Interested in the RF and prime minister argument versus President, prime minister.
The current Queen has so far kept herself aloof from politics though has been criticised for hosting Hoxha etc.
However the RF in the UK have 67m spent pa on last sums (mostly for upkeep of palaces which are the property of the nation)
The US president earns ?400,000 dollars? pa but has the upkeep of the various homes, staff, jets, security etc paid for by the US taxpayer. None are left out of pocket as they leave the White House.
The political spend on elections in the US goes to billions of dollars. Even amortized against the UK?US population that's a heck of a lot. There will be quid pro quos and pork barrel politics. I know this also happens in the UK.
And the Queen as opposed to a President stays above it all. She leaves the political decisions to the elected prime minister. This particular Queen has seen out 12 or more PMs but all she can do is advise and not dictate against the will of the people.
I stand to be corrected.
My main concern about what I've heard of the interview is Meghan's section on someone in the RF questioning the colour of her child while not naming names. That pollutes everyone unneccessarily.
And FWIW Archie could become a prince once his great grandma dies (you can't be a prince/princess unless your parent is king/queen eg Charles). It's then up to Harry and Meghan to decide if they want him to have the title which Meghan says she's not bothered about. Two lots of the current Queen's children (Princess Anne and Prince Edward) have chosen not to have their kids named as princes.
I agree some of the media was poisonous but mostly those who posted below the line. One of things I did agree with was their stance on being green being questioned when they used private jets. And why on earth did she jet to a baby shower in NY? She was much loved and did so much at Grenfell but seems to have not understood hypocrisy.