Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[kwanfan1818]

However H did have a substantial inheritance and therefore the means to bridge those costs himself so I think that's relevant too. H is a man of means.

For a limited number of years without another income stream.

What I can't get my head around us levelling criticism at H&M for taking steps to fund themselves once the purse strings were cut off. What did everyone think would happen?

Exactly.

 

[becca]

“It’s not the appropriate time”
“It’s unbecoming for people of their position”
“I wish they would stop playing the victim”

All are just roundabout ways of saying “I am uncomfortable with acknowledging that discrimination against other people who are not like me exists.”

I have no doubt racism exists.

I have no doubt Harry and Meghan experienced racism and some of the press coverage was racism.

But this doesn’t mean everything is racism. In 2013 they changed the rules so all of Williams children were HRH and choose not to include Harry’s.


Meghan was not part of the picture Charles long talked about stream lined monarchy before.

So to say Archie not being a prince is racism and not because of other well established reasons is unfair.

This is about reduced costs for the tax payer and also if the monarchs grandchild is not HRH the British royals are learning their is less interest.

Which makes it easier for said grandchilden to carve out a Normal life.

We should all give others a benefit of the doubt.

I don’t have trouble believing either a family member might say something like that.

But you know what Meghan married a guy who once wore a Nazi uniform.
Harry is on video making racists comments as well.

So maybe Harry should be showing some grace to others.

And I have to wonder how it will feel for their son to know folks in his family commented on his race. Think it’s going to help Archie in anyway?

 

[mella]

And I have to wonder how it will feel for their son to know folks in his family commented on his race. Think it’s going to help Archie in anyway?

You keep saying this Maybe! Maybe as Archie gets older he will appreciate having a clear picture of how some people in his family think.

My paternal grandmother said some unforgiveable things when I was conceived. I prefer to know them than not and in fact wish I had known when I was younger than I was told. It would have saved time trying to build a relationship with someone who had such a negative view of my existence.

I hope Archie will be protected from such things until he is old enough to fully understand them but I absolutely believe its his right to know them in due course.then he can decide the extent he wishes to engage in relationships with people in the same way they as adults will already make those decisions.

ETA - He's going to know at some point that his Dad dressed up as a nazi and used racist language. So really knowing that other members of his Dad's family made comments - probably not a huge leap.

 

[overedge]

I'm certainly not going to defend what William said. But he wouldn't be the first person ever in the world to say "We are not racist" and mean that he doesn't see people saying things like "[racial slur] should all go home" or " I would never let [racial slur] marry one of my kids" and that he knows attitudes like that are wrong. But he's probably completely oblivious to the systemic racism in the BRF and the Royal Household which is much more subtle but no less dangerous.

 

[allezfred]

Think it’s going to help Archie in anyway?

Yes.

 

[Judy]

I think there is a lot of truth in this (aside from her family comments which I have no idea who it is). This won’t link properly but it is the 2nd video and not the one for Prince Andrew.

Prince William says royals are 'very much not a racist family' in first remarks since explosive interview | CNN

Prince William has denied the royal family is racist in his first public remarks since his brother Prince Harry, and his wife Meghan, made explosive claims in a TV interview.

www.cnn.com

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

I'm certainly not going to defend what William said. But he wouldn't be the first person ever in the world to say "We are not racist" and mean that he doesn't see people saying things like "[racial slur] should all go home" or " I would never let [racial slur] marry one of my kids" and that he knows attitudes like that are wrong. But he's probably completely oblivious to the systemic racism in the BRF and the Royal Household which is much more subtle but no less dangerous.

Since he is the son of the heir apparent to lead the BRF and all others that they will be influencing in the future, don't you think it's high time for a "teachable moment" regarding these subjects on the part of Charles, William and their families and staffs?

 

[overedge]

Since he is the son of the heir apparent to lead the BRF and all others that they will be influencing in the future, don't you think it's high time for a "teachable moment" regarding these subjects on the part of Charles, William and their families and staffs?

Not only them, but the social circles they run in too. Like William and Harry's friend who threw the "colonials and natives" party.

 

[morqet]

Like William and Harry's friend who threw the "colonials and natives" party.

That William attended in a gorilla suit. But he's not racist

 

[becca]

You keep saying this Maybe! Maybe as Archie gets older he will appreciate having a clear picture of how some people in his family think.

My paternal grandmother said some unforgiveable things when I was conceived. I prefer to know them than not and in fact wish I had known when I was younger than I was told. It would have saved time trying to build a relationship with someone who had such a negative view of my existence.

I hope Archie will be protected from such things until he is old enough to fully understand them but I absolutely believe its his right to know them in due course.then he can decide the extent he wishes to engage in relationships with people in the same way they as adults will already make those decisions.

ETA - He's going to know at some point that his Dad dressed up as a nazi and used racist language. So really knowing that other members of his Dad's family made comments - probably not a huge leap.

Why not let Archie develop a relationship with said family members based on how they treat him.

As someone’s whose parents divorced at a super young age. There is a lot of things some chose to share with me that I frankly wish they hadn’t.

Some stuff involved me personally but I was frankly to young even remember. And so I don’t even know who is telling the truth. Like really I want to have a relationship with you all.


It’s why I have issues with folks involving others in their disputes. It’s one thing to talk about it anomously.

But I actually heavily avoid involving friends in disputes with other friends like a plague.

 

[MsZem]

That William attended in a gorilla suit.

He did not. But going to a Colonials and Natives party, and seeing nothing wrong with your brother showing up dressed in a Nazi uniform, is... not good.

 

[MacMadame]

Why not let Archie develop a relationship with said family members based on how they treat him.

Why are you assuming that will not happen?

 

[kwanfan1818]

Why not let Archie develop a relationship with said family members based on how they treat him.

Because children, especially young children, do not understand that when they are treated badly or coldly as exceptions, it's often about the limitations of the adult who is treating them that way. Without this context they have a much greater chance of internalizing that they are somehow inherently bad, not the adult who is treating them badly.

 

[becca]

Why are you assuming that will not happen?

Talking about that can color it. I will once again say that from personal experience.

If Meghan and Harry are telling Archie your family resents your mixed race your family won’t make you a prince do to it. Even though plenty of royal families are reducing family members and in the monarchy he was never going to be the same as his cousins. How is it helping matters?

And they did just tell him that because they give a worldwide interview that he will watch someday. It’s not good and not necessary.

 

[becca]

Because children, especially young children, do not understand that when they are treated badly or coldly as exceptions, it's often about the limitations of the adult who is treating them that way. Without this context they have a much greater chance of internalizing that they are somehow inherently bad, not the adult who is treating them badly.

Why not wait to see if they treat him badly. And not being made a prince isn’t being treated badly. In the contest of the direction royal families are going

 

[MacMadame]

And they did just tell him that because they give a worldwide interview that he will watch someday.

I would be entirely shocked if he watched it ever. But I appreciate the concern trolling.

Talking about that can color it. I will once again say that from personal experience.

So your relatives worried that your skin would be "too dark"?

 

[becca]

I would be entirely shocked if he watched it ever. But I appreciate the concern trolling.

So your relatives worried that your skin would be "too dark"?

There are other serious issues besides race. The point is if they are friendly and kind to Archie and treat him like a nephew/ grandchild why does he need to hear about one statement? That’s the point

 

[mella]

Why not let Archie develop a relationship with said family members based on how they treat him.

As someone’s whose parents divorced at a super young age. There is a lot of things some chose to share with me that I frankly wish they hadn’t.

Some stuff involved me personally but I was frankly to young even remember. And so I don’t even know who is telling the truth. Like really I want to have a relationship with you all.


It’s why I have issues with folks involving others in their disputes. It’s one thing to talk about it anomously.

But I actually heavily avoid involving friends in disputes with other friends like a plague.

Seriously? The comments were clearly sufficient for H&M to feel they crossed a line. In that case it's for them and them alone to decide the circumstances under which they allow their child to interact with that individual.

It"s entirely possible for one person to be seen to treat another individual in an "acceptable" manner in public whilst behaving poorly and causing significant damage in private if given the opportunity. That's why lots of people can experience racism in the workplace that other people "don't see".

Eta - reference your follow up post there is a difference between an individual making racist (or if it makes people in this thread feel better racially inappropriate) comments and H&M feeling Archie has been slighted over a title (or might be in a theoretical future).

 

[becca]

Seriously? The comments were clearly sufficient for H&M to feel they crossed a line. In that case its for them and them alone to decide tge circumstances under which they allow their child to interact with that individual.

Its entirely possible for one person to be seen to treat another individual imam acceptable manner in public whilst

Never said they had to let him have a relationship with him did say they could maybe think about how he may want to perceive these people.

 

[overedge]

@becca Harry and Meghan did not say that Archie would not be made a prince because of his skin colour. They said that an unnamed family member made questionable comments before Archie was born about how "dark" he might be.

 

[mella]

Never said they had to let him have a relationship with him did say they could maybe think about how he may want to perceive these people.

Why not let Archie develop a relationship with said family members based on how they treat him.

?

 

[shan]

@becca Harry and Meghan did not say that Archie would not be made a prince because of his skin colour. They said that an unnamed family member made questionable comments before Archie was born about how "dark" he might be.

I don't think she said that in those terms, but it seems implied in this set of quotes.

Oprah asked Meghan why she thought the royal family was acting that way about Archie getting a title. She admitted that "all around this same time we had in tandem the conversation of he won't be given security, he's not going to be given a title, and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born."

The conversations about Archie's skin, "that was relayed to me from Harry, those were conversations that family had with him. And I think it was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalized conversations."

"Was there concern that if he was too brown that that would be a problem?"

Meghan answered, "I wasn't able to follow up with why but if that's the assumption you're making, I think that would be a safe one."

Maybe I'm misreading it here....

 

[overedge]

@shan I see what you're getting at. I read "that would be a problem" as that it would be a "problem" if his skin was darker than the rest of the Royal family, just because he would look different, not that it would be a problem in giving him a title.

 

[taf2002]

@becca, I don't understand why you don't understand a simple fact about prince/no prince. Maybe you just don't want to.

There was a charter passed by some king (George 5th?), anyway it says when a person becomes a monarch his/her grandchildren will be styled as Princes & Princesses. For Charles to say that Archie will be excluded from this when he's not even the monarch yet is pretty telling. H&M may or may not want a title for Archie, they just want him treated as though he's a full-blown grandchild of Charles. Is that so hard to understand?

Also, at the time he removed security Archie was getting death threats. Besides, kidnapping will always a threat. The fact that Charles pulled the rug out from under them is despicable IMO.

 

[AxelAnnie]

This is why I think it would be perfectly appropriate for his father to provide a baseline of security, at minimum for a transition period, out of the funds under his control. His father isn't obligated to do so.

Harry and Morgan are grownups and making their own decisions. That is how they asked to be treated. They wanted to be free of the Monarchy and independent. Expecting the Monarchy to pay for their security as they live in the US is naive at best and cunning at worst.

Yokshire Post

Royals receive security for public duties and some of them are also protected around the clock by publicly funded security - namely The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Kate and their three children. This security is paid for by the UK government's Treasury
Royals who do not have a leading role will not be granted 24/7 security, therefore any security outwith their royal duties must be privately funded.

 

[AxelAnnie]

This is why I think it would be perfectly appropriate for his father to provide a baseline of security, at minimum for a transition period, out of the funds under his control. His father isn't obligated to do so.

Harry and Morgan are grownups and making their own decisions. That is how they asked to be treated. And, Charles is treating them that way. Especially in the wake of the skewer they just sent through the Monarchy. Charles did provide security for them for almost a year.

Just to clarify:Royals receive security for public duties and some of them are also protected around the clock by publicly funded security - namely The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Kate and their three children. This security is paid for by the UK government's Treasury. Why Harry thought he would receive security while

Meghan and Harry could have been, provided security, easily, had someone thought they needed to have security, while in the UK. However, Archie is not in the category to be provided security from HRH. Harry knew that.


Page Six

The assumption by Harry that tax- payers would fund security after he and Meghan left the UK was branded ‘arrogant’ and ‘unworkable’ yesterday.

Former chief superintendent Dai Davies, who led the Metropolitan Police’s royalty protection unit, said the couple’s plans were ‘utterly unrealistic’ and could have put British police at risk.

UK officers cannot carry guns under US laws or access intelligence about potential threats.

.

Deleted.

 

[becca]

@becca, I don't understand why you don't understand a simple fact about prince/no prince. Maybe you just don't want to.

There was a charter passed by some king (George 5th?), anyway it says when a person becomes a monarch his/her grandchildren will be styled as Princes & Princesses. For Charles to say that Archie will be excluded from this when he's not even the monarch yet is pretty telling. H&M may or may not want a title for Archie, they just want him treated as though he's a full-blown grandchild of Charles. Is that so hard to understand?

Also, at the time he removed security Archie was getting death threats. Besides, kidnapping will always a threat. The fact that Charles pulled the rug out from under them is despicable IMO.

Yes George V made that ruling. But monarchies change. The Trend in European monarchies is smaller royal families.

The King of Sweden removes HRH from all but Victoria’s kids. And said it was about talking about who would be a working royal family member and who wouldn’t be.

Queen Elizabeth went from wanting to give Anne’s kids royal titles to agreeing with Prince Edward that his children shouldn’t use them.

A large number of Queen Elizabeth’s cousins are working members of the royal family but Queen Elizabeth’s granddaughters Beatrice and Eugenie were told they couldn’t be working members of the royal family.

Countess Sophie she’s making it clear to her kids they won’t be they will need jobs

Charles talked for years about streamline it and reducing the burden of the tax payers.

So this is the context. And it’s a well documented context before Archie or Meghan came into the picture.

Archie in personal terms is an equally loved member of the Queens family and in Charles family. But in terms of the heridary monarchy he is not on equal terms with the Cambridge kids. Anymore than Eugenie or Beatrice were with Harry.

As for the security costs we aren’t privy to the context once again. It’s quite possible Charles tries to work with Harry.

But Harry is the one who chose to leave the family business. He is also the one who chose to leave the royal family. He is also the one who chose to have a child. He bares responsibility.
And if Harry wants people to pay for anything including security those people do get a say on things like where he lives. It shouldn’t be a blank check.

If it becomes a blank check then you could very well have a situation where fortyg years from now the British people are stuck paying for King George’s cousins like they are paying for Queen Elizabeth’s. And at least these cousins did royal duties. Harry doesn’t want to.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I dont disagree. Assuming it is/was all as straight forward as H&M have described the decision not to assist in a transition does make a statement I think. And was probably intended to. However H did have a substantial inheritance and therefore the means to bridge those costs himself so I think that's relevant too. H is a man of means.

What I can't get my head around us levelling criticism at H&M for taking steps to fund themselves once the purse strings were cut off. What did everyone think would happen?

I don't think people are upset about them working. The issue is that they want to maintain Royal Funding (be it for security or whatever) while they are working. That is not allowed.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Talking about that can color it. I will once again say that from personal experience.

If Meghan and Harry are telling Archie your family resents your mixed race your family won’t make you a prince do to it. Even though plenty of royal families are reducing family members and in the monarchy he was never going to be the same as his cousins. How is it helping matters?

And they did just tell him that because they give a worldwide interview that he will watch someday. It’s not good and not necessary.

$hit! The poor child and all his friends will be able to watch this on the internet! Poor kid when he is 9 or 10.

 

[Karen-W]

@becca, I don't understand why you don't understand a simple fact about prince/no prince. Maybe you just don't want to.

There was a charter passed by some king (George 5th?), anyway it says when a person becomes a monarch his/her grandchildren will be styled as Princes & Princesses. For Charles to say that Archie will be excluded from this when he's not even the monarch yet is pretty telling. H&M may or may not want a title for Archie, they just want him treated as though he's a full-blown grandchild of Charles. Is that so hard to understand?

Also, at the time he removed security Archie was getting death threats. Besides, kidnapping will always a threat. The fact that Charles pulled the rug out from under them is despicable IMO.

I think you are the one who really doesn’t understand, not @becca.

The 1917 Letters Patent from George V does allow for grandchildren of the monarch in the male line to be styled as HRH Prince/Princess. In addition, it allows for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to be styled as HRH Prince. All other great-grandchildren in the male line are to be styled as Lord/Lady unless there is a courtesy title available for use (which is currently the case for the eldest sons of the eldest sons of both the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester).

In 2012, when Catherine became pregnant with her 1st child,, the Queen issued a Letters Patent that, essentially, amended George V's 1917 LP by giving the HRH Prince/Princess style to ALL children of the eldest son of the POW. This was to match up with the equal primogeniture legislation that was making its was through passage in all Commonwealth nations, in case their first born was a daughter, she would be styled as HRH Princess instead of Lady.

Now, here is the part of what is happening behind the scenes that you might not be aware of when you going about assigning some nefariously racist motive to Archie possibly NOT becoming an HRH Prince when Charles becomes King...

Back in 1999 when Prince Edward and Sophie married, it was announced that their children would NOT be styled as HRHs, but instead as the children of an Earl (since Edward was made Earl of Wessex on his wedding day). Therefore their daughter is known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and their son is Viscount Severn. The truth is they are both entitled to be known as HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex but they aren't (this was confirmed by Sophie in an interview this past winter).

So, why is it that Louise & James don't use their HRH styles? Speculation, for much of the last 15 years as both Eugenie and Beatrice finished university and moved into the private sector rather than become working royals, as well as having their RPO security removed, is that Charles (and the family in general) are moving with the times and calls to slim down the monarchy/# of HRHs. It is strongly believed that once the Queen passes, Charles will issue an updated Letters Patent that removes the HRH for all of the monarch's grandchildren except those in the direct line of succession (William's kids and, eventually, George's kids). Why hasn't it been done already? Well, the Queen has 3 first cousins who continue to serve as lowkey working royals and a 4th one who has had the HRH title his entire life - so, the assumption is she doesn't want to strip them of what is rightfully theirs and that they've had for 70+ years. So, instead, she is leaving it for Charles to deal with - and right now the expectation is that there will be some sort of "any person born before XX/XX/XXXX date will fall under the 1917 LP, anyone born after will fall under this LP" but who knows?

The fact that Harry and Meghan are attempting to tie Archie's title or security detail to some racist ulterior motive is disgusting and despicable. There might very well be some racist people in the BRF but to insinuate the way the Sussexes did that all of these decisions that were made regarding Archie's title or security considerations is flat out wrong.