then objected when they were told that no title meant no security.

That’s the bit the RF really need to clear up. Security should be based on need, not title.

JustLyra · 09/03/2021 06:44

The slimming of the monarchy argument is a really weak one if that’s what was used tbh.

With george V he had six children, five of whom were expected to marry and have children. The number of titled princes and princesses were just going to continue on and on going by the number from Queen Victoria when titles were passed on and on.

Charles has two sons. When Archie was born Harry’s wife was already in her mid-to late 30s. Charles is likely to have 5/6 grandchildren at the very most. Harry’s children having or not having titles isn’t going to slim or not slim the monarchy.

The slimming started when the York girls and Wessex children were clearly not going to be working royals. Harry’s children wouldn’t have been working royals as that precedent has been set.