Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beatrice and Eugenie lost their security in 2011 and Andrew had to start paying for it. There was a whole row at the time.

And Archie gets no security. Beatrice and Eugene had security up to adulthood but Harry and Meghan would have to pay for Archie’s security even in the remained as working royals.

This isn’t even true.

Remember — they all had security until March 2020, when they stopped being working royals.

This has been posted so many times, yet some insist on ignoring it. Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.

All that matters is that Archie would never be considered a prince, regardless of his race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch Meg saying “I gave up my career!” But then Harry mentioning his family wanted her to keep acting?

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

This is while they were still working royals.

Really the BRF has no defense if any of this is true. They cut Meghan's security while they were working and removed Archie from the line of succession. Look at Andrew- he's a spare and his kids are princesses.

But Eugenie’s son isn’t a prince. Archie would be a prince when Charles is king. Great grand children aren’t prince/princess. Also, as of right now Harry and Archie are still listed in the line of succession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering how dark the baby will be is an innocuous comment during casual conversation from a curious white person. Black people also speak like this and wonder or theorize on the shade or complexion of a baby. It's just not a big deal at all.

It's akin to labeling an innocent white girl who wants to touch your black hair because it's fascinating some sort of demonic racist. Fake race hustling and/or you're mentally ill.

And of course, that's assuming the comment even happened or happened precisely as s/he described, which it most certainly didn't.

I didn’t find this jaw dropping either. I think it’s common to do when people of different ethnicities or races are expecting a baby. My DH and I certainly did it! Of course tone matters. For us, it was excitedly wondering. Maybe Meghan & Harry picked up on a negative tone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering how dark the baby will be is an innocuous comment during casual conversation from a curious white person. Black people also speak like this and wonder or theorize on the shade or complexion of a baby. It's just not a big deal at all.

It's akin to labeling an innocent white girl who wants to touch your black hair because it's fascinating some sort of demonic racist. Fake race hustling and/or you're mentally ill.

And of course, that's assuming the comment even happened or happened precisely as s/he described, which it most certainly didn't.

I didn’t find this jaw dropping either. I think it’s common to do when people of different ethnicities or races are expecting a baby. My DH and I certainly did it! Of course tone matters. For us, it was excitedly wondering. Maybe Meghan & Harry picked up on a negative tone.

The thing is, Harry especially seems like the type to see a negative tone in EVERYTHING

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.

All that matters is that Archie would never be considered a prince, regardless of his race.

He wouldn’t have been one automatically, but the Queen was perfectly free to create him one if she’d wanted to. It would have been more even-handed vis a vis the treatment of William’s children. And since she’d actively intervened to create that even-handedness of treatment among great-grandchildren in the recent past (see the Letters Patent she issued in 2012 on behalf of William and Kate’s children), one could have fairly anticipated that she would do it here. Why didn’t she?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't watch. So Oprah did not ask them why they were intent on retaining their titles?

Well, it’s irrelevant now because apparently the royal family has taken away their titles, since doing this interview was a violation of the agreement they had made with the Queen last year.

Nope. They will no longer be referred to as HRH, but they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

At the end of the interview, Harry said *all* their titles were taken away.

Which makes zero sense, since they continue to be referred to as Duke and Duchess by all media outlets, and the BRF.

Once again, Harry demonstrates he is not the brightest bulb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering how dark the baby will be is an innocuous comment during casual conversation from a curious white person. Black people also speak like this and wonder or theorize on the shade or complexion of a baby. It's just not a big deal at all.

It's akin to labeling an innocent white girl who wants to touch your black hair because it's fascinating some sort of demonic racist. Fake race hustling and/or you're mentally ill.

And of course, that's assuming the comment even happened or happened precisely as s/he described, which it most certainly didn't.

I didn’t find this jaw dropping either. I think it’s common to do when people of different ethnicities or races are expecting a baby. My DH and I certainly did it! Of course tone matters. For us, it was excitedly wondering. Maybe Meghan & Harry picked up on a negative tone.

The thing is, Harry especially seems like the type to see a negative tone in EVERYTHING

This I understand. He lost his mom when he was 12 and he blames the press. He has believed for the last 25 years that they killed his mother. I don't think that is something you ever get over. That part of his brain will always be 12. In his head, the press are evil and bad intentions should always be assumed, because look what happened. It's some kind of PTSD. His loathing of the press is the one thing I really can't quarrel with, because I don't think it's coming from a rational adult mind and it springs from a deep, deep trauma that most of us will never experience. Even people who lose parents in childhood, don't usually see it happen the way he did, and get dissected by the entire world for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.

All that matters is that Archie would never be considered a prince, regardless of his race.

He wouldn’t have been one automatically, but the Queen was perfectly free to create him one if she’d wanted to. It would have been more even-handed vis a vis the treatment of William’s children. And since she’d actively intervened to create that even-handedness of treatment among great-grandchildren in the recent past (see the Letters Patent she issued in 2012 on behalf of William and Kate’s children), one could have fairly anticipated that she would do it here. Why didn’t she?

That was putting William's children (not yet born) on an even footing. Siblings should be on even footing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.

All that matters is that Archie would never be considered a prince, regardless of his race.

He wouldn’t have been one automatically, but the Queen was perfectly free to create him one if she’d wanted to. It would have been more even-handed vis a vis the treatment of William’s children. And since she’d actively intervened to create that even-handedness of treatment among great-grandchildren in the recent past (see the Letters Patent she issued in 2012 on behalf of William and Kate’s children), one could have fairly anticipated that she would do it here. Why didn’t she?

That was putting William's children (not yet born) on an even footing. Siblings should be on even footing.

Sure. But the same holds for great-grandchildren relative to one another. And ESPECIALLY when the first great-grandchild the new rule conveniently will not automatically apply to will be Black. There’s an opportunity there to do the right thing and the Queen (sounds like plus/minus racist staff, Charles and William) utterly whiffed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch Meg saying “I gave up my career!” But then Harry mentioning his family wanted her to keep acting?

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

This is while they were still working royals.

Really the BRF has no defense if any of this is true. They cut Meghan's security while they were working and removed Archie from the line of succession. Look at Andrew- he's a spare and his kids are princesses.

But Eugenie’s son isn’t a prince. Archie would be a prince when Charles is king. Great grand children aren’t prince/princess. Also, as of right now Harry and Archie are still listed in the line of succession.

In the interview Meghan said that they were planning on changing that such that Archie would never be a prince. I think it’s possible that these were things that were thought about before Harry got married as there was another royal family that recently removed a bunch of people from the royal line (can’t remember the country...somewhere in Europe one of the royals lives in Miami with her wealthy husband). But it’s weird they would wait to discuss that with him after he married a biracial woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.

All that matters is that Archie would never be considered a prince, regardless of his race.

He wouldn’t have been one automatically, but the Queen was perfectly free to create him one if she’d wanted to. It would have been more even-handed vis a vis the treatment of William’s children. And since she’d actively intervened to create that even-handedness of treatment among great-grandchildren in the recent past (see the Letters Patent she issued in 2012 on behalf of William and Kate’s children), one could have fairly anticipated that she would do it here. Why didn’t she?

That was putting William's children (not yet born) on an even footing. Siblings should be on even footing.

Sure. But the same holds for great-grandchildren relative to one another. And ESPECIALLY when the first great-grandchild the new rule conveniently will not automatically apply to will be Black. There’s an opportunity there to do the right thing and the Queen (sounds like plus/minus racist staff, Charles and William) utterly whiffed it.

None of her other great-grand children have HRH (outside of William’s). Why does Archie deserve it more than Zara and Eugenie’s children? Or did you forget they exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions: What was the point of this interview? What was their objective? Did they achieve it?

Getting people who only want to be enraged on their side? Seems to have worked, when it comes to ignorant Americans who only see the racism (which was there) but know nothing about royal security, titles, etc so they don’t see through their lies on any of that.

Exactly. The title protocol has been explained multiple times in this thread, and there are still posts buying the idea that Archie was discriminated against.

It's been explained multiple times, many of those explanations wrong and all of them omitting key context.

All that matters is that Archie would never be considered a prince, regardless of his race.

He wouldn’t have been one automatically, but the Queen was perfectly free to create him one if she’d wanted to. It would have been more even-handed vis a vis the treatment of William’s children. And since she’d actively intervened to create that even-handedness of treatment among great-grandchildren in the recent past (see the Letters Patent she issued in 2012 on behalf of William and Kate’s children), one could have fairly anticipated that she would do it here. Why didn’t she?

That was putting William's children (not yet born) on an even footing. Siblings should be on even footing.

Sure. But the same holds for great-grandchildren relative to one another. And ESPECIALLY when the first great-grandchild the new rule conveniently will not automatically apply to will be Black. There’s an opportunity there to do the right thing and the Queen (sounds like plus/minus racist staff, Charles and William) utterly whiffed it.

The Cambridge children are the only great-grandchildren with titles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

Harry and Meghan are wealthy private citizens who can pay for their own security if they deem it necessary. Why on earth should this be on the taxpayer's dime, or even the family?

I totally agree with you. My point is that I think a lot of people assume the royal family has a ton of private money they can use as they wish. I don’t think that’s really true. They are ultimately government officials (of a sort).

I think the Queen has a Duchy, from which she earns some private money. That’s the only thing she pays taxes on, so I think it’s the only money she “earns.” The rest comes from the Sovereign Grant, which is UK taxpayer money.

You won't get a clear picture because they use a series of cut outs like any mob family. But the Sovereign grant is the very least of their wealth.

You sound so ignorant. They don’t own the Sovereign Grant. That’s not their money.

While I don't pretend to have insider knowledge of the BRFs finances, I was responding to the pp that seems to think the family gets its wealth from the Sovereign grant (their salary, basically). That's simply not the case. The family has kept its finances shrouded in mystery and held in places like the Caymans. They are absolutely using methods to hide their money which is exactly why no one knows how much they have.

Ok ... what’s your point? The Sovereign Grant isn’t their money. The Duchy of Cornwall is not owned by them. People look at things like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and assume the royal family privately owns all of that. They do not.

People simply don’t really understand the very basics of this.

My point is that they are not, as the pp states, hapless public servants who can't afford to extend security to a prince.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

Since they are paying for other non-senior royals, yes. He was clear that he wanted to step back and be on the same tier as Andrew's kids, who retain their titles and get security. He was very clear that he was not asking for a special arrangement but rather to be demoted.

They are all working royals. Very different than what Harry and Meghan did.

They did not renounce their status as working royals.

Andrew and his children are not working royals. I don’t think Beatrice and Eugenia were ever working royals.

[Anonymous]

Narcissists often change a story to make themselves look like the victim instead of the villain. I found it telling that Meghan didn’t want to get into any details about the Kate crying incident because Kate apologized. Perhaps Kate was the bigger person and apologized first when Meghan should have instead.