The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021

[Excalibur]

IMHO, they are laying all of this squarely at Charles' feet. H&M expected that they would be treated the same -- or better -- than W&K, because after all they were "more popular". They wanted "financial independence", yet were shocked when all financial support was cut off (by the Bank of Charles) and security was discontinued. What they really wanted, evidently, was to be financially independent of that 5% they were receiving from the taxpayers/Sovereign Grant, not the 95% that was coming from Charles. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Since Prince Charles funds their royal household, the remark about Meghan having to continue acting, as there might not be enough money for her, could be perceived to have come from Charles as well.
And Meghan's comment about the title inequity didn't stem from Archie's not having a title as a result of the 1917 LP, it was the fact that exceptions were made for Charlotte and Louis. Here is her comment, straight from the transcript (bolding is mine):

But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . . 

Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".

Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm .....

 

[Lucy Scot]

Nope, that isn't what was said. That's what Meghan implied. Harry didn't explicitly say anything about the security other than that the funding for it was cut off once they were no longer working royals.

This isn't correct. Harry DID say that he got confirmation that the security threat hadn't changed.

From the transcript:

Oprah: So you got word from overseas?

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?

Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family, they’re obviously . . . what we proposed was sort of part-time, or at least as much as we could do without being fully consumed because of, I think, what most of you guys have covered already.

 

[Queen Ester]

Ah but look at what happened to Varys and Littlefinger in the end. Better to be Sansa or Bran or Arya, in the end they all played the Game much better.

"When you play the Game of Thrones you either win or you're dead

thank you, precisely

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

IMHO, they are laying all of this squarely at Charles' feet. H&M expected that they would be treated the same -- or better -- than W&K, because after all they were "more popular". They wanted "financial independence", yet were shocked when all financial support was cut off (by the Bank of Charles) and security was discontinued. What they really wanted, evidently, was to be financially independent of that 5% they were receiving from the taxpayers/Sovereign Grant, not the 95% that was coming from Charles. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Since Prince Charles funds their royal household, the remark about Meghan having to continue acting, as there might not be enough money for her, could be perceived to have come from Charles as well.
And Meghan's comment about the title inequity didn't stem from Archie's not having a title as a result of the 1917 LP, it was the fact that exceptions were made for Charlotte and Louis. Here is her comment, straight from the transcript (bolding is mine):

Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".

Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm .....

What Meghan stated was in fact the 1917 LP that was issued - that the Sovereigns sons and their children and the eldest grandson of the heir would bear HRH Prince/ss of XX. Meghan stated that this 1917 LP would be changed once Charles ascends the throne and would exclude Archie for the HRH Prince/ss of Sussex title. (In turn, also Prince Louis' children should Charles be on the throne when Louis has kids.) The 1917 LP still stands. She stated that the issue of security was because Archie is not a prince and will not be once Charles ascends the throne. Yes - quite clearly she is resentful that Archie will not have the same titles as his cousins, and I would too especially if the Royal Family Inc have an expectation of me being a full-time royal without the security or protections! Sounds like the Royal Family Inc want their cake and eat it too....

The 2012 LP were issued by the Queen ensures all of the Duke of Cambridge's children held the HRH Prince/ss of Cambridge title at the time of their birth. If she didn't issue this LP, Charlotte and Louis would have been made HRH Prince/ss when Charles ascended the throne.

 

[Kellydofc]

IMHO, they are laying all of this squarely at Charles' feet. H&M expected that they would be treated the same -- or better -- than W&K, because after all they were "more popular". They wanted "financial independence", yet were shocked when all financial support was cut off (by the Bank of Charles) and security was discontinued. What they really wanted, evidently, was to be financially independent of that 5% they were receiving from the taxpayers/Sovereign Grant, not the 95% that was coming from Charles. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Since Prince Charles funds their royal household, the remark about Meghan having to continue acting, as there might not be enough money for her, could be perceived to have come from Charles as well.
And Meghan's comment about the title inequity didn't stem from Archie's not having a title as a result of the 1917 LP, it was the fact that exceptions were made for Charlotte and Louis. Here is her comment, straight from the transcript (bolding is mine):

Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".

Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm .....

Yeah, I've always felt Meghan thought she and Harry should be equal to William and Kate and there's a lot of sour grapes that they weren't. Like you I also think they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. I think they didn't want to take the taxpayer money but would have happily taken Charles'. Then they could have spent half the year in Canada or the US or Africa or where ever and turned up in the UK and done a little work when it suited them. But it doesn't work like that how Harry didn't understand that I'll never know.

I've always held that the exception made for Charlotte and Louis's titles were purely because their father is the future king. I am wondering if this turmoil is going to put an end to that. I can very much see in future only the children of the eldest child/grandchild getting titles.

I think Meghan is shrewd enough to know Charles is the easiest person to go after. He's not as popular as the Queen or William or Kate. So that makes Charles the easiest target.

 

[AC21091968]

IMHO, they are laying all of this squarely at Charles' feet. H&M expected that they would be treated the same -- or better -- than W&K, because after all they were "more popular". They wanted "financial independence", yet were shocked when all financial support was cut off (by the Bank of Charles) and security was discontinued. What they really wanted, evidently, was to be financially independent of that 5% they were receiving from the taxpayers/Sovereign Grant, not the 95% that was coming from Charles. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Since Prince Charles funds their royal household, the remark about Meghan having to continue acting, as there might not be enough money for her, could be perceived to have come from Charles as well.
And Meghan's comment about the title inequity didn't stem from Archie's not having a title as a result of the 1917 LP, it was the fact that exceptions were made for Charlotte and Louis. Here is her comment, straight from the transcript (bolding is mine):

Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".

Kind of makes you go hmmmmmmm .....

Thanks for the transcript. Wow, did Meghan seriously think that The Queen should have issue an exception for the 1917's LP so that Archie could be titled HRH Prince during her reign (similar to how The Queen issued exemption in 2012, so that Charlotte and Louis are also HRH Prince/Princess)? Is Meghan honestly think that Archie should enjoy the same privileges as the Cambridge children?

 

[Kellydofc]

Thanks for the transcript. Wow, did Meghan seriously think that The Queen should have issue an exception for the 1917's LP so that Archie could be titled HRH Prince during her reign (similar to how The Queen issued exemption in 2012, so that Charlotte and Louis are also HRH Prince/Princess)? Is Meghan honestly think that Archie should enjoy the same privileges as the Cambridge children?

Yes, I honestly think she does think that Archie should have the same privileges as the Cambridge children.

She either doesn't understand or doesn't appreciate the hierarchy. My guess is very much the latter.

 

[Kataryn]

Is someone here on these forums who actully read "Finding Freedom", saw the Oprah-interview and could comment on the similarities/differences in the narrative? Thank you.

 

[Queen Ester]

[Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".

I was really vexed by the fact that Meghan and especially Harry constantly referred to the Royal Family as "they" or "them". it's very belittling

 

[Sunnystar]

Nope, that isn't what was said. That's what Meghan implied. Harry didn't explicitly say anything about the security other than that the funding for it was cut off once they were no longer working royals.

This isn't correct. Harry DID say that he got confirmation that the security threat hadn't changed.

From the transcript:

Oprah: So you got word from overseas?

Harry: Yeah.

Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?

Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family, they’re obviously . . . what we proposed was sort of part-time, or at least as much as we could do without being fully consumed because of, I think, what most of you guys have covered already.

You are misquoting my response. My response was to the notion that Meghan floated which was that the security was directly tied to the HRH title. It wasn't and it isn't.

Harry actually did own it - that the security detail is only given due to their status as working royals. Once they ceased to be working royals then their security was not going to be paid for out of the public purse. And, well, Charles decided he wasn't going to fund it privately, which is his prerogative.

The fact is, neither Harry nor Meghan (but especially Harry) banked all of their plans on the notion that Charles would keep on funding them and, turns out, he wasn't playing ball. It's pretty clear, he wasn't happy with the "half in, half out" model they proposed and didn't appreciate any attempts to bully him into doing their bidding.

 

[Kellydofc]

[Meghan wouldn't even refer to Prince Charles by his name, only "Harry's father".
/QUOTE]

I was really vexed by the fact that Meghan and especially Harry constantly referred to the Royal Family as "they" or "them". it's very belittling

It's dehumanizing in a way as if Harry's family isn't worth seeing as individuals.

I admit I'll be very interested to see what happens at the first family funeral because I can't see Harry getting an invite back for anything before that. There's no way he'll be asked to the Jubilee next year no matter how much he and Meghan tried to suck up to his grandparents.

 

[Springbee]

Literally none of this makes any sense to me. They were ashamed to tell family but not ashamed to tell the staff they did not trust?
And if they did not want to tell, why did they not get Meghan a therapist by themselves? I've been to therapy - you can literally just look up a therapist online and make an appointment. I don't see why Harry, especially, who has been involved in so many mental health campaigns & with mental health charities, would not know how to get Meghan help - discretely, if that's what they preferred.

And I still can't see anyone, family or staff, refusing a suicidal Meghan her wish to see a therapist or be admitted into a mental health clinic.

If Meghan could find her own obgyn and pay for that while she was pregnant with Archie why could she and Harry not find a therapist?

 

[Sunnystar]

It's dehumanizing in a way as if Harry's family isn't worth seeing as individuals.

I admit I'll be very interested to see what happens at the first family funeral because I can't see Harry getting an invite back for anything before that. There's no way he'll be asked to the Jubilee next year no matter how much he and Meghan tried to suck up to his grandparents.

It also cements the "us against them" mentality which is very much something I think Meghan has pushed in their relationship.

Superficially, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that they probably won't be asked to attend the Jubilee, but then again, I think the Queen is a very indulgent mother and grandmother, so I could see her issuing him an invitation.

What will be interesting is whether or not he attends Charles or William's coronations and pledges his loyalty as a royal duke. Those would be some very empty vows, IMO.

 

[LauraS3514]

I don’t believe that either Harry or Meghan insisted on Archie being made a Prince at the time of his birth. There may have been suggestions however that Charles wouldn’t use LPs at the beginning of his reign for Archie.

.

Archie and his little sister will become HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess ______ of Sussex the instant their grandfather becomes King - under the 1917 LP. Charles would then have to take those titles away with a new LP. Even if Charles intended something of the sort, or thought he and Harry had an agreement about it, I can't see that happening now. The optics would be absolutely horrible.

 

[Roslyn]

Oh, I listened to that part of the interview very carefully, but thank you for the transcript. Again, Meghan isn't exactly forthcoming with what is meant by Archie not receiving security. Exactly when is he not going to receive his own security detail? Because as long as he is at Frogmore Cottage, he is in a secure environment, and he is going to receive security as long as he is with one or both of his parents. So, at exactly what point is the lack of an explicit security detail for Archie a problem? He doesn't need his own security detail right now and won't until he at least enters pre-school in a few years. Do we really think that Charles wouldn't have privately funded a security officer for a few hours a day when his grandson is in class?

There's just too much grey area in Meghan's comments for me not to have questions.

The imprecise, waffling nature of some of her answers irritated me. She didn't state her position clearly and intelligibly, and much of what she said did not make sense to me. It makes me wonder why, because I do not believe that she did not do her research about the BRF and how it works; if she didn't know much about them before she met Harry then I am sure she did google the institution and find out how it works very soon afterwards. And she should have known the situation about the titles; she obviously has some knowledge of the letters patent so she has done some research about that. She was trying to make a point about a connection between Archie's title and security and race, but she was very imprecise and we are not mind readers. She is a tertiary educated woman who is capable of giving very well-articulated speeches without notes, and this presentation is not consistent with that confidence. Or are we to assume that that change is due to the matters about which she is complaining?

Why did she give such vague accounts of so many things, including why on earth she could not get to see a psychologist or psychiatrist when she needed one. Her husband was involved in mental health charities and she couldn't see anyone? And why would she go to the HR staff about anything? She isn't a staff member... or is that how she saw herself? It just doesn't make sense to me. Again, is this an indicator of what all this has done to her? But she perked up and seemed to take control once Harry joined them.

I do not care much at all for the institution and the grey men who run it, and I don't particularly care for any members of the family, either, and I think she and Harry have genuine grievances with the demands sought to be made on them and I understand them wanting to break free, but why set up this big interview and waffle so much and not speak together beforehand about important issues like the racism aspects, and why seemingly intentionally - because they could have clarified any misunderstandings - leave so much unclear? I find those aspects very frustrating.

 

[Kellydofc]

You are misquoting my response. My response was to the notion that Meghan floated which was that the security was directly tied to the HRH title. It wasn't and it isn't.

Harry actually did own it - that the security detail is only given due to their status as working royals. Once they ceased to be working royals then their security was not going to be paid for out of the public purse. And, well, Charles decided he wasn't going to fund it privately, which is his prerogative.

The fact is, neither Harry nor Meghan (but especially Harry) banked all of their plans on the notion that Charles would keep on funding them and, turns out, he wasn't playing ball. It's pretty clear, he wasn't happy with the "half in, half out" model they proposed and didn't appreciate any attempts to bully him into doing their bidding.

I'm actually really glad Charles stood up to them and didn't allow himself to be bullied. They said they wanted to go off and be financially independent so that's what they should do. Part of that's going to have to be figuring out their own security. If that means getting an alarm system and dogs while they're at home instead of having guards around all the time so be it.

And let's be absolutely honest. In what other situation in the world would people be screaming that it's unfair for a 36 year old man and a 39 year old woman to have to support themselves when that's what they said they wanted?

 

[yukari]

It's very likely that there's a plan not to give Harry's children HRH Prince(ss) when Charles become king regardless of who Harry marries, it will align with the slimming down plan. With the current technology (video conference in place of face to face meeting) and mode of transport (jet/plane vs ship in the past) I don't think it's necessary to have this many working royals as today.

And with no title, there's no obligation (and plan) for his children to be working royal so there's no way public would be happy if they recieve tax-payer funded security. I think if they stay in UK, Charles would be willing to pay (with his private money) even if Harry and Meghan no longer working royal. But with them flying back and forth between UK and North America, the cost he has to pay surely will rise astronomically. Charles is rich, but not THAT rich. Plus unlike in UK, it's like everybody are free to own gun in US, so logically UK is safer than US. As for the media, just don't read tabloid and ignore social media comment, I guarantee it's cheaper than paying bodyguard in US.

 

[Kellydofc]

It also cements the "us against them" mentality which is very much something I think Meghan has pushed in their relationship.

Superficially, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that they probably won't be asked to attend the Jubilee, but then again, I think the Queen is a very indulgent mother and grandmother, so I could see her issuing him an invitation.

What will be interesting is whether or not he attends Charles or William's coronations and pledges his loyalty as a royal duke. Those would be some very empty vows, IMO.

Somehow I don't think he'll get an invite to William's coronation. I think an excuse will be made up like Edward VIII not attending Elizabeth II's. Harry might go to his father's we'll have to see what the rift is like then but I think William is a lot like Philip and Philip never was the forgiving sort.

 

[Sunnystar]

Archie and his little sister will become HRH Prince Archie of Sussex and HRH Princess ______ of Sussex the instant their grandfather becomes King - under the 1917 LP. Charles would then have to take those titles away with a new LP. Even if Charles intended something of the sort, or thought he and Harry had an agreement about it, I can't see that happening now. The optics would be absolutely horrible.

See, now, I tend to think the opposite. I think that a new LP is all but guaranteed after that interview. And, I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the royal family (like the Wessexes or Zara/Peter) came out in support of such a change, stating that it's a necessary change for the times. It also sets a very clear, equal standard for Charlotte & Louis' future children from a very early age.

The Sussexes have lobbed their grenades and the BRF will be just fine in the long run. They did so much damage to themselves in this interview that I suspect a lot of British citizens will feel like "they don't need any titles and their kids certainly don't either after the way they ran the bus over Charles and William, then backed it up and ran it over them again."

 

[Lucy Scot]

What I get from the interview is that Harry believed that Prince Charles should pay for his family's security out of his personal funds, not having anything to do with being a working royal or not. And not having it paid out of public funds. He said "It’s interesting that you talk about it being, you know, ‘Have it both ways’ on the . . . on the security element. I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me".

And Meghan says "Yeah. And I even . . .  and I even wrote letters to his family saying, ‘Please, it’s very clear the protection of me or Archie is not a priority. I accept that. That is fine. Please keep my husband safe. I see the death threats. I see the racist propaganda. Please keep him safe. Please don’t pull his security and announce to the world when he and we are most vulnerable’. And they said it’s just not possible."

So Meghan wrote to his family (his father?) and the family said it wasn't possible (ie. refused). She didn't say she wrote to the Firm, she said she wrote to his family.

So both Harry and Meghan are talking about Charles' personal money, not the Crown money. So it has nothing to do with what is paid for the security of other family members or how that is handled or if they are working or non-working. All of the discussion of Edward and Sophie, and their kids, and Beatrice and Eugenie, etc. is irrelevant. Harry believes that his father should pay for his security because as he says "I was born into this position. I inherited the risk." Instead, Charles cut him off. This is causing a lot of the hard feelings with his father.

 

[Tarlita]

My impression from watching the interview was that they are both very angry with the Royal Family. Mostly because the family did not use their clout to stop the media's cruel reporting on them. Admittedly the media were cruel from the get go. And it's no excuse to say the same thing happened to other ladies who married into the family as well. However, I do take issue with many things Meghan said.
Such as she received no support about how to do things. Samantha Cohen was asked by the Queen to remain working in the firm specifically to help Meghan adjust. (She had resigned after eleven years as the Queens personal assistant.) There would have been lots of help from the office of Clarence house and KP also to help her understand protocols and the way they do things.
Harry would always have known the status of his future child in regards to titles . So to associate that as a discussion for the childs skin colour does not ring true. Families do wonder if a child would be fair headed or olive skinned etc. Usually said in excitement as to how a child will look. Harry does a disservice to his family by not putting the discussion into context.
If it was meant in a nasty way. Surely a family member would not hurt his feelings in that way. And if Meghan was pregnant, what sort of husband would deliberately hurt her feelings by repeating to her a hurtful comment while she is carrying a child.
I'm not buying it I'm afraid. It was meant as a bombshell to discredit the family. They are very angry.

 

[AC21091968]

What Meghan stated was in fact the 1917 LP that was issued - that the Sovereigns sons and their children and the eldest grandson of the heir would bear HRH Prince/ss of XX. Meghan stated that this 1917 LP would be changed once Charles ascends the throne and would exclude Archie for the HRH Prince/ss of Sussex title. (In turn, also Prince Louis' children should Charles be on the throne when Louis has kids.) The 1917 LP still stands. She stated that the issue of security was because Archie is not a prince and will not be once Charles ascends the throne. Yes - quite clearly she is resentful that Archie will not have the same titles as his cousins, and I would too especially if the Royal Family Inc have an expectation of me being a full-time royal without the security or protections! Sounds like the Royal Family Inc want their cake and eat it too....

The 2012 LP were issued by the Queen ensures all of the Duke of Cambridge's children held the HRH Prince/ss of Cambridge title at the time of their birth. If she didn't issue this LP, Charlotte and Louis would have been made HRH Prince/ss when Charles ascended the throne.

Some posters have pointed out earlier that Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn do not have royal security protection either, despite their parents, The Earl and Countess of Wessex are working royals. Even their security was only restricted to royal engagements and decision was by the Met Police not the Palace. The Wessexes were allegedly not happy by the decision, but it's alread settled. So it's really Harry & Meghan who wants the cake and eat it

As regards to Charles changing the LP to limit the number of HRH Prince/Princesses, it has nothing to do with race. It all depends on the year the royal family member was born for the new convention to applied. When the Letter Patent was issued 1917, there was no specific year, meaning it applied retrospectively. For example, His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught lost HH Prince in 1917 (1914-1943). Other great-grandchildren of George III and Queen Victoria also lost their HH Prince (of United Kingdom) title. Theoretically, Charles could do the same thing as George V's so that it affects retrospectively, but it would meant a lot of members loosing HRH Prince/Princesses. Charles would be cruel to her mother's cousins (Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael of Kent) who have served the country and supported The Queen. Similar comments on spitefulness will be made if he did the same thing to his niece and nephews (Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn) [Wessex children are currently and legally HRH Prince/Princess under 1917's LP]. Some posters here have suggested only those who were born after 2011 would be affected, similar to the Succession to the Crown Act. This way, not many HRH Prince/Princess will be removed.

 

[Kellydofc]

See, now, I tend to think the opposite. I think that a new LP is all but guaranteed after that interview. And, I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the royal family (like the Wessexes or Zara/Peter) came out in support of such a change, stating that it's a necessary change for the times. It also sets a very clear, equal standard for Charlotte & Louis' future children from a very early age.

The Sussexes have lobbed their grenades and the BRF will be just fine in the long run. They did so much damage to themselves in this interview that I suspect a lot of British citizens will feel like "they don't need any titles and their kids certainly don't either after the way they ran the bus over Charles and William, then backed it up and ran it over them again."

I think it's hard to know what will happen when Charles becomes king. If heaven forbid it happens in 6 months time he might just let the titles stand because it probably seem like a scandal to take them away.

If Charles doesn't become king for close to a decade then he could very easily take the titles away by pointing out the Sussexes haven't been working royals for a decade. Their children haven't been brought up as royal and so they have no need of HRH or royal titles. Plus this interview will be so far in the past that while it will probably be brought up it will be distant news.

 

[Sunnystar]

What I get from the interview is that Harry believed that Prince Charles should pay for his family's security out of his personal funds, not having anything to do with being a working royal or not. And not having it paid out of public funds. He said "It’s interesting that you talk about it being, you know, ‘Have it both ways’ on the . . . on the security element. I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me".

And Meghan says "Yeah. And I even . . .  and I even wrote letters to his family saying, ‘Please, it’s very clear the protection of me or Archie is not a priority. I accept that. That is fine. Please keep my husband safe. I see the death threats. I see the racist propaganda. Please keep him safe. Please don’t pull his security and announce to the world when he and we are most vulnerable’. And they said it’s just not possible."

So Meghan wrote to his family (his father?) and the family said it wasn't possible (ie. refused). She didn't say she wrote to the Firm, she said she wrote to his family.

So both Harry and Meghan are talking about Charles' personal money, not the Crown money. So it has nothing to do with what is paid for the security of other family members or how that is handled or if they are working or non-working. All of the discussion of Edward and Sophie, and their kids, and Beatrice and Eugenie, etc. is irrelevant. Harry believes that his father should pay for his security because as he says "I was born into this position. I inherited the risk." Instead, Charles cut him off. This is causing a lot of the hard feelings with his father.

Well, Beatrice & Eugenie were also "born into this position" and inherited risk, same as Harry but they still got their publicly-funded security cut off. It's disingenuous for Harry to present it like "this has never ever happened before in the history of the BRF!" which is kind of what it sounds like. Uhm, no. Not that I would expect Oprah to have called him on that line of "woe is me" from Harry.

 

[Claire]

Is anyone else getting frustrated that the royal family is not even defending themselves? A lawyer has told me that this would be thrown out as testimony, why dont the royal stand up?

 

[AC21091968]

Well, Beatrice & Eugenie were also "born into this position" and inherited risk, same as Harry but they still got their publicly-funded security cut off. It's disingenuous for Harry to present it like "this has never ever happened before in the history of the BRF!" which is kind of what it sounds like. Uhm, no. Not that I would expect Oprah to have called him on that line of "woe is me" from Harry.

Plus Beatrice and Eugenie were 5th and 6th in line of succession at that time when their royal security were taken away in 2011. The princesses were at a higher position then (5th and 6th) compared to Archie now (7th).

There were outrage when taxpayer money on royal security of Eugenie's gap year overseas.
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/pr...s-andrew/d7df460c-9080-4eea-907a-e70f5073d9d7

I personally think it's better to have nothing first and then be given something in the future than to have something and then be taken away.

 

[Sunnystar]

Is anyone else getting frustrated that the royal family is not even defending themselves? A lawyer has told me that this would be thrown out as testimony, why dont the royal stand up?

Both Kate and Camilla were seen driving into BP earlier today for what reporters thought might be a crisis meeting. I think that any response will come tomorrow or Wednesday, in order to let the interview air in the UK first.

 

[yukari]

See, now, I tend to think the opposite. I think that a new LP is all but guaranteed after that interview. And, I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the royal family (like the Wessexes or Zara/Peter) came out in support of such a change, stating that it's a necessary change for the times. It also sets a very clear, equal standard for Charlotte & Louis' future children from a very early age.

The Sussexes have lobbed their grenades and the BRF will be just fine in the long run. They did so much damage to themselves in this interview that I suspect a lot of British citizens will feel like "they don't need any titles and their kids certainly don't either after the way they ran the bus over Charles and William, then backed it up and ran it over them again."

If they (BRF) do, it will be better if it's The Queen who did it, not Charles. So the narrative would be removing the title of the York girls and her cousins. I think they'll be willing to make that "sacrifice" if she asked them.

 

[Kellydofc]

Is anyone else getting frustrated that the royal family is not even defending themselves? A lawyer has told me that this would be thrown out as testimony, why dont the royal stand up?

The BRF don't usually comment on things like this. So while it might be nice to see them defending themselves the reality is publicly they probably won't say anything.

I'll quote the Crown for a second which has a lot of inaccuracies but I think in this case might sum up their stance nicely. "To do nothing is often the best course of action."

 

[rmay286]

According to the Daily Mail headlines, palace officials have prepared a statement, but the Queen has asked for extra time before she signs it.