Despite having much disappointment at the Royal Family's failure (IMO) to support Meghan's right to live there without harassment from the press, I do love my English roosts and admire many of the Royals. I just think they slipped up on this one. I will be so sad when the Queen and Prince Phillip pass on, and love following William and Kate and their family.

I hated that Charles and Diana's marriage didn't work out, but it never should have occurred in the first place, when his heart was elsewhere. But we know he felt pressured to marry soon, and he knew it couldn't be to Camilla. At least he's happy now. It's sad that Diana never found her true love, before her death.

I used the term 'passive racism' because that's how we now describe those who are witness to someone being victimized by racism, but do nothing to speak up or act against it. But I do not feel by any means that any of Harry's family are racist, using the definition of those who truly have a prejudice against someone of another race, and speak of them, speak to them or treat them, with disdain, disrespect or discrimination. I really feel that Harry's relatives are just ignorant and unaware that today, racism is perceived, even when it wasn't intended, if we turn the other cheek, rather than at least speak up, when we witness it.

I may be wrong but I don’t think Harry has gotten a pass at all. To me it seems he is viewed as an impressionable dolt. As stated above there were things he 100% did know but seems to be going along with a different script entirely. He does love Meghan that’s for sure. All these $$$$$ contracts signed to keep their life public, the pressure, the toxicity... I think they have made a fatal error on the preservation of that love. I hope I’m mistaken though.

Still wondering if the 2nd showing will be altered.

The grandchildren of a reigning monarch are eligible for HRH titles as prince and princess. Archie will be eligible for that title when Charles becomes king. H and M were told he would not be granted the title at that time. William and Kate’s children are not technically eligible to be princes and princesses either, but an exception was made for them by the Queen. An exception could have been made for Archie as well, but not only was he denied the exception, Charles decided that in a “slimmed down” monarchy Archie would also not become a prince when Charles himself takes the throne. This is the first time that the HRH title will not be offered to the grandchildren of a reigning monarch. Is it any wonder that this fact, coupled with the remarks about their future children’s skin tone, led H and M to surmise the intent was racist?

Beatrice and Eugenie had a security detail until they turned 18. Now they are attended while they are appearing In an official capacity.

I continue to be amused that people seem to think a five to ten year production deal for $100 million means it is all profit and payable in full on signing.

“I have never cared about the royal family one way or another. However, in hearing about the interview, I have to say that I admire Harry and his love for his family that drove him to leave the only lifestyle he has ever known. And, the vitriol here, toward them both, is a bit surprising.”

Not surprising to me at all. H and M were not favorites of our own recently deposed ruler. 🤔

FWIW The issue of a slimmed down monarchy has been championed by Charles for decades. He has made it absolutely plain that he believes the British public have no interest in having a larger working monarchical family. Long before Prince Andrew's fall from grace, his children were sent out into the working world as "regular" people, not working Royals. And while Eugenie and Beatrice are styled as princesses, times change. Consider that not long ago Prince Louis would go before Princess Charlotte in succession to the throne, and today, that is not the case. Not everything is about race.

That is very true, Zalco. But Harry and Meghan were always going to be part of that slimmed down group of working royals. ( I always thought the reason for that was to get the queen’s cousins off the payroll, and they‘ve finally done that.) But because Charles only had two children to QE2’s four, the number of working royals in the next generation would be halved already. Somebody has to do the work of representing the crown all around the country and in the commonwealth. If the older generation shows down there will be nobody to take up the slack, Who will want to pay for the monarchy if they can’t even appear at fundraisers for their charities, or at the groundbreaking of a new skyscraper?

Well at least I got to watch it - just finished. I don't know but Oprah herself seemed a more contrived and staged and stirring it up than usual. Just my take on it.

I did not feel that Meghan was being sincere, but I cannot think of a reason for her and Harry to be making the claims they are making if they are not true. It makes no sense.

In my gut, their claims don't ring true.

"But Harry and Meghan were always going to be part of that slimmed down group of working royals. ( I always thought the reason for that was to get the queen’s cousins off the payroll, and they‘ve finally done that.) But because Charles only had two children to QE2’s four, the number of working royals in the next generation would be halved already. Somebody has to do the work of representing the crown all around the country and in the commonwealth."

The whole point was not just to get the cousins off the payroll, but also most of the Queen's grandchildren. They want to streamline expenses to those in the direct line of succession (which does not include Harry)That's why Charles cut off full time security for Beatrice and Eugenie (and had an almighty row with their father about it at the time). His sister and her children don't have it (even though Anne has for years been one of the two or three hardest working royals) , and neither does his youngest brother and his family. They get security when they attend official events but that's it. I don't see why Harry should expect Archie to have more entitlements than two of the Queen's own children.

Charles is acutely aware that the monarchy is under intense scrutiny for its use of taxpayer funds, and the only way to ensure its survival is to trim the bloat. And yes, the Sovereign Grant is taxpayer funding. It is government aka taxpayer money granted by the government to cover the Queens expenses in her role as head of state.

Except that the queen finds the sovereign grant, not the taxpayers. It is the income from the Crown estates that funds their stipends, and most of that income stays in the hands of the government—a smaller position if it is used for the maintenance of the RF. It’s a huge net for the government. Additionally, the queen pays taxes on her private income, as does Charles on his income from the duchy of cornwall.

The taxpayers, per se, do not fund the sovereign grant.

If Anne’s life was threatened, do you think she would get a security detail for the duration of the threat? If Beatrice and her husband received death threats, do you think they would get at least temporary protection?

When Harry was told he would no longer have security they asked if the threat level had changed and were told it was at the same level as when they did receive security protection. What are they supposed to infer from that?

I was finally able to watch the full interview and I'm not entirely sure what to think of the situation. Their complaints reminded me of my own children when they'd disagree among themselves and each tried to make themselves appear to be the victim. When Meghan first appeared on the scene my initial impression was that she was a well spoken, intelligent young woman and it seemed that they had truly made a love match. It's hard not to have a soft spot for Harry when you consider everything he has been through and I hope they find happiness and fulfillment in their future endeavors.

The regulations and/or traditions that dictate royal titles and financing are too complex for me to make an informed comment. I'm not sure about the accuracy of H&M's version and I have no idea if they were singled out for royal demotion.

However after watching the interview I have to confess that Meghan's demeanor didn't ring true. There were so many pauses and murmurs and puppy dog looks that it seemed she wanted the audience to believe that she was being circumspect while still making accusations. This was most evident when she answered Oprah's question as to who cried before the wedding. It seemed to be a rather insignificant event and perhaps pre-wedding stresses were part of it. I wished Oprah had asked why Meghan's mother was alone during the wedding ceremony. Perhaps there was some royal tradition behind that decision but it appeared so odd.

Unfortunately I can easily imagine that someone questioned Archie's skin color and the subsequent pain that must have caused is truly saddening. When Oprah asked who made those comments Meghan said that she couldn't name them because "it would be damaging to them. " What was the purpose of the interview then because telling their side was damaging to the rest of the Royals.

As for Meghan's suicidal thoughts I don't understand why they didn't seek help privately if they were turned down by the Firm. Harry and William have spoken often about the importance of mental well being and are part of a national foundation to support Mental Health. It's hard to fathom that he didn't have a contact or two that he could phone and ask for help.

They both came across as rather self-absorbed. Maybe that's a generational commodity because there are times when I feel that my own adult children who are about the same age act that way. However they seemed to take it significantly further- along the analogy of wanting their cake and eating it too.

I still believe that Meghan is an intelligent, independent woman but I doubt she was as unaware of royal family and etiquette as she mentioned. It's hard to believe that the subject of rank and how to greet the Queen never came up between H&M or that she hadn't viewed it before on TV. Personally I find the dictates of rank and who bows to whom rather archaic and demeaning especially among family members but thankfully that's something I will never have to confront.

It all reminds me of John Oliver's quips when asked by Stephen Colbert his thoughts on the upcoming wedding back in 2018.

...............“Yeah,” said Oliver, cautiously. “I mean, they’re an emotionally stunted
group of fundamentally flawed people doing a very silly pseudo job.
That’s what she’s marrying into. So I hope she likes it. It’s going to
be weird for her.”..................

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXQnh9q0q0g

Bear in mind that Harry has the image/memory of his mother stepping out on a limb and doing her own interview when she and Charles separated/got divorced. Who knows all the reasons why she did it, but the thinking of the time was that it was probably an attempt to set herself apart from "the firm" and create a separate public image. I see parallels here. And again, we forget that she was criticized in Britain for the same reason, airing private laundry and playing the victim. And that "the firm" was not being kind to her public image after her divorce. They made a movie out the the drama surrounding her death . . . in one case it was acknowledging grief appropriately in public, in another it is dealing with racism, whether the family is directly involved or not, their citizens both grieve and experience racism. There are two competing schools of thought, one is button it up and another is face it head on. Either one could work.

And Diana struggled to find a way to continue her public work once divorced. She didn't manage to navigate it very successfully. We view her in the rear view mirror as "loved" because she was loved by the press and still is. She was a damaged, beautiful woman and her image still sells and sells and sells.

I've witnessed two people collapse and die right in front of me, one from a peanut allergy anaphylactic shock and one from a heart attack. My mother died from a fall and I saw a kid fall out of a tree, puncture a lung with his broken rib and almost die. As a result, I am a seeming fuss-budget over-reacting worry-wart about some things--allergies, kids climbing stuff, people falling and people collapsing and not having 9-11 show up soon enough. I say this because to understand someone you have to look at their perspective and life experiences, not your own. White people are often clueless about how racism works, and yet they often act like experts on it. I had a black colleague once say that black people always have to know about and listen all about white people's experiences, it's seen as natural human congress, but when they ask for the same consideration, it's often dismissed. I have been lectured about Judaism from people who are clueless but heard things through their fundamentalist networks. I don't argue with them, but again, if you only consider your perspective, there is a good chance you are missing something, and listening and communicating is the only way to learn.

The interview is no great shakes for me one way or the other. Dismissal of racism has been an ongoing conversation most of my life. Which is why people of very different life experiences will have very different takes on what Harry and Meghan experienced. How to navigate the public space effectively is very difficult. Many examples of folks who struggle, few who do it well. Caroline Kennedy springs to mind . . . as does Jenna Bush.

Fact check: Meghan and Harry were not paid for their Oprah ...

https://www.usatoday.com › factcheck › 2021/03/11 › f...

Claim: Meghan Markle was paid $7 million for her interview with Oprah

Claimed by: social media users

Fact check by USA Today: False

kswl 2 - you continue to misunderstand the Sovereign Grant. It is true that it is funded by the profits from the Crown Estates, but those profits do not belong to the Queen; they belong to the government, and hence to the taxpayer, and have done so for 250 years. The Crown Estate itself is a sort of trust, which she owns during her lifetime but which she does not manage and cannot sell. The revenue from the Crown Estate belongs of right to the taxpayer, not the Queen. That is why the Sovereign Grant is subject to audit by the government: it is public money. All the profits of the Crown Estate are public monies.

I don’t misunderstand. When the properties were initially ceded to the government it was agreed that a percentage of the profits would be used for the maintenance of the official (publicly owned) residences and funding of the work of the monarchy. This is a small percentage of the amount the grant generates, so it is not money taken, per se, from the taxpayers although it is obviously money the taxpayers do not receive. Since the RF generates so much tourism one can make a case that the UK population, taxpayers among them, benefit far more from the positive impact/ contribution of the RF to the economy than the 15% of the sovereign grant that goes to the RF. In addition several other sources of funding are held in trust specifically for the queen and maintenance of her family . Thirdly she has a private income from estates owned by her that were given to her or inherited by her from her family.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

I am not proposing that the British or Canadian or American taxpayers provide security services for the Sussexes. I am saying that parents and grandparents of great means have the wherewithal — and the responsibility— to fund the safety of their own children and grandchildren if those offspring are at risk because they were born into that family through no fault of their own.

You have said "Except that the queen finds the sovereign grant, not the taxpayers." She doesn't. The government does. The profits have belonged to the government since 1760. The current percentage based arrangement has only been in place since 2011.

As for the rest, there are two versions about who paid for the Sussexes security after they left Canada. It certainly seems that Charles provided some kind of financing for them,, whether for security or not I don’t know. As for whether the royal family should pay for their offspring's security, it was the Sussexes choice to live a high profile lifestyle in California. The royal family members with a more mundane and private lifestyle seem to manage perfectly well with minimal or no security.

I wonder how many of the other members of the family receive racially motivated death threats? And if the choice is either to stay in the

bosom of the RF and feel suicidal or leave and be a target for crazies, you think there isn’t a third option— for Charles to pay for his son’s protection simply because this is what families do?

There are some very interesting ideas about family obligations expressed here.

How do we know she is telling the truth?

It feels like a "he said, she said" and as they say, then there's the truth. Here are interesting words from Angela Levin, the author of the book-

Harry Conversations with the Prince

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aAd0CAPmtU

My Brit friend just told me about this show, says it’s pretty good. I’m trying to find a way to watch it over here. Harry & Meghan vs Monarchy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021/03/06/harry-meghan-vs-monarchy-review-channel-5-squeeze-one-last-royal/amp/

"There are some very interesting ideas about family obligations expressed here."

As well as not believing a woman of color that she's not being supported around issues of racism, not just about the color of her child's skin but the safety of that child and her own safety. It seems some people are held to a higher standard of scrutiny than others about "truth" and often it's women and even more often people of color.

Sorry I don’t feel even slightly guilty over bacing my opinion on facts and NOT color. That would be racist. Shame on anyone suggesting this kind of thinking. If I see some proof I’ll change my mind. I wonder if the poor Queen/Royals who may have been slandered could sue? Those were pretty serious accusations Screamed around the entire world.

So you know the "facts" are different than what was said in the interview? Hmmm.

You might want to read it again.

So instead of believing people who speak out at some cost to themselves, the benefit of the doubt goes to everyone except them. You say it isn’t racist, that you are motivated by the “facts,” and yet you do not know the facts any more than anyone else. The default is to disbelieve the only person of color in the entire story.

That is.....interesting.

Speak out at some cost to themselves? What? BLM is all the rage right now. It’s where it’s at! It’s cool. It’s hip.

Nope, don’t know the facts. I stated that and that I would like some.

And yes, I am interesting haha.

Screamed around the entire world...and not naming who supposedly said it and leaving people to speculate was a HORRIBLE decision on their part. And I thought the Queen handled it wonderfully. I wish the royals would sue-but they won’t.

I’m sorry you seem so angry about the BLM movement but I am not sure what that has to do with HandM.

Naw I’m too happy to be angry. Thank you though.

Anyway, on to another topic ...I hope you are dealing with your mommas health as well as can be expected😊

Wow? Kswl has had a difficult time. Maybe you didn’t know. She has gotten thoughtful acknowledgments throughout many different posts when she appears .

Dee, you might want to delete your hurtful post.

The UK Press convinced the public Harry had blindsided the Royal Family. But we learned he'd talked with his grandmother about his ongoing concerns, long before he made a final decision to leave England. It was he who was blindsided, by suddenly being told his children would be the first royal grandchildren, to not be offered HRH titles, that would allow them security protection. Up until he was told, Harry had no reason to suspect that protocol was about to change.

I will happily give Charles the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps when he pares down the titled royals, for cost effectiveness, he feels he should do so for his own grandchildren as well, and not just distant relatives. Does including Harry's children in that paring down, make anyone a racist. Nope.

The conversations about the potential skin colour of Harry's child may have been misunderstood as concern about the child, rather than for the child. But the 'your children won't be HRH' conversation should have been discussed with Harry long ago, and not assumed he knew it would include his own children, rather than just titled relatives much further from the throne.

Harry and Meghan both say she was warmly welcomed into the Royal Family. Neither claim Meghan ever felt ill treated by any of them. Yet still, the Royal Family said nothing, even when 72 members of Parliament called out the Press for their treatment of Meghan, saying "It cannot be allowed to go unchallenged." Their silence no doubt made Harry feel that keeping a good public relationship with the Press, was more important than supporting him and his wife, even in a matter so crucial, that it caused the son of the next King, to leave England and his life as a royal.

Did their non support, stem from racism? In my opinion, no. I think it stemmed from cowardice.

My mother had a head to thigh pet scan yesterday and we expect the results on Monday morning. Thank you for asking, JTL. i am trying to make meals to tempt her appetite but she is only taking in about 600 cal a day. 🙁

Her echo results were not good but her heart is now not thought to be the primary problem.

You are a good daughter Kswl!

I am trying... cooking keeps me busy and distracted. I made pizza today, homemade from the crust to the sauce, which I made from fresh tomatoes. Tomorrow I am making French bread to go with a pasta dish, then using the bread to make garlic bread for dinner. The dough is in the fridge waiting for a second rise tomorrow morning.

Tina M, I was replying much of the above to your thread asking for news. My reply vanished along with the thread itself, it must have violated the ”no mentioning someone by name in thethread title” rule. 😞

amicus: you say "It was he who was blindsided, by suddenly being told his children would be the first royal grandchildren, to not be offered HRH titles, that would allow them security protection."

This is where I have a problem with the whole Oprah interview. Harry was not blindsided. First, the rule about who is and is not entitled to be a prince has been in place since 1917, and furthermore, was discussed in the British press before he and Meghan got married. This article was published a month before they got married.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-meghan-markles-children-11595194

Harry also knew that the title of Prince does not automatically entitle anyone to security. His aunt, Princess Anne, doesn't have it, neither does his uncle, Prince Edward, his cousins, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie, or more distant relatives like Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

Harry knew all of this well before Archie was born and so did Meghan. That part of the interview I found to be quite disingenuous and misleading, and it left me with reservations about the reliability of a few other things.

Amicus, interesting take!

I spoke to my British friend today who in an American definition would be considered very liberal. I was surprised at her disgust toward H&M. She said people are divided on this topic according to age not politics. Very young inexperienced people are on the racist Royals mindset and the rest are loathing H&M. Strongly.

I‘m wondering if her account is more or less accurate.

The people I know are around my age so.,.

Edited: I now see two posts above this that were not there a 2nd ago. Jmm, your posts are so informative!

@User i did not see what was going on in this thread when I posted my thread. I think I had the same mindset as Dee. I decided to delete my thread. I’m glad to see the “tone” here changed. You and your mother are in my thoughts and prayers.

Interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading. Haven't watched the interview or any snippets, and don't plan to see.

@User and @Tina Marie I saw the new thread yesterday and was going to find this morning for an update. Kswl, hoping the results are better than expected. I'm glad you are able to care for your mom and hope she is eating better today.

I’m glad the tone has changed as well. Although, I realize it’s ok to have different views but still care for one another. Many of us have been together/weathered much and still like each other but will most likely never agree on certain topics. “Ol” and I will never agree but I still think she is amazing.

Tina, it’s nice that you started a new thread, several people here (not just me) have been slipping caring thoughts into unrelated posts. This wasn’t my first time by the way.

Edited: don’t forget your clocks.

Yep gotta feel bad for those two. Poor poor pity their choices.

The summer of 2019 was a difficult one for Meghan. She was constantly being bashed in the press. The royal reporter for The Times said that he knew that Meghan was having problems and had gone to Human Resources to ask for help regarding her depression and suicidal thoughts, but his editor prevented him from writing about it.

In November of 2019, I sent a Thanksgiving Day card and a letter of support to Meghan. I received a letter back from Buckingham Palace. It was from the The Office of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. It said that the Duchess of Sussex had asked her to write and thank me for my letter, and that Her Royal Highness appreciated my kind words of support.

After watching the interview, I am so glad that I sent the card and letter to Meghan.

jmm, I wasn't able to get online yesterday, but just wanted to respond to you, as the article I read from the link you posted, is not in sync with your comments. So there might be some confusion there. The link I posted below, really explains in great detail how the HRH designation is given.

jmm, the rule you speak of, about who is and is not entitled to be a prince, which has been in place since 1917, states clearly that grandchildren of the reigning monarch are entitled to an HRH designation. That has not changed in 104 years, so Harry would have no reason to think his children would be excluded from that title, when his father is King.

Remember, his and Meghan's interview wasn't discussing their children not getting HRH during Queen Elizabeth's reign. They were talking about under his father's reign, which could be any year now, for Charles. Harry was only told last year (during the pregnancy for Archie) that this would now change, making his children the first grandchildren of a reigning monarch to not be allowed the HRH title. I understand Charles wanting to pare down the HRHs, but surely Harry should have been told that years ago, so it wasn't unexpected, which is why I said 'blindsided.'

I agree that Harry would know the title of Prince doesn't automatically entitle anyone to security. But if they request it, it is given. Princess Anne and Prince Edward both chose not to use regular security, but I'm sure it wouldn't be denied if they felt they needed it. And as we know, Prince Andrew did use the HRH for his daughters, who were covered by the Crown for security protection, until 2011, when they were 22 and 20, I believe.

I dread to think how bad it would be, if any of Harry's children were harmed, as they have a higher risk threat, due to the clear message from the UK Press, that their mother doesn't deserve to be married to a member of the Royal Family. What is tabloid fodder now, will be recorded in historical documents, once Charles is King. His marriage to Diana, the births of his sons, his divorce, Diana's death, and his marriage to Camilla, is already chronicled.

And now it will also be written, that the King's own son, Prince Harry, left his life with the Royal Family in England, and took his family to America. I wonder if it will be written as 'abandoned his Royal Family and country' or 'made the choice to put his family's well being first.' I personally feel that this new change to pare down HRH entitlement, should be for those relatives further than 5th in line, which Harry will be, when the Queen passes away. But if it must include grandchildren of a reigning monarch, I would have held off until William's reign. Maybe by then, a racist Press will no longer be ruling the country, instead of the Royal Family.

amicus - there is no dispute that, according to the convention established by George V, Archie would be entitled to the HRH when his grandfather became king, but not before. The impression that Meghan gave, however, was that something had been taken away from Archie at birth because of his race, which is very misleading. She also argued that they had "no right" to take away the title, which rather ignores the simple fact that the 1917 ruling by George V did in fact establish that the Monarch can change the rules on who gets titles. (The question in my mind is whether the decision to deny Archie a title later on was in fact ever made. ) But that Meghan raised the subject of the title as though it were an entitlement that had already been taken away I found quite misleading.

In any case, there is no linkage between the title of Prince, and an entitlement to security so why try to link the two as though there were? When you say: "I agree that Harry would know the title of Prince doesn't automatically entitle anyone to security. But if they request it, it is given," you are in fact mistaken. Security for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie was taken away, over the furious objections of their father, back in 2010. Andrew requested its reinstatement in 2016, but it was again refused. They pay for their own security. They do get official security when attending official events.

As for paring down the succession, it's true that Harry will be 5th in line and Archie 6th when Charles ascends the throne. When Elizabeth herself ascended the throne, the 5th and 6th in the line of succession would have been the Duke of Gloucester and his older son. The current Duke of Gloucester is 29th in line. By the time Archie is an adult, it's entirely possibly that he will be 9th or 10th in line. That's where Beatrice and Eugenie sit now. Ordinary jobs, no state security. Why on earth should Archie's parents have expected something different for him?

Anne and Edward have both chosen to provide as normal a life as possible for their children: no princely titles, regular jobs, no permanent security. Harry and Meghan had two models right in front of them for bringing up their children with some degree of privacy and normalcy, and instead demanded princely titles and full time security. I'm sorry, but that doesn't gibe with the picture they're trying to paint. Nor does the decision to court publicity and market their "brand" in the way they've been doing.

I absolutely grant that the British tabloid press is over the top and parts of it are racist. I can see why Harry and Meghan decided to leave. Their initial expectation, however, that they could be part-time royals with all the perks and protections but few or none of the duties, struck me at the time as amazingly tone-deaf and entitled, given that the monarchy is under constant pressure to explain and justify its cost to the taxpayer. And I thought a fair bit of that sense of entitlement came through in the interview.

I saw a funny meme...it’s hard for most of us to drum up sympathy for a millionaire complaining to a billionaire about how hard it was being a princess. 😂

I‘ve said it before, and the interview reinforced it...I simply don’t like her. There is something about her that I find very manipulative and off-putting. Please don’t make this a race thing...there are plenty of white people I find manipulative and off-putting. (H. Clinton falls into this category....it’s not politics, it’s personality.) Is it possible that she is just unliked by the British people? I just read an article where H and M’s poll numbers took a dive in England since the interview. I remember that she received very favorable press at first....then it seemed it became less and less favorable as time went on. Perhaps they got to know her better? I think H&M didn’t help matters when they seemed to disdain traditional things like the photograph leaving the hospital after the birth of their son. I know, I know...it’s a ridiculous thing to ask of a brand new mother, but his mom and Kate sucked it up and did it. That crown isn’t free, you know. And you can’t have it both ways. I do think it’s best they left, except for the irreparable damage to Harry’s family ties. The free market can determine the value of H&M now.

Nini, I don't think the post hospital photograph was that big of a deal. Lying about when and where (I believe, not 100 percent sure) she gave birth, that seemed pretty low to me.

@nini804 you and I have the same taste in people ( who I do not know personally). Often it's just an initial gut reaction that just gets confirmed. I can remember HC with the headband on 60 minutes and I just thought she was so studied and unnatural. Often I am sure there is some nervousness and not loving being on camera, but I find with both MM and HC a very contrived manner.

Nini, I agree, people who don't care for Meghan Markle can dislike her, as they might anyone, for any multitude of reasons. As Zalco (I think) said, 'Not everything is about race.' But IMO, it is about race, with regard to how Meghan is covered by the UK Press. They have just printed too many racially slanted articles that clearly imply the writers doesn't feel she's worthy of being married to one of their Royals.

However, nowhere have I seen any evidence that Harry's family is being racist. They welcomed Meghan with open arms. I think they are simply between a rock and a hard place. They feel they can't show public support to Meghan by calling out the Press and demanding they cease with their thinly veiled racism towards her, because they can't alienate the biggest means of ensuring their own coverage stays favourable, to keep them relevant and beloved, in an ever modernizing world.

Jmm, you mentioned "The impression that Meghan gave, however, was that something had been taken away from Archie at birth because of his race, which is very misleading."

I'd have to disagree with Meghan giving that impression, because she told Oprah

"there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

So that wasn't misleading, as she never suggested Archie should have been an HRH at birth.

We're on the same page about Meghan misunderstanding that entitlements can be given or taken away by the reigning monarch, as in how Queen Elizabeth revoked Diana and Sarah's HRHs, when they divorced her sons. H&M may be greatly disappointed that their children will not be allowed an HRH, but it is Charles' right to not grant that designation, if he so chooses.

Later you commented "(The question in my mind is whether the decision to deny Archie a title later on was in fact ever made.)"

jmm, so you're wondering if maybe they lied to Oprah? Well if so, they're in a whole lot of trouble, because if untrue, that is slander and probably libel too, since it's now in print:

Oprah: Who tells you that? (referring to Meghan saying they were told their baby would never get an HRH)

Meghan: I heard a lot of it through Harry and then other parts of it through conversations with . . .

Oprah: Mm-hmm.

Meghan: . . . family members. And it was a decision that they felt was appropriate. And I thought, well . . .

I commented "I agree that Harry would know the title of Prince doesn't automatically entitle anyone to security. But if they request it, it is given." I stand by that. When Andrew requested an HRH for his future children, they were given both the title and security protection from birth. I doubt Harry would feel slighted if his children received the HRH from Charles, but security protection was taken away when they were adults, as it was taken away from his cousins at that point also.

You commented "By the time Archie is an adult, it's entirely possibly that he will be 9th or 10th in line. That's where Beatrice and Eugenie sit now. Ordinary jobs, no state security. Why on earth should Archie's parents have expected something different for him?"

Because nowhere in the rules set in place since 1917, is there a stipulation that state security for an HRH is dependent upon how far down each grandchild becomes in succession. So I agree, why on earth should Archie's parents have expected something different for him?

I'm aware that (referring to Princess Anne and Prince Edward) "Harry and Meghan had two models right in front of them for bringing up their children with some degree of privacy and normalcy, and instead demanded princely titles and full time security."

But neither of Princess Anne's grown children have ever been married to someone who was so constantly disparaged, or had their newborn baby portrayed in the newspapers as a chimp. Neither of Princess Anne's children have felt the need to leave England to feel safer. Prince Edward's children are still children, but neither are smeared constantly by the Press, to my knowledge.

And finally, we share some similar thoughts regarding how H&M appear, particularly Meghan. I can't help feeling she uses her acting techniques to emphasize her point, and when one acts disingenuous, it makes people doubt what is being said. The funny thing is, I do believe what they said, but don't feel they should have taken it out of family discussions. I believe Harry was told his children would not be given an HRH, that Meghan was basically told 'keep calm and carry on' when she went to someone to seek help for her emotional state, and I believe they felt totally abandoned of any Royal Family support against the Press. But if one appears to be melodramatic or coy when they are relating their truth, it leads many people to think it might not be truth, even when it is.

Amicus, I agree with what you've written (very well), except for Meghan appearing to be disingenuous and using acting techniques in the interview. I think both of them were being very, very careful about what they said and how they said it and since they didn't know the questions for sure in advance, they both took their time to formulate answers, so as to not misspeak. Harry has been trained since birth in that regard and I have no idea if Meghan has been that careful in her speech and choice of words in the past or just is using the methods of the royals to not say anything she would regret. Maybe acting discipline helped her with that, but I don't see her as "acting" when responding to the questions.

If Oprah has some sort of friendship with them she's surely had genuine conversations and I think she would have called BS if she felt she was being manipulated - she is pretty savvy.

amicus - I didn't mean to imply that they lied about Archie's future title - it may well have been discussed. It's just not clear to me that a firm decision was ever made.

As for this: "When Andrew requested an HRH for his future children, they were given both the title and security protection from birth. I doubt Harry would feel slighted if his children received the HRH from Charles, but security protection was taken away when they were adults, as it was taken away from his cousins at that point also."

Andrew's daughters were entitled to the HRH status as grandchildren of the reigning monarch, just as Harry is entitled to the same status for the same reason. Andrew didn't have to request it any more than Charles had to request it for Harry.

When the girls were born, they indeed had security provided; the tightening up of entitlements has occurred since then. Just as George V limited the handing out of titles in 1917, the Palace started to limited the provision of security to royals actually performing royal duties in 2010. I'm not sure what you mean about Harry's other cousins having security taken away as adults: if you mean the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward, they never had security in the first place because their parents never requested it.

I think you missed my point about the line of succession (or perhaps I wasn't clear - culpa mea). What I meant is that Archie is far enough down the line of succession, and will fall further down in his lifetime, that he is not ever likely to become a working royal. Anne and Edward (and Princess Margaret, for that matter) raised their children to have fairly normal lives and to plan for careers outside the limits of the Royal family.

So far as I know, the security threat is not about racist Englishmen targeting Archie; the actual threat is extremist Muslims targeting Prince Harry, who did two high-profile tours with the British Army in Afghanistan. And I stand to be corrected on this, but I don't think a racist cartoon or two reflects the actual reaction of the British public to Archie's birth. I have the impression that most people were interested in the new baby in a quite benign way. The press, not so much.

As for being abandoned by the family, again, I'm not so sure: Harry was patron of a couple of mental health organizations. You'd have thought he could have arranged for Meghan to get the help she needed if the Palace's medical staff couldn't or wouldn't assist. It's not like he and other members of the family hadn't had counselling or therapy from time to time.

jmm, I had commented "When Andrew requested an HRH for his future children, they were given both the title and security protection from birth. I doubt Harry would feel slighted if his children received the HRH from Charles, but security protection was taken away when they were adults,
as it was taken away from his cousins at that point also."

You responded "Andrew's daughters were entitled to the HRH status as grandchildren of the reigning monarch, just as Harry is entitled to the same status for the same reason. Andrew didn't
have to request it any more than Charles had to request it for Harry."

Thank you, 'requested' was the wrong word, as Andrew didn't 'request' an HRH for future children, he merely accepted usage of it, whereas his brother Prince Edward declined usage of it, although his children still have the HRH. He and Sophie felt it better to raise them without the title in their name, although they can use their HRH when they turn 18, if they choose.

We know that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie had HRH titles (as the Queen's grandchildren) and accompanying security until their young 20's, when it was taken away in 2011, due to budget cuts. I think maybe Harry wouldn't feel slighted if Charles offered any security for his grandchildren, out of his considerable personal funds, even if he issues new Letters Patent to exclude them from an HRH, along with all the distant relatives.

You commented "I'm not sure what you mean about Harry's other cousins having security taken away as adults: if you mean the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward, they never had security in the first place because their parents never requested it."

To clarify, when saying 'cousins' I've only ever referred to Andrew's daughters, re having their security taken away as adults, knowing Princess Anne's and Prince Edward's children never had nor requested security protection.

I've always been comparing Harry's kids as grandchildren of the King (when Charles reigns) to Andrew's daughters, as grandchildren of the Queen, only to illustrate how entitlement will change so drastically, from the Queen's reign to Charles.' But Harry has never once compared what Archie won't get, to what Beatrice and Eugenie received. They supposedly have a close relationship, so I'm sure Harry doesn't begrudge his cousins anything. I believe he just wishes his children would get the same, as grandchildren of the King. Like Beatrice and Eugenie, his children will most certainly will never be 'working royals' so that's never been a factor.

jmm, I agree, the security threat is not likely from any typical Englishman as I feel the vast majority of people have no racist feelings about Harry's wife or children. But I guess they felt that by leaving, they could escape the constant UK press coverage of Meghan, (several which are clearly racist) and live less stressfully abroad.

You said "...I don't think a racist cartoon or two reflects the actual reaction of the British public to Archie's birth."

Me either. But it contributed to the mindset of those who ARE racists, and among them, there could be crazies out there. There are crazies in Canada and the U.S. as well, of course, but we have far less tabloid newspapers churning out anti-Meghan hype, than the UK.

I too, thought it strange that as a patron of Mental Health organizations, Harry would not be able get Meghan some treatment for her mental health. Maybe he could have, if Meghan hadn't gone to 'someone' to discuss it. But once she had, and felt they brushed her off with 'lots of us have stresses' perhaps H&M felt they couldn't then go behind the Royal Family's back and seek outside help themselves. I believe that they truly felt abandoned by the Royal Family, from what they've told us they experienced.

But, just like everything else said in that interview, we'll never know the pure truth, because the Royals are unlikely to ever say or publish anything to confirm or deny, as is their protocol. So either the Royal Family was falsely portrayed as being unsupportive and turning a blind eye to things, or H&M were telling the truth, but got no support by asking privately, so they took their last shot at being heard, hoping that going public would force communication, rather than continued estrangement. But wow, I don't know.

olychick, I could see that both Harry and Megan seemed struggling to hold back tears at certain times, and I personally didn't doubt what they said. But at the time, I felt her delivery had a touch of affectation, which would push those sitting on the fence of believing what she said, to the dubious side. However you made very good points, so maybe what seemed like being a bit coy to me, was only pausing to make darn sure of exactly what she wanted to say, rather than for dramatic effect. Thanks for that input.

Anyway, I plan to bid this thread Adieu, as even being keenly interested in the Royals, I'm sure I've dissected Oprah's entire interview, ad nauseam, lol! I enjoyed this thread and reading everyone's viewpoints, and jmm, I think if all of us were enjoying a buffet meal, talking about this, you and I would have had to pay the tab, because we'd have eaten the most and been the last ones to leave! ;)

Just a snippet from an item in the The New Yorker

Buckingham Palace issued a statement today in response to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s explosive CBS interview with Oprah Winfrey. . . . The statement is 61 words long. —The Observer

First Draft

What I say now, I say as your Queen. In my sixty-nine-year reign, I never thought I would see what I saw when I tuned in, this past Sunday evening, to watch the interview. I could not contain my shock when Kandi revealed that LaToya and Drew had apparently shared an intimate moment at the bachelorette party. Nor did I realize, for a full two hours, that I was watching “The Real Housewives of Atlanta,” which is, I am told, a television programme about a city in America. I thought it quite good.

Second Draft

After the events of Sunday evening, I would like to address certain topics that arose in the interview conducted by the American journalist Harpo Winfrey. .........................

Lol!!!!!