The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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???
 
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.
 
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.


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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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"? :whistling: (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.

‘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/celebrity-news/princess-eugenie-instagram-picture-trouble-638624
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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????????
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 :whistling:

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 :whistling:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I am glad the RF decided not to engage publicly with them. That was a very good move on their part
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom