The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 03-11-2021, 06:49 AM
iceflower's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: , Germany
Posts: 58,837
The Duke of Cambridge has made some comments during his first official engagement after the interview:

Being asked "Is the Royal Family a racist family, sir?" he answered:

"We're very much not a racist family". And that he replied he had not spoken to his brother since the interview "but will do":

See here: ** dailymail article **
__________________

__________________
**** Welcome aboard! ****
  #522  
Old 03-11-2021, 06:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceflower View Post
The Duke of Cambridge has made some comments during his first official engagement after the interview:

Being asked "Is the Royal Family a racist family, sir?" he answered:

"We're very much not a racist family". And that he replied he had not spoken to his brother since the interview "but will do":

See here: ** dailymail article **
That sounds ominous. Im sure William is really furious - I'm sure they all are. but William will probably say more than his father or the queen. I must say that Im a bit surprised that Charles DID stop taking H's phone calls and I think it indicates that he too was really finally fed up to the back teeth with Harry and that Harry was really making ridiculous demands....
__________________

  #523  
Old 03-11-2021, 06:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
How horrible for William to have journalists - and this was the royal reporter from Sky News, not someone less reputable, for lack of a better way of putting it - shouting "Are the Royal Family racist?" at him.
  #524  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
How horrible for William to have journalists - and this was the royal reporter from Sky News, not someone less reputable, for lack of a better way of putting it - shouting "Are the Royal Family racist?" at him.
I think its a fair question, thanks to what Harry said, (which is presumably why he said it to tar the RF with this brush...)
  #525  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:03 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
Technically, as it's been pointed out, only the eldest son of William would be titled. So George yes, would still have the HRH, Charlotte and Louis - no.

I think it's telling that the only great-grandchildren of the monarch that have titles are the children of the "heir to the heir". And while I do understand that to some "who is where in the line of succession" does not matter, to the royal family it matters greatly. When there is such a strict hierarchy in the family and that hierarchy depends on who was born first, there'll never be true equality. The LPs were issued for William's children because he's the future king. Harry is not, so it was not needed, and now we see how very much it was not needed.

And I wouldn't call it a "family crisis", just... two self-centered people who didn't get what they thought they should get causing a scene. The only difference is that they chose to make that scene in an interview with Oprah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
I find it interesting that the Sussexes complain about feeling unsupported.

These 2 haven’t proven to be great at communication.

Off the top of my head:

Harry didn’t talk to his family about Meghan’s mental health issues.

The supposed racism comment that was so upsetting that they had to broadcast a vague version of the story to millions apparently wasn’t worth discussing with the person who supposedly said it.

Meghan’s stories about being unprepared with basics- like how to greet his grandmother. That falls on Harry.

There are more examples, I’m sure.

But just how are people supposed to help you if your communication skills are this poor?
This puts everything in an interesting light. They weren't supported enough, but somehow they expected everyone to what, read their minds?

I too think that there is a lot of Harry's fault in Meghan being completely unprepared. Her claim that the palace did not help her in any way with that (so, no "princess lessons" for the future Duchess of Sussex) is also interesting, as I think some formal support needs to be in place for the newest (future) member of the family. Maybe they
a/ didn't think that Harry will rush the relationship so much
b/ it was something Harry actually had to request from the palace.
Because I can't imagine the KP staff saying "no, we will not help" to HRH Prince Henry of Wales.
  #526  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Does anyone know if Beatrice and Eugenie still have private security anymore? I know Prince Andrew paid for it when they were younger but do we know if this is still the case? Because it might be entirely possible they also no longer have security paid for by their father.

As for paying for something just because your child is not happy I'm sorry but that's a poor excuse to pay for anything, especially when they're a grown adult with a substantial fortune of their own. Diana's estate when she died was worth $31.5 million dollars. Harry got a substantial amount of that as well as money from the Queen Mum. He has money.

Harry is free to believe anything he wishes, he is free to feel he is entitled to anything he wishes. His father is equally entitled to tell his son that he is a 36 year old man who wanted his financial freedom and part of that is providing for his own security. Harry is of course, allowed to feel upset and hurt by his father's refusal to pay, he can rant and pout all he wants. But that does not mean that Charles then has to cave to his demands. Harry is not entitled to his father's money.

Andrew has paid for Beatrice and Eugenie's security for years now. As I recall he kicked up a fuss but it was decided that those farther down the line didn't get security paid for by the pubic. I think Archie would fall into that category. The public didn't want to pay for lesser members of the royal family. As for them being in the spotlight they're the ones fighting to stay there.
  #527  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:20 AM
rominet09's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LIEGE, Belgium
Posts: 4,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
It was a limited olive branch.. ie saying "we're sorry you were unhappy... albeit we dont think that you are remembering rightly.. and we will look into legitimate concerns." And they're leaving the door open but I think it will be accompanied by a certain amount of "look we're still pretty disappointed at the way you behaved, it isn't acceptable.. and if you come back for visits etc it will be on the understanding that you keep a civil tongue and stop asking for money and sulking when you dont get it..."
So well said ! You summarize it brilliantly !
  #528  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
Andrew has paid for Beatrice and Eugenie's security for years now. As I recall he kicked up a fuss but it was decided that those farther down the line didn't get security paid for by the pubic. I think Archie would fall into that category. The public didn't want to pay for lesser members of the royal family. As for them being in the spotlight they're the ones fighting to stay there.
Archie's security would be based on need.. as a child Since Harry had security as a senior royal and a former soldier, his children would share in that security while still small. Meghan is talkng nonsese, she is trying to imply that A's security was dependent on his having a title.. of prince and that he would not get it because he was mixed race. Probably at the age of 18, even if H stayed in the RF, Archie would not have security.
  #529  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:44 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
For the last 20 years or so, things have been moving in the direction of cutting costs and reducing the number of "top level" titles. Arguably it goes back nearer 30 years, to the row over who should pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire.

We've also seen this in Sweden, where the children of Victoria's younger siblings are no longer part of the royal house. So it's not even unique to the British Royal Family.

Edward and Sophie's children don't have the title of princess and prince - even though, unlike Archie, they were entitled to. Beatrice and Eugenie had their security funding withdrawn.

It's a process that's been going on steadily for some time. Harry and Meghan seem to want not only to put it into reverse but to go in the other direction, creating additional titles.

None of this is directed at them or at Archie personally, and it's certainly nothing to do with racism. It's just the way things are. Maybe it's not fair, but a lot of things in life aren't fair. What it isn't is personal, and they don't seem to get that. Either that or they're just saying that don't, given that they said themselves that they didn't want Archie to have the title of Earl.
  #530  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:55 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
For the last 20 years or so, things have been moving in the direction of cutting costs and reducing the number of "top level" titles. Arguably it goes back nearer 30 years, to the row over who should pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire.


It's a process that's been going on steadily for some time. Harry and Meghan seem to want not only to put it into reverse but to go in the other direction, creating additional titles.

None of this is directed at them or at Archie personally, and it's certainly nothing to do with racism. It's just the way things are. Maybe it's not fair, but a lot of things in life aren't fair. What it isn't is personal, and they don't seem to get that.
I dont think either of them are smart, particularly Harry but I can't believe that they dont know the rules and that it is simply NOT TRUE what they've said about Archie not having a title or protection....
And Harry knows that the RF don't generally "rush to defend" a member because, if they did, their press office would need a thousand staff... and they'd be worn out.
I can't quite understand whether they DO know that much of what they have accused the RF of, simply isn't true...but are pretending that it was all a horrid shock to them and very unfair, because they know that their fans in the American market wont know any better and will believe them.. or maybe they really ARE that dumb and DO think that they should have whatever titles they want, as much security as they want, and to be able to step in and out of royal work when they choose.. and still have Dad or the Brit tax payer paying for them.
Harry's sudden saying that it wasn't the queen or Phil who made the racist remark suggests that perhaps he realizes he went a bit too far in attacking his queen... and has a little bit a sense of self preservaition...(of course it also gets a bit of a dig in at his father and brother who will be the next suspects)....
  #531  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:56 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Poznan, Poland
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
For the last 20 years or so, things have been moving in the direction of cutting costs and reducing the number of "top level" titles. Arguably it goes back nearer 30 years, to the row over who should pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire.

We've also seen this in Sweden, where the children of Victoria's younger siblings are no longer part of the royal house. So it's not even unique to the British Royal Family.

Edward and Sophie's children don't have the title of princess and prince - even though, unlike Archie, they were entitled to. Beatrice and Eugenie had their security funding withdrawn.

It's a process that's been going on steadily for some time. Harry and Meghan seem to want not only to put it into reverse but to go in the other direction, creating additional titles.

None of this is directed at them or at Archie personally, and it's certainly nothing to do with racism. It's just the way things are. Maybe it's not fair, but a lot of things in life aren't fair. What it isn't is personal, and they don't seem to get that.

Exactly. Royal Families are "ruthless" this way. One day you're a the top as a child of monarch and the next day you're "a distant cousin".


In Sweden no one screamed racisim when grandkids were stripped of their titles. In UK everything now will be racisim just beacause Meghan happens to be biracial, and Charles doesn't have other children to treat equally as he treats Sussexes.
  #532  
Old 03-11-2021, 07:59 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: cu, United States
Posts: 13
Prince William responded:
https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/st...cist-family%2F
  #533  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:01 AM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
That sounds ominous. Im sure William is really furious - I'm sure they all are. but William will probably say more than his father or the queen. I must say that Im a bit surprised that Charles DID stop taking H's phone calls and I think it indicates that he too was really finally fed up to the back teeth with Harry and that Harry was really making ridiculous demands....
I think what is really needed at this point is for Princess Ann to step in and address Harry and Meghan behavior and entitlement. Now THAT would be amazing! If she could take on a kidnapper with a good tongue lashing, she could certainly deal these two. She would have Harry clutching his pull ups and Meghan putting those curtsying lessons to good use within minutes.
  #534  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:06 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
If it's wrong to do it for the children of one brother differently from the children of another, that would end with every single descendant having royal titles. That's exactly what they were trying to avoid when they rolled it back. William's oldest son would have been titled at birth regardless. As others have explained, the laws of succession were changed shortly before George's birth, before the gender was known. Had the firstborn been a girl, she would have grown up to be queen. But under the letters patent, her younger brother would have been a prince while she herself was not a princess. That's why the queen declared in advance that all William's children would be titled.

The Queen could have just granted a title to William's oldest child rather than all of them, but that would have created another problem. If the oldest child was a girl, then she'd have a title, and so would the oldest boy. But if William had one boy, one girl, and then additional children, it would have worked out so that the oldest boy and oldest girl were titled, but the others weren't. That wouldn't have been fair because the oldest boy wouldn't have been the direct heir, so there would be no reason to give him a title while denying it to his brothers and all but the oldest of his sisters. That problem would be avoided by changing the letters patent to refer to the "oldest child" rather than "oldest son" of the heir-apparent grandchild, but that's not something the Queen can do single-handedly. All she can do is use her discretion to try to work around it, and I think what she did here was reasonable for that situation.

Moreover, there was never the expectation that Archie would grow up to be a working royal. None of the children of Charles's younger siblings were given that option, so why would Harry expect it for his children (the next generation of children of the spare)? Harry and Meghan knew all of this. They didn't like it, and maybe they had good reasons for not liking it, but that's not the same as not knowing it until Meghan was pregnant, or believing it was because of race. They're just lying about that.

You may not care who's where in the line of succession, but it's the entire point here. Just because a few racists think the rules shouldn't apply to someone of a different race doesn't mean a 1000-year-old institution is just going to throw out the rule book.
  #535  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:07 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 830
I know that when Harry and Meghan moved to Canada Trudeau said the Canadian government would provide security. The Canadians made a stink and he said they wouldn't.
  #536  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:11 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori138 View Post
You know I am still so angry over this interview, that I can barely think of anything else.

But, I do want to put into context one of the things they said: The comment about the color of their children's skin. I think it was a passing comment such as after being introduced to Meghan and chatting and then wondering aloud oh I wonder what shade of skin color the children will have? I think it was meant as a comment and NOT as a racial dig as Meghan is now making it out to be. Even Hsrry seemed uncomfortable with the fact that had come out. The BRF may have their faults but I have never seen them behave in any racist way before, and having a bi-racial member of the family was a wonderful addition to their working members.

Meghan, and Meghan alone, has chosen to make everything about race and most of what she uttered on her interview was a lie, and can be proven to be so. I sincerely hope that the family can recover from this and that H & M fade rapidly into the proverbial sunset.
How is she suppose to respond when she hears that someone in the BRF expressed concern about Archie's skin color prior to his birth? And what kind of thing is that to say anyway? And then to be told he would not be titled and not granted security. He is an innocent child and a part of that family!
  #537  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:12 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
How horrible for William to have journalists - and this was the royal reporter from Sky News, not someone less reputable, for lack of a better way of putting it - shouting "Are the Royal Family racist?" at him.
Maybe, but I’m sure he knew some variation of the question would come sooner rather than later, and it did give him a chance to respond directly to at least one of the allegations. I also liked his answer to the question about whether he’d spoken to Harry. The Royal Family’s public response to this situation has been very sensible and measured.
  #538  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:12 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
How is she suppose to respond when she hears that someone in the BRF expressed concern about Archie's skin color prior to his birth? And what kind of thing is that to say anyway? And then to be told he would not be titled and not granted security. He is an innocent child and a part of that family!
she knew perfectly well that he would not be titled..and that he would not get security after the age of 18....
  #539  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:14 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
How is she suppose to respond when she hears that someone in the BRF expressed concern about Archie's skin color prior to his birth? And what kind of thing is that to say anyway? And then to be told he would not be titled and not granted security. He is an innocent child and a part of that family!
By acting (she's good at that, remember?) like an adult and addressing the comment with the person who made it. She chose not to give enough information to allow others to make a real judgment about whether it was racist or not, but either way, that's how grown-ups handle things when relatives say things they find offensive.
  #540  
Old 03-11-2021, 08:16 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,758
William stating the BRF are not racist will land very well... I am sure. I think it was an unfair thing to toss at him. Not like he could really ignore it though.
__________________

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 II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021 Jacknch The Electronic Domain 1196 03-09-2021 01:48 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asian biography birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing coronation customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan history king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia mountbatten names pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry speech st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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