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

The royal family

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
Roussette · 12/03/2021 16:22

And this is not a very good look for William-we-are-not-a-racist family quote.

Just try and begin to imagine if that was Harry sat there?? Him being married to Meghan... they would be slaughtered in the press.

Before anyone questions the photo. Yes it is legitimate.

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,...”
Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:23

@Nith

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.

Ffs, she has witnessed these same people who are telling her this new rule chance them over and over throughout the years. Why on earth would she doubt what they say.

The same people changed the rule regarding Charlotte and Louis.

They have also changed several rules over the years.

If they tell her now that Prince comes with certain privileges, why would she not believe them - at that time, ofcourse now she knows she was being taken for a mug. But she would have believed them then, just as she believed them when they said they would protect her. It's only later that she realised that she was being taken on a ride.

Cokie3 · 12/03/2021 16:23

@Roussette

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.

Yes, THIS. I don't believe even one of these "I know people who etc".

Not one. When you combine it with their general attitude and their agenda, it's obvious what they're playing at and they're making it up.

Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:23

*change them

SallyLockheart · 12/03/2021 16:24

i feel really sad for Meghan, never to have friends to turn to, never have friends who say are you ok, to be totally without friends is a sad state of affairs. Can you imagine feeling really down and there is not a person in the world you can talk to about it.

Cokie3 · 12/03/2021 16:26

@Nith

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.

@Nith That is not true at all. It does. Basic homework shows this.
SallyLockheart · 12/03/2021 16:28

so what about Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice? Titles but no state provided security. Basic homework shows this.

Roussette · 12/03/2021 16:29

Thank you Cokie3

I agree. I am wary sticking my neck out with this sort of statement because i get trolled but... to me... it seems a massive coincidence that on this corner of the internet there are all these people who know people work work at BP, know individual members of the RF, know friends who nanny for M&H.
If they were legit would they be expressing personal opinions to their friends? Doubtful, as I said with the nanny we had for a short time.
It just seems bizarre to me.

I never see it anywhere else but on these threads.

Cokie3 · 12/03/2021 16:32

@Nith "let Uncle Andrew stay as the media's hate object."

I can't believe I just read this. It's completely surreal. Utterly surreal. And completely and utterly opposite to reality.

The media have PROTECTED Andrew. Meghan was their hate object BEFORE the interview, and after.

At NO stage, ever was Andrew the media's hate object. On the contrary! Hence the very reason why people on here are pointing out the media's hypocrisy in attacking Meghan and being Andrew's cheerleader and cover. That's the whole point. He should have been. But the media protects Andrew and makes Meghan the hate object.

DeRigueurMortis · 12/03/2021 16:32

@Cokie3

That is not true at all. It does. Basic homework shows this

No your comment shows you have not done your "basic homework".

Provision of security is done on the basis of a very comprehensive risk assessment.

This is why some politicians for example receive

Cokie3 · 12/03/2021 16:33

@Roussette

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.

Yes, and the media are complicit with the RF in covering for Andrew.
Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:33

@Roussette

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.

It's been talked about forever.

How about making some proper moves at significant moments like.......oh I don't know K&W wedding, George's birth , or Charlotte , you know, when the heir and spare is here, before MM came along and H was still dating blondes and English roses ?

Ofcouse MM would question the sudden change, anyone would

Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:37

@SallyLockheart

i feel really sad for Meghan, never to have friends to turn to, never have friends who say are you ok, to be totally without friends is a sad state of affairs. Can you imagine feeling really down and there is not a person in the world you can talk to about it.
She did have friends and confided in them. It's just that they were gagged from talking about it or getting involved at that moment.
merrymouse · 12/03/2021 16:37

@SallyLockheart

so what about Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice? Titles but no state provided security. Basic homework shows this.
And also it’s doubtful that they have benefitted from their titles. Too distant from the core family to have a role, but not distant enough to just get on with normal life. Princesses without a purpose.
Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:37

I am in full agreement with you on that post btw @Roussette

Blueberries0112 · 12/03/2021 16:38

Or maybe Meghan understand it more than you think - the security,title, the slimming down and She and Harry accepted it but the public wasn’t going to let her go. But still upset about racism though.

They gave her hard time about stepping down but they never gave other royals a hard time for refusing a title because it is too much price to pay that goes with the title.

Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:39

@SallyLockheart

so what about Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice? Titles but no state provided security. Basic homework shows this.
You very well know that they had security till their 20s.
Roussette · 12/03/2021 16:40

Can't believe it's been 85 years since Prince Andrew was alleged to have slept with procured and coerced girls at his paedophile friend's NY mansion
Hmm

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,...”
SenecaFallsRedux · 12/03/2021 16:41

But the exact nature of the slimming down (via Charles) was never revealed. I remember thinking that the Queen might even issue new LP's so that Harry's children could be HRH's because Charles would want his children to be treated as equally as possible under the circumstances. There was some discussion of this possibility on MN as well. Whatever the RF thinks is best for the nation, from a family dynamic point of view, it can definitely be problematic.

Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:42

[quote Cokie3]@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.[/quote]
Exactly.

According to MN, no one has a right to complain unless they are living in a garbage tip somewhere in a war torn zone.

Even if you are a single mum in a council estate trying to make ends meet, there is always someone having things harder than you.

Cokie3 · 12/03/2021 16:43

I hope you don't mind @Blueberries0112 (If you do, let me know and I'll report my post to get it deleted), but I want to copy a post Blueberry said elsewhere about people being in denial regarding the real reason for removal of Archie's birthright title:

*we used to have this huge pool in my local area of Virginia that has been around for years, when segregation became against the law, and more people who were not white started using the pool, the owner of the pool decided to pour concrete the pool because he did not want to share it . He claimed it is costly to maintained but black people were not fooled. They know exactly why he did it. And they were absolutely correct because my husband’s grandfather used to work there and knows the person. He specifically told him that he didn’t want to share the pool. He won’t admit it in public but he will admit it privately. People today still debated why he did it (on Facebook) white folks say”no, he did it because it was costly to maintain” black folks say no he did it because of Racism. And they argued back and forth. But it is from racism.

When you see things start getting taken away once a black person enter a picture, and it happens way too often, you know it’s racism . It’s no coincidence.*

Roussette · 12/03/2021 16:45

That was a fantastic post from Blueberries. It really nailed it.

Blueberries0112 · 12/03/2021 16:46

Totally fine. I should add, they weren’t losing money, they were getting more people... just wasn’t the right kind of people in their mind.

Mummy195 · 12/03/2021 16:46

@Roussette

Can't believe it's been 85 years since Prince Andrew was alleged to have slept with procured and coerced girls at his paedophile friend's NY mansion Hmm
Time flies by in lockdown Smile
Darker · 12/03/2021 16:48

What also gets me is the hypocracy around mental health - all that Heads Together stuff.

The RF have the money and influence to sort out some support without people 'knowing'.

Swipe left for the next trending thread