The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 03-08-2021, 11:54 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Here is the transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: It was really hard.

Oprah: What do you mean?

Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.

Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?

Meghan: That’s right, I know.

Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?

Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . .
‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.

--------------------------------------------------
My interpretation is that without the HRH Prince/ss title, Archie would receive no protection, despite his age.
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.
__________________

  #922  
Old 03-08-2021, 11:55 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Having a title doesn't automatically give you protection. Even Princess Anne, Prince Edward, the Countess of Wessex only gets protection when they're at events. Prince Andrew paid for Beatrice and Eugenie's security himself for years. Harry's knows this. I just think he thought he was special and his son would get special consideration.

Prince Andrew tried this same thing with security for Beatrice and Eugenie and got told no. Which is why it's even more amazing Harry and Meghan thought they could pull it off.
Security is assessed by Scotland Yard. Harry himself said the high-risk security assessment on him and his family had not changed. When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie had their security revoked, they were deemed low risk by Scotland Yard. The same with Prince Andrew, Princess Anne and Prince Edward. The security around the Wessex children is actually unknown. I cannot find anywhere that states that the Earl and Countess of Wessex are privately funding for their underage children security.

The fact is Harry was told, as a full-time royal that his infant child would not receive security protection, although they were deemed of high risk. Archie needed to be a HRH Prince to receive it.
__________________

  #923  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:00 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
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.
Take for example when Prince George had outings with Grandma Middleton. George had his own security personnel with him, because somewhere someone deemed Willam and Kate to be high-risk, their children high-risk and their children are HRH Prince/ss of Cambridge. As it stands, if this was the case with Archie and Grandma Doria, he would not be receiving his own security as he is not a HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.
  #924  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:01 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Security is assessed by Scotland Yard. Harry himself said the high-risk security assessment on him and his family had not changed. When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie had their security revoked, they were deemed low risk by Scotland Yard. The same with Prince Andrew, Princess Anne and Prince Edward. The security around the Wessex children is actually unknown. I cannot find anywhere that states that the Earl and Countess of Wessex are privately funding for their underage children security.

The fact is Harry was told, as a full-time royal that his infant child would not receive security protection, although they were deemed of high risk. Archie needed to be a HRH Prince to receive it.
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.

What I suspect is that Harry was told "once Archie is old enough to need a security detail (at school, etc), you will have to pay for it" and even then, I'm not sure that they weren't also told "Oh, as long as Harry, Meghan & children are deemed high-risk, there will be security, but, eventually, we anticipate that your children will no longer be considered high-risk and the public funding of said security detail will be reassessed" - in other words "sure, the baby has security now, but there's no guarantee that he will have it for the rest of his life unless you are willing/able to pay for it privately."
  #925  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:04 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 308
Quote:
I wonder if Meghan did call the Queen- and if so- did she do it out of genuine concern or just so she could say she did to Oprah? I’m cynical enough about Meghan to think the latter.
Are we supposed to believe that Charles will not take Harry's calls, but HM will take Meghan's, well, ok then
  #926  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:07 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
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.

What I suspect is that Harry was told "once Archie is old enough to need a security detail (at school, etc), you will have to pay for it" and even then, I'm not sure that they weren't also told "Oh, as long as Harry, Meghan & children are deemed high-risk, there will be security, but, eventually, we anticipate that your children will no longer be considered high-risk and the public funding of said security detail will be reassessed" - in other words "sure, the baby has security now, but there's no guarantee that he will have it for the rest of his life unless you are willing/able to pay for it privately."
Thank you, you said that far better than I did.
  #927  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:08 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
Are we supposed to believe that Charles will not take Harry's calls, but HM will take Meghan's, well, ok then

Good point. Another reason to wonder if that call even happened- much less Meghan’s motives for supposedly making it.
  #928  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:11 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
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.

What I suspect is that Harry was told "once Archie is old enough to need a security detail (at school, etc), you will have to pay for it" and even then, I'm not sure that they weren't also told "Oh, as long as Harry, Meghan & children are deemed high-risk, there will be security, but, eventually, we anticipate that your children will no longer be considered high-risk and the public funding of said security detail will be reassessed" - in other words "sure, the baby has security now, but there's no guarantee that he will have it for the rest of his life unless you are willing/able to pay for it privately."
There were two security matters that was mentioned in the interview: one was for Archie, the second was when they were no longer working royals. When Meghan was pregnant with Archie, they were certainly working member of the Royal Family.

Based on what I have heard from the interview and the transcript, the Royal Family Inc were not going to pay for Archie's security because of a lack of a princely title. He had no pricely title at the time of his birth, and it seems he will not have the HRH Prince of Sussex title in the future
  #929  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:15 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
There were two security matters that was mentioned in the interview: one was for Archie, the second was when they were no longer working royals. When Meghan was pregnant with Archie, they were certainly working member of the Royal Family.

Based on what I have heard from the interview and the transcript, the Royal Family Inc were not going to pay for Archie's security because of a lack of a princely title. He had no pricely title at the time of his birth, and it seems he will not have the HRH Prince of Sussex title in the future
But that's not what was actually said by Meghan in the interview. She gave a huge word salad that let the implication hang, and Oprah didn't elicit a full answer from Meghan either. That entire portion of the interview was jumping around the title and security and then the skin tone, and it was filled with a bunch of "jaw-dropping" wordy sentences that didn't really answer the basic questions. It was very carefully worded and I firmly believe that was deliberate on both Meghan and Oprah's parts.
  #930  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:21 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
There were two security matters that was mentioned in the interview: one was for Archie, the second was when they were no longer working royals. When Meghan was pregnant with Archie, they were certainly working member of the Royal Family.

Based on what I have heard from the interview and the transcript, the Royal Family Inc were not going to pay for Archie's security because of a lack of a princely title. He had no pricely title at the time of his birth, and it seems he will not have the HRH Prince of Sussex title in the future
Unless they amend the act of succession, through an act of Parliament, then actually Archie and his sister will both automatically become HRHs when Charles ascends the throne. Again something Harry absolutely knew. Now there might be some talk of trying to get an amendment but it hasn't happened. So as of now, Yes, Archie will be a Prince.

This is of course assuming nothing else happens like the Sussexes are stripped of their titles, which again takes an act of Parliament, and are removed from the succession.
  #931  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:23 AM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 114
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):
Quote:
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 .....
  #932  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:23 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
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.
  #933  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:24 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 308
Quote:
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
  #934  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:35 AM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
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.
  #935  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:36 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
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.
  #936  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:36 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
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?
  #937  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:41 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
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.
  #938  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,768
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.
  #939  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:52 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 308
Quote:
[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
  #940  
Old 03-09-2021, 12:55 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
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.
__________________

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 with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 - Marengo The Electronic Domain 746 03-12-2021 05:30 AM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi america archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism birth britain britannia british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing colorblindness commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree fashion and style general news thread genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf highgrove house of windsor jack brooksbank jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg medical meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen maxima queen victoria royal ancestry spain speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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