The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:42 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
The Queen in fact does have the right to decide what Archie's title might be. Just as she gave the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex as a wedding present. Which she might not have done had they disclosed that they were thinking of leaving before they even got married (as hinted in the interview with "2 years" statement).

I would have been fine with it if she had issued LPs but she didn't and at the time *everything* surrounding Archie's birth was top secret and all about how they wanted him to have a normal childhood. And then a few months after they left so everyone was right that he didn't need a title.

As the rules now stand he will get an HRH when/if his grandfather becomes King.
They were the ones who said they didn't want the title, and now they're the ones who are saying they didn't have a say. N yet, still, they're the ones who have been wronged. You just cannot make this up!
__________________

  #62  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.
Wasn't it just one conversation rather than multiple?
__________________

  #63  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:43 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.
Well to be fair, Meghan and Harry are having a hard time remembering it too. Meghan (who was told about the discussion from Harry), says it happened during her pregnancy and implied it was multiple discussions, while Harry says it was one conversation and happened during the beginning of their relationship.
__________________
  #64  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:43 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If you are telling a story as a couple at an interview how difficult is it, ot make sure you both say the same thing?
They only had that one job.
  #65  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.
Because even Harry and Meghan didn't get the story straight. They told two different versions on camera. And Meghan's was a 3rd hand account.

Add to that we have no context. The comment could have been "I wonder between your pale gingerness and Meghan being biracial how dark your children might be?" or "be prepared for the press to be nasty if you have a dark skinned child" or even "Amazing, can't wait to see how dark the kids are, will be great for the family!"

Some of those are "awkward" insensitive or uncomfortable but not malicious.

I wondered if they would actually clarify that statement but then it just gives more ammunition to everything. And the statement basically politely called them liars but without enough to go on CBS Morning tomorrow and respond.
  #66  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.
You can 'recollect them" differently - especially if they didn't happen. Meghan and Harry told different stories about it themselves - one said it was as Archie was expected, another said it was just as they started dating. H&M have shown they recollect things differently so factually the BP statement is true. We can add our own thoughts on exactly what may have been meant by that part of the statement but they remain our thoughts and opinions. If you look at it from a middle point of view I don't think there is much to disagree with in the BP statement.

I refuse to get hung up on the most vague and confused part of the interview. I would also say if one comment by a member of the RF makes you racist then I wonder what that makes Harry - the Nazi outfit, the racial slur to a fellow soldier...judge those by the same standards and where do we end up.
  #67  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:52 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,766
Overall, I think this interview was short-sighted at best, incredibly stupid at worst. But Meghan made one very good point that stuck with me:

The UNTRUE story that Meghan made Kate cry in the runup to the wedding took on a life of its' own and has become part of Meghan Lore. No one...not a single person...from BP or Kensington Palace stepped in to refute this story when it appeared in Vanity Fair.

But last summer when the unflattering "Catherine The Great" story and cover came up in Tatler, the BRF was fast and furious to defend Kate point by point.

That Meghan feels bitter/aggrieved by this doesn't surprise me in the least. And I don't blame her.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
  #68  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:52 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Below is a comment from the previous thread that I want to respond to because I don't think an American audience understands anything about the British system of titles, and M&H didn't discuss the issue of titles in a detailed way. In other words, it's not clear to me whether M&H rejected giving Archie the Lord/ Viscount title which is a rightful courtesy. Or whether M&H decided not to use that courtesy title because they had been told that not only would Archie not receive the LP for the HRH/Prince title at birth, but that even when Charles becomes King, Archie would not receive the HRH/Prince title.

This is confusing because of all the press stories put out at the time Archie was born suggested that Harry wasn't interested in Archie having a title. I remember a lot of royal fans were upset at the time that M&H didn't use any title for Archie. Well, apparently the reasons why have to do with them being told Archie wasn't ever going to receive HRH/Prince. This is one part of the Oprah interview I wish would be further clarified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
This is all laid out in the Succession Act of 2013, as of right now Archie isn't entitled to be called a Prince. However, once Charles becomes King he will automictically become one. It's an act of Parliament. Harry knows this and I have NO DOUBT Meghan knows it as well. Apparently they wanted the Queen to make Archie a prince right away. But he will be one someday when Charles is king. Honestly Meghan should have corrected Oprah.
The intricacies of titles in the British royal family system seem quite complicated and confusing. In any case, the point is: M&H were apparently told that Archie would not be receiving the HRH title at birth in the same way as all of the Cambridge siblings. Only Prince George as a direct heir was entitled to HRH/Prince title. The Queen issued LPs ahead of Charlotte's birth so that all of the Cambridge siblings would receive HRH Prince/Princess titles, and not have to wait until Charles becomes king.

Most likely, Harry anticipated that his offspring would be treated similarly. And Harry may even have been told by his father and QE-II, his grandmother, well before meeting Meghan that the same provision would be extended to all of his offspring. It would not be unprecedented in view of the fact that Prince Andrew as the Queen's second son, had the privilege of his daughters receiving HRH/Princess titles. Edward as the third son also has the privilege, but it was decided to give Lord/ Lady titles to Edward's children, and allow them the discretion of choosing whether to take on the HRH titles at age 18 (it has recently been reported that they will decide against accepting). But then again, Edward is the third son and the youngest of four children.

Meanwhile, Harry is the second of only two children of the direct heir, and he was expected to have a major role in a slimmed down monarchy. So why wouldn't his offspring be treated with the full courtesies that are possible? I'm not certain that M&H were upset about Archie not having the LP courtesy issued in order to receive the HRH/Prince at birth. My understanding from the interview is that Harry was told Archie would never receive the HRH/Prince title, not even when Charles becomes King.

It would be a good thing for us all to realize there are so many things that are said and that occur behind-the-scenes between the royals over the course of their lives that are never fully revealed. So Harry may have reasonably felt that his family was reneging on promises they had originally made to him, simply because he chose to marry Meghan. This brings into question the sense that certain members of the royal family always had some reservations about Meghan, not for herself necessarily, but because of her background and heritage.

Oprah didn't understand the issue of British titles well enough to be able to probe more closely with follow-up questions for better clarity.
  #69  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:53 PM
kathia_sophia's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South, Portugal
Posts: 3,002
I feel so confused about all this, especially about Archie's title. I do remember that when he was born, H and M wanted him to have a normal childhood, and thus was not given the title of a son of a duke (or did I misread it back then?). Now it seems they want Archie to be prince for his protection, but his title was denied when he was born...I'm so confused...


As for the race comment...There are petty people, but does one has to take it seriously? I mean, we hear so many awful things everyday, of course, I am against racism and such, but if we were to get angry at every little comment, then we wouldn't have a life... A woman told my young cousin that she had speech problems and should see a doctor (girl is healthy, she is just a little shy), my aunt heard this and got furious and everything became pretty nasty (something that could have been avoided if approached in a different way).


To be honest, I wouldn't want to be friends/acquaintance with Meghan. I would even fear to speak to her (I am a good person, but sometimes we say things that we don't mean). We are now at a time where freedom of speech is being lost, everything is seen as "racism" or "personal attacks"...
__________________
♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥
  #70  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binny2 View Post
How do you misremember multiple conversations in which a RF member voiced concern regarding the child’s color. That line is appalling and shows that they don’t get it.


Maybe because Meghan and Harry can’t remember-or lied- about whether it was one or multiple conversations. Nor could they keep it straight when this alleged racist comment was made.

People do remember things differently. I see no reason to just take the Sussexes word for things- especially when their own stories vary considerably.
  #71  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:56 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
You can 'recollect them" differently - especially if they didn't happen. Meghan and Harry told different stories about it themselves - one said it was as Archie was expected, another said it was just as they started dating. H&M have shown they recollect things differently so factually the BP statement is true. We can add our own thoughts on exactly what may have been meant by that part of the statement but they remain our thoughts and opinions. If you look at it from a middle point of view I don't think there is much to disagree with in the BP statement.
These are just claims that can never be verified. So, I don't get it, why should the RF accept or reject that such a thing was said when it is all he said, she said. I personally believe that the context in which it was said really matters. Maybe someone was wondering whether the baby would look like its mom or dad, and these two turned it into a race issue as they are often known to do.
Or maybe, it was Harry himself who was wondering about it, given his racist remarks in the past.
  #72  
Old 03-09-2021, 02:58 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
These are just claims that can never be verified. So, I don't get it, why should the RF accept or reject that such a thing was said when it is all he said, she said. I personally believe that the context in which it was said really matters. Maybe someone was wondering whether the baby would look like its mom or dad, and these two turned it into a race issue as they are often known to do.
Or maybe, it was Harry himself who was wondering about it, given his racist remarks in the past.
yes Does Meghan know that her husband did this?

and it seems acc to harry this remark was made when they were dating.. whereas acc to Meghan it was during her pregnancy.... - or maybe never said at all....
  #73  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:00 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Overall, I think this interview was short-sighted at best, incredibly stupid at worst. But Meghan made one very good point that stuck with me:

The UNTRUE story that Meghan made Kate cry in the runup to the wedding took on a life of its' own and has become part of Meghan Lore. No one...not a single person...from BP or Kensington Palace stepped in to refute this story when it appeared in Vanity Fair.

But last summer when the unflattering "Catherine The Great" story and cover came up in Tatler, the BRF was fast and furious to defend Kate point by point.

That Meghan feels bitter/aggrieved by this doesn't surprise me in the least. And I don't blame her.
Why should anyone refute it if it was true? Again, it is he said, she said. We cannot know who is speaking the truth.
Besides, if RF were to refute everything that came out in the press, they would've put an end to all the Camilla vilification that continues to this day, as if she was the only woman to commit adultery on the entire planet!
  #74  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:01 PM
leticia.h's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: brazil, Brazil
Posts: 55
I just want them stripped of their titles. What's the point anyway?

They can't stand how the family/firm works, they want to have a life out of it, they are bad mouthing their own family and the institution.

I doubt the Windsors will do that now but I hope once Charles is king, there'll be no more duke or duchess of sussex.
  #75  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:03 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes Does Meghan know that her husband did this?

and it seems acc to harry this remark was made when they were dating.. whereas acc to Meghan it was during her pregnancy.... - or maybe never said at all....
I know. People were quick to point to Prince Philip when neither his comments nor his antics were half as offensive as Harry's. Has Harry ever apologized for them? I see that the racism towards South Asians gets downplayed very often, and people are given a pass. He said the P-word/raghead, but it's fine. Would he have gotten away just as easily if it was the N-word? As an Indian, this all sounds very unfair to me.
  #76  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:04 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Below is a comment from the previous thread that I want to respond to because I don't think an American audience understands anything about the British system of titles, and M&H didn't discuss the issue of titles in a detailed way. In other words, it's not clear to me whether M&H rejected giving Archie the Lord/ Viscount title which is a rightful courtesy. Or whether M&H decided not to use that courtesy title because they had been told that not only would Archie not receive the LP for the HRH/Prince title at birth, but that even when Charles becomes King, Archie would not receive the HRH/Prince title.

This is confusing because of all the press stories put out at the time Archie was born suggested that Harry wasn't interested in Archie having a title. I remember a lot of royal fans were upset at the time that M&H didn't use any title for Archie. Well, apparently the reasons why have to do with them being told Archie wasn't ever going to receive HRH/Prince. This is one part of the Oprah interview I wish would be further clarified.



The intricacies of titles in the British royal family system seem quite complicated and confusing. In any case, the point is: M&H were apparently told that Archie would not be receiving the HRH title at birth in the same way as all of the Cambridge siblings. Only Prince George as a direct heir was entitled to HRH/Prince title. The Queen issued LPs ahead of Charlotte's birth so that all of the Cambridge siblings would receive HRH Prince/Princess titles, and not have to wait until Charles becomes king.

Most likely, Harry anticipated that his offspring would be treated similarly. And Harry may even have been told by his father and QE-II, his grandmother, well before meeting Meghan that the same provision would be extended to all of his offspring. It would not be unprecedented in view of the fact that Prince Andrew as the Queen's second son, had the privilege of his daughters receiving HRH/Princess titles. Edward as the third son also has the privilege, but it was decided to give Lord/ Lady titles to Edward's children, and allow them the discretion of choosing whether to take on the HRH titles at age 18 (it has recently been reported that they will decide against accepting). But then again, Edward is the third son and the youngest of four children.

Meanwhile, Harry is the second of only two children of the direct heir, and he was expected to have a major role in a slimmed down monarchy. So why wouldn't his offspring be treated with the full courtesies that are possible? I'm not certain that M&H were upset about Archie not having the LP courtesy issued in order to receive the HRH/Prince at birth. My understanding from the interview is that Harry was told Archie would never receive the HRH/Prince title, not even when Charles becomes King.

It would be a good thing for us all to realize there are so many things that are said and that occur behind-the-scenes between the royals over the course of their lives that are never fully revealed. So Harry may have reasonably felt that his family was reneging on promises they had originally made to him, simply because he chose to marry Meghan. This brings into question the sense that certain members of the royal family always had some reservations about Meghan, not for herself necessarily, but because of her background and heritage.

Oprah didn't understand the issue of British titles well enough to be able to probe more closely with follow-up questions for better clarity.
You do have several good points. And it is entirely possible that things were told to Harry when he was younger that have now been reassessed. We will likely never know the full details of what happened. The title issue is complex and as monarchies get scaled back might become more so. I do hope it's all sorted before Charlotte and Louis come of age.
  #77  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
This is a good explanation of the issue. It's from the BBC which is one of the world's premier broadcasters:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-563259...e%20of%20Wales.
Thank you. But I had no idea BBC said the same thing. I actually have not seen BBC in a while. What I posted was all me.
  #78  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:10 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 628
That statement from BP is brilliant. I adore the "recollections may vary" line and that they'll address everything privately. BOOM. That's a thankyouverymuchyouredone statement if there ever was one.

My take on the varied recollection of the racist comment... Harry had one conversation, early when he was dating Meghan. At some point when she was pregnant, he shared it with her and she got upset and wouldn't let it lie with just one discussion between them. So, I think it is equally true that Harry had one conversation with a family member and Meghan/Harry had multiple conversations during her pregnancy, and all of what Meghan heard was secondhand because Harry didn't want her confronting the family member who made the original comment.
  #79  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Overall, I think this interview was short-sighted at best, incredibly stupid at worst. But Meghan made one very good point that stuck with me:

The UNTRUE story that Meghan made Kate cry in the runup to the wedding took on a life of its' own and has become part of Meghan Lore. No one...not a single person...from BP or Kensington Palace stepped in to refute this story when it appeared in Vanity Fair.

But last summer when the unflattering "Catherine The Great" story and cover came up in Tatler, the BRF was fast and furious to defend Kate point by point.

That Meghan feels bitter/aggrieved by this doesn't surprise me in the least. And I don't blame her.

I certainly agree that Meghan has every right to feel aggrieved about the reported "tears" story, but I do wonder why the Sussexes never chose to release their own statement on the subject? They could have done so via their then KP communications team or their later one when they had offices at BP. Now to be fair I could understand the couple receiving advice that releasing a statement might not end the non stop tabloid stories, but again I'm surprised that they didn't say anything until the interview.



Regarding the Tatler story, it was not the BRF with the statement but rather the Cambridges via their KP office. And it's not the first time that the Cambridges have released a statement via their KP office as the Queen, PoW etc..appear to permit the individuals involved to release their own replies.



Quote:
Today, Kensington Palace issued a formal response to a Tatler article calling into question its validity.

A Kensington Palace spokesperson said: “This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations which were not put to Kensington Palace prior to publication.”


https://www.townandcountrymag.com/so...atler-comment/
  #80  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:12 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empress Merel View Post
''Some accounts may vary'' is saying you don't care and you don't believe what they're saying...
Yes, it is the equivalent of when people say "Mistakes were made", instead of apologizing and admitting guilt. It shows a lack of sincerity and understanding. Not a good look.
__________________

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 buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china 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 japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle 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 louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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