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

I am amazed at how many posters know people who work at the Palace, have friends who work at the Palace, we even had a poster whose friend was Nanny to M&H, and someone else knew Oprah.

All I can say is... these people in these positions shouldn't be blabbing!

A very long time ago when my eldest DC was a baby, we had to have a nanny short term. It was before the days of internet... this lovely girl had nannied for Royalty. She said not one thing about her past employers. Not one.

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

@Cokie3 Nope, the wife of HRH The Prince of Wales is HRH The Princess of Wales.

It was just decided that Camilla would never use it because the public wouldn’t have liked it.

@Roussette i have name changed since but i was on a previous thread about Meghan. I have relatives who work at the castle not at the palace! Also ive never said they divulge secrets, just that they have a very very low opinion of both Meghan and harry!

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.

I don't agree with that. From memory he was the useless-seeming playboy son of the utterly ghastly Mohammed El Fayed, and people couldn't understand what on earth she was doing hanging out with them. Maybe there was racism in it, but people were fairly down on her other not too impressive flings too.

Windsor Castle? Were H&M there much?

Their opinion of course. I presume if they aren't divulging anything, that's all they said...

@Roussette

Windsor Castle? Were H&M there much?

Their opinion of course. I presume if they aren't divulging anything, that's all they said...

Yes Windsor. They came into contact fairly frequently and as ive stated they do not hold the pair of them in high regard. To be fair to Meghan though, harry had a bad reputation even before she came along.

Why does the vague opinion of some randoms matter?

A friend of a friend said on good authority that she is terrible!

🙄

@Sprining

Why does the vague opinion of some randoms matter?

Im just stating the opinions of people who have actually met them and know them to some degree, as opposed to the majority on here who don't know them and can only speculate and form our opinions on what we see and read.

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.

Extraordinary really that she didn't do some basic homework before the interview. If she had, she would have known that entitlement to security has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person does or does not have a title.

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

I'm sure it was a strong element in relation to that particular relationship, but there was a separate trend where basically the media were turning against Diana in quite a big way. She was being portrayed as attention-seeking, entitled, freeloading on rich men, and generally a bit useless, and I remember in particular all the comments about the amount of time she spent disappearing on holidays paid for by other people whilst leaving her children. The day she died one or two of the papers had to act fast to get rid of articles knocking her for her holiday with Dodi.

That's where Harry and Meghan are on dangerous ground in seeking to compare themselves so closely to her. They risk cutting out completely the bit when she was popular and moving straight to the point where the media love kicking them around. If they had had any sense they'd have kept their heads down and let Uncle Andrew stay as the media's hate object. I bet he's absolutely delighted with the way they are deflecting attention from him.

Yep

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/lawyer-accuses-palace-using-meghan-take-focus-off-prince-andrew

A US lawyer for some of the women who say they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein has suggested that Buckingham Palace’s plans to examine bullying allegations against the Duchess of Sussex are a “calculated decision” to take the focus off Prince Andrew.

“Allegations about him are far worse than the allegations about Meghan Markle. Prince Andrew was a working royal when he became a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who was a sexual predator,” said Gloria Allred.

“Prince Andrew is accused of much more than bullying or harassment in the workplace,” said the lawyer, who does not represent Virginia Giuffre, who has made the allegations against the prince, but is acting for 20 women who say they were victims of the disgraced US financier.

@pabloescobarselasticband, if you are inclined to mistrust and other someone, the merest whisper of gossip will be enough to confirm your biases.

I personally don’t know her. There is nothing in her public actions that suggest anything. She narrated her story and I accept it.

Question is why wouldn’t you?

'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.'

Exactly. They should appoint a press spokesperson to do a brief statement where they calmly debunk the claims including that of the title of prince/great grandchildren and security. Then end it with 'the rf are incredibly disappointed and hurt by the very biased way they have been portrayed'. When William was asked if he'd spoken to his db I bet he felt like saying 'I daren't in case the private conversation is blabbed about in 'Oprah The Sequel!!'

'A US lawyer for some of the women who say they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein has suggested that Buckingham Palace’s plans to examine bullying allegations against the Duchess of Sussex are a “calculated decision” to take the focus off Prince Andrew.'

They aren't the FBI. They can investigate HR/bullying issues not so much the alleged cases Andrew may or may be involved in. Why don't the FBI interview him in the uk, why has it stalled?

Frankly the Royals need to get their act together and throw Andrew to the wolves , they will never be able to escape this if they don’t. I know it will be difficult for the daughters who I suspect are the Queens main concern but they are both married now so have some support.

He needs to ‘voluntarily’ return to the US for questioning . PC by all accounts has no time for him anyway and hated Diana spending time with Sarah so he’s just going to want to get the whole thing over with ASAP

GetOff I have no idea. Law and legal processes operate differently in the US.
But I think all this is going to change when Ghislaine's case comes up in the summer.

Can they even investigate Andrew at all? Even if all his work, emails photos is attached to the Royal Family and The Queen?

@pabloescobarselasticband Oh this 'slim down the monarchy' is so timely and convenient, but it's clearly bullshit. People will believe what they want to believe about Meghan, but it ever so clear that she doesn't give a flying rats arse about a title. It's about protection and security. As I said, keep in mind she AND ARCHIE have been getting death threats, and she, has been getting RAPE THREATS.

If people still want to play at this 'slimming down the monarchy' bs then they make that opinion on a preconceived agenda of not liking Meghan imo. I think anyone half decent will see the death and rape threats, and hear the fear in the voices of both Meghan AND Harry, and realise this is about security and protection.

The slimming down the Monarchy is such convenient bs, and I don't buy it for a second, since both the Queen and Charles himself was happy to change the rules for Charlotte. No, this is NOT about 'slimming down the Monarchy'. I think anyone can see what this is really about.

I know it will be difficult for the daughters who I suspect are the Queens main concern but they are both married now so have some support

That is very true. They married and have families and of course their Mum. They're not young teens or anything.

This is from the victims lawyer...
“It is long overdue for the palace to change its priorities and announce that it is conducting its own investigation of Prince Andrew. In addition, it should immediately issue a statement condemning Prince Andrew for failing to provide full in-person cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by the United States justice department.”

This slimming down the Monarch has been talked about for decades. The queen could conceivably go on another 10 years.

I'll believe it when I see it.

@pabloescobarselasticband just what are these 'untruths and contradictions'? On the contrary. Indeed and in fact, evidence proves Harry and Meghan have told the truth. There has not been one skerrick of actual factual evidence to prove otherwise. I also copy in from elsewhere 3 of the most common myths (misrepresentations) that people say are lies or contradictions, when they really are not, it's simply that people have misunderstood what Meghan said in the interview or have their own agenda to twist and distort what she/Harry said.

MYTH 1. They were upset Archie wasn't given a title at birth.
Reality: their upset is that the RF wanted to remove his birthright AFTER Charles ascends the throne.
Myth 2. They lied about the first wedding.
Reality: They never 'lied' about it at all. They had a wedding ceremony before the legal one, which is a very common European and American practice. Though not legal, it is still referred to as a ceremony. After all, churches say a couple is married "in the sight and eyes of God", and God's representative in the church - the Priest or Pastor or Vicar - is the only one needed for that. Witnesses and paperwork is the government form required for legality. But it does not affect a religious marriage union.
Myth 3. There is discrepancies between Meghan Markle and Harry's version of when the racist remark was made.
Reality: Harry and Meghan said there were a few discussions, so clearly it was more than once.

cokie. how do you so intimately know about all these death threats? are you in contact with m&h? reports in newpapers have been mentioned before but never substantiated. So just calm down, love.
As for not bothered about titles, why don't you ask her to relinguish ALL her titles if they are irrelevent. They don't have uk paid security so don't need titles.
Slimming down of monarchy started with withdrawal of protection about 10 years ago - as detailed on this thread. The rules were amended prior to the first born Cambridge child to not discrimiate against a female child - or are you not in favour of that. Should only male children be important?

The Royal Family can't have it both ways. If they wanted to use the Sussexes as tabloid fodder to protect the ones in line to the throne, then they have to accept that will cause the media to whip up hate against them. Which in turn increases the need for security. They can't simultaneously ask Harry and Meghan to be the fall guys and then refuse to title and provide security for their son.

@CaffeineAndCrochet

The Royal Family can't have it both ways. If they wanted to use the Sussexes as tabloid fodder to protect the ones in line to the throne, then they have to accept that will cause the media to whip up hate against them. Which in turn increases the need for security. They can't simultaneously ask Harry and Meghan to be the fall guys and then refuse to title and provide security for their son.

So true

@pabloescobarselasticband "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?"

I think when someone is desperate to find fault with someone, they will go to desperate lengths, the above shows this.

All suffering is relative.

Someone here on AIBU could complain that their husband hit them. I or someone else could come on and say yeah but at least you're not in Africa or 'yeah, at Covid hasn't got you'. Clumsily expressed on my behalf, but you get the picture.

People, are PEOPLE. Meghan seemed genuinely surprised someone asked her, hence her emotional response. If I was suffering and no one ever, not even once, asked me 'R UOK'? I would shocked and teary if someone did, regardless of where I was at the time. The hatred people have for Meghan, and the petty and very immature lengths they go to find fault with her ie above with the Africa question, says a lot about these people. Regardless of whether she was in Africa, Sudan, Iraq, London, Beverly Hills US or in New Zealand, if someone is emotionally suffering, as Meghan clearly was, hearing that question asked can make you feel emotional. But in order to see that and understand that, one needs to have Emotional Intelligence and compassion.