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?

Got it in one.

@Nith I have never said they should be paid for whilst in the US.

They should have had access to security whilst here, so they didn’t have to leave. The reason they were going to choose a commonwealth country was to retain security. The relationship with the commonwealth means I would have no issue with them having paid for security.

And I honestly can’t judge parents for wanting to protect their baby, and themselves. I do judge the RF for doing this. It was unnecessary and nasty.

I don't really believe the stuff about her not being allowed help for her mental health issues. William & Harry have been campaigning for years for mental health causes, so why would there be any issue?

Prince Harry has spoken often about seeing a counsellor himself, hasn't he? Surely he could have given her his counsellor's number (or arranged an appointment himself if she was so low she couldn't do it). Why go to a "senior royal" or an HR rep? And even if the HR rep/senior royal refused, Meghan is an intelligent woman - what would she have done if she were married to a plumber and her PIL or husband's grandparents or husband's boss had said "no"? She would have sorted it herself, surely. I don't understand how she was "stopped" from getting help.

She was suicidal, I think she was implying she wanted in-patient care. And obviously the media would find out (the palace would leak) and a heavily pregnant duchess needing inpatient mental health care? Can you IMAGINE the headlines.

The palace would never agree. It’s all to save face

@Bambooshoot

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

Harry would doubtless have had a DNA test to show Charles was is his father. As Harry is now Middle Aged, he looks increasingly like paterfamilias, the close together eyes -/- hard in against a long nose..That is the classic Windsor look.

I have sympathy with this because they couldn’t just rent a 3 bedroom apartment in LA could they? The press would make their lives literally unliveable. Being incredibly famous but not the wealth to shield yourself sounds hell to be honest.

There's a happy medium between a three bedroom apartment and a £11.2 million mansion with nine bedrooms, sixteen bathrooms, a wine cellar, a spa - to say nothing of the children’s cottage in the grounds for the baby. If you have £11 million to buy a house, I think you have sufficient wealth to shield yourself.

I was trying to put it in to context, in terms
of who Archie actually is and I think he’s the equivalent of Margaret’s son David Albert Charles Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon, or Viscount Linley. I know M&H don’t want to accept it but really Archie is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the royal family, but they seem to think he is equal to George, Charlotte and Louis. I think Meghan in part and more so Harry chose not to understand and chose to take what they wanted from Archie not being given a title. Harry should certainly understand the way it works and should have made sure Meghan was educated too.

Confused. Is their argument that the Queen should give their children titles in order that the British tax payers can somehow be forced to fund their security however they choose to live their lives?

@ScribblingPixie

Confused. Is their argument that the Queen should give their children titles in order that the British tax payers can somehow be forced to fund their security however they choose to live their lives?

No. Their argument was that without a title, Archie and Harry and Meghan by association were without any form of security in a country that has a LOT of hate for them.

I honestly can’t see why anyone would begrudge them the want and need to be safe?

Clearly no one has been forced to pay for them, because they don’t have any paid for security.

@ScribblingPixie

Confused. Is their argument that the Queen should give their children titles in order that the British tax payers can somehow be forced to fund their security however they choose to live their lives?

Seems that way, doesn't it?

What country has a lot of hate for them? The USA?

“Archie is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the royal family”

I am sure she knows this. I think the racism and lack of security that’s bothers her the most. Especially after seeing people don’t like her when she was doing practically the same that Harry’s cousins were doing (taking a step back - they saw it as leaving the royal family)

Don’t be obtuse Pixie.

They literally declared they wanted to be financially independent. Does that mean something different to other people than to me??? Yes, private citizens should pay for their own security. I'm not begrudging them the need to be safe, I begrudge someone who's just bought a £10 million house and does no work for our country being supported by public funds rather than using their own money! It's not like private security doesn't exist...I can't get upset because poor Harry had to dip into his millions of pounds worth of inheritance to pay for it.

My whole feeling over this episode leaves a sour taste to me .H and M come on British TV to air their grievances and upset our ageing Queen and her sick husband.However they neglect to tell us who made the derogatory remark regarding their Sons title .As they say "Put your money where your mouth is".I think it would be better for the Royals to say nothing at all TBH. Anything they do say will no doubt be taken out of context and backfire .I am by no means a staunch Royalist ,but our Queen has done her duty ,from when A Queen/Royals was very important to our Nation in the 1950s right up to now.Please H and M we wish you well ,and dont know why you are not tucked up in your gorgeous Mansion, with your lovely little boy and soon to be little baby girl .Apart from anything else all this stress over past hurts cannot be doing a Pregnant woman much good!

They said they wanted to work part time, ie not as senior royals. Meghan was suicidal and under a massive amount of pressure, and being torn apart every single day.

It was the palace that rejected this. H&M were never trying to leave and keep having money spent on them. Hence why they are financially independent now.

Not being obtuse, Ostryga. You are talking about the USA aren't you? Has a lot of hate been expressed for them there?

Pixie?? Clearly I’m talking about the U.K. the faux stupidity is embarrassing.

no American has a hope of grasping our quaint & complicated rules and institutions, really.

You really really think that someone who is british can't understand 'rules'? even though it seems those rules are somrhow written and clear??

Come on. IIf MM didn't understand NOR WAS HER HUSBAND who is a royal. If a royal can't understand it, who n earth is supposed to???

It's like everything that has happened is all because of HER decisions, as if Harry didn't exist or wasnt able able to make any decisin of his own. Right...

Also regarding securiy.

The chilkdren of princess beatrix will probably never have security. But they are NOT in the public eye the way Archie is. And he is because the royal family was more than happy to put the spotlight of H&M all the way. After all, they also palyed the race card to show how great and open they are ther wedding too. They benefitted from that.

Security should be given according to need, not to whatever rank you are or whatever ancient rule from century ago was decided. Very simply because things have changed.

@Ostryga

Pixie?? Clearly I’m talking about the U.K. the faux stupidity is embarrassing.

Sorry, Ostryga but I can't see how you're answering my original question at all. I'll not answer you again.

@fallfallfall The Duke of Westminster isn't a royal duke and therefore isn't a member of the royal family. So he will pay for any security he uses.

@Chocolateandamaretto

They literally declared they wanted to be financially independent. Does that mean something different to other people than to me??? Yes, private citizens should pay for their own security. I'm not begrudging them the need to be safe, I begrudge someone who's just bought a £10 million house and does no work for our country being supported by public funds rather than using their own money! It's not like private security doesn't exist...I can't get upset because poor Harry had to dip into his millions of pounds worth of inheritance to pay for it.

Police security is given to people who need it in the UK. Private citizens or otherwise.

The security issue is something that needs answered because you don’t only get police protection here if you have a title. If the royals are dictating on that basis then we should know because the whole premise of providing police protection is about need

@NancyPickford

@fallfallfall The Duke of Westminster isn't a royal duke and therefore isn't a member of the royal family. So he will pay for any security he uses.

If he was deemed as an individual at risk then he’d get police protection. He’s not though so doesn’t.

@Insertfunnyname

A bit naughty aka a disgusting outright lie!

One of many she spouted .