The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Yes, she should of. And her insta and all her other work should have continued if she wanted it too. And it was Royal Family Inc who used it against Harry and Meghan when they wanted to cut security from their son - "maybe Meghan should go back to acting to pay " were the words the RF used to Harry. The expectation was that Meghan give up everything to serve the Crown, which she did. Then the RF started to change rules and intentions.
who in the RF made these remarks to Harry???
__________________

  #122  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:53 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Yes, she should of. And her insta and all her other work should have continued if she wanted it too. And it was Royal Family Inc who used it against Harry and Meghan when they wanted to cut security from their son - "maybe Meghan should go back to acting to pay " were the words the RF used to Harry. The expectation was that Meghan give up everything to serve the Crown, which she did. Then the RF started to change rules and intentions.
Their son wouldn't get security anyway. Given he would've either been with his parents/palace, he doesn't need any more security than they have. Duh.
__________________

  #123  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:58 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
As many posters have pointed out, Harry and Meghan couldn't even get the time of the event (on Archie's skin colour) right. And both of them couldn't even name the individual, instead decided to make blanket statements on how the royal family is systematically racist. Both of them also did not give context to the racism incident and Meghan herself said "potentially" rather than being definite.

Nana Akua was on Good Morning Britain, who has mix race children. She was very adamant on finding the context of the conversation, whilst also calling out actual racism. She also said that when she was expecting her first child, there were comments on her child's look. Not all of them are racism, some of them are ignorance and lack of understanding.

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...27649151873026

Meghan herself has lied before on the involvement of Finding Freedom. She first said that she has not involved with Omid Scobie and Caroline Durand, but then later admits that she did pass information to the authors via a third party.

I am an ethnic minority in Australia and I also dislike how "racism" has be thrown liberally, especially over little things and have been used shut down discussion. Yes, real racism in any shape of form should be called out. The Jussie Smollett incident really angered me, because it undermines actual racism.
Couldn't name? No they WOULDN'T name the senior royal. Big big difference. And speaking about the skin tone as an ongoing conversation smacks of racism
  #124  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:59 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I hear you but Charles would have to consider their security, after all, they are his children and grandchildren. I can see him placing conditions such as moving back to the UK and living in one of the estates, where there is already security. Maybe also an NDA. There is no way that they could become working royals, but Charles, like Andrew, would probably pay for security when they leave the estate.

They are both too proud to accept a deal like that, it would mean to them, crawling back to Britain without any public roles whatsoever, I rather think, that Meghan would take up commercial advertisements in the US or peddle Archie
  #125  
Old 03-09-2021, 03:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Their son wouldn't get security anyway. Given he would've either been with his parents/palace, he doesn't need any more security than they have. Duh.
Exactly. it is possible that when he's 18 (or even sooner) the security would be withdrawn.. but as a small child he'd have teh same security as his parents.
  #126  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:00 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
The following: it was another example of Meghan courting the press and loving the speculations about her. Only, it was the good speculations. The point is, at the time people started speculating that she might be pregnant because of the maternity coat and they loved it, wished all the best on them and the baby, were over the moon for them. But no, they had to focus on the tabloids and the jerks who can be found in every sphere, social media included, when their livelihood, comfort and station in life didn't depend on it. They were looking for something to have ruined their lives and the tabloids were it.
The desperate need to control the narrative. The more you try, the more it gets out of hand. The narrative had gone against William & Kate on many counts, especially when they were given their grace period. They didn't try to control it and bring it back into their favour. They worked towards it, and now the public loves them.
Social media has its dark corners. For all we know, Kate could be receiving equally racist/sexist comments, death threats and more. I have interacted with Meghan fans on YouTube, some of them are really, really vile.
  #127  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I didnt think that Meghan moved here until she was officially engaged? Possibly yes, he was told that if she came to live with him prior to marriage, she wouldn't be given a PPO.. (unless they were engaged).. and it seems H has a big ojbection to paying for anything himself....
I don't think they were *officially* engaged when she moved over in the Summer, as in having announced it to his family so arrangements can start. But they had agreed that it would happen and apparently he was just waiting to surprise her. (Roast Chicken in Nott Cott Story)
  #128  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
This is what gets me a little ^^ I'm not saying comments about skin colour are right but context is key. If they were having a friendly, warm conversation about who the baby may look like most etc it would be easy to see it going down that route and veering into potentially racist remarks. If the remarks were that offensive Harry would have been within his rights to call them out on it there and then but also to educate whoever said it - "oh that could be seen as offensive..." It reminds me of my very elderly grandparents who still say the odd thing where we as a family have to say "you can't say that anymore". Likewise I work with very young children and have also had children say "we don't want to play with you because your skin is a different colour" etc. To me racism has to be meant and certainly someone has to know what they are saying is racist for it to meant that way - would you judge a child for stating what is to them simply a fact. No. You educate them into why it is wrong in the hope they learn and don't do it again. Do I believe for one second any member of the RF would actually mean that if Harry's son was "too dark" in skin colour he wouldn't get a royal title - absolutely not. That is why I don't believe the intent behind the supposed comments (which are coming second hand to Meghan anyway) even IF the comments are true themselves. IMO if a racist remarks was made it was unintentional racism that wasn't meant at all, IF it was made that person who made it may well be mortified at the fuss it is creating and the way it was taken or is being portrayed. I'm not pretending to be an expert here and I am not a person of colour, if what I say has offended anyone I 100% apologise and that isn't my purpose.
  #129  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:02 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Their son wouldn't get security anyway. Given he would've either been with his parents/palace, he doesn't need any more security than they have. Duh.
Duh? You may not believe this but even Royal children are not connected to the hip of their parents. Prince George had many outings with Catherine's mother with security detailing. Archie would not.
  #130  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:05 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Duh? You may not believe this but even Royal children are not connected to the hip of their parents. Prince George had many outings with Catherine's mother with security detailing. Archie would not.
Neither do Andrew's children, so what!? Pay for his security like Andrew does. I don't see what's the big deal.
  #131  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:05 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Duh? You may not believe this but even Royal children are not connected to the hip of their parents. Prince George had many outings with Catherine's mother with security detailing. Archie would not.
If the Met felt that there was a risk to Archie, he would be covered by RPOs when out away from his mother or father...
  #132  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Duh? You may not believe this but even Royal children are not connected to the hip of their parents. Prince George had many outings with Catherine's mother with security detailing. Archie would not.
Did George have his own security detail or did Catherine or William's RPOs go with George and Carole.
  #133  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:09 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
The desperate need to control the narrative. The more you try, the more it gets out of hand. The narrative had gone against William & Kate on many counts, especially when they were given their grace period. They didn't try to control it and bring it back into their favour. They worked towards it, and now the public loves them.
Social media has its dark corners. For all we know, Kate could be receiving equally racist/sexist comments, death threats and more. I have interacted with Meghan fans on YouTube, some of them are really, really vile.

Yes on all counts. I can't imagine how, in a world where your place is secure, doesn't depend on popularity and you're universally adored anyway, social media can be this important. I wasn't this interested in Kate at the time but I do remember her as a very young woman crying as she was trying to escape from a crowd of cameramen who were literally hounding her - and for Meghan it was simply being rude while her own social media and tabloid suffering at the hands of journalists who, simply put, didn't care enough about her to look for her specifically, couldn't possibly compare? And now, they're trying to recreate the Diana narrative. A fool's errand, I think. Honestly, IMO if Diana was marrying Charles right now, 19 again and he 31 again, the Diana myth would have never been created. Internet and social media took this away.
  #134  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:09 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Did George have his own security detail or did Catherine or William's RPOs go with George and Carole.
As a future monarch, I assume George would get his own security detail. N that's the point, Archie is not George. Plain and simple.
  #135  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
This is what gets me a little ^^ I'm not saying comments about skin colour are right but context is key.

Yes, I have been wondering about what Meghan meant by "potentially."

Oprah said something to the effect: Someone actually wondered if your child would be too dark?

And Meghan replied "potentially."

So did someone say it or was it simply inferred by Harry?
  #136  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:12 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Yes, she should of. And her insta and all her other work should have continued if she wanted it too. And it was Royal Family Inc who spoke those words to Harry when they wanted to cut security from their son - "maybe Meghan should go back to acting to pay " were the words the RF used to Harry. The expectation was that Meghan give up everything to serve the Crown, which she did. Then the RF started to change intentions.
Do you mean that if Meghan continues acting, Harry would not be given The Duke of Sussex upon marriage and remain Prince Henry of Wales? And that is a "bad thing"? (This was a rumour)

And Meghan becomes Princess Henry of Wales, but even then she would be told not to use her royal title for work. Lady Frederick Windsor continues acting and have mostly be referred as Sophie Winkleman even after marriage. Yes, I know that Lord Frederick Windsor and Prince Harry are very different in line of succession and family branch.

The royal family does not decide on royal protection security, it's the met police that mades the ultimate decision after making risk assessments. After all, it's publicly funded.

Even if Meghan gets to keeps her instagram, there will still be restrictions on what she is allowed to post, given that she is married to 6th in line to the throne. Princess Eugenie got in trouble by royal staff for posting an instagram post.

Quote:
I recently got in trouble for posting a picture of Papa in a corridor of the palace that was off-limits to the public, Eugenie told Vogue earlier this year. Whoops!
https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/c...trouble-638624
  #137  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
This is what gets me a little ^^ I'm not saying comments about skin colour are right but context is key. If they were having a friendly, warm conversation about who the baby may look like most etc it would be easy to see it going down that route and veering into potentially racist remarks. If the remarks were that offensive Harry would have been within his rights to call them out on it there and then but also to educate whoever said it - "oh that could be seen as offensive..." It reminds me of my very elderly grandparents who still say the odd thing where we as a family have to say "you can't say that anymore". Likewise I work with very young children and have also had children say "we don't want to play with you because your skin is a different colour" etc. To me racism has to be meant and certainly someone has to know what they are saying is racist for it to meant that way - would you judge a child for stating what is to them simply a fact. No. You educate them into why it is wrong in the hope they learn and don't do it again. Do I believe for one second any member of the RF would actually mean that if Harry's son was "too dark" in skin colour he wouldn't get a royal title - absolutely not. That is why I don't believe the intent behind the supposed comments (which are coming second hand to Meghan anyway) even IF the comments are true themselves. IMO if a racist remarks was made it was unintentional racism that wasn't meant at all, IF it was made that person who made it may well be mortified at the fuss it is creating and the way it was taken or is being portrayed. I'm not pretending to be an expert here and I am not a person of colour, if what I say has offended anyone I 100% apologise and that isn't my purpose.
Charles only has two sons. That said both son's children should be princes or princesses. If the Queen did it, for one of Charles's sons she should have done it for the other. I don't care about tradition or rules etc. This is the first biracial child in the family and that is another reason Archie should have HRH and be a prince. It looks as if the Queen favors one grandson's children over the other. And then to be told your baby would not have security. Does any realize how all looks? I see H&M's point.
  #138  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Yes, I have been wondering about what Meghan meant by "potentially."

Oprah said something to the effect: Someone actually wondered if your child would be too dark?

And Meghan replied "potentially."

So did someone say it or was it simply inferred by Harry?
what does potentially mean anyway? It makes no sense. If soemone DID say something like this, then the answer is "Yes, one of the RF did say it". Or "no."
  #139  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
They are both too proud to accept a deal like that, it would mean to them, crawling back to Britain without any public roles whatsoever, I rather think, that Meghan would take up commercial advertisements in the US or peddle Archie
I'm getting the distinct feeling that Harry is finding out exactly what the word "freedom" means. It's going to mean adjusting his life, his actions and his attitude towards being an adult able to stand on his own two feet. Living in the US, he's living in a place where there's no deference to a person because they were born "royal". There is no such thing either as a free lunch. He's always had "people" that protected him, made decisions for him, carried money for him and that bubble has now burst. He's not only responsible for his own self and well being but also for the health and well being of a wife and child with another child on the way. What does he really have right now to fall back on? What is his safety net when things go bump in the night?

Meghan, on the other hand has proven that she can be self sufficient and built a career all on her own merit. She abandoned all that when she married into the royal family but her experiences within that fold could never equal Harry's who had always been "protected" and "taken care of" by other people that surrounded him. Meghan, most likely can survive the cutthroat world as she's been a part of it before. For Harry, its all a brand new experience and he's floundering. Its no wonder he's so aggrieved that the Bank of Daddy has closed its doors. He's never had to really face the world as an independent and self sufficient adult. I'd be just as flummoxed should I be asked to step into an OR tomorrow morning and perform brain surgery. I have absolutely no experience or knowledge of what's involved and how to go about it.

When you isolate yourself on an island, you don't burn your bridges and not be able to reach the mainland for essential supplies to survive.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #140  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
As a future monarch, I assume George would get his own security detail. N that's the point, Archie is not George. Plain and simple.
I was responding to CrownPrincessJava's point about Archie needing security because he might go out without his parents - which I am sure will happen. I think it is pretty safe to assume that Meghan and Harry's RPOs would ensure he was safe. When Archie starts school, that may have been a different issue but they would probably do a security assessment at that time.
__________________

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 american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baptism biography british british royal family british royals camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg monarchist movements monarchists plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry spanish royal family speech st edward swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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