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

'still can’t believe we heard the audio recording of that sentence coming out of his mouth!'

I know! And the photos of Fergie's toe sucking incident front page. How did the press ever get away with it?! I bet the oldies all roll their eyes at this current saga. No or course racism doesn't equal being 'rude', but gross invasions of privacy and mocking/ridicule is not simply 'rude' behaviour.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'still can’t believe we heard the audio recording of that sentence coming out of his mouth!'

I know! And the photos of Fergie's toe sucking incident front page. How did the press ever get away with it?! I bet the oldies all roll their eyes at this current saga. No or course racism doesn't equal being 'rude', but gross invasions of privacy and mocking/ridicule is not simply 'rude' behaviour.

'Squidgygate' too. All the phone interception that went on in those days is mind boggling - I believe they were using mobile phones (presumably the ones that were like suitcases) but back in those days the security on a mobile phone must have been minimal.

Re tampon gate, toe sucking etc. Those are the occasions I really feel sorry for them.

Phone hacking was (eventually) recognised as an outrage when a bunch of celebs and crime victims suffered it and it was eventually called out, but what everyone forgets about is that it was Prince William who virtually cracked that case single handed. He was the one that quietly blew the whistle on the News of the Worlds antics because he was one of the victims.

Way before that, those other tapes - Squidgy and the Charles one - were also obtained by hacking (scanners that time) and were again almost certainly intercepted at the instigation of the red tops. Long lens photography for s the same. So they are exactly the same outrageous infringements of privacy that Hugh Grant later went to war over, but for some reason we don’t (collectively) seem to have the same compassion for Charles, Camilla & Fergie. We treat it like it’s a Carry On film. They are real people with feelings behind all the pomp, and they must feel hunted a lot of the time.

I actually think it’s an argument for a republic. I think we keep them like zoo animals and spend a lot doing it. Whether they would agree, and whether ex royals would get any more peace than royals is obviously a different question.

'tampon gate, toe sucking etc. Those are the occasions I really feel sorry for them.'

Yes and the Oprah Winfrey really minimised what many of them had endured. Using 'waity katy' as an example as if that was what anyone would have been referring to when they said they'd been ripped apart in the media for decades. Maybe Fergie and Camilla could have mentored them and taught them some resilience.

@Roussette

I'm at a loss here. Never seen him called big ears .. I mean come on... you are joking here aren't you. Are you equating something I've never heard of with the hundreds of thousands of awful headlines MM has received?

Diana... maybe... he behaved appallingly having an affair whilst still with her.

He has got away remarkably lightly. I rarely see headlines about PC now.

As for saying he's 'not had an easy life' I am honestly speechless.

Yes when he was young he was called big ears.

I think his early life was hard in that he was a quiet shy boy who was sent off to rough and tumble boarding school that wasn't really suitable, he was supposedly bullied at school, boys not wanting to be seen as "sucking up" to him. Then he had to do naval service, his seasickness was fairly legendary and hard to imagine it would have been his choice of career. He wasn't able to marry the woman he wanted and married someone who very much wanted to marry him and it didn't work out. They both had affairs. The press were relentless for years about any vaguely suitable partner for him.

So he's had money and lots of protection but I don't think it was all sunshine.

Phillip is not Greek, he is of Danish/Russian Descent, his Grandfather George 1st of Greece was invited to become King of Greece by The Greek National Assembly So does that mean people born in Britain aren't British if they are of European/Asian/African descent? Don't think that is true.

The media hated Charles when his affair with Camilla came to light. They hated Camilla because she wasn't as conventionally attractive as Diana.

But then they started hating Diana too when she took up with Dodi. People forget that, literally up to the moment of her death when she was canonised by them, the media had never been more vitriolic about Diana.

Racism was at the root of hating the Dodi-Diana partnership.

All in all, the media haven't really 'let up' on the Royals for the last 40 years.

'All in all, the media haven't really 'let up' on the Royals for the last 40 years.'

Yes and it has always been disgusting. For H to declare they have had it much worse is untrue. It is such a shame, they could have worked with the rf to 'shine a light' on the media, they could have led by example and shown how to cope with the media slurs. But nope they've joined in themselves!! chucking allegations about 🙄.

I thought they wanted to teach us all love, forgiveness, compassion and tolerance not spew bile and whip up all this horrible division.

It sometimes feels like the Royal Family have entered some kind of Faustian pact with the press, which new arrivals have to accept because that's how it is. Perhaps the courtiers (who don't have to experience the humiliation and hurt first-hand) need to have a good long think about their role in this.

Yes when he was young he was called big ears.

I think his early life was hard in that he was a quiet shy boy who was sent off to rough and tumble boarding school that wasn't really suitable, he was supposedly bullied at school, boys not wanting to be seen as "sucking up" to him. Then he had to do naval service, his seasickness was fairly legendary and hard to imagine it would have been his choice of career. He wasn't able to marry the woman he wanted and married someone who very much wanted to marry him and it didn't work out. They both had affairs. The press were relentless for years about any vaguely suitable partner for him.

So he's had money and lots of protection but I don't think it was all sunshine.

I agree with that assessment.

I actually really, really struggle to believe Prince Charles is in any way bigoted. I think he is probably the most forward thinking and empathetic of his generation of royals, if not all of them.

I was really pleased to read today that the woman who heads up the gospel choir who performed at H&M’s wedding seems to be of the same opinion.

@Darker

It sometimes feels like the Royal Family have entered some kind of Faustian pact with the press, which new arrivals have to accept because that's how it is. Perhaps the courtiers (who don't have to experience the humiliation and hurt first-hand) need to have a good long think about their role in this.

Yes and there seem to be some immovable core beliefs underpinning it all. It’s interesting to try to follow from the outside.

Of course.

The press control the RF. Not the other way round. Referred to as 'the invisible contract' by the RF.

If the RF wine and dine them and give them access they will get better press. They are controlled by fear of what might be written by the press. It's dependency. Because we only know anything about the RF because of the what's written about them.

A very unhealthy relationship

The press control the RF. Not the other way round. Referred to as 'the invisible contract' by the RF.

I couldn’t decide if Oprah genuinely didn’t understand that or whether it was a pose. It was by far the most irritating aspect of that interview to me.

I found it the most interesting part of the interview

If the RF wine and dine them and give them access they will get better press. They are controlled by fear of what might be written by the press. It's dependency. Because we only know anything about the RF because of the what's written about them

I wouldn't quite say it's the only way we know anything about them, but definitely agree about the unhealthy relationship. Trouble is, the media is what it is ... and if the RF cut them out completely and did all their own publicity, most people with sense would see that for what it was too

The irony for me is that, much as the RF appear to hate the media, they'd probably hate it even more if they never got mentioned

But the irony is Oprah herself was playing her part in it all, she is as guilty as the msm by colluding in headline grabbing one sided slurs.

How can they not want to be the subject of one sided gossip but then publicly attack his UK family, revealing his df had stopped taking his calls?! A dignified silence on family matters whilst going about shining lights on worthy causes may have made them popular. This has cemented many people's already low opinion of them.

@Roussette

I found it the most interesting part of the interview

Yes that too, but I want to know if it was genuine.

Puzzled I do think it's the only way we know anything about them. Through the Press.
I suppose there are Wiki pages on the RF but apart from that it's the media outlets.

I do wonder if the RF want to be noticed, want to be talked about, want to be headlines... it's a funny one. It's not celebrity but it's fame and justifying their existence. So yes I suppose they do

@LApprentiSorcier

A 'title' shouldn't be confused with a 'style'. Prince Edward's children hold the titles Prince and Princess but are styled Lady Louise and Viscount Severn. Similarly, Camilla holds the title Princess of Wales but styles herself 'Duchess of Cornwall'. Philip holds the title Prince Philip of Greece but styles himself the Duke of Edinburgh.

The royals often hold several titles but they choose one as their normal 'style'.

I understood that the title of Princess of Wales was 'retired' and thus Camilla was never given that title?

@Nith

I find it faintly bizarre that Meghan makes such a big deal out of having a title. She comes from a country that takes pride in equality and not dishing out pointless titles, so why is it so dreadful that her child doesn't get one?

It's two-fold. It's what it represents ie that she and Archie are being treated differently based on race. Ergo it's not the title per se, it's what the REMOVAL of that birthright represents. It is what the lack of it for Archie represents. Not the 'title' itself.

Also with the title comes protection and security. Both Meghan and Archie have received many death threats. She made it obvious in the interview that it was the SECURITY that came with the title, that was the most important bit.

@Cokie3 but it's been known for years that Charles intended to slim down the monarchy! It was reported years ago that this had caused friction between Charles and andrew! Nothing to do with Archie and nothing to do with race! My personal opinion is that Meghan is very much hung up on titles and status despite her protests and her nose is put out of joint because her son wont get one! Using the argument of protection and racism is just a smokescreen!

And your ‘opinion’ is based on what exactly? You don’t know her.

Sounds like a bias to me

@Sprining

And your ‘opinion’ is based on what exactly? You don’t know her.

Sounds like a bias to me

My opinion is based on knowing people who work for the royals and having done a lot of reading about the royals from many different sources! My opinion is also formed from watching all the untruths and contradictions that came from Meghans mouth during the Oprah interview. You only have to research protocol and articles about the RF to easily pick out the lies!

@Cokie3 it has been repeatedly explained both on here but also by the Home office and Scotland Yard that there is no link between the title of Prince and the level of protection. They have actually said that the claims made in the interview are nonsense. Security is assessed on a case by case basis by JTEC . The royals do not get to decide themselves who gets protection, so maybe concerns about this should be addressed to Pritti Patel and Cressida Dick.

@Sprining

And your ‘opinion’ is based on what exactly? You don’t know her.

Sounds like a bias to me

Its also very obvious how " tone deaf " Meghan is when you watch the " no one has bothered to ask how i am" interview from the tour of Africa! Visiting people in real poverty wearing clothes worth £££££ while moaning that no one cares about poor her! I mean seriously how ignorant can one person be?