The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1281  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:21 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
There's nothing wrong with wondering what future children of a multi-ethnic union will look like. There was a lot of wondering and speculation online once Meghan became pregnant with her first child, and even before M&H married. Even non-multi-ethnic couples often talk about who their unborn baby might resemble, and what gender it will be, etc. However, there's a problem when someone in the British royal firm posits the question in connection with concern or worry over 'what that would look like or mean for the monarchy if future children of Meghan & Harry were to have dark skin.'.
It's important to point this out and frankly, I commend you for doing so. There's absolutely nothing wrong or inherently racist about wondering who a new baby might resemble, what color eyes/hair he or she may have, whose skin tone or toes or nose he or she might have, etc. That's all part of the fun of welcoming a new baby to a family be they multi-ethnic or not. Many families and groups of friends have a grand old time daydreaming about the future looks of a child and that's 100% okay and not at all an inherently racist thing to do. Can it be done in a malicious and hurtful way? Absolutely it can. Is it usually? No, not really.

We will never, ever know exactly what conversation took place regarding Archie's possible skin tone unless one of the parties involved chooses to reveal the names of those involved AND has some sort of recording to tell us exactly what was said and in what context. Could there have been demeaning and hurtful speculation over what his skin color would be? Sure there could. It's absolutely entirely plausible. Could there have been a perfectly innocent conversation about "my, Harry is so pale with freckles and red hair and Meghan has such dark hair and darker skin tones, I wonder if the kids could get her skin tone with his hair" or something of that nature that was had with Harry and Meghan totally misinterpreted? Absolutely there could. Could there have been a conversation much like that William publicly had in which he stated that he was perfectly fine with his children identifying as LGBTQ but that he worried how he could protect them and guide them in that case while still loving them for who they are? Most definitely there could have been. It's quite easy, actually, to imagine that a conversation took place around the fact that the family would love Archie dearly no matter how dark or light he may be but that they worried how best to protect and shield him if and when he might face taunts and comments regarding his skin tone should he be of darker coloring. And, if that is the case, there's nothing at all racist there and nothing at all saying that his skin tone is a problem, only that they recognize it for what it is and wish to protect him and guide him while still loving him for who he is. Simply put, without context, it's easy to allow imaginations to run wild.

In my own marriage my husband is pale with red hair and freckles while I have olive skin, green eyes, and dark hair and I tan easily while he burns. During all three of my pregnancies we pondered whether our children could get my skin tone with his red hair. It happens. It's what people do during a pregnancy, particularly when parents are very unalike in looks/coloring/features.
__________________

  #1282  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:28 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
First of all we don't even know if it's true about a person in the RF saying something about Archie's skin color, and until Harry and Meghan state who it was, we might just as well it was an acquaintance or a very minor royal. They should bite the bullet and reveal the person. If You Have Said A, You Must Also Say B.
Second, Britain abolished their slavery practice 30 years before the America.
There's no reason to disbelieve the conversations that Harry relayed during the Oprah interview, regardless of 'recollections varying' by whomever. There's no way specific and multiple conversations of that nature, said to have transpired both before and after M&H were wed, can be misunderstood.

Plus, there's no reason to disbelieve or deny that M&H were told current Letters Patent would likely be modified when Charles became King in order to prevent Archie and any additional sibling(s) from becoming HRH Prince/ Princess, purely on the basis of concerns surrounding 'skin color.' Denying M&H's offspring royal titles has nothing to do with goals of 'slimming down the monarchy.' Harry and his future wife and children were always intended to be a core part of the 'slimmed-down monarchy.' That is until Harry met Meghan.
__________________

  #1283  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:29 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
I think it's important for what has been experienced by M&H to spark conversations, and that has already happened on a number of news and talk show programs in the U.S. and in the U.K.
Racism is being talked about in the US and the UK and has been even before the interview. The issue is whether the interview brought more understanding. I would say that it hasn't. As Osipi stated, they alleged things that were demonstrably false. CBS or Harpo actually had to edit headlines and pull headlines from other countries because the real headlines didn't fit their narrative. False accusations of racism make it more difficult for to address real racism.

Quote:
No one is saying that 'one incident in anyone's past' will be held against them for the rest of their life.
No one may be saying that but that is what is going to happen when Harry and Meghan leak a name of someone they are unhappy with. That remark, whether it was taken out of context (or said at all), will be dredged up at every opportunity.

Quote:
It might be advisable to stop taking what M&H said personally or as some kind of condemnation of Harry's entire family.
It has been taken personally and as a condemnation of the royal family (with the exception of the Queen and Prince Philip.

Quote:
It also behooves everyone to stop being in denial that racism exists, simply because you may have never experienced it yourself or you don't want to believe that it exists, or you may have different notions about what it means and how it manifests.
I haven't seen anyone deny that racism exists. It's unfortunate that those defending Harry and Meghan have to create strawmen rather than actually discuss what those who disagree are saying.

Quote:
There's nothing wrong with wondering what future children of a multi-ethnic union will look like. There was a lot of wondering and speculation online once Meghan became pregnant with her first child, and even before M&H married. Even non-multi-ethnic couples often talk about who their unborn baby might resemble, and what gender it will be, etc.
Then why bring it up?
Quote:
However, there's a problem when someone in the British royal firm posits the question in connection with concern or worry over 'what that would look like or mean for the monarchy if future children of Meghan & Harry were to have dark skin.' I think someone or a group of people within the firm would benefit by enrolling in courses on biology and human genetics, in addition to undergoing sensitivity and social awareness training.
We don't know what the context was. Harry and Meghan didn't say that the person was worried about the monarchy.
Quote:
The palace should also immediately consider doing a thorough house cleaning, along with consolidation of staff under one umbrella, much like Sir Christopher Geidt envisioned and was subsequently canned for proposing in the 2017 palace fiefdom power struggle. The British monarchy is undergoing a seismic shift of a transition which in fact began long before Meghan and Harry ever met.
The monarchy is undergoing a transition, and will continue to do so.
  #1284  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:29 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
I agree that Britain is a class-based country, but not a racist one.

It has been this way for centuries and I doubt that the system will change any time soon. My close friend(white) moved to London from the USA and she confirmed that unless you were born into aristocracy or the upper class in Britain the doors are closed to you
What doors? are you saying you can't get a job?
  #1285  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
This. 100% this. "Their truth" may certainly be their belief and their perception of something but that certainly does not make "their truth" empirical truth. Sometimes there really is no in between, no gray area, no murky spots. Sometimes things really are as simple as yes/no, black/white, up/down. In this case I can think of several things that were claimed in that interview that are patently and demonstrably false. The biggest of those, of course, being the Archie and the title issue. It is simply a complete falsehood to state that he didn't receive a title because of concern about his skin color. An out and out blatant falsehood. They can call it "their truth" all they want and maybe they've convinced themselves that it's true but it's not. Period. There's over 100 years of written record evidence to prove that they are incorrect.

Absolutely no one should believe anything is the absolute truth just simply because it came out of Harry and Meghan's mouths. And before anyone asks, yes, I'd say that about anyone and any statement. Just because they say something is true doesn't make it so and when there is demonstrable proof that they were lying or at best incorrect, I'm hard pressed to take as gospel anything that these two have to say, particularly when it involves yet another "poor me, won't someone defend me, they left me to fend for myself as an adult" kind of whine. Honestly, at first, I was a little bit floored by the number of highly educated and intelligent individuals I saw who bought their lines hook, line, and sinker. Then it hit me. Those people are all American. Every single one of them. And none of them have more than a passing interest in royalty, really only enough to say "the Queen certainly seems like a lovely woman" and really nothing more. And they bought it all because they were exactly the target audience. The audience that wouldn't know better and really didn't care and couldn't be bothered to dig deeper, ask questions, or actually look up the answers to these things. While that kind of thing, I'm sure, makes Meghan and Harry feel like they're receiving a ton of support of the "big bad meany press and that stuffy old royal family" kind in the short term, as more falsehoods and vaguely misleading pieces of the interview are debunked I suspect they'll find that it falls away quickly or even backfires spectatularly.

There were people in the UK who saw the programme on the Monday evening were on the TV the next day praising Meghan , agreeing with her, Piers Morgan just went off on one, if he had dealt with it as a journalist with no emotion it would have stood him better.
It was only when the issues were looked at one by one and poked as inaccurate that people started to view things differently. Now that Gayle King is her mouth piece, nobody is interested, I hope they do well in the USA because there is nothing for them here.

Their bubble has burst and I hope for their sake it lasts in America.

Could somebody remind me when Meghan was talking about Archie not getting the title was Harry there. I know he spoke about the security and being cut off financially but I cannot face looking at it again to remind myself if he said anything about the titles.

As we know Archie should become a prince when Charles is king, but could it be that Charles is looking at the problems for Beatrice and Eugenie as Princesses with no royal role and he is thinking about Archie in the future. If that is the case, that would be for practical reasons and not as implied by Meghan because of skin tone, also the no security for Archie, as long as they were here he would be protected with them, but once again was she actually speaking about 20 years from now when it might be removed.
I felt she was being selected in what was said, the emails she has as proof might be just that as I have suggested not because of his skin tone. I cannot believe that anybody in the palace either staff or family have put in an e mail that Archie is not a prince because of his skin.
  #1286  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:34 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Denying M&H's offspring royal titles has nothing to do with goals of 'slimming down the monarchy.' Harry and his future wife and children were always intended to be a core part of the 'slimmed-down monarchy.' That is until Harry met Meghan.
Do you have a source for this. I have always heard that Harry and his spouse would be a core part of the slimmed-down monarchy but that plans did not include their children. We can see that in practice. The children of Charles' siblings (the Queen's other grandchildren) are either nonworking royals or don't use their titles. Treating Harry's children (Charles' grandchildren) to be treated any differently than the Charles's nieces and nephews would not result in a slimmed down monarchy.
  #1287  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:34 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
If the Royal Family held any real power over the media, then would we have heard about:


1. "Camillagate"
2. "Squidgygate"
3. "Sophie and the Fake Sheikh"
4. Prince Andrew's dealings with Jeffrey Epstein
5. Princess Margaret's affair with Roddy Llewellyn
6. All the "Waity Katie" stuff
7. All the unpleasant claims about Beatrice and Eugenie being scroungers
8. The leaked letters from Princess Anne to Tim Laurence
9. Toe sucking
10. The various allegations over the years that Prince Philip had affairs

etc etc etc?


I wish there were some way of stopping these nasty personal attacks on people. There was a documentary on earlier this week about Caroline Flack, Prince Harry's friend, who took her own life partly as a result of being hounded by the media after she was arrested for allegedly assaulting her boyfriend. I've already mentioned the time Kay Burley did a prime time interview with a publicity-seeking woman whose only claim to fame was saying she'd had an affair with David Beckham. It's all horrible. But I don't see how it's the fault of the Palace.
Agree, And some of it amounts to "fault finding" exercises. I remember when Meghan was on maternity leave and there were some pictures of her published before she went on leave. I recall the Daily Mail and perhaps another paper focused on her ring like putting it under a microscope and it looked different insinuations were made that she "dishonored' Harry's choice of ring and "changed it." But this was debunked because Harry gave Meghan extra gems from Diana's estate to add to the ring to commemorate the up coming birth of their first child. But the "rumors" took a life of their own and she was depicted by some as "a bad wife." Also it got so bad, that some perspiration appearing on her shirt was derided. That's what I find particularly bad, the "fault finding" exercises. And this has been done with others as well and is so wrong on many levels IMO.
  #1288  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:34 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
I think it's important for what has been experienced by M&H to spark conversations, and that has already happened on a number of news and talk show programs in the U.S. and in the U.K.
It also has happened in our little corner of the world where the focus is on royalty from A-Z and is an international forum with people from all over the world participating. In the British threads, everything from Ascending the throne and how it happens to Zara Phillips Tindall to extensive discussions on British titles and styles to the latest fashions worn by a certain royal is discussed and archived and is a wealth of information. It stands to reason that the discussion here found more holes in Harry and Meghan's statements than swiss cheese because we know the ins and outs of how things work and how things Meghan or Harry stated were plain out lies or misleading. Just as we could sit here and pinpoint every little fictionalization in "The Crown". It's like walking into a university classroom on physics discussing the law of gravity and declaring that gravity is a figment of our imagination. What floats in some venues doesn't float where people actually know what they're talking about.

American audience as a majority may not know or realize that there was never, ever a Princess Diana. We here, however, do know that is a fact. That is the difference between what you're seeing here, m'friend, as opinion on the Sussex interview in relations what is on news blips and talk shows.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1289  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
There's no reason to disbelieve the conversations that Harry relayed during the Oprah interview, regardless of 'recollections varying' by whomever. There's no way specific and multiple conversations of that nature, said to have transpired both before and after M&H were wed, can be misunderstood.

Plus, there's no reason to disbelieve or deny that M&H were told current Letters Patent would likely be modified when Charles became King in order to prevent Archie and any additional sibling(s) from becoming HRH Prince/ Princess, purely on the basis of concerns surrounding 'skin color.' Denying M&H's offspring royal titles has nothing to do with goals of 'slimming down the monarchy.' Harry and his future wife and children were always intended to be a core part of the 'slimmed-down monarchy.' That is until Harry met Meghan.
So what you are saying if Meghan says it then it must be accurate. Nobody is allowed to question it.
I thought it was interesting that the programme was promoted as ' THEIR TRUTH' rather than the truth.
It was nonsense, selective from start to finish.
  #1290  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
What doors? are you saying you can't get a job?
Nope. Means you actually can't go through doors unless you have a white gloved butler to open it for you.

Ok. Ok. I'll show myself out. Just attempting a little levity to interrupt very serious discussions which I'm really enjoying TBH.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1291  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:45 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 470
Maia_Mia, have you watched the interview? I am asking this sincerely, not out of sarcasm.

I am asking because your portrayal of what was said aligns very closely with what some media is depicting was said, but not at all closely with what Meghan and Harry, together in the totality of their comments, actually said in the interview.

Indeed, it would be very difficult, IMO, to listen to the entire interview start to finish, and conclude either that the Sussexes were told anything about future Letters Patent, or that a conversation took place where a member of the Royal Family connected anything about Archie's skin color to his titles, security, or anything else about his position in the Royal Family. People who are making these connections (and by people, I mean the media) are doing so by pulling out snippets of things Meghan said without either viewing them side-by-side with Harry's, um, clarifying comments or Meghan's own... further clarifying comments.
  #1292  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:46 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
...

We will never, ever know exactly what conversation took place regarding Archie's possible skin tone unless one of the parties involved chooses to reveal the names of those involved AND has some sort of recording to tell us exactly what was said and in what context. Could there have been demeaning and hurtful speculation over what his skin color would be? Sure there could. It's absolutely entirely plausible. Could there have been a perfectly innocent conversation about "my, Harry is so pale with freckles and red hair and Meghan has such dark hair and darker skin tones, I wonder if the kids could get her skin tone with his hair" or something of that nature that was had with Harry and Meghan totally misinterpreted? Absolutely there could... It's quite easy, actually, to imagine that a conversation took place around the fact that the family would love Archie dearly no matter how dark or light he may be but that they worried how best to protect and shield him if and when he might face taunts and comments regarding his skin tone should he be of darker coloring. And, if that is the case, there's nothing at all racist there and nothing at all saying that his skin tone is a problem, only that they recognize it for what it is and wish to protect him and guide him while still loving him for who he is. Simply put, without context, it's easy to allow imaginations to run wild...
I didn't mention this in order for perfectly natural wondering to be used as some kind of excuse or cover scenario for the BRF. There's no mistaking what M&H said. Harry would never have told Meghan had the conversation not happened and completely upset him due to being brought up in terms of how their children possibly having 'dark skin' might look or what it would mean for the monarchy.

Then after Meghan became pregnant, there were additional conversations surrounding security and eventually changing the Letters Patent to prevent Harry's offspring automatically becoming HRH Prince/Princess. And once again, the excuse being used regarding 'slimming down of the monarchy' never was intended to be applied to Harry, his wife, and his offspring, until he met and married Meghan.

Another egregious thing is that the royal firm allowed the U.K. media to publish reports that it was Meghan and Harry who didn't want to give their son a title, which was not the case. Also, the U.K. media continually slammed M&H for not presenting their baby outside the hospital, when that was something the firm never discussed with M&H, and never made any arrangements to take place. Meanwhile, unsubstantiated and ultimately false rumors of all types abounded in the U.K. media about everything from doulas, to natural births, to home births.
  #1293  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:47 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,028
There were no clarifying comments................ that is the problem
  #1294  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:48 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
I didn't mention this in order for perfectly natural wondering to be used as some kind of excuse or cover scenario for the BRF. There's no mistaking what M&H said. Harry would never have told Meghan had the conversation not happened and completely upset him due to being brought up in terms of how their children possibly having 'dark skin' might look or what it would mean for the monarchy.

Then after Meghan became pregnant, there were additional conversations surrounding security and eventually changing the Letters Patent to prevent Harry's offspring automatically becoming HRH Prince/Princess. And once again, the excuse being used regarding 'slimming down of the monarchy' never was intended to be applied to Harry, his wife, and his offspring.

Another egregious thing is that the royal firm allowed the U.K. media to publish reports that it was Meghan and Harry who didn't want to give their son a title, which was not the case. Also, the U.K. media continually slammed M&H for not presenting their baby outside the hospital, when that was something the firm never discussed with M&H, and never made any arrangements to take place. Meanwhile, unsubstantiated and ultimately false rumors of all types abounded in the U.K. media about everything from doulas, to natural births, to home births.
Then who chose to only give Archie the title "Master Archie"? Did Charles say "the baby's not gong ot have any title... he will just be master Archie although he would usually be known as teh Earl o f Dumbarton?" Really?
  #1295  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
I didn't mention this in order for perfectly natural wondering to be used as some kind of excuse or cover scenario for the BRF. There's no mistaking what M&H said. Harry would never have told Meghan had the conversation not happened and completely upset him due to being brought up in terms of how their children possibly having 'dark skin' might look or what it would mean for the monarchy.

Then after Meghan became pregnant, there were additional conversations surrounding security and eventually changing the Letters Patent to prevent Harry's offspring automatically becoming HRH Prince/Princess. And once again, the excuse being used regarding 'slimming down of the monarchy' never was intended to be applied to Harry, his wife, and his offspring, until he met and married Meghan.

Another egregious thing is that the royal firm allowed the U.K. media to publish reports that it was Meghan and Harry who didn't want to give their son a title, which was not the case. Also, the U.K. media continually slammed M&H for not presenting their baby outside the hospital, when that was something the firm never discussed with M&H, and never made any arrangements to take place. Meanwhile, unsubstantiated and ultimately false rumors of all types abounded in the U.K. media about everything from doulas, to natural births, to home births.
They couldn't match up the stories, he said one conversation in the early days before they were even engaged she had said several conversations when she was pregnant.
I have said before on this forum if the palace rejects every inaccurate story then the minute an accurate unfavourable true story is printed and they do not deny it , the story is confirmed by default.

I admire that you are putting up a defence for Meghan but it does not hold water.
  #1296  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:55 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 999
It strikes me that I don't think "Earl of Dumbarton" was ever used once in the interview, was it?

As in 'Archie has a title that we should have been using and chose not to, so we're focusing on the title that he was never meant to have at this stage, trying to gain sympathy from people who don't know how this works'.
  #1297  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Nope. Means you actually can't go through doors unless you have a white gloved butler to open it for you.

Ok. Ok. I'll show myself out. Just attempting a little levity to interrupt very serious discussions which I'm really enjoying TBH.
I was going to come back with the nationalities of some of the team within the palace, but I will let it go, I am enjoying this as well,
  #1298  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:56 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Maia_Mia, have you watched the interview? I am asking this sincerely, not out of sarcasm.

I am asking because your portrayal of what was said aligns very closely with what some media is depicting was said, but not at all closely with what Meghan and Harry, together in the totality of their comments, actually said in the interview.

Indeed, it would be very difficult, IMO, to listen to the entire interview start to finish, and conclude either that the Sussexes were told anything about future Letters Patent, or that a conversation took place where a member of the Royal Family connected anything about Archie's skin color to his titles, security, or anything else about his position in the Royal Family. People who are making these connections (and by people, I mean the media) are doing so by pulling out snippets of things Meghan said without either viewing them side-by-side with Harry's, um, clarifying comments or Meghan's own... further clarifying comments.
I've listened to the entire interview twice, and Meghan clearly referenced that there were conversations about changing the current Letters Patent once Charles becomes King, with the purpose of denying Harry's offspring the HRH Prince/Princess designation. She didn't say it was going to happen. She said there were conversations about making that change. So it will be interesting to see what does happen in the not-too-distant future in this regard, particularly in light of these current revelations.

Meghan and Harry were rightly more concerned about the conversations surrounding their future child not being given security, particularly in view of the fact that M&H have both been subjected to death threats.
  #1299  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:57 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Then after Meghan became pregnant, there were additional conversations surrounding security and eventually changing the Letters Patent to prevent Harry's offspring automatically becoming HRH Prince/Princess. And once again, the excuse being used regarding 'slimming down of the monarchy' never was intended to be applied to Harry, his wife, and his offspring, until he met and married Meghan.
Please provide source for that. Of any kind.

Seeing as Prince Charles (reportedly) was never very glad Beatrice and Eugenie have HRHs, and Harry's children will be in the same position as them, it makes sense. The HRHs brought Beatrice and Eugenie more pain than gain - what grandfather would wish for that for his own grandchildren?

I think the biggest mistakes that was made by the BRF is presenting William and Harry on an even level. They are not. William is the future king, he will always get more money, bigger house, more houses, his children will get titles, and so on. William and his family are the future. Harry and Meghan were there to play a support role and I can bet my own hand Harry's children (no matter who he had married) were never a part of that. They were supposed to be the Peter and Zara or Louise and James of this generation. But because William and Harry were so often presented together as some sort of a team, people forgot that it'll always be about William more. Perhaps even Harry forgot about that.
  #1300  
Old 03-19-2021, 12:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Racism is being talked about in the US and the UK and has been even before the interview. The issue is whether the interview brought more understanding. I would say that it hasn't. As Osipi stated, they alleged things that were demonstrably false. CBS or Harpo actually had to edit headlines and pull headlines from other countries because the real headlines didn't fit their narrative. False accusations of racism make it more difficult for to address real racism.


No one may be saying that but that is what is going to happen when Harry and Meghan leak a name of someone they are unhappy with. That remark, whether it was taken out of context (or said at all), will be dredged up at every opportunity.

I don't feel it has brought about any particular understanding. Harry and Meghan certainly didn't use the interview as a chance to educate anyone or a platform for healing.

There have been some good discussions and a few good opinion pieces but I'd say 90% has been exhausting and unconstructive for everyone.

Then we get to the obviously factually untrue statements they made that don't help anyone (including themselves) see what went wrong and what actually needs to change within "The Institution" the family and wider society.

The also couldn't agree on what happened themselves on both the "racism" comment and the mental health issue and came up with two different answers and no where did Oprah ask them to clarify it. That just muddies the waters even further and doesn't produce understanding.

They used the interview as a chance to have a temper tantrum about everything, took no responsibility for their part in anything that happened and then to top it off allowed Gayle King to leak the family's attempts to heal the rift and openly say "it's unproductive and Harry and Meghan are upset that everyone's talking about racism in the BRF and not how mean the press were to them!" Those aren't the actions of people who want healing and understanding.
__________________

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 american american history ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen carolin china chinese clarence house commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dresses duke of sussex earl of snowdon family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf highgrove history hochberg house of windsor imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery jewelry king edward vii line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels pless prince constantijn princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal jewels royalty of taiwan serbian royal family spain sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:11 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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