IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"This is far too easy @DownNative , and thank you for giving me the opportunity to once again, expose the fact that these so-called 'lies', are well - LIES. And distortions."
On the contrary, it is YOU who has engaged in distortion as shall become clear. I really wouldn't have started your post off the way you did either. Oh dear!
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"Truth: Harry clearly meant he didn't have the paps around with Archie, that he could do it PRIVATELY, the fact that there are photos of Harry in the tabloids, proves his point. Archie has the ability to cycle with his father, without the paps there."
No, that is NOT what Harry said in his interview with Oprah Winfrey. His words again:
"I guess the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of a bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on bike rides which is something I was never able to do when I was young. I can sit him on the back and he’s got his arms out and he’s like ‘whoah’.” - Prince Harry
If Harry meant what you're trying to spin it into, he would have said precisely that in plain language. It's not hard.
As it stands, we HAVE to deal with the words Harry actually used and nothing else. The PLAIN meaning of his statement is very clear - he claimed he couldn't go on bike rides with his Father.
To try to turn the plain meaning of his words into something else makes a mockery of language. See, by your flawed logic you might as well say that "I see what I eat" means the same thing as "I eat what I see"!
And the plain meaning tells us they DON'T mean the same thing. You're dancing on the head of a pin right from the very beginning there....
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"Truth: That has been addressed so many times on this site that it aught to be a thread stuck at the top. In many cultures it's common to say you were married even if you exchange vows but don't sign paperwork. It is something that the UK seems to really, really, really struggle with. The idea that you can exchange vows privately, no signed paperwork, and consider it a 'marriage'. The Archbishop did not deny that they exchanged vows privately. Just confirmed that it wasn't legal."
Again, this is dancing on the head of a pin! Once again, we have to deal with the actual words as used by Meghan which provides no basis for your attempted "explanation":
Meghan: “[But] you know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No-one knows that.
“We called the Archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us.’ So, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
The plain meaning of Meghan's words is very clear, but if she meant precisely what you're attempting to claim she'd have said so.
There is no cultural misunderstanding here between the UK and USA. All you've got there is....dancing on the head of a pin and disregarding the plain meaning of her words which led to the Archbishop of Canterbury to intervene.
You don't seem to realise the Archbishop of Canterbury did NOT confirm a thing about what occurred in the meeting three days before the wedding. He stated that will remain confidential. I'm afraid you fell into a logical fallacy on that point too which is known as appeal to ignorance (also known as an "argument from ignorance"). This is where you argue that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false or there is no evidence against it. Exactly what you did when you asserted "The Archbishop did not deny that they exchanged vows privately".
Oops!
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"Truth: funding comes from Duchy of Cornwall."
Wrong! Funding for Royal Family security actually comes from the UK Treasury!
"Who pays for royal security?
Royals receive security for public duties and some of them are also protected around the clock by publicly funded security - namely The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Kate and their three children.
This security is paid for by the UK government’s Treasury. The Treasury does not disclose the agreement regarding how much this costs or who benefits most from the agreement.
The HM Treasury website states: “No breakdown of security costs is available as disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of these arrangements and affect the security of the individuals protected. It is long established policy not to comment upon the protective security arrangements and their related costs for members of the Royal Family or their residences.”
HM Treasury gets money from.....the British Taxpayer. As I said!
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"As the son of the future King, an exception could be made, ESPECIALLY as Meghan was receiving RAPE THREATS AND DEATH THREATS, and Archie had also been given KIDNAPPING THREATS AND DEATH THREATS. The rules are not so rigorous that an exception can't be made for the son of the King and his mixed-race wife and grandchildren."
Any and all decisions relating to Royal Security is decided by London Metropolitan Police’s Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC). It it they who make the decisions over who is entitled to Protection.
And who isn't.
The rules are stricter than you think. If Harry and Meghan wanted Royal Security to continue as before which was funded by the British Taxpayer via HM Treasury....well, they would have had to remain Working Royals.
After all, why should the Taxpayer's money be used to fund any private citizen?
So, having decided to cease being Working Royals and knowing State funded security wouldn't continue, it is really up to Harry and Meghan to pay for their own security.
Furthermore, you were VERY selective on the security issue too and blatantly ignored information you had no answer for. Such as:
"Once Harry and Meghan step down as working royals, they become high net worth individuals/A-list celebrities but that doesn’t entitle them to taxpayer-funded security. Elton John has to pay for his own security and so do Harry and Meghan.” - Simon Morgan, a former royal protection officer.
This has long been known to Harry and isn't new.
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"Truth: Meghan wasn't told this or had it explained."
Nonsense. All it literally takes is a quick look on the Royal Family website to know this: www.royal.uk/passports. This is NOT rocket science!
Did Meghan Markle not know how to use the Internet or something? Would Harry not have explained the reasoning to her having known all his life?
Or is it more likely she was inventing a convenient grievance to use as a weapon against the Royal Family?
Harry and Meghan aren't stupid, so your dancing on the head of a pin on this doesn't work either!
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"Truth: The RF do not line up at customs like ordinary people. Like the Prime Minister, the American President etc, the RF have couriers and people who arrange for their passport to be waved through privately. Do you honestly believe Meghan, or even William lines up with passport IN HAND??? The fact that her passport is handled for her means Meghan herself doesn't cite it or hold it. So, that clearly does not disprove the FACT that she didn't see her passport again."
0h dear, this is a Strawman Argument Fallacy since I didn't argue this at all. Sure, the Royals don't stand at customs like ordinary citizens. They're taken to private and secure settings to have their passports checked as a formality.
But they are required to PERSONALLY hand over their passport for inspection by officials. Only the reigning Monarch doesn't need to do this since the passport is issued in their name - this was Queen Elizabeth II and is now King Charles III. All other Royals must present theirs themselves. Palace staff keep their passports secure until then.
So, Meghan would have required to have her passport in her hands for this purpose since she is NOT a reigning Monarch. Anything else is desperate distortion and dancing on the head of a pin....
And you're ignoring the fact Meghan claimed she didn't see her passport again until they left for California. This is obviously untrue since Meghan clearly had her passport in her own possession when they moved to Canada upon ceasing to be Working Royals. She wouldn't have been permitted entry otherwise.
Oops.
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"On the contrary, Letters Patent were change BY THE QUEEN so that WILLIAM AND KATE'S CHILDREN, George and Charlotte, would be known as Prince George and Princess Charlotte. They changed the LP for William's children."
You are very deliberately engaging in distortion to the point where you blatantly disregard the context of this update to the Letters Patent by Queen Elizabeth II.
The previous rule was that ONLY the eldest son would have the title of Prince. If a girl was born first under those rules, she'd have still not been a Princess or HRH and would have been displaced by a younger brother. The Queen clearly recognised the sexism and misogyny in this rule so much so she had it changed.
But ONLY after male royal primogeniture was officially abolished.
From Reuters:
"The change was expected after Britain and the 15 other Commonwealth countries which have the queen as their monarch agreed to change the rules of royal succession so that males would no longer have precedence as heir."
The change was based on the Rules Of Succession and so there was no need to include any child of Prince Harry since they will NOT ascend to the throne.
Only Prince William's eldest child can ascend to the throne when the time comes.
IAmWomanHearMeRoar1 said:
"They could for Harry's children. BOTH William and Harry are the SON OF THE KING. So Harry's children rank higher than a Tindall, and certainly should rank higher than Edward's. If they can call George and Charlotte Prince and Princess, they sure damn as hell should be able to do the same for Archie and Lilibet."
At the time, William and Harry were NOT the "sons of the King"! They were the sons of the Prince Of Wales.
But the rules of succession is very clear. During Queen Elizabeth II's lifetime, the children of Prince Harry were NOT entitled to the titles of Prince and Princess.
But Harry's children COULD be entitled to the titles of Prince and Princess upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession of Prince Charles to the throne according to the Letters Patent. Harry knew this would be the case long, long before he even met Meghan Markle!
Thus demonstrating there was zero discrimination against Archie or any subsequent children as alleged to Oprah Winfrey. Unfortunately for them, their parents left the Royal Family as Working Royals. The Sussexes will NOT be back as Working Royals and so only Harry still has the title of Prince.
Until/unless Parliament passes an Act stripping him off it. Parliament is Supreme on this. Not the King.
Remember here Meghan incorrectly referred to Archie as one of the Queen's grandchildren. He never was that - only a Great-Grandchild.
And no, it's not the same thing as a grandchild or a cultural misunderstanding.
Let's have no more misrepresentations, distortions and lies from you, shall we?