Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[AxelAnnie]

Prince Harry and Meghan's security detail is branded 'unworkable'

A row has reportedly broken out as to who will foot the bill to keep Meghan Markle, Prince Harry and their son Archie safe as they continue to live in Canada.

www.google.com

The fact that Megan and Harry choose to live in North America meant their security bill sky rocketed.
If you want someone to else to pay for anything don’t you have to compromise to?

Maybe Charlie’s position is you chose to live in royal family as working member I pay for your security. You chose to live UK I pay to (reasonable levels)

You chose to live outside in UK where your security costs skyrocketed your on your own.

Well they wanted to. E financially independent. Meghan was wearing a $5000.00 dress. Perhaps they need to work with a financial planner.

@starrynight if they were indeed told that Archie wouldn't become prince when Charles became King, I understand they'd be really hurt if that breaches normal protocol. It's the principle really - I get that.
However, we have no details and there are most likely a bazillion more scenarios "in between" that could have occurred.

How in the world did Harry not know that? information is printed everywhere. The Letters Patent published in 2012 set the line of succession. There isn't a chance someone set it up that way to make sure a child of a mixed parent could not become a prince.

Meghan and Harry eschewed royal life as they wanted Archie to have a non royal life. Then they moved to America where the cost of protecting them went up by a bazillion dollars.

Given the choices THEY made and are making they certainly can't expect the British citizens to pay for their security.

Harry received 30,000,000 pounds at the death of Diana. If they feel the need for security they can certainly work it into their budget. And the 30 mil doesn't count the money that Meghan brought to the marriage.

 

[becca]

I deleted it but I think it's necessary to get my point across. Because treating someone shitty because she's black is very different from treating the Cambridges with more deference.

But that’s the accusation. I don’t think that Prince Charles is doing it because Archie is multi racial I think Charles would want it done no matter who Harry married.

He would be a hypocrite for resenting the idea of a Prince Michael but than saying Harry’s descendants should be automatically royalty.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I think that is something Charles likely wants to do and something Edward volunteered to do. I don’t think it’s because Archie is multiracial I think Charles would have wanted to do it no matter who Harry married.

Kate is probably grateful that she had three kids and may even try to have a fourth. A lot of this pain seems to stem from Harry being treated so differently from William and not having any other siblings in the same boat to relate to about that.

Zara and Peter Phillips have been able to have their own commercial enterprises for their whole adult lives. I think part of the problem for Harry is that whatever the legal structure is for him and his son behind the scenes, the public sees him or saw him as a full working member of the BRF and always would see him that way. Look at the criticism he's getting for so-called getting a job with Netflix and Spotify. So in a sense, they had limitations similar to Charles and William without having that actual role..

On this issue there seems to be very little behind the scenes. It is all in print and very clear. They would do themselves a huge favor if they stopped complaining and using race as the reason for everything that does not please them.

 

[Judy]

With all the security restrictions she had once she was Harry's girlfriend/fiancee/wife, I think it would have been very difficult for her to continue as an actress. It wouldn't be that easy to keep her safe on a film set or in a live theatre, and because of that, honestly, most producers would probably decide to cast someone whose schedule and availability was more flexible.

Once you marry into the Royal family you cannot work and earn money. If Harry wasn’t Charles and Diana’s second child they could (Andrew’s daughters For example).

 

[Judy]

Yeah it's huge now. Many companies require it.
Also @Karen-W implicit bias workshops were scrapped by the British parliament:

'Unconscious bias training' to be scrapped by ministers

The government scraps anti-bias training for civil servants and wants it to end across public sector.

www.bbc.com

It is def in my country too. It has to be.

 

[Wyliefan]

Should a British prince grow up in the States?

Well, it'd make a great premise for a Hallmark movie . . .

 

[becca]

Once you marry into the Royal family you cannot work and earn money. If Harry wasn’t Charles and Diana’s second child they could (Andrew’s daughters For example).

I know Edward tried to work outside didn’t go well for him.

Maybe it’s worse for the next in line? Anne and Edward seem very sensible. Our kids need to understand they will make their way.

However I must say Anne’s children have been able to navigate that role and I think the point is not giving Archie the title illustrates that he is not going to be a working member of the family with the public.

Furthermore didn’t Harry refuse things like announcing godparents because Archie is private. Once again one cannot have this both ways

 

[canbelto]

This is really important:

https://twitter.com/elenacresci/status/1368848630141100033?s=20

 

[clairecloutier]

So far I've watched the first hour of the interview and read about the second half (will try to watch today).

On a very fundamental level, I'm not surprised that Charles and William have become estranged from Harry, simply because Harry has chosen a different life path. Charles and William were both reportedly unhappy with certain aspects of royal life in their teens and/or 20s but, for whatever reasons, decided to make the compromises needed and continue as royals. Harry refuses to make certain compromises and has proved willing to walk away from it all. So of course that is going to be deeply troubling to Charles and William because it challenges their own choices and identities. (That's how I see it, anyhow.)

Looking at it just from a PR perspective, I think this interview will work to Meghan and Harry's advantage. The American public has been reintroduced to them and their story. The response that I have seen so far suggests that many women will sympathize with Meghan's problems vis-a-vis the paternalistic BRF. Also from the reaction I have seen, many African-Americans experience this story as yet another indication of the racism that black people are continually fighting in both the U.S. and Britain and feel support for Meghan and Harry. Predictably, and as we have seen in this thread, more conservative-minded types will see Meghan and Harry as "whiners" who are ungrateful for royal privileges, opportunities, etc. On the whole, I think the reaction at this point is in M/H's favor.

 

[canbelto]

In other news I really liked Meghan's dress in the interview

 

[Coco]

As seen on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/gcornish91/status/1368742718063656960

 

[wickedwitch]

The interview was somewhat odd, because they have several really legitimate complaints -- the racism and how the BRF handled Meghan's mental health -- and several complaints that seem so beyond trivial -- Archie's title and having to live on only $30 million. Part of me thinks they should have skipped the more trivial stuff, but most of me thinks critics of M&H would have found something else to complain about.

 

[taf2002]

I am amazed by the statements of fact being made here by people who don't have a fckg clue. Why did some of you watch the interview when you had decided in advance that nothing H&M said was believable? Do you hate them that much? I didn't believe every word because I think some of this was perception & not necessarily fact but I found Meghan more open & thus more believable than Harry.

Oprah displayed lots of tabloid headlines that had been said about the couple, mostly Meghan, that were disgusting. Most people probably couldn't see them & not feel bad for her. But a lot of you seem to think they weren't that bad & they should have just kept a stiff upper lip. What if the same had been said about you, day after day? And if then the senior members of your family who could have spoken out didn't do anything to protect you or a least commiserate with you wouldn't you feel hurt & abandoned?

You don't know whether H&M did or did not want Archie to have a title. You just believe what the tabloids say. Eugenie & Beatrice have the princess title because that's what Andrew wanted for them. It may not be that H&M wanted him to be called prince but the fact that Harry's own father i.e. the grandfather when he became king planned to pass a rule specifically to deny him princehood had to do more than sting. What a insult! Some of you keep bringing up Anne's or Edward's kids. Do you really think that if there were serious death threats about Zara or Louise that The Firm wouldn't protect them? Charles knew there were death threats to his grandson & apparently didn't think that was important.

BTW the protection detail in Canada were the British version of secret service so their salaries would be to British citizens & be taxed. So the UK would be getting some benefits just as though they were working citizens in the UK.

 

[missing]

I don't follow much royal news so I was surprised when Meghan mentioned Andrew and Fergie being in the same place (this was in reference early on to their daughter being Meghan's friend).

What have I been missing on the Andrew/Fergie front?

 

[canbelto]

The interview was somewhat odd, because they have several really legitimate complaints -- the racism and how the BRF handled Meghan's mental health -- and several complaints that seem so beyond trivial -- Archie's title and having to live on only $30 million. Part of me thinks they should have skipped the more trivial stuff, but most of me thinks critics of M&H would have found something else to complain about.

David/Edward was sort of the same way. I think many royals simply have no idea how to live without their stable of horses and servants.

I sort of think last night was Diana's "gift" to the BRF from her grave.

 

[MsZem]

The BRF has incredibly archaic notions about work. Newsflash: cutting ribbons is not really "work."

That's not all they do, though. They come out and listen to people, engage with them, make them feel valued, raise awareness for important issues and in some cases facilitate direct support.

Also, QE, Andrew, William and Harry all did actual military service.

This is really important:

https://twitter.com/elenacresci/status/1368848630141100033?s=20

Agreed. Reacting like that is pretty much telling any friends/family members who might be struggling that they can't trust you to be there for them.

 

[clairecloutier]

I just read this take in The Guardian and found it amusing and a propos:

Whatever you think of Harry and Meghan, their media critics are far worse | Marina Hyde

Self-appointed ‘defenders of the royal family’s honour’ may want to have a good, hard look at themselves, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

www.theguardian.com

 

[ryanj07]

I don't follow much royal news so I was surprised when Meghan mentioned Andrew and Fergie being in the same place (this was in reference early on to their daughter being Meghan's friend).

What have I been missing on the Andrew/Fergie front?

Fergie and Andrew remained close after their divorce and still lived together for some time to raise both of their children.

 

[Parsley Sage]

Charles did military service as well. He used his severance money to set up The Prince's Trust.

 

[Coco]

I don't follow much royal news so I was surprised when Meghan mentioned Andrew and Fergie being in the same place (this was in reference early on to their daughter being Meghan's friend).

What have I been missing on the Andrew/Fergie front?

I believe they have lived in the same household for a long time, in part to alleviate financial burdens on Sarah after she was caught selling access to BRF. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it. They are not back together as a couple.

 

[canbelto]

I believe they have lived in the same household for a long time, in part to alleviate financial burdens on Sarah after she was caught selling access to BRF. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it. They are not back together as a couple.

I wonder if they meant they empathize with Beatrice and Eugenie because their fathers (Andrew, Charles, and Thomas Markle) are shit fathers. I think Harry is close to both Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[once_upon]

The interview was somewhat odd, because they have several really legitimate complaints -- the racism and how the BRF handled Meghan's mental health -- and several complaints that seem so beyond trivial -- Archie's title and having to live on only $30 million. Part of me thinks they should have skipped the more trivial stuff, but most of me thinks critics of M&H would have found something else to complain about.

However, the producers/Oprah have final say on the interview. The edits and cuts don't always provide the whole context/answer to questions.

 

[mattiecat13]

"I sideeyed Megan for saying that she did no research on the Royal Family and that she trusted Harry to give her all the info. Doesn't sound very #girlboss to me."

I have to agree with this. I can't believe Meghan, who one would think would at the minimum research potential acting jobs, wouldn't do some research or talk to people who were in the position she was going to be in. She didn't talk to Fergie, Sophie or Kate ahead of time? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Coco]

How would she be able to talk to them ahead of time? Doesn't sound like an approachable bunch.

I don't know. I totally see your logic, but then again...when you are struck by the thunderbolt, your brain takes a leave.

 

[manhn]

I am less concerned with Meghan and her preparation, and more to do with the systemic issues plaguing the Crown, which my country is attached to.

 

[Coco]

I just read this take in The Guardian and found it amusing and a propos:

Whatever you think of Harry and Meghan, their media critics are far worse | Marina Hyde

Self-appointed ‘defenders of the royal family’s honour’ may want to have a good, hard look at themselves, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

www.theguardian.com

It is both funny and insightful.

 

[Karen-W]

Meghan said she was told that Archie would not be a Prince when Charles became King, which is protocol as the grandson of the Monarch, and that they were going to change some Law to do this.

H&M wanted the protocol to be kept.

No one wants their child to be the first not to be entitled to things that everyone else in the same position as they are received for 1000s of years.

Charles has been banging on about doing this type of thing for years, but I'm betting no one ever explained that to Meghan and Harry was probably in denial that Charles would go against tradition to do this to his own grandchild when it's not like he has a ton of them.

So it seems very personal and hurtful to H&M (in particular H, I think.)

It's not a "law" it's a Letters Patent from the monarch which designates how members of the family are to be styled - HRH Prince/ss, Lord/Lady, etc.

Just to be clear - the HRH Prince/ss style for all male-line grandchildren of the monarch has only been "the rule" for 104 years. Before that, some of the male-line grandchildren had the style of His/Her Highness Prince/ss; and the styling of the male-line grandchildren as a Prince/ss came over with the Hanovers (Sophia the Electress and George I) just over 300 years ago. So, this is not something that anyone in the same position has received for 1000s of years.

So, you acknowledge that the rumors of Charles' intentions to issue an updated LP when he becomes monarch have been around for years, yet somehow it's personal to Harry? Even though this is something that is also going to affect William's grandchildren by Louis (because under the current LP Charlotte's kids won't get HRH styles)...

He's already a target.

I am just saying Harry would want Archie to have the title he is entitled to under law when Prince Charles becomes King and not have the rules changed.

Why is that hard to understand?

I am not saying it's right or wrong to do so and the system is set up to do whatever the Monarch wants but I can see why Harry would want that for Archie.

I'm trying hard to understand why they think he should be entitled to that style. Just because something has been done a certain way for a hundred years doesn't mean it needs to continue.

You don't know whether H&M did or did not want Archie to have a title. You just believe what the tabloids say. Eugenie & Beatrice have the princess title because that's what Andrew wanted for them. It may not be that H&M wanted him to be called prince but the fact that Harry's own father i.e. the grandfather when he became king planned to pass a rule specifically to deny him princehood had to do more than sting. What a insult! Some of you keep bringing up Anne's or Edward's kids. Do you really think that if there were serious death threats about Zara or Louise that The Firm wouldn't protect them? Charles knew there were death threats to his grandson & apparently didn't think that was important.

BTW the protection detail in Canada were the British version of secret service so their salaries would be to British citizens & be taxed. So the UK would be getting some benefits just as though they were working citizens in the UK.

It seems pretty apparent, given their intense focus on "he's not going to have a title" during the interview, that, yes, in spite of the very present example of the media routinely knocking Beatrice & Eugenie and justifying it due to their HRH styles, H&M wanted Archie to have the same. And, I have to ask... WHY? If Harry is as close to B&E as reported, surely he would understand just what a burden that HRH style is and want to avoid that for his own children. The British tabloid media and the British public in general seem to operate under the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that having the HRH in front of your name means they (the public) are somehow funding some part of your lifestyle. The public doesn't think they pay for Zara or Peter and never have. The public doesn't think they pay for Louise or James. Strangely, though, they think they pay for the Kents and Gloucesters, which they really don't.

Also, Charles issuing an updated LP that limits the use of the HRH style further doesn't just impact H&M's children. It also would mean that Louis' children won't be entitled to the HRH style, as well as the HRH style for all of his future descendants.

The level of security isn't based on whether or not you are an HRH or not. And, furthermore, even if Charles decided against issuing an LP further limiting the use of the HRH style, that wouldn't guarantee that Archie would have received publicly-funded security. B&E don't - because the public doesn't think it's necessary to pay for the security of the 2nd son's kids. Beyond all that... Please explain to me what security Archie needs as a newborn that he won't receive? He lives with his parents. His parents had security while working members of the BRF. Even if he was at home at Frogmore Cottage while they were both out and about, he would have had security at the house. I'm really confused by this whole "he wasn't going to have security" narrative being peddled because it just doesn't make sense - at least not until Archie is in preschool anyway - that he needed his own security detail.

 

[skategal]

It's not a "law" it's a Letters Patent from the monarch which designates how members of the family are to be styled - HRH Prince/ss, Lord/Lady, etc.

Just to be clear - the HRH Prince/ss style for all male-line grandchildren of the monarch has only been "the rule" for 104 years. Before that, some of the male-line grandchildren had the style of His/Her Highness Prince/ss; and the styling of the male-line grandchildren as a Prince/ss came over with the Hanovers (Sophia the Electress and George I) just over 300 years ago. So, this is not something that anyone in the same position has received for 1000s of years.

So, you acknowledge that the rumors of Charles' intentions to issue an updated LP when he becomes monarch have been around for years, yet somehow it's personal to Harry? Even though this is something that is also going to affect William's grandchildren by Louis (because under the current LP Charlotte's kids won't get HRH styles)...

I'm trying hard to understand why they think he should be entitled to that style. Just because something has been done a certain way for a hundred years doesn't mean it needs to continue.



The level of security isn't based on whether or not you are an HRH or not. And, furthermore, even if Charles decided against issuing an LP further limiting the use of the HRH style, that wouldn't guarantee that Archie would have received publicly-funded security. B&E don't - because the public doesn't think it's necessary to pay for the security of the 2nd s
Beyond all that... Please explain to me what security Archie needs as a newborn that he won't receive? He lives with his parents. His parents had security while working members of the BRF. Even if he was at home at Frogmore Cottage while they were both out and about, he would have had security at the house. I'm really confused by this whole "he wasn't going to have security" narrative being peddled because it just doesn't make sense - at least not until Archie is in preschool anyway - that he needed his own security detail.

I think it felt personal to H&M because BP was was changing 300 years of protocol to do this and they want their children to have everything that they are entitled to have.

I can understand that they feel it is hurtful and personal even though I don't think it's personal at all.

Re: Security

In the interview, it seemed like the bigger issue was Prince Harry's security rather than Archie's.

Meghan even wrote a letter to BP to say if you can't give security to Archie and me that's okay, but please don't take it away from Harry who is still a Royal Prince of the UK.

So BP will break protocol to take away Prince/Princess from Harry's children but won't break protocol to provide him security.

I think it's all a bit too much for Harry to accept.

 

[Simone411]

I am amazed by the statements of fact being made here by people who don't have a fckg clue. Why did some of you watch the interview when you had decided in advance that nothing H&M said was believable? Do you hate them that much? I didn't believe every word because I think some of this was perception & not necessarily fact but I found Meghan more open & thus more believable than Harry.

Oprah displayed lots of tabloid headlines that had been said about the couple, mostly Meghan, that were disgusting. Most people probably couldn't see them & not feel bad for her. But a lot of you seem to think they weren't that bad & they should have just kept a stiff upper lip. What if the same had been said about you, day after day? And if then the senior members of your family who could have spoken out didn't do anything to protect you or a least commiserate with you wouldn't you feel hurt & abandoned?

You don't know whether H&M did or did not want Archie to have a title. You just believe what the tabloids say. Eugenie & Beatrice have the princess title because that's what Andrew wanted for them. It may not be that H&M wanted him to be called prince but the fact that Harry's own father i.e. the grandfather when he became king planned to pass a rule specifically to deny him princehood had to do more than sting. What a insult! Some of you keep bringing up Anne's or Edward's kids. Do you really think that if there were serious death threats about Zara or Louise that The Firm wouldn't protect them? Charles knew there were death threats to his grandson & apparently didn't think that was important.

BTW the protection detail in Canada were the British version of secret service so their salaries would be to British citizens & be taxed. So the UK would be getting some benefits just as though they were working citizens in the UK.

ITA, and I'm not shocked by anything that Meghan covered in the interview. I was shocked by some of the articles about Meghan that were shown like being called "Trailer Trash" and "Queen of Monkey Island".

Here's just an example from this article:

Exclusive: Meghan Markle Targeted By Hundreds Of Racist And Sexist Tweets Amid Plan To Step Back

Phrases included “self-loathing race traitor”, “trailer trash” and “meghan the queen, of monkey island”.

www.huffpost.com

And people wondered why she and Harry wanted to step back.

I can remember all the horrible articles about the First Lady, Michelle Obama. Basically the same; everything from her looking like a monkey to how muscular and inappropriate for her to wear sleeveless dresses. There were horrible articles like this practically every day during the 8 years of the Presidency of Barack Obama.

It's nothing new. I've even experienced racist comments from members of my own relatives and even when I was in school because I took after my dad with the darker skin color from being Syrian. My grandfather was Syrian, and my grandmother was of English descent. They had six children in which 3 (including my dad) had the dark skin like my grandfather. The other 3 children looked like my grandmother who was fair skinned and had blue eyes.

Only two of the 21 grandchildren that derived from the six children of my grandfather and grandmother were dark skinned and had brown eyes. That was one of my older first cousins and me. I was actually called racist names while I was in elementary school and it continued while I was in high school which was in the 70's. I was called "raghead", "camel jockey" and "sandni--er". In other words, "sand with the 'N' word following. My brother had a fair complexion and took after my mom who was fair and had blue eyes.

He was treated differently. My two first cousins that were sisters and had the fair complexion were also treated differently in high school.

I'm not treated that way anymore, but it took a long time coming before that even happened.

I'm afraid it isn't that way for Meghan, and it's not right by any means. People need to open their eyes and quit wearing rose-colored glasses to how the world really is.

 

[Judy]

This is really important:

https://twitter.com/elenacresci/status/1368848630141100033?s=20

Absolutely true.