The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Another thing I find nearly incomprehensible is the assertions made that the Monarchy cannot change its press policy or the LP's. Yes it can! The monarchy has adapted and evolved since time began. The monarchy of the Lancastrians is not the same monarchy of the Tudors, the monarchy of the Georgians is not the same as the monarchy of Victoria, etc. Today's monarchy is not the same monarchy as it was when I was a child. To survive all institutions must keep growing and changing. That's just life. The monarchy can change how the system works.

Note: What changes and how they should be made is a whole other discussion.

Finally, I believe the Duke and Duchess's comments are nowhere near as detrimental as most people seem to think.
You are right they could have issued changes to make Archie a prince, but they didn't, it was because the Queen has lived to this great age that they had to change the rules for Williams kids.

What Meghan inferred , or how it was edited was that they changed the rules to stop him being a prince and that is factually incorrect.
Ps I am interested in the Tudor Kings and Queens also. Could have a good chat about our favourites.
__________________

  #82  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:28 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
You are right they could have issued changes to make Archie a prince, but they didn't, it was because the Queen has lived to this great age that they had to change the rules for Williams kids.

What Meghan inferred , or how it was edited was that they changed the rules to stop him being a prince and that is factually incorrect.
Ps I am interested in the Tudor Kings and Queens also. Could have a good chat about our favourites.
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

My point was this, the extreme anger about this interview is baffling. Other members of the Family have done and said much worse during the history of the Monarchy with far less anger and mercy showed to the Sussex's. Comparing them to The Duke and Duchess of Windsor is ludicrous in the extreme.
__________________

  #83  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

My point was this, the extreme anger about this interview is baffling. Other members of the Family have done and said much worse during the history of the Monarchy with far less anger and mercy showed to the Sussex's. Comparing them to The Duke and Duchess of Windsor is ludicrous in the extreme.
I wouldn't compare them to the Windsors, that was a different time, different issues but I think other royal interviews have back fired on the person themselves. This couple appear to have gone out to damage the monarchy with some of what they said, the Queen is the head of the commonwealth over 50 countries , and Meghan accuses them of racist acts against her and her son with no evidence other than ' their truth '.
  #84  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:45 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Had Meghan give multiple instances of various family members saying offensive and racists things then yes perhaps. However she gave just one incident of a one individual making such a statement. That is definitely not throwing the family under the bus.

Regarding the Kate incident it has been the one longstanding story that refuses to go away. People believe allegations about staff abuse because of that story. The reality is that Meghan portrayed Kate in a flattering way as someone who was kind and humble- someone who apogized when they were wrong and even gave Meghan flowers. Meghan said nothing bad about Kate.
The fact that you would believe Meghan made Kate cry despite the leaked emails that state otherwise and despite the fact that Meghan clarified that it was just the opposite just about says it all.
What exactly does it say? That there is a possibility that Kate could've cried? Is there none?

About throwing the entire family under the bus, yes, they've done so. So, let's just agree to disagree.
  #85  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:45 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
This couple appear to have gone out to damage the monarchy with some of what they said, the Queen is the head of the commonwealth over 50 countries , and Meghan accuses them of racist acts against her and her son with no evidence other than ' their truth '.
I think the key word is appear here. If I may point out some points I don't think have been brought out.

1. The interview was edited. We know this because 'outtakes' have been aired. We have no idea if the Sussex's had editorial approval.

2. From what I've read people seem either unable or unwilling to separate criticism from How the Firm does things from Who in the Firm does them. This is a major problem for any Monarchy in the 21st century.

3. Personally, I think a lot of the problem is that The Duchess is from the USA. US English and UK English are two totally different beasts.

4. The allegations of the Duke "not loving" his family is overdramatic and unfair. When he said The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cambridge were "trapped" it's context suggested the media policy of the Firm. Something I'd suggest is seriously outdated now.
  #86  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Pretty much all we know was that it was a single comment, put to Harry and only Harry, early on in his relationship with Meghan.

And we can imagine who said it, when a conversation brought on the rift between Harry and a "relative" and why Harry did react the way he did because I don't think he wanted his wife to p**s on his relatives shoes. For something that was probably a misunderstanding but IMHO brought Meghan's hatred on to that branch of the family. For the way that interview showed, there is not much positive energy and compassion within Meghan when it comes to the "treatment" of her and her son, for whatever reasons.
  #87  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

The general trend in other European monarchies (the Netherlands, Spain, and most recently Sweden) has been to limit the HRH only to children of the monarch, the heir (if not already included in the previous category), and children of the heir.



The UK already goes beyond that by also extending the HRH to all grandchildren in paternal line of a sovereign and to the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The latter rules have not been changed as of today, so Archie is still in the position to become a prince when Prince Charles becomes king (and the Palace even confirmed that when Archie was born).



Changing the rules now, i.e. in the current reign, so that another great-grandson of the Queen, in this case in collateral line, could be a prince from birth would not only go against the general trend to limit the number of HRHs, but also would be complicated for the Queen considering that she already amended the LPs of 1917 in 2012 to extend princely titles to all of William's children (and not only his firstborn son as before), thereby already increasing the number of people who are eligible to be HRHs. Besides, it would be clearly an unnecessary move as Archie will probably become a prince anyway in the future under existing rules.


So, yes, even though it doesn't affect me personally (as it doesn't affect you), I think that, objectively and thinking about public opinion and potential reactions, it was the right thing not to change the rules for Archie.
  #88  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,864
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
I'm more a Valois girl. Also, I realize they chose not to change the rules for Master Archie. I'm not sure that was the right choice, but since it doesn't impact my life I can't get worked up about it.

My point was this, the extreme anger about this interview is baffling. Other members of the Family have done and said much worse during the history of the Monarchy with far less anger and mercy showed to the Sussex's. Comparing them to The Duke and Duchess of Windsor is ludicrous in the extreme.
It seems that most people on the forums believe that Harry and Meghan have committed high crimes and lied about everything, and that the BRF have made no mistakes about anything at all, including their treatment of their sonsí and (grandsonís) wives. There has been no noblesse oblige from the BRF on these sad issues.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.Ē

Abraham Lincoln
  #89  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:53 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Like I said, Master Archie having an HRH is so outside of my life that I can't have strong feelings about it either way. I simply see why an outsider could believe its unfair to make special exception for one set of kids and not all of them. This is a 21st century mindset. I still say this interview is positively mild compared to those made by other members of the family. All the anger is disturbing.
  #90  
Old 03-12-2021, 03:55 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
It was quite clear from the interview that whoever said it- said it a malicious and racist way. Why else would Harry say that it would be "damaging " to explain more and reveal the person's name?
Because the person has a right to clear the air, as I said, we don't know what was said, if Harry does not want to name names, then he should prove an exact quote, let's agree to disagree on this one
  #91  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:01 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Like I said, Master Archie having an HRH is so outside of my life that I can't have strong feelings about it either way. I simply see why an outsider could believe its unfair to make special exception for one set of kids and not all of them. This is a 21st century mindset. I still say this interview is positively mild compared to those made by other members of the family. All the anger is disturbing.
Of course it is unfair, but that's how the system works. There can only be one King, and that's the end of that. Anyway, Archie will get a title eventually, so that's not that big of a deal.

If it was a mild interview, then I find the anger from the other side very disturbing that has resulted in people quitting their jobs, or harassed to the point of taking their words back.
  #92  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:06 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Forgive me if I have come across as angry or unreasonable. I certainly don't want to add to the drama. I only thought to bring out that the system can and has changed over the course of 1000 yrs.
  #93  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:08 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: S„o Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 9
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.
  #94  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:11 PM
tihkon2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Stafford, United States
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
It seems that most people on the forums believe that Harry and Meghan have committed high crimes and lied about everything, and that the BRF have made no mistakes about anything at all, including their treatment of their sonsí and (grandsonís) wives. There has been no noblesse oblige from the BRF on these sad issues.
Nope. I disagree.
  #95  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:12 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Tudor View Post
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.
Harry and Meghan ARE royal highnesses and don't have paid security, so why would Archie suddenly be entitled to security IF he would become a prince (which I am not sure about - I think the chances are bigger that LPs are issued consistent with the current treatment of the queen's youngest grandchildren).

Several other royal highnesses in the family don't have round the clock security either or no government security at all. So, only in Meghan's mind those things are related, in reality they are not.
  #96  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:14 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
It seems that most people on the forums believe that Harry and Meghan have committed high crimes and lied about everything, and that the BRF have made no mistakes about anything at all, including their treatment of their sons’ and (grandson’s) wives. There has been no noblesse oblige from the BRF on these sad issues.
Oh I think The BRF have made plenty of mistakes in general and have made mistakes with Harry and Meghan and have their own egos and much more than their fair share of dysfunction BTS and it was probably for the best that H&M left if it was making them so miserable.

I also think that a lot what Harry and Meghan actually said was disingenuous at best and deliberate lies at worst. Things like the titles, security, having her passport confiscated so she couldn't go anywhere, "real" wedding, some of the headlines used were deliberately clipped that can and have been proved to be factually wrong yet are taken at face value by Oprah and so many people.

They also didn't take any responsibility for any of it not one "we made a mistake as well" which doesn't help their case in my eyes.

I'm sure if Charles and William did an interview about H&M some of that might come off badly and sound petty and vindictive and disingenuous. Which is one of the reasons why they haven't done one.

This is an interview that has got people very passionate on *both* sides for various reasons.
  #97  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Tudor View Post
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.
That will be totally up to the Metropolitan Police Protection Squad. If they are living in the US, I don't see the Met Police deeming to give any of the Sussexes security. However, should they spend part of the year living at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor as originally stated, they may assign security based on a risk assessment.

A title is not a prerequisite for taxpayer funded security. There are many senior working royals with titles that only get taxpayer funded security when performing official duties for the "Firm" (monarchy). Some royals pay for security out of their own pocket.

My guess is that the Sussexes will remain in California and be responsible for any security they have.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #98  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:19 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)
  #99  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:21 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Tudor View Post
A random question, when Archie finally gets his title, will he have the right to royal security? Because from what we saw in the interview that was his parents main concern in reference of him not getting the Prince title.
If you want to find out more about how the Met Police had came to the decision that Archie will not receive taxpayer funded protection, as Osipi has kindly pointed out and explained, there is a Times article that came out few days ago.

Harry and Meghan ‘don’t need police protection — their risk isn’t high enough’
Protection for the Sussexes in Canada was estimated to be costing taxpayers more than £1 million a year
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...ough-gcwzdxs6l

Archived link that has the whole article
https://archive.ph/RNEU8#selection-727.0-751.9
  #100  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:33 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,361
The BBC has confirmed that Meghan complained to Ofcom (UK's communications regulator) about Piers Morgan's comment on Good Morning Britain. The article also mentioned about Archewell's donation to PressPad Charitable Foundation. The Associated Newspaper (that owns Daily Mail and Mail+) has written ViacomCBS on the deliberate distortion in misleading British newspaper headlines.

Duchess of Sussex has complained to Ofcom over Piers Morgan comments
The Duchess of Sussex has complained to Ofcom about Piers Morgan's comments about her on Good Morning Britain, the UK broadcast regulator has confirmed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainme...ustom2=twitter
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 08:05 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi america archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography birth britannia british british royal family brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove jack brooksbank jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle nepal nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen louise queen maxima queen victoria royal ancestry spain speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thailand tradition unfinished portrait united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×