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

And yet several people who actually know what they're talking about have said that security doesn't relate to titles, @Cokie3. This article amongst others explains that.

@Roussette

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.

Do you know the circumstances? It would be very different if he demanded to be carried round to if it was some traditional welcoming ceremony for example.

It wouldn't be a good look if he arrived as a guest in another country and refused to join in with something they had arranged.

I'd be interested if you know.

No, course I don't know. I'm not in their inner circle.

I am only saying... if this were Meghan or Harry they would be annihilated.

But I s'pose we've seen the compare and contrast for years now... avocados, holding baby bumps, one shoulder dresses etc etc

@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 very comprehensive risk and threat assessments that don't just apply to the RF, but politicians by way of example and members of the public.

This assessments are reviewed very regularly and the security provision may change as a result.

It's also not "all or nothing". Some people may qualify for 24hr security, others fairly minimal security in certain situations/locations. Security can also be shared, for example a young child falling under the umbrella of the security provided for the parents - something which based on risk might be extended if the child is apart from the parents to provide security for both.

It's not as simple as you get security or you don't, nor does a title guarantee it.

A member of the general public would be supplied the highest level of security if it was warranted and a member of the RF none if the risk/threat did not meet the required threshold.

You very well know that they had security till their 20s.

And that was controversial.

The Yorks showed themselves to be an increasing liability at roughly the same time that Harry wanted to get married.

Anne’s children, who have grown up further from the spotlight (despite being closer to the throne if you ignore sex, and the first born grandchildren) seem happier.

Harry clearly has reasons to feel particularly sensitive about security, but titles are very random and don’t bring unmitigated benefits.

'Can't believe it's been 85 years since Prince Andrew was alleged to have slept with procured and coerced girls'

Alleged being the relevant word. Frustrating as it is until the FBI actually come to the UK, question him and charge him if they have evidence there isn't anything further to say. The rf can't speculate publicly about it.

Rouusette you do know that photo of W&K being carried by locals was the islanders idea and tradition? I mean, you'd have a point if they actually demanded to be transported carried like that but what were they to do, cause great offence by refusing them their customary traditions?

If Harry did the same I'd think exactly the same thing. If he then got off and did a poor me speech about how no one had asked him if was OK I'd have then criticised him, obviously.

The title linked to security idea only makes sense if RF members with a title are obliged to have a formal role that puts them at risk (they aren’t) or the title itself increases risk - in which case it would be safer not to have a title.

It all sounds very confused.

I put the 'alleged' in there. Because I don't want the thread being shut down because of anything.

I imagined it was tradition, GetOff. Right from the time I linked it, I was saying 'can you imagine if this was Harry or Meghan' and the oucry it would cause. The endless newspaper headlines etc. I don't know what you mean about the OK thing.
I am just saying... that photo went by unnoticed. If it was M&H, it wouldn't.

Wasnt Haz threatened by the Taliban and they said they wanted his head ? He faught in Afghanistan - even got pulled out of there because of the risk and was a high profile military officer, he has a mixed race wife (so target for many right crazy groups in the USA). You don't have to work for the CIA to see they're high risk. Their public profile alone. You can't benefit from media and press of the Sussexes and publicity but create this situation where they aren't secure if they're cut loose. That's almost blackmail - leave us and live on your own terms and you'll have a target on your head and your family's. It's all pretty dirty when you lift up their rug.

I don't think racism is that shocking when they're clearly protecting Prince Andrew and not exactly encouraging him to help the victim/court cases get justice.

Everyone blamed the press for Diana's death but if she'd had a professional driver trainer in tactical driving and police security, her death might've been avoided.

One might argue that taking away an 'at risk' persons security after you've contributed to building their public profile, is technically manslaughter through negligence. The government and the firm have a responsibility to the Sussexes.

I just can't help but wonder whether Diana and the muslim men goaded whoever this racist family member is !

@Roussette

I put the 'alleged' in there. Because I don't want the thread being shut down because of anything.

I imagined it was tradition, GetOff. Right from the time I linked it, I was saying 'can you imagine if this was Harry or Meghan' and the oucry it would cause. The endless newspaper headlines etc. I don't know what you mean about the OK thing.
I am just saying... that photo went by unnoticed. If it was M&H, it wouldn't.

I’m sorry but that’s quite an assumption. By the same token are you suggesting that if William was photographed wearing a African Korps Nazi uniform that people would find it acceptable because it’s William?

I am talking about the difference in headlines between Meghan and Kate.

I'm sure you've seen them.
Avocados, flowers in church, holding baby bump, one sleeve dresses and so on

I really like them. They've been through a hugely political ordeal - whether you believe the finer details or not - I definitely do. They're still a team and in love and that takes a special couple.

I think the real bias was in the stories they buried if Kate but not for Meghan.

It's all interesting timing the Rose Hanbury story not making it into the UK press and the release of the bridesmaid and tiara stories about Meghan.

You can't benefit from media and press of the Sussexes and publicity but create this situation where they aren't secure if they're cut loose. That's almost blackmail - leave us and live on your own terms and you'll have a target on your head and your family's. It's all pretty dirty when you lift up their rug.

Except they would be entitled to security if a credible risk were identified.

TBH if I were Harry I would be very anxious about losing security because of the way his mother died (as you note), and perhaps somebody as rich as Charles should just take the cost on the chin and fund it himself.

However 24 hour security is not necessarily a good thing to grow up with.

@Roussette Ok but you weren’t in the post I quoted.

Not suggesting the press has always been fair and I don’t agree with that but equally I don’t think H and M helped their poor relationship with the press.

@Roussette

No, course I don't know. I'm not in their inner circle.

I am only saying... if this were Meghan or Harry they would be annihilated.

But I s'pose we've seen the compare and contrast for years now... avocados, holding baby bumps, one shoulder dresses etc etc

You came up with the photo, you might have known more about it.

@Mummyozzi

Wasnt Haz threatened by the Taliban and they said they wanted his head ? He faught in Afghanistan - even got pulled out of there because of the risk and was a high profile military officer, he has a mixed race wife (so target for many right crazy groups in the USA). You don't have to work for the CIA to see they're high risk. Their public profile alone. You can't benefit from media and press of the Sussexes and publicity but create this situation where they aren't secure if they're cut loose. That's almost blackmail - leave us and live on your own terms and you'll have a target on your head and your family's. It's all pretty dirty when you lift up their rug.

I don't think racism is that shocking when they're clearly protecting Prince Andrew and not exactly encouraging him to help the victim/court cases get justice.

Everyone blamed the press for Diana's death but if she'd had a professional driver trainer in tactical driving and police security, her death might've been avoided.

One might argue that taking away an 'at risk' persons security after you've contributed to building their public profile, is technically manslaughter through negligence. The government and the firm have a responsibility to the Sussexes.

I just can't help but wonder whether Diana and the muslim men goaded whoever this racist family member is !

And Princess Anne was actually shot at.

If they have left the ‘employment’ of the Royal family why should the RF/British tax payer pay for their security? Not suggesting they don’t need security just that they need to pay for it themselves.

Princess Diana did not want royal protection after the divorce.

Found the photo, it was in Tuvalu and was a traditional welcome. They then spent the evening dancing. Apparently it was a very successful tour.

So what does the photo prove? Young couple get a traditional welcome and are too polite to decline. They need to be called out on it don't they.

The photo is from Tuvalu. This from The Telegraph: "The Royal couple’s chartered jet touched down on the Polynesian island – which is the fourth-smallest country in the world – in the early hours of this morning, where the island’s entire population of 10,500 appeared to have turned out to welcome them.

The islanders had promised the Duke and Duchess would be carried off their aircraft, in keeping with the tradition of carrying visitors who arrive by sea, but the Royal couple had no idea how it would happen until the moment they arrived.

The couple looked delighted when 25 men in traditional Polynesian dress emerged with the home-made double throne, on which they were carried to a tribal hall on the main island of the group for a raucous welcoming ceremony, known as a falekaupule ceremony."

And this from ABC Australia. Sounds like a lovely visit. Rather sad that the photo would be used in the way it has been on this thread:
" Residents say the visit is the biggest event since William's grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, arrived there in 1982.

Throughout the day, ferries packed with excited people from distant atolls arrived in the Tuvalu capital Funafuti, much of which had been freshly painted for the royal visit.

The Duke and Duchess were treated to a day of festivities, including a canoe race, traditional dancing and a popular local sport, te ano.

They also visited Nauti Primary school and Prince William even had a go at opening a coconut with a machete, although it took about seven blows before it finally cracked."

@Roussette

I put the 'alleged' in there. Because I don't want the thread being shut down because of anything.

I imagined it was tradition, GetOff. Right from the time I linked it, I was saying 'can you imagine if this was Harry or Meghan' and the oucry it would cause. The endless newspaper headlines etc. I don't know what you mean about the OK thing.
I am just saying... that photo went by unnoticed. If it was M&H, it wouldn't.

When I found it I also found a lot of negative comments, it was in the papers as well but behind a pay wall so not sure if that was negative or not but it didn't go unnoticed.

@Nith

And yet several people who actually know what they're talking about have said that security doesn't relate to titles, *@Cokie3*. This article amongst others explains that.

I'm not reading anything from the Terrorgraph, Nith. Not if my life depended on it or the Daily Fail. They both have a very anti-Meghan agenda so I wouldn't believe a single thing they said. Do you have a source from the BBC or the Guardian?

You came up with the photo, you might have known more about it

Gosh

And you don't think there isn't masses of unsubstantiated posts about M&H.??

I'll post what I like thanks, you don't have to be so snippy

For fucks sake - the Courtiers implied that the rules would be changed before (if) Charles ascended the throne to ensure Archie wasn’t titled as Prince.

Meanwhile, the completely pointless children of alleged rapist Andrew have had free accommodation plus security until very recently and still retain their titles.

@Roussette

You came up with the photo, you might have known more about it

Gosh

And you don't think there isn't masses of unsubstantiated posts about M&H.??

I'll post what I like thanks, you don't have to be so snippy

Not sure what anything I said had anything to do with M&H.

You posted a photo, I asked a perfectly reasonable question, you didn't know the answer, I went and found out.

You can post what you want just don't know why you want to be so rude just because I asked a question.

We don’t know what was said by who or when regarding Archie’s titles, we only have Meghan’s account and she does seem to confuse her timelines. I suspect it was actually mentioned when the plan to move to Canada and become part time royals was being hatched. No reason for the York sisters to loose their titles, their father’s behaviour is not their fault. As for Andrew I’m convinced Charles will demote him once he is in charge.