The Times

[Rushingfool]

Anyone else think The Times should not be printing extracts from this new book about Royal Courtiers at this time? Incredibly stupid given that H&M are trying to mend fences? I feel really quite cross for everyone involved - William's efforts to build bridges etc, all going to be in vain now. Very naughty.

SallyLockheart · Today 11:01
They have those titles courtesy of the British RF - an institution that they hate and couldn't wait to leave. So why keep any connection to it?

Money & public interest. Why does Meghan use writing paper monogrammed as Duchess of Sussex?

“Coloured person”?

fyi Arbesque ‘coloured’ is an offensive term, it’s very dated. Simply using ‘the black man’ would be fine, or ‘person of colour’.

Not a good look that you are on these threads yet don’t know this.

I’m also surprised I’m the first poster to call it out given there’s been many posts since.

In 1979 I was labelled as a geriatric mother at 25!

Believe me, I saw it and winced. But calling it out might well have opened myself up to criticism, cowardly I know.

'Money & public interest. Why does Meghan use writing paper monogrammed as Duchess of Sussex?'
Funny isn't it. But then we'll hear Sarah Ferguson does too, as if that makes it ok.

No need to strip the titles via an act of parliament. All that needs to happen is for the Sussexes to stop using them.

Call themselves Harry M-W and Meghan M-W / Markle/Ragland. They will attract way less publicity that way, particularly bad publicity.

They just look like they are clinging to an organisation they despise. It's not a good look for them.

I agree leave the titles, if H&M don't want to be part of the RF machine then you'd think they'd give up the titles, and Harry would come out of the line of succession. Or they've behave like Ann - and not fuss about titles for their children. But they are the opposite - obsessed with the privilege and titles while attacking the family and doing no work for the country, yet having a massive inheritance of RF money which they live off of.

It is easier to decide to give up titles when your descendants are still hypothetical. The rights of the existing Archie and Lili being removed by their parents' actions is a bit different. If they had had a standard length courtship then their differences would have become apparent and they may well have parted ways after a year or two. However, probably due to their ages (especially M's) everything went ahead at 200mph and the mess which were always there but would have been easier to deal with in time became humungous.

H&M will hold onto the titles for dear life regardless of whether they carry on openly condemning the royals. It is wrong on many levels but a separate consideration. Their children should have a right to opt in one day and they don't have much else to monetarize.

silly post.
the person I know in rl who uses the n word was married to a man who face racial discrimination, has kids that have been bullied because of their colour. yet she uses that term and others.

spot on from both @cyclamenqueen and @Luana1

So being in an interracial marriage doesn't necessarily mean one partner can't still be racist. Interesting.

Yes I do think haste has been the cause of a lot of the problems. Meghan was making a massive change in her life - marriage, moving country, joining the Royal family. It all happened very quickly and the culture shock must have been huge.
Then they very quickly decided to make another seismic change, with no seeming strategy or consultation with the Palace just an assumption they could be part time working royals with security etc over in the States.

They now seem to be in reactive fire fighting mode with Meghan having to hustle for deals and contracts - a world Harry knows nothing about.

Sincere apologies. I didn't realise it's now dated and not to be used. I initially wrote black man but thought it looked offensive. I wasn't sure about coloured person but knew person of colour had been used on the thread so assumed it would be OK.

I'm not in the UK but have googled and learnt the historic nature of it and why it's not used anymore.

No offence intended.

I think the children should have the choice when they are 18
They were born before any changes were made

This should be addressed well before William’s children have their own families so going forward the Royal Family is slimmed down
Not retrospectively

One thing I can understand is Harry thinking something is being taken away from his children
( even though it’s probably a burden to them )

Thanks @Arbesque for taking the note and apologising.

To be honest, I think having a Prime Minister like Liz Truss who has crashed our economy within 20 days is portraying the UK to rest of the world as sufficiently insane without even having to bring the monarchy into it.

You like to come and visit and see the Tower of London where some previous Queens were beheaded. The exchange rate's great right now.

I dislike the idea of the monarchy intensely. However I enjoy with relish all the juicy, bitchy and gossipy shenanigans. just like a RF should be, full of regal mystery and scandal and frocks and kids wearing short pants forever and well, that's what they are there for I suppose. Our entertainment.

Anyone with vast wealth and a high profile can support a charity or set up a foundation and look good and be praised for it correct? But that's plain old boring. So for the RF there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's NOT being talked about!

It's a bloody expensive pastime for the peasants who help pay for it all though.

🤣🤣True!

Also having two kids during that time and becoming estranged from both her father and his family. Anyone would be traumatised after all that. In addition, Harry has lost both his grandparents.

Head of state is a presidential role. An elected candidate takes the role on for a set no of years. The Prime Minister is an elected government official. Two very different t and separate roles.

If having a royal family is good for tourism, then a different t family should be taken every five years to live in the multiple castles. Have a lottery and other people the chance to either accept or decline it if their name is drawn out. It’s no less ludicrous than one family accumulating millions of pounds because they were born into a very ordinary family by accident of birth.

I see I was right about their wanting Windsor Castle…. I posted on here yonks ago that I had heard on extremely good authority that M&H asked The Queen if they could live there, but they got Frogspawn Cottage instead which did not go down well. Now new book reports that this was indeed the case.

I think M &H really had the idea of eclipsing PW &K, living in a “castley” castle, near Heathrow and hosting celebrities and the great and the good such as the Obamas, George Clooney and so on. Being stuck in a cottage, opening community centres in Corby and sitting the second row at events - no way.

Liz Truss hasn't been elected by the electorate mate

The city with the most tourists in Europe is Paris …. what they did to their monarchy hasn’t held them back….

Visitors come to see lots of things including palaces and castles …. not the people within them

thesavvybackpacker.com/most-visited-cities-in-europe/

figures from Euromonitor.