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

@Bambooshoot

Isn't it more due to the rather questionable parentage of his father?

Are you hard of thinking? How could Diana have got pregnant by him when she hadn't even met him? Don't be so ridiculous.

They had security as members of the Royal family security stopped 12 months after they left they tried to stop it immediately but then Charles paid for it he has only just stopped paying for them

Archie does have a title. He is Earl of Dumbarton, one of Harry's subsidiary titles. When Harry dies, he will be Duke of Sussex.

ineedaholidaynow Tue 09-Mar-21 05:33:58
Is that them saying it would be removed the same as them saying they were married before they were married, a little bending of the truth

Or maybe they misunderstood the situation, rather than telling lies.

Maybe they should all draw a line under this and move on.

The RF set up didnt suit the young couple, they have what looks like a lovely life and plenty of income to support themselves.

The RF, while its sad they have lost a member of the family, its better both sides are safe and happy away from the spotlight (although this interview put everyone back under it again).

I dont know what is to be achieved from this now. we all knew there were issues in the RF when Diana gave her interview. I liked Diana, and I am not particularly a royalist but I think H&M have now got the freedom they desired, and with enough to pay for security for their children too.

I suppose the question is, whether the RF can carry on being supported by Tax Payers and the larger issue of racism.

H&M they have made a clean break and have had a voice to share their side, now its done I guess.

@DarkMutterings

I agree the bigger story is the racism - but the problem is if they are found to be exaggerating on some issues like this and the wedding, then it undermines the seriousness of the race issue.

So was it William saying 'bloody hell the press are going to have a field day with you having a dark skinned baby' or was it Kate saying 'wonder if he'll have red hair like Harry or dark like yours' or Charles saying 'I've told you I'm not extending the titles, you're not getting protection even if the risk is greater due to the colour of your baby's skin'

Or any other comment - because none of us knows so all we can do is imagine - some could be offensive, some could be poorly worded.

If we are going to trash the institution and acknowledge it's likely inherent racism - let's do it in a factual non dramatised way not with vague clues as to what was said.

This.

@CabernetSoWhat

Archie does have a title. He is Earl of Dumbarton, one of Harry's subsidiary titles. When Harry dies, he will be Duke of Sussex.

He can’t use Earl of Dumbarton as that’s the title Harry uses in Scotland.

He could in theory have used Harry’s other title Baron Killeen.

But if they didn’t understand you would ask for clarification rather than talking about it in an interview.

I haven’t watched the interview as I think no one will come out of this looking good and I completely believe there is truth on both sides.

ineedaholidaynow Tue 09-Mar-21 06:52:23
But if they didn’t understand you would ask for clarification rather than talking about it in an interview.

When a person misunderstands a situation, how are they to know that their understanding is wrong until a situation reveals that to be the case? You do know that people often don’t know that they don’t know?

But surely if you were told your son wasn’t getting a title you would ask why?

If you were having a ceremony before your massive wedding you would ask which one was the legal one?

Maybe they should name their DD "Princess" like Katie Price did, problem solved.

Hilarious
The Daily Mail must get so much traffic from Mumsnet, so thanks OP for contributing to that.

It’s not really that confusing either is it? There were obviously multiple horrible conversations about the baby’s skin colour.

@Jenasaurus

Maybe they should name their DD "Princess" like Katie Price did, problem solved.

😂😂😂

I'm confused. Archie is a cousin to the future King - I do think the Queen's cousin has a title (and what he hasn't been given has he's tried to snatch over the years??!!)

Haaaaaaa

@Sugarintheplum

I'm confused. Archie is a cousin to the future King - I do think the Queen's cousin has a title (and what he hasn't been given has he's tried to snatch over the years??!!)

Haaaaaaa

Any of the Queen’s cousins who have royal titles are male line grandchildren of George V, like her. Her cousins from Princess Mary don’t have royal titles.

Archie and any siblings will, as it currently stands, will be entitled to the HRH Prince/ss titles when Charles becomes king.

Charlotte and Louis would also have got their Princess and Prince titles at that point had the Queen not issued special letters patent.

@Jenasaurus

Maybe they should name their DD "Princess" like Katie Price did, problem solved.

😂😂

@JustLyra

I think it’s clear from what was said that Harry and Meghan expected that their child would be treated the same as Charlotte and Louis and be given the title early (only George was entitled to it going by the LP’s).

It seems they weren’t bothered by the fact that there was no title to be given, although surprised, but then objected when they were told that no title meant no security.

That’s the bit the RF really need to clear up. Security should be based on need, not title.

I think the “heir and spare” nonsense must be very corrosive if you’re the “spare”, as Harry is. It would be perfectly natural to expect your children to be treated the same as your brother’s children, but the Palace seems to have been making a big deal in the last couple of years of the “direct line” - Her Maj, Charles, William and George - without much care for how that feels if you’re Harry.

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'.

@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'.

Philip had to drop his Greek titles when he was naturalised. He’s no longer a Prince of Greece. He was created as a prince of the Uk.

I agree @DarkMutterings
So was it William saying 'bloody hell the press are going to have a field day with you having a dark skinned baby' or was it Kate saying 'wonder if he'll have red hair like Harry or dark like yours
Don't we all talk about our expectant babies features. Hair, eyes, skin, freckles etc. It would be naive and wierd to ignore. I understand there is potential racism issue but what context was his potential skin colour brought up in. Surely there were also private family jokes about the baby having Harrys hair!

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?

I think the “heir and spare” nonsense must be very corrosive if you’re the “spare”

I agree, but this is the same for the entire titled British aristocracy. Elder son inherits title and estate, younger son or daughters don't - they might have a trust fund or a secondary family property left to them.

That's how they hang onto their vast wealth - it avoids estates being split up.

@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?

If you take what she said at face value then the issue is that no title = no security. They wanted security for their child, which is understandable.

That bit does need cleared up because from everything I’ve ever known about police protection in the UK it’s based on need. Not title or position. Obviously the need can go hand in hand with position, but not 100% of the time. Given the abuse Meghan and Harry were getting it’s quite a stretch to suggest that their child didn’t need security just because he was going to be Archie rather than Prince Archie or Lord Archie.

I think the heir and spare thing is probably more corrosive when you have an upbringing where for many years you are equal. Whereas you get the impression in years gone by the heir was always brought up slightly (or largely) differently to their siblings.