The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #961  
Old 03-09-2021, 01:44 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
According to the Daily Mail headlines, palace officials have prepared a statement, but the Queen has asked for extra time before she signs it.
If that's true then that's really something because I don't recall the royal family ever making a statement about another member not even after the Diana interview. Of course I take everything the Daily Mail says with a grain of salt.
__________________

  #962  
Old 03-09-2021, 01:46 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
If that's true then that's really something because I don't recall the royal family ever making a statement about another member not even after the Diana interview. Of course I take everything the Daily Mail says with a grain of salt.
Did the Palace also released a statement after Andrew's car crash interview with BBC? Or is it much later when the Palace announced that he is no longer a working royal?
__________________

  #963  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:00 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,261
Can fully imagine the skintone comment was a rude, offhand, but jokingly meant remark, made to Harry in an intimate private setting, by someone who thought Harry would think it funny (after the all, Harry once did find it funny to party in a nazi outfit).
Every family has blunt people in it, and the Windsors are imo no exception.

When the time came that H&M were actually pregnant and H in a jolly way remembered the comment, maybe even embellished it a bit to make it even jollier, he probably was shocked that it (understandably) upset M so much, and only then realized that it wasn't just funny.

Maybe that's why H seemed angry in the interview, he deep down knew it was an offhand remark, and wished he'd never told M in the first place, and he realized that now it got out in the open, it will always linger in people's minds as a "where's smoke there's fire"
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
  #964  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:03 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
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.
As I said, it has nothing to do with what happened to Beatrice and Eugenie and their public-funded security being cut off. They are not the children of Charles. How Andrew handles his family's security is a separate issue. Harry is looking at HIS family and I include Charles in this. He believes Charles should pay for his security. Personally pay for it. And he is hurt because his father isn't.
  #965  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:08 AM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
LOL Thanks for the laugh. Maybe he gave her a mug with that written on it, too.
Well maybe he gave her the poster as well, but at the end of the day she obviously didn't get it. Or more didn't want to get it ...
  #966  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:09 AM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
As I said, it has nothing to do with what happened to Beatrice and Eugenie and their public-funded security being cut off. They are not the children of Charles. How Andrew handles his family's security is a separate issue. Harry is looking at HIS family and I include Charles in this. He believes Charles should pay for his security. Personally pay for it. And he is hurt because his father isn't.
Harry might be hurt but he said he wanted to be financially independent. He decided he didn't want to be a working royal. He's a 36 year old man. Did he really think his dad was going to keep footing the bill when he walked away? If so he's either incredibly naïve or incredibly entitled. Either way going on tv and throwing his father and brother under the bus isn't going to get his dad to pay for his security and will in fact probably end his relationship with his father and brother for all time. Maybe this is the ultimate case of be careful what you wish for because Harry's sure got his freedom and independence now.
  #967  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:09 AM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
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.

The optics would be horrible either way. If the Parlament does not remove their titles, the Palace looks at the very least impotent, at the worst, complicit or the public might assume that there is truth to these allegations and Palace is afraid that there is more dirt on the Royal Family that the Success have as a trump card. I think at this point the RF must bite the bullet and revoke the titles(unless, of course, we are all wrong, and there is something Palace is hiding)
  #968  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:15 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Re: the security - I hadn't really considered this fully before but given the risk level to H&M and Archie, I think they should have their security covered. It's not the same situation as others in the BRF who don't have 24/7 security because those others don't have the same high risk, which has been confirmed remains the same for H&M as when they were here. Given that Harry has stepped back and removed his family from the UK, it wouldn't be acceptable for the British tax-payer to fund it but the Queen (and the next monarch) can easily afford to fund it so they should and not be afraid of what the press might say about that.
  #969  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:17 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Harry might be hurt but he said he wanted to be financially independent. He decided he didn't want to be a working royal. He's a 36 year old man. Did he really think his dad was going to keep footing the bill when he walked away? If so he's either incredibly naïve or incredibly entitled. Either way going on tv and throwing his father and brother under the bus isn't going to get his dad to pay for his security and will in fact probably end his relationship with his father and brother for all time. Maybe this is the ultimate case of be careful what you wish for because Harry's sure got his freedom and independence now.
I don't think it's unusual for wealthy families to financially support their children.
  #970  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:21 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Harry might be hurt but he said he wanted to be financially independent. He decided he didn't want to be a working royal. He's a 36 year old man. Did he really think his dad was going to keep footing the bill when he walked away? If so he's either incredibly naïve or incredibly entitled. Either way going on tv and throwing his father and brother under the bus isn't going to get his dad to pay for his security and will in fact probably end his relationship with his father and brother for all time. Maybe this is the ultimate case of be careful what you wish for because Harry's sure got his freedom and independence now.
I think what was pretty much said was that Harry is very much aware that he is entitled to the same protection, lifestyle and manner of address as William. I think if they try to take the title from him - they are likely to go to court over it.

They should have just given them everything they wanted. In a way I feel the royal family is been held hostage and blackmailed here.
  #971  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:44 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Re: the security - I hadn't really considered this fully before but given the risk level to H&M and Archie, I think they should have their security covered. It's not the same situation as others in the BRF who don't have 24/7 security because those others don't have the same high risk, which has been confirmed remains the same for H&M as when they were here. Given that Harry has stepped back and removed his family from the UK, it wouldn't be acceptable for the British tax-payer to fund it but the Queen (and the next monarch) can easily afford to fund it so they should and not be afraid of what the press might say about that.

If Meghan had said that, I would have understood it. Instead, she claimed that Archie wasn't having his security paid for because he was "the first person of colour" in the Royal Family. That is a lie. Full stop. Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James do not have their security paid for either.
  #972  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:48 AM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
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?
What do you thinkk the Royals should do? Sue them for defamation of character? I think they should, but then H&M get more time in the limelight.
  #973  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:51 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,438
There are some twitter users from the UK (including James Jordan, former Strictly Come Dancing professional dancer) comparing this Oprah's interview to the Jeremy Kyle show. Some have even called for Harry & Meghan to have a lie detector test.

https://twitter.com/The_JamesJordan/...35304695390213

https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-...le-news-latest
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rview-ITV.html
  #974  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:07 AM
crm2317's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,589
I watched the interview last night with my husband and sister in law. We all agreed that regardless of whether you believe them or not, Meghan came across better than Harry. He couldn’t help but throw in catty remarks and came across as a spoiled petty brat complaining that his money train had been cut off so he had to get a job!
__________________
God Save the House of Windsor
  #975  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I think what was pretty much said was that Harry is very much aware that he is entitled to the same protection, lifestyle and manner of address as William. I think if they try to take the title from him - they are likely to go to court over it.
I do not think they will take the titles or the place in the succession away from Harry, it would just give the pair of them more ammunition and excuse to go on the attack again.

The part re Charles not taking his calls, was that until this day or was that over a certain time period and are they back speaking. I just felt that they were throwing in grenades and walking away without Oprah asking them for a fuller explanation. Poor journalism ,it was all sensationalism.

I am finding it difficult to process what is accurate, I am not saying they are lying but I believe they are wording things to suit their own narrative. Are certain things taken out of context.

Could Charles not taking his calls be because the two of them always ended up arguing, and Charles wanted to keep a distance for a period of time for cool heads to prevail.

Saying the did not blindside the palace with their decision to leave, detailing how many meetings or conversations had taken place, but the palace has always said it was the announcement they were caught out with not the intention of leaving. It was complicated and required time to sort out, but the couple were not prepared to wait.

I also found it interesting the questions that were not asked or the stories they could have clarified but didn't, for example the Tiara story or' What Meghan wants Meghan gets '. The relationship with the Markle family or even her mothers family, why were they all excluded from the wedding.
The early conversation with William that caused the rift.

They only wanted stories that put others in a bad light, not put themselves under the spotlight.
  #976  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:10 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
What do you thinkk the Royals should do? Sue them for defamation of character? I think they should, but then H&M get more time in the limelight.
It's very awkward. I don't think they want to get drawn into mud-slinging. I would like to see them issue a statement explaining why Archie was not entitled to be a prince or to have his security paid for.

Regarding the racism allegation, you can't really sue without a name. If you go to your boss and claim that a colleague has said something racist, the boss asks who it was and what they said, and you say "I will never share that conversation", there's not much they can do. Then this spreads round the office, and everyone starts saying "Oh, I bet it was Jane on reception," "No, I think it was probably Brian in accounts," "You're both wrong, I'm sure it was Fred in HR" ... etc etc. That's what's happening now. It's horrible.
  #977  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:12 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
There are some twitter users from the UK (including James Jordan, former Strictly Come Dancing professional dancer) comparing this Oprah's interview to the Jeremy Kyle show. Some have even called for Harry & Meghan to have a lie detector test.

https://twitter.com/The_JamesJordan/...35304695390213

https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-...le-news-latest
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rview-ITV.html
Nope, the Sussexes would not survive that show. And if, hypothetically speaking, they appeared on that show, guaranteed they'd sue the producer (and everyone there) even before the show was over.
  #978  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:17 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Poznan, Poland
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
As I said, it has nothing to do with what happened to Beatrice and Eugenie and their public-funded security being cut off. They are not the children of Charles. How Andrew handles his family's security is a separate issue. Harry is looking at HIS family and I include Charles in this. He believes Charles should pay for his security. Personally pay for it. And he is hurt because his father isn't.
If Charles pays for security of one son why shouldn't he pay for the other son and his own? That would freed up a lot of public money to by used elsewhere.
Security is a lot of money. Especially when Sussexes will need it for four individuals in different places. H&M decided to live the way they want to so three arwę consequences. They're no Pinger eligible for protection. Two adults nearing 40 ahould be ale to take care of their family on their own. They can afford a nasion, do they ahould be able to find money for security.
  #979  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:18 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 406
Looking for clarification and thoughts on two things. First, Meghan said that she was up in the middle of the night googling the British National Anthem. Given that she lived in Canada for seven years as an adult working there, would she not have been exposed to that anthem many times? I'm not sure about the answer to this, would love to hear from some Canadians.
Also, she said her passport was taken away, but I recall her going to New York, on her own, for a fairly lavish baby shower. Is it possible royals don't actually need passports, or how would that work? Thanks.
  #980  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:24 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
I don't think it's unusual for wealthy families to financially support their children.
Do you think they should be supported throughout their lives, at the end of the day they wanted freedom and independence. They were told it was difficult to achieve but wanted it anyway, now they are complaining that the gravy train was halted.

He has private trust funds from his family, he has the money from his mother, and no doubt at some time in the future he will receive money from his fathers private wealth. Posters have told us on here how independently wealthy Meghan is . He is moaning about no money, people in the uk are living on furlough wages, with no guarantee of a job when things improve, some have already lost their jobs. We have seen the film of the homeless in L.A.

Last week they issued statements about compassion and do a good act on International Womens Day, they showed compassion to his grandmother alright didn't they.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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