The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
We don't know what was allegedly said, we don't know the context, and we don't know who allegedly said it. It was completely inappropriate for Harry to create a situation like this. Would you send round an e-mail saying that "someone" in your workplace or someone in your class at school had made racist remarks to you, knowing that then everyone would be speculating and fingers would be being unjustly pointed at various different people? It's not appropriate to tell half a story, knowing that it'll lead to a lot of people falling under suspicion.
__________________

  #142  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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.
Who told them the baby would not have security????????
__________________

  #143  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:15 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
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.
Kate's privacy was vulgarly violated by the French magazine. But that's rude. Or it must be alright, coz you know why.
Btw, bringing that "Waity Katy" thing up was another level low. She could've made a general statement, but no, she had to twist that knife deeper.
  #144  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:16 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
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 think a better comparison would be Archie and Charlotte's security or Archie and Louie's. Perhaps especially Archie and Louie sine they were both of a similar age. Though now the Sussexes are no longer working royals it's a bit of a moot point.
  #145  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:16 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
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.
No no, I get it. I was continuing with my previous comment about Archie not getting security detail is no different than Beatrice or Eugenie not getting it. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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.
Why should anyone be favoured because of their race?

Besides, it's not about the Queen favouring one grandchild over another, it's called the line of succession. N spares are not all that important, white, black, or otherwise.
  #146  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:26 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
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
Perhaps, Harry & Meghan should bravely named the individual instead of putting every member of the royal family on the chopping block

I don't buy into it and will remained skeptical unless there are more clear evidence with more context.

I don't need a person to tell me what to believe and think on the topic racism. It's very condescending and patronising to assume that I'm a oppressed victim because of my ethnicity
  #147  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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.
So by this logic, they should have changed the long-standing rules in Archie's favor based on what? The fact that he's bi-racial? How is that not singling him out as more important than her other grandchildren? The fact is, they followed the rules regarding a title or lack thereof. Full stop. Why on earth should those rules have been changed with only the argument that he's bi-racial as the justification? The fact that he's bi-racial is simply a fact. Again, full stop. Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is bi-racial. He is a great-grandson of the Queen. He is not the heir or the child of the heir or the grandchild of the heir. He is not, therefore entitled to the title. Those are all simply facts and there's really not a justification for singling him out as more special or more important because of his race.
  #148  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:28 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Why should anyone be favoured because of their race?

Besides, it's not about the Queen favouring one grandchild over another, it's called the line of succession. N spares are not all that important, white, black, or otherwise.

Yes. This isn't about "favouring children or grandchildren", it's about the survival of the institution. The heir and his heirs will always be more important, period. That's the gist of having a monarchy - the HRH, the perks for life, the Givenchy wedding gown, the private jets, the 40 million worth wedding. People regularly forget that while Harry and Meghan have to play second fiddle to William and Kate - and get so much sympathy for this, - everyone else have to play second fiddle to them until William's children grew up. That's how it works in a monarchy and that keeps it - and the perks - going. This isn't a Republic of Royals reigning over a republic.


To be fair, I never believed in Harry and Meghan's lasting stardom, popularity or whatever it's called. They were a new couple and she was regarded as a breath of fresh air. By this time, the Cambridges were long settled into boring married life. It was natural for the "sun" to shine on the newlyweds. It was the same with Sarah and Andrew. And it would have played out the same way, had Harry and Meghan not decided to leave.


It's how a monarchy works.
  #149  
Old 03-09-2021, 04:28 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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.


We’re talking about the monarchy. It’s all about traditions and rules.
  #150  
Old 03-09-2021, 05:31 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
I am glad the RF decided not to engage publicly with them. That was a very good move on their part
  #151  
Old 03-09-2021, 05:41 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
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?
I took Meghan's "potentially" reply to mean that the person wondered if her child would potentially be too dark.
  #152  
Old 03-09-2021, 05:45 PM
kathia_sophia's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South, Portugal
Posts: 3,001
I think we are going to see Harry and Meghan regularly for interviews of this type in the future...Drama gives attention and attention gives money...Also, have they been paid for this interview with Oprah?
__________________
♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥
  #153  
Old 03-09-2021, 05:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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.
Tradition and rules are rather the point of the monarchy. And why should anyone be given preferential treatment because of their ethnicity?

You may as well say that August Brooksbank, Savannah and Isla Phillips and Mia and Lena Tindall should be made a prince and princesses, as otherwise it would suggest that the Queen favours one grandchild's children over the others. They're just as much the Queen's great-grandchildren as any of Charles's grandchildren are. But they're not in the direct line of succession. That's the way it goes. I don't hear Eugenie or Peter or Zara complaining.
  #154  
Old 03-09-2021, 05:51 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
Yes. This isn't about "favouring children or grandchildren", it's about the survival of the institution. The heir and his heirs will always be more important, period. That's the gist of having a monarchy - the HRH, the perks for life, the Givenchy wedding gown, the private jets, the 40 million worth wedding. People regularly forget that while Harry and Meghan have to play second fiddle to William and Kate - and get so much sympathy for this, - everyone else have to play second fiddle to them until William's children grew up. That's how it works in a monarchy and that keeps it - and the perks - going. This isn't a Republic of Royals reigning over a republic.


To be fair, I never believed in Harry and Meghan's lasting stardom, popularity or whatever it's called. They were a new couple and she was regarded as a breath of fresh air. By this time, the Cambridges were long settled into boring married life. It was natural for the "sun" to shine on the newlyweds. It was the same with Sarah and Andrew. And it would have played out the same way, had Harry and Meghan not decided to leave.


It's how a monarchy works.
Along with what you've explained, another point I'd like to make is that the "Firm" aka the monarchy does not and cannot decide who gets security or doesn't get security. That is totally up to the Metropolitan Police Protection Command which is funded by taxpayers. They assess and assign protection after examining the risk factor for a certain person. We can't blame the Queen or the "Firm" for any lack of security Archie would ever have in his lifetime as a son of senior working royals.

The Metropolitan Police Protection Squad is not a global protection force either. They have no jurisdiction outside of the UK. They do, however, provide protection for their British charges that travel out of the country and all expenses for their hotels, meals, airfare etc. are met by the British taxpayer.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #155  
Old 03-09-2021, 05:58 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,439
YouGov has published an article analysing polls on the topic of Oprah's interview and treatment of Harry & Meghan. Three questions were asked from 8th-9th March with 4654 British adults being surveyed, which includes:
  • When it comes to the dispute between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), with whom do your sympathies mostly lie?
  • From what you have read and heard, do you think the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan) have been treated fairly or unfairly by the Royal Family?
  • Do you think being a member of the Royal Family is more of a privilege or more of a burden?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...w-harry-meghan

PDF of the full results including breakdowns: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/usmfbong...s_March9th.pdf
  #156  
Old 03-09-2021, 06:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
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.

The problem is that Harry and Meghan seem to have trouble differentiating between the monarchy and private familial relationships. Within the monarchy, there is a hierarchical system - just like in many other places. For instance, the Vice President of the US is not equal to the President. They're just not, and it's the same here.

Harry is not equal to William, Meghan is not equal to Catherine and Archie is not equal to George, Charlotte and Louis (Charlotte is not equal to George either, and even Louis is not equal to Charlotte, "spare" of her generation). They don't have the same positions, and advantages as well as disadvantages of their positions will naturally differ.

Within the monarchy, there are actually two groups of the Queen's great-grandchildren right now.
A: George, Charlotte & Louis
B: Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena, August & Archie (so it's not like Archie is specifically singled out or disadvantaged in not being made a Prince)

That is the monarchy. In a personal capacity, I am sure that the Queen is a loving great-grandmother to all her great-grandchildren and does not favor one over the other.

There are other biracial children in the BRF, by the way, Lady Davina Windsor's children.
  #157  
Old 03-09-2021, 06:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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?
Interesting, Osipi, because for Meghan it was the complete opposite. She wasn't used to having people make decisions, carry money, etc. so she was floundering as a member of the royal family.

It's really very sad and I hope it ends well for everyone and that Harry and Meghan will find peace and never need a safety net. But if they do need a safety net, I honestly feel that Harry's family loves him and the door is open, but they will not enable him. If I'm wrong, he will have to rely on himself, like so many people in the world, with a lot fewer material advantages.
  #158  
Old 03-09-2021, 06:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathia_sophia View Post
I think we are going to see Harry and Meghan regularly for interviews of this type in the future...Drama gives attention and attention gives money...Also, have they been paid for this interview with Oprah?
It was announced previous to it being aired that Harry and Meghan were not paid for the interview. The couple have also stated that they will not be speaking publicly about their time as working royals again.
  #159  
Old 03-09-2021, 06:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
Random thought - I'd love to know what the Spencers make of it all. They're just as much Harry's family as the Royals are. Is he in touch with them? How do they get on with Meghan?
  #160  
Old 03-09-2021, 06:10 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,999
The statement by the Queen was brilliant and very diplomatic. Not that I would expect anything less.

My only critique is that I wonder-though how do they as a family address racial issues and do so privately? It is simply not possible to do.

Over the years we've have Philip's numerous racists comments that have been well documented.
Harry himself in the early 2000s publicly uttered racial slurs- calling someone a "Paki" and the notorious Hitler costume
2 winters ago Princess Michael notoriously wore her black face jewelry to a party attended by Harry & Meghan.

Who knows of other instances that the public knows nothing of.

One thing that definitely cannot happen now is for Harry &Meghan to loose their titles and/or HRH. I would suggest that the Queen authorizes for a diverse independent group investigate the allegations that the couple made. Were they infact denied access to mental health help during Meghan's moment of crisis, why weren't hurtful stories about Meghan officially refuted while other royals were, who made the racists comments..etc.

It maybe that the findings reveals startling information requiring the Queen and senior courtiers to "clean house" so to speak or come up with some plan to hold "principals" accountable when they are wrong.
__________________

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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