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

There are no lies in the interview. This is the media and people who don't understand twisting it.

On the issue of titles, The Letters Patent were changed for the Cambridge's to allow great grandchildren of the monarch to have titles, rather than wait for Charles to ascend. This is unfair as the same wasn't done for Archie. One might argue that Archie isn't the future son of a sovereign but he's the future grandchild and nephew. To
not change the laws for him too as the first mixed raced child in the royal family, for him to just be a 'Mr' and not given the same dignity as his cousins and white cousins at that, in the context of race, it matters. Remember laws were changed for Charlotte so females could be in the line of succession - laws are changed in the royal family. Laws are changed for equality. The same law had been changed for Archie's cousins. Yes the monarchy is to be slimmed down but how slimmed down ? And why present his parents as the awesome foursom and give them a public wedding and royal tours and use them to showcase the family when it suits them, if their son was not to be given the same dignity and title. Why let Meghan give up her career if no intention to even title and protect her son ? We can only look to actions and this is a clear one. The royals weren't exactly doing back flips to ensure equality. Remember Queen Elizabeth changes laws all the time and the letters patent entitling grandchildren & children to titles and not great grandchildren were at a time nobody could have incision ed a future monarch being a great grandmother and centenarian

I imagine she would have needed to go through people for security and permission to get her keys and passport from
aides and deal with their politics and reactions and other people being told whenever she made a decision to go anywhere.

I do not think the royal family would let a Princess go to a mental hospital. This is what they were referring to and if you're suicidal, a check in from a Psychiatrist isn't enough. She wanted around the clock care and rehabilitation because they were both behind a bit of anxiety and depression. Also if a palace environment is making you depressed and anxious then it's not a place to recover.

There was no need to change the rules for Archie. They could have opted for him to use Earl of Dumbarton. They chose not to and led us to believe they were being modern. He has 5 cousins without titles, so he’s really not an outlier.

Two interesting articles here - one is behind a paywall & hoping someone may have a share token.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meghan-and-harry-blew-the-chance-for-royal-renewal-xdhl3prs7

newsopener.com/uk/sir-kenneth-olisa-why-i-the-queens-black-lord-lieutenant-do-not-believe-the-royals-are-racist/

@altforvarmt

There was no need to change the rules for Archie. They could have opted for him to use Earl of Dumbarton. They chose not to and led us to believe they were being modern. He has 5 cousins without titles, so he’s really not an outlier.

No, this is true, but it's being said by Meghan that the reason her son is being treated differently is because of his race. This is what she alluded to during her interview with Oprah , it was a bit muddled in parts but this is what I take from it. William's children have titles, but Archie hasn't. they turned down the Earl title for him , which they could have taken instead.

@Mummyozzi

There are no lies in the interview. This is the media and people who don't understand twisting it.

On the issue of titles, The Letters Patent were changed for the Cambridge's to allow great grandchildren of the monarch to have titles, rather than wait for Charles to ascend. This is unfair as the same wasn't done for Archie. One might argue that Archie isn't the future son of a sovereign but he's the future grandchild and nephew. To
not change the laws for him too as the first mixed raced child in the royal family, for him to just be a 'Mr' and not given the same dignity as his cousins and white cousins at that, in the context of race, it matters. Remember laws were changed for Charlotte so females could be in the line of succession - laws are changed in the royal family. Laws are changed for equality. The same law had been changed for Archie's cousins. Yes the monarchy is to be slimmed down but how slimmed down ? And why present his parents as the awesome foursom and give them a public wedding and royal tours and use them to showcase the family when it suits them, if their son was not to be given the same dignity and title. Why let Meghan give up her career if no intention to even title and protect her son ? We can only look to actions and this is a clear one. The royals weren't exactly doing back flips to ensure equality. Remember Queen Elizabeth changes laws all the time and the letters patent entitling grandchildren & children to titles and not great grandchildren were at a time nobody could have incision ed a future monarch being a great grandmother and centenarian

I imagine she would have needed to go through people for security and permission to get her keys and passport from
aides and deal with their politics and reactions and other people being told whenever she made a decision to go anywhere.

I do not think the royal family would let a Princess go to a mental hospital. This is what they were referring to and if you're suicidal, a check in from a Psychiatrist isn't enough. She wanted around the clock care and rehabilitation because they were both behind a bit of anxiety and depression. Also if a palace environment is making you depressed and anxious then it's not a place to recover.

I also see no lies at all.

The queen changes rules all the time.

They were taking MM for a mug, and she realises it.
The first time we saw MM drive was in Canada. Whatever reason they fobbed her off with regarding keeping her IDs, she must have later realised that is not the case with everyone, because KM is seen driving all the time. This was a strategy for control. So they could monitor her every move, if she always has to go to someone to ask for her passports. And that is when they would leak it to the press.

And that leaking happened with insidious twists to it. When her friends hosted the party, the 'palace source' leaked it as MM spending hundreds of thousands. When it was the friends who paid, and way less than that.

When H took her and baby A away, not only did they leak that, but they also tried to show them up, by setting up W&K and family on that budget flight fiasco.
H&M never said ppl must not travel, the said do it sustainably, which is why they set up travelyst . That is what they did, and why Elton John was trying to explain about his climate offset. The media shut him down, and drowned us with hypocrites stories. All the while not reporting that W&K are mending the earth while K was spotted on a luxury private jet.
The palace could have easily muted that story, and they let it sit and get used for ages.

Same as the MM made K cry story. These were used to beat them up forever.

As MM said, you can't just call an uber to the palace. The palace was fine with getting help for others, just not MM. You need a special person or place approved by the palace who will keep things discreet. Ironically, if MM had just rocked up to her or H's own place, the 'palace source' would have run so fast the media who would deploy one of their spies to pull her mental record and splash it all over the news.

The reason the flower girl outfit is being played out is because, imo, it's the only time any story about Kate showing emotion has come out. By all accounts, she didn't weep and complain to her friends when she had a temporary break from William - before they married. She is very controlled. This is why I think the misunderstanding about the bridesmaid dresses was likely about form, and was probably the story suggested somewhere, which was whether the little girls should wear tights. It is royal protocol that they should, but common sense might say ' not on a hot day'. Perhaps Kate cried or became agitated because she felt she would be in trouble if her daughter was dressed in the more comfort-friendly way which wasn't form. It probably was about duty versus comon sense and to do with a sense of responsibility rather than personal wishes and ego...

I imagine the leak did not come from Kate or her personal aides or from Meghan and her personal aides, but instead a third part who witnessed it. Or perhaps someone said they saw her crying coming from the fitting, and not who caused her to cry.

I think it is best not to bring up family fall-outs, or else you just go on and on, as in most families there are so many of them.

I take the points that the press are more likely to side with Kate and William than they did for H and M , but then you get the story that Meghan ' shut the door in Kate's face' when she took flowers round trying to say sorry etc. While this is being printed it adds more fuel to the fire. If she did do this, it means that they were not happy to try and come to some reconciliations over all these allegations.
H and M wanted to do duel roles and was told no you can't. You will have to be a working Royal here and go to the engagements such as the school in Stratford , East London , that K and W went to on Thursday. you can't pick and choose your projects. Hard to do if you live abroad anyway
Harry had to give up a lot in order to carve out this new life. Meghan not so much really.

I would not trust unnamed sources. This in normal parlance is called rumour.

But if Meghan or Kate come out and say something, I would in first instance believe them.

In this situation, Meghan has said that Kate made her cry and apologised with flowers. Kate has not said anything to the contrary. It is quite believable, emotions run high on weddings.

They both seem reasonable, and likely made up and moved on.

Why would you disbelieve Meghan? Just think about it 🤔

I think everyone must accept that POC face racism and that white people need POC to point out to them how this happens, because they are probably ignorant of the extent of the abuse. I know that what my friends of colour tell me about their experience of racism is shocking and not infrequently occurring. It will be extremely good if more awarenesses is raised as a result of the couple's comments.

I think the wording around the racism in the royal family comments is confusing. Other posters have said so too. Harry used the word 'awkward' and also ' shocked'. Why not something stronger? Why not incandescent with rage. Sick to my stomach. I wanted to throw up. I didn't speak to that person for a month. I said I wanted to leave the firm right then. Whatever conversation goes with ' awkward' ? It can't surely be about love and acceptance of somebody of colour. Surely some of the possibilities that others on this thread have suggested would make more sense. Although, I guess, we will probably never get to the bottom of it.
As for titles, the Queen does love Harry. You can see in photos by the way she looks at him. Would she really hold back a title from her own great-grandson? This is family.

There's just been a 10 minute section on the whole H&M situation on BBC News. Very very interesting, and I agree with much Ros Atkins of the BBC said.

Really worth a watch... please do look, it took me a while to find!

It wasn't totally pro M&H, it was just looking at the wider picture, how this will impact on the RF in the future, how it really could have been different but the archaic traditions of how the royal family are, have not allowed change.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p099djkb/ros-atkins-on-the-royal-familys-missed-chance

Just saw this now on TV @Roussette

BBC put that up quickly !!

On the issue of titles, The Letters Patent were changed for the Cambridge's to allow great grandchildren of the monarch to have titles, rather than wait for Charles to ascend. This is unfair as the same wasn't done for Archie. One might argue that Archie isn't the future son of a sovereign but he's the future grandchild and nephew

The first and most important thing you have to understand about the Royal Family is that it is NOT FAIR. If it were fair, it wouldn’t exist and we would have an Irish style President.

Prince George will become King regardless of whether he wants the job or is suited to it because if he abdicates, why can’t anyone become Head of State?

This is what the Queen has fought to protect for almost 80 years. She has repeatedly shown that she believes this means putting Crown/duty ahead of personal preferences. This is not new.

However, I think the wish to slim down the family is as much to protect individuals as anything else. In recent history, the ‘spare’ children of monarchs have struggled with living a restricted life without purpose and in some cases this has caused actual harm. Even without Epstein, Andrew was obviously targeted by dodgy people who wanted to clean up their reputations. Princess Margaret clearly resented the control exerted by the Queen, but was unable to give up her Royal status.

There really is no reason to have a sprawling Royal Family of cousins trapped by their obligation not to do anything that might harm the family.

All of the people involved in this are normal flawed human beings, but I think the reasons given for not granting more titles are genuine.

However that doesn’t make the institution less toxic.

I saw that Rousette, and I couldn't disagree more with the piece.

The concept of the Royal Family is bonkers, and a bi-racial SIL/DIL can't make it less bonkers or change the reason that the Queen is head of the Commonwealth in the first place.

Mummy195 I know.
I didn't think I would be able to find it, to be honest, but there it was!

merrymouse I agree about the spares... that role never does them any good. As you say, Margaret and Andrew prove that. Yet Prince Anne has managed to carve out a successful life for herself, but she is just a different character.
I think we forget the scandals and headlines and around Margaret. Both her and her husband had affairs, she wasn't worried about what people thought, and without the internet, she had more freedom.
And then we have Andrew....

merrymouse I don't disagree with that... but but but... it really is not going anywhere, the RF will carry on in this archaic form and they have missed a change to start... just start... modernising. That's what I think anyway!

*chance
Not change

Has anyone read the links I posted upthread? I thought the one from Sir Kenneth was very interesting. The one behind the paywall equally but unfortunately I don’t have a share token. I read it on an African American forum I occasionally visit. They are both good pieces and give an alternative view.

There really is no reason to have a sprawling Royal Family of cousins trapped by their obligation not to do anything that might harm the family.
All of the people involved in this are normal flawed human beings, but I think the reasons given for not granting more titles are genuine.

We have always assumed that the slimming down would include H in it. And it that was the optics and it seems H's belief too. PC and his children. It is suspect because there were two significant times when they could have made this decision. When W&K married and when George was born. All those times H's future had seemed like it would be set with a white woman. Coupled with the shade of baby remark and the treatment of MM, you can see how it looks strange that they would suddenly tell them this now.

The optics do not look good. Since they change rules all the time, they could have just left it, even if just to please the diverse country and commonwealth. After all, they went out of their way to change the rules for Charlotte and Louis.

Bad move

Yes, I read the one without the paywall. Sir Kenneth's, I had never heard from him and his opinion was interesting.

@ImAncient

Has anyone read the links I posted upthread? I thought the one from Sir Kenneth was very interesting. The one behind the paywall equally but unfortunately I don’t have a share token. I read it on an African American forum I occasionally visit. They are both good pieces and give an alternative view.

Yes, we are well aware the RF has been finding every black person who has visited them to portray them as non racist.

Those people did not live in the palace, so frankly their views count for nothing.

But what does modernising look like? Influencing opinion on current issues? That isn't modern. Having a large roster of cousins (Like the Duke of Kent etc.) who cut ribbons and are patrons of charities simply because of an accident of birth? That isn't modern.

Ironically, I think the monarchy is justified on the basis of democracy - most people in the UK support the monarchy. However, any step to humanise the royal family inevitably reveals the fact that they are just as boring and flawed as everyone else.

Mummy - I disagree that their views count for nothing. They’ve mixed with the RF & so I’d say their views would be just as valid as ours as we (well i at least) have never done so. I thought both pieces were interesting & to dismiss them out of hand seems a little off imo. But we can’t all think the same as there would be no need for a discussion forum.

merrymouse I don't disagree with you. And who knows what modernising looks like... I'm just clutching at straws because change is desperately needed. I suppose there will be focus on this when the Queen goes.

We have always assumed that the slimming down would include H in it.

I don't think any formal plans were issued, but even if they were, Harry decided he wanted to leave.

@Roussette

Yes, I read the one without the paywall. Sir Kenneth's, I had never heard from him and his opinion was interesting.

Thank you Roussette I did also.

I used to quite anti the pair of them but I now see 2 people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they’ve been wronged. The RF may feel the same.

I think the whole thing is very sad & sincerely hope that family relationships can be healed. We have several mixed relationships in our family (I’m not ethnically British) & each new one brings challenges & managing that sometimes is difficult. I see this here. The closest to me is my sil who is not the same ethnicity as us so there will always be a difference in expectations but she loves my BIL & we love him & their children & so we all make it work. And in time we have come to love each other as well. It’s valuing people for who they are & I think the RF missed a trick.