The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #621  
Old 03-11-2021, 02:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I think it might be trust rather than forgive.

She has revealed details from within the family. Also the threats have been put out there that there are e mails and texts.
Not nice.
What about?
__________________

  #622  
Old 03-11-2021, 02:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
THey never had an offer of the "Prince" title.. Archie will be a HRH PRince when his grandfather becomes King.. unless by then Harry rejects the whole idea of royal titles.
they chose not to use Harry's secondary title of Lord Dumbarton for A.
but I doubt if it was really because they wanted to live like normal people.. they were just trying to pretend. (or maybe they were sulking becuase they HADNT been offered HRH for Archie.. and were like "oh well we wont let him use ANY title."
That's what it indeed sounds like: "If we can't have it all, we will take none of it and he will be plain master Archie. How do you like that?" And the BRF was "Fine, if that's your wish, we will announce it."

Someone mentioned that the announcement stated that they refused the HRH and that that were lies - but that of course is not what the statement said as he wasn't eligible for that title and you cannot refuse something you aren't given; so no lies either. They chose not to use the courtesy title of 'Earl of Dumbarton' (unlike for example James who is formally known as 'Viscount Severn') which he was entitled to.
__________________

  #623  
Old 03-11-2021, 02:46 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

Apparently, Henry still needed security... otherwise there was no reason to no longer pay the security he received... I am personally undecided on this issue but I do think that if his security concerns directly result from him being a member of the royal family (and not or only limitedly because of his own behavior), it begs the question whether he should receive at least a partial compensation (but not sure from whom).
I think if the Met or another threat analysis team said "Sir, your son is in critical need of security. it's life or death!" Because of his high profile, wife and army service, Charles would probably still be paying it.

Especially Harry really couldn't afford it.

The place they're living in keeps out a lot of threats anyway, and I bet comes with a state of the art security system and panic room (or could be fitted out with one). There were rumours that Charles helped them out with the purchase of the house as well and that was his final gift to them.

And he did pay for a year, which was apparently agreed upon and after that the trial run was up. How long should he or the tax payers keep funding their security in a very expensive place when they've made their own choices and prioritised a large house in one of the most exclusive, expensive places in the US over a house in a less expensive but still nice area? IF they'd done that then they could maybe afford security and have more spending money left over.

I am sympathetic to their concerns, definitely, I'd be worried if I was them but I don't think they've been left entirely defenceless, just upset that they have to pay for themselves. And there are a lot of very vulnerable people at risk who could never afford any type of security and wouldn't be offered it by the police.
  #624  
Old 03-11-2021, 02:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Government employees who have service passports usually surrender those passports for storage at their respective department or agency. That is because they are only supposed to use those passports on official trips. I don't think Meghan's situation is exactly the same, but it is possible that members of RF who are issued official passports don't keep those passports with themselves all the time, but give it to some department within the Royal Household for safekeeping and collect it only when needed. It would be odd if Meghan was also asked to surrender her personal U.S. passport, but I don't think she would lie about that.

Anyway, I suspect the Palace most likely was only following some kind of standard procedure with respect to official passports, but, since we don't know all the facts (for example, if Meghan was also told not to use her personal passport anymore), it would be good if the Royal Household could provide some clarification.
Would she have been eligible to a UK diplomatic passport without being a UK citizen? How does that normally work? I assume some ambassadors might also have a spouse who is not from the country s/he is representing.
  #625  
Old 03-11-2021, 02:52 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I don't get what they thought would happen when they quit. They act like they were told to leave.
In their minds they probably felt like they were. Pressures from within and outside probably made it feel that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I feel very sure the royal family is angry but they've been through things like this before. Charles has publicly complained that his parents were cold and distant (although he never implied they were bad people). I believe despite all the public disagreements, the royal family is very loving and forgiving.
Agreed wholeheartedly!!! They've survived worse scandals- they'll be just fine!
  #626  
Old 03-11-2021, 02:57 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Questions over some possible sharp practise by Oprah Winfrey:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...agazines-used/
  #627  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
I wonder if they would have got security if they stayed in the UK more - there had to be an element of cost vs benefit (no matter how harsh that sounds) when looking at their security. In the UK providing protection would have been undoubtedly cheaper to start then factor in their main UK residence is on the already protected Windsor estate and has undergone various security enhancements. They could have gone without 24hr protection via guards around their house and relied on technology. They could have easily tapped into existing officers as/when needed for big events etc but not had a permanent team. The threat may have been bigger as more people know H&M in the UK. Contrast that to being 'another celebrity couple' in America that the majority of Americans couldn't recognise - especially before this interview - making their need for security lower and costs higher as another house is fitted out with alarms, cameras and other technology, the cost of keeping a team of UK officers based nearby permanently 'just in case' and to go out and about with them. Its just too much especially for two people who chose to walk away from the RF and officially representing the crown.
  #628  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:05 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
I think in that case, it might be reasonable to reimburse him for whatever his security would cost if he lived a quiet, private life at Frogmore, which no one's stopping them from doing. But that's also true of Anne's and Andrew's and Edward's children, who haven't done anything particularly expensive or controversial, but are still on the hook for their own security if they want it (or will be once they turn 18). Maybe the threat to Harry is higher, but it's hard to quantify how much of that is because of his birth and how much is because of his actions. Most Americans wouldn't recognize any of the Queen's other grandchildren if they ran into them on the street.
That was indeed what I was wondering about. I assume the other members (at least the working senior royals - not sure about Andrew's current arrangements) only have to come in for security not deemed essential by the MET.
  #629  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:07 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
What was announced, their royal patronages and positions that they wanted to keep - part of being half in, half out.

They got to keep the private ones like Smart Works and Invictus etc.
Thank you. It made me wonder if they were talking about titles, but I highly doubt those will be removed.
  #630  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:13 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Questions over some possible sharp practise by Oprah Winfrey:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...agazines-used/
Could you tell me the title of that article? I am not a subscriber to the telegraph, but I want to look it up in the archives. Thanks.
  #631  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:19 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
Could you tell me the title of that article? I am not a subscriber to the telegraph, but I want to look it up in the archives. Thanks.
The title of that article is: American 'supermarket tabloid' celebrity gossip magazines used on Oprah to show British media bias
  #632  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:29 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
Could you tell me the title of that article? I am not a subscriber to the telegraph, but I want to look it up in the archives. Thanks.
"American 'supermarket tabloid' celebrity gossip magazines used on Oprah to show British media bias".

Of the examples used by Oprah Winfrey to illustrate British media bias:

13 of the headlines were from US or Australian publications including National Enquirer, US Weekly, In Touch & Star

only 9 out of the 23 British examples were from print editions, the rest online

headlines not shown in full context ie suggesting something was racist when it was clearly not. In fact often the very reverse.

I understand that Oprah Winfrey is not a serious reporter but rather an entertainer so I guess this sort of thing is par for the course.
  #633  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:31 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,992
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 William made the whole issue worse by responding. I woke up alerts on phone about this. I believe the royal family should have never responded and let the story die down. Even the Queen's response was classy and dignified.
However if royals keep responding angrily ala William the press is going to continue to have a field day and this back and forth is not a good look for the monarchy. It is beneath them .
  #634  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Questions over some possible sharp practise by Oprah Winfrey:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...agazines-used/

Interesting points. I remember the "exotic DNA" article. It wasn't very well put, but, as the article says, it was actually meant in a positive way. And it wasn't dissimilar to several articles that mentioned Carole Middleton having the blood of "sturdy Durham coal miners" or words to that effect.
  #635  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:35 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
I think William made the whole issue worse by responding. I woke up alerts on phone about this. I believe the royal family should have never responded and let the story die down. Even the Queen's response was classy and dignified.
However if royals keep responding angrily ala William the press is going to continue to have a field day and this back and forth is not a good look for the monarchy. It is beneath them .
It didn't come across as angry to me. He first answered whether he had talked to his brother (saying he didn't but would) and second paused for a second before calmly stating that they are 'very much' not a racist family after which he continued walking making sure there wouldn't be any further exchange.
  #636  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
I think William made the whole issue worse by responding. I woke up alerts on phone about this. I believe the royal family should have never responded and let the story die down. Even the Queen's response was classy and dignified.
However if royals keep responding angrily ala William the press is going to continue to have a field day and this back and forth is not a good look for the monarchy. It is beneath them .
He's damned if he does & he'll be damned if he doesn't ie "prince doesn't refute accusation that RF is racist" would be the headline.

The real culprit here is Harry Windsor not the Duke of Cambridge. He has created this hateful situation.

If it wasn't so serious it would be almost funny a la Father Ted "I hear you're a racist now Father".
  #637  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:46 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
He's damned if he does & he'll be damned if he doesn't ie "prince doesn't refute accusation that RF is racist" would be the headline.

The real culprit here is Harry Windsor not the Duke of Cambridge. He has created this hateful situation.

If it wasn't so serious it would be almost funny a la Father Ted "I hear you're a racist now Father".
No he should have done what Charles did and keep silent and ignore them. I agree this was created by Harry & Meghan but William is a key player- senior member of the royal family and as such has the responsibility to uphold the dignity of the monarchy. Sinking to H&M' level and responding to questions yelled by reporters is not the way to go.

The Queen issued a formal statement and that should have been respected and been the end of it.
  #638  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It didn't come across as angry to me. He first answered whether he had talked to his brother (saying he didn't but would) and second paused for a second before calmly stating that they are 'very much' not a racist family after which he continued walking making sure there wouldn't be any further exchange.
I'm not surprised that he took the opportunity to deny that his family is racist, I was taken aback that he commented on whether he had talked to Harry - William's usually very discrete.

His manner was calm. But if you take his answers together, he is disputing Harry and Meghan's allegations and emphatically stating that he plans to talk to Harry. I don't think it will be a pleasant discussion.
  #639  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Would she have been eligible to a UK diplomatic passport without being a UK citizen? How does that normally work? I assume some ambassadors might also have a spouse who is not from the country s/he is representing.
I don't know the answer, but it was something I was curious about when Megan married Harry. (I tend to be fascinated with the diplomatic side of the monarchy).

I don't think it has ever been stated what passport Megan traveled with for their official trips (Australia/Pacific, Morocco & South Africa), and perhaps it is not for public consumption, especially if it was not something that was typically done for spouses of U.K. foreign service personnel. (The Queen, for example, does not need a passport or driving license, though only the reigning monarch has this exception.)

I have guessed that it may have been a specially issued passport, in order to avoid normal customs at arrival, and also, to avoid visa issues. (I do know that U.S. citizens need a visa for Australia, but it can be obtained electronically, so in theory, Megan could have entered on her U.S. passport).

I do not believe that Megan's U.S. passport was held by palace staff for any malicious reason at all. However, I think it is obvious that many people on both sides assumed things, and thought they were being understood, when there was actually massive confusion and anxiety.

Obviously it's going to be a very long time before there is a future spouse marrying a working royal, but I hope there is a slow and steady on-boarding process sensitive to cultural differences when it does happen.
  #640  
Old 03-11-2021, 03:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
No he should have done what Charles did and keep silent and ignore them. I agree this was created by Harry & Meghan but William is a key player- senior member of the royal family and as such has the responsibility to uphold the dignity of the monarchy. Sinking to H&M' level and responding to questions yelled by reporters is not the way to go.

The Queen issued a formal statement and that should have been respected and been the end of it.
Charles wasn't asked the same questions. IIRC, the question to Charles was about what he thought about the interview. William was asked yes or no questions.
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jewellery liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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