Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

Status
Not open for further replies.
morqet said:
www.theguardian.com

'Appalled but not surprised': Black British women on the Meghan row

Black women from three generations tell how the Oprah interview affected their view of the monarchy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

@becca @Karen-W @AxelAnnie you'll find this instructive
Click to expand...
I do not find it particularly instructive. Thank you for the thought, though.
I am a Jew. People often don't realize their prejudice is showing. Or that remarks they say are hurtful. I remember riding in the arena one day. A person I like and admire who is married to a Jew, made a comment. She then came over to me and said "Is what I just said anti-semetic?" Um, that would be a yes. It wasn't awful but it was pretty great that my friend realized, said something to me, and learned something.
 
MsZem said:
From what I've read of Princess Michael, I see a related possibility: she did it on purpose, but thought of it as some sort of positive, welcoming gesture. Which is bizarre, but seems to fit with the mindset of someone who'd say this:


I mean... :scream: :yikes:
Click to expand...
From everything I have read she is/was whack-a-doodle :summer: :eek::yikes:
 
overedge said:
Yet here you are coming up with reasons why it was OK for her to wear the Blackamoor brooch.
Click to expand...
I can't know what her intention was. No one can. My reasons were just possibilities in HER mind.
IMO someone with the despicable background she has trying to apply logic and good sense is useless. It is like trying to figure out why Richard Allen Davis kidnapped raped and murdered 14 year old Polly Klass.
Remember the woman is nuts. Maybe in her mind it was a welcoming jester.
My point is we don't know what her intention was. My personal opinion is that she should ot be let out in public.
 
This is what think you are referring to. I don't see where I said the broach is not racist.

Princess Michael of Kent. She wore a Blackamoor pin in Meghan's presence. Blackamoor art is a European art style from the Early Modern period, depicting highly stylized figures of black people. Common examples of items and objects decorated in the blackamoor style include sculpture,. jewelry, furniture, and decorative art.
Princess Michael of Kent chose to wear a Blackamoor which was a gift to an occasion at the Palace where Meghan was present. She has since promised not to wear the broach. End FACTS.
Do we know her intent? Nope. But we sure can make up a lot of stuff about it.
End FACTS.

Wikipedia
Blackamoor is a European art style from the Early Modern period, depicting highly stylized figures of black people. Common examples of items and objects decorated in the blackamoor style include sculpture, jewellery, furniture, and decorative art.

The term "blackamoor" is now viewed by some as racist and culturally insensitive.[1] However, blackamoor pieces are still widely produced, mainly in Venice, Italy.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
Our perspectives change through the years. Some things that were acceptable and are now not:
Dr. Suess, Mr. Rogers, Aunt Jemima's picture, Gone With the Wind.

Harper's Bazaar
It's unclear whether the princess wore the brooch to intentionally make an offensive statement, or whether it was a clueless decision to wear the tone-deaf accessory.
Click to expand...
 
MacMadame said:
The grandson of a baronet is about as far down as you can get and still be considered aristocracy. I don't think the situations are the same at all.

OTOH, the article called her "a former figure-skater." Anyone know who she is and what kind of career she had?
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't disagree that their positions within the British aristocracy are far from the same, but I do think that she raises some interesting points about her experience which I tend to think Meghan did encounter - like the Harry having had the same friends set since he was 7-8 when he started at boarding school and them being very protective of their friend, to the point of being very direct and blunt with someone from outside their social circle.

I was also curious about her figure skating career.
 

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

The whole secret garden wedding is causing a huge issue in UK apparently a Church of England doesn’t allow such a wedding (it has to be public with witness and people able to object.

You are also not allowed to do re ceremonies. So the Archbishop is facing a lot of outcry.

There are good historical reasons men use to “wed women in secret” and then claim they were never married.
 
canbelto said:
I actually can't believe Church of England is even still a thing.
Click to expand...
Well his Grandmother is the Head of it. There shouldn’t be one rule for Harry and Meghan and another for others.

Its just frankly an example of not learning others cultures/traditions. The Archbishop is facing a lot of talk for this.
 
I'm going to ask another dumb question. Maybe this has been answered upthread, and frankly, it's a full-time job reading everything in this thread.

Why weren't Harry and Meghan told that Archie wouldn't be getting a title before they ever got married? The issue as to whether any of Harry's children should have been resolved long before the marriage ever took place, if for no other reason, everyone would have known have known what the expectations were. Or were they told what was going to happen and everyone all of a sudden has amnesia? I'm curious. Yes, I'm sure she loves Harry, but I'm willing to bet that one of the reasons that she married Harry was for the title, the security, and everything that goes along with it, including the publicity.

Either way, I'm not impressed with QE's or Charles' parenting skills. QE had the ability to fix this. If she can name celebrities and Olympic athletes knights, she can certainly make sure that her grandson and great-grandson, who are direct descendants to the future king, are taken care of, at least as far as security is concerned. This isn't a situation that Harry created himself, unless you count choosing a wife. (That's not a dig). Charles has always been a first class prick, but I thought that was reserved for outsiders, not his own children. Refusing phone calls like a teenage girl? Did he block his number, too? Good grief! They all need therapy.
 
FiveRinger said:
I'm going to ask another dumb question. Maybe this has been answered upthread, and frankly, it's a full-time job reading everything in this thread.

Why weren't Harry and Meghan told that Archie wouldn't be getting a title before they ever got married? The issue as to whether any of Harry's children should have been resolved long before the marriage ever took place, if for no other reason, everyone would have known have known what the expectations were. Or were they told what was going to happen and everyone all of a sudden has amnesia? I'm curious. Yes, I'm sure she loves Harry, but I'm willing to bet that one of the reasons that she married Harry was for the title, the security, and everything that goes along with it, including the publicity.

Either way, I'm not impressed with QE's or Charles' parenting skills. QE had the ability to fix this. If she can name celebrities and Olympic athletes knights, she can certainly make sure that her grandson and great-grandson, who are direct descendants to the future king, are taken care of, at least as far as security is concerned. This isn't a situation that Harry created himself, unless you count choosing a wife. (That's not a dig). Charles has always been a first class prick, but I thought that was reserved for outsiders, not his own children. Refusing phone calls like a teenage girl? Did he block his number, too? Good grief! They all need therapy.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the Queen doesn’t make the decisions on who gets security. Furthermore several of her children Anne, Edward etc don’t have it. This was after the British Tax payers screamed about how much they were paying security. Harry isn’t her only grandchild you know.

Technically Archie does have the courtesy title of an Earl. His parents were the ones who chose not to use because legally he was always entitled to that.

As for the reusing calls you don’t know Charles side of things. He spent a lot of money on Meghan and Harry’s wedding and their home. A lot of his personal money and know they were asking for more. Many parents get tired of being treated like cash dispensers.
 
FiveRinger said:
I'm going to ask another dumb question. Maybe this has been answered upthread, and frankly, it's a full-time job reading everything in this thread.

Why weren't Harry and Meghan told that Archie wouldn't be getting a title before they ever got married? The issue as to whether any of Harry's children should have been resolved long before the marriage ever took place, if for no other reason, everyone would have known have known what the expectations were. Or were they told what was going to happen and everyone all of a sudden has amnesia? I'm curious.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that they weren't told that Archie/future offspring wouldn't be (1) princes or princesses at birth, (2) princes or princesses at any point, or that (3) they wouldn't be able to use titles to which they are entitled as the children of a Duke?

As to (1), it's covered by the letters patent which was in place well before Harry and Meghan started dating, and they should have been aware of it. There's no confirmation of (2) from any source, though it's often assumed that Charles might go as far in slimming down the monarchy once he becomes king. Re (3) Archie is probably entitled to be styled Earl of Dumbarton, and is definitely entitled to use Lord Archie, just as their future daughter is entitled to be Lady First Name - rather like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn.

They all need therapy.
Click to expand...

Yes.

And now I am reminded of this, which has nothing to do with anything.
 
MsZem said:
Do you mean that they weren't told that Archie/future offspring wouldn't be (1) princes or princesses at birth, (2) princes or princesses at any point, or that (3) they wouldn't be able to use titles to which they are entitled as the children of a Duke?

As to (1), it's covered by the letters patent which was in place well before Harry and Meghan started dating, and they should have been aware of it. There's no confirmation of (2) from any source, though it's often assumed that Charles might go as far in slimming down the monarchy once he becomes king. Re (3) Archie is probably entitled to be styled Earl of Dumbarton, and is definitely entitled to use Lord Archie, just as their future daughter is entitled to be Lady First Name - rather like Lady Louise and Viscount Severn.



Yes.

And now I am reminded of this, which has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...
I think Meghan was referencing point 2 in the interview when she said something like “They told us Archie wouldn’t be a prince and would be changing a rule to make it that way.”

I can’t remember exactly what she said but it seemed like they knew Archie wouldn’t be a prince at birth but was expecting he would be one when Charles is King which has been the protocol.

But Charles wants to change that and slim down the monarchy. But can’t actually do it until he’s King IIRC.

I’m LOLing because autocorrect wants me to type “ slime down” instead of “slim down.” :lol:
 
skategal said:
I think Meghan was referencing point 2 in the interview when she said something like “They told us Archie wouldn’t be a prince and would be changing a rule to make it that way.”

I can’t remember exactly what she said but it seemed like they knew Archie wouldn’t be a prince at birth but was expecting he would be one when Charles is King which has been the protocol.

But Charles wants to change that and slim down the monarchy. But can’t actually do it until he’s King IIRC.

I’m LOLing because autocorrect wants me to type “ slime down” instead of “slim down.” :lol:
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering.

Didn't they make a change to the rules when it was decided that Princess Charlotte would not be pushed behind her brother, Prince Louis, in the line of succession just because she is female? There is an example of grandchildren of the future king being taken into the consideration. I'm just trying to understand why the same can't be done for Archie and his new sister.
 
Charles abandoned the family. It's my experience that many kids who come from broken homes start to view financial support as a sign of affection. They think that parents who financially support them are parents who care. The parent OTOH struggles to build a more meaningful relationship with the kid and starts to resent how the kids always ask for money. It's a negative cycle that is rarely broken.

It's Charles' fault that he wasn't able to build a relationship with his kids besides spending lots of money on them.
 
FiveRinger said:
Didn't they make a change to the rules when it was decided that Princess Charlotte would not be pushed behind her brother, Prince Louis, in the line of succession just because she is female? There is an example of grandchildren of the future king being taken into the consideration. I'm just trying to understand why the same can't be done for Archie and his new sister.
Click to expand...
You're referring to two different things. The first has to do with the line of succession, and the switch from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. I believe it covers more than just the Cambridge kids.

The second is the question of who is entitled to be styled a prince or princess. Archie and his future sister are not covered by the 1917 letters patent, as they are not currently the grandchildren of a sovereign. They are also not covered by the 2012 update, as their father is not the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. There has been no announcement on what their status will be once their grandfather becomes king.

You may be aware that right now, four of QE's grandchildren are not styled as princes/princesses: Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall are female-line descendants, so no such titles for them; Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn are styled as the children of an Earl. Viscount Severn is a subsidiary title of the Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward). I think they will be allowed to decide whether to use prince/princess once they are legally adults.

In Sweden, the King stripped all his grandchildren of their HRH titles in 2019 except for the children of Crown Princess Victoria, but they all remain princes and princesses. Other countries handle the titles of grandchildren of a sovereign in different ways.
 
Last edited:
AxelAnnie said:
This is what think you are referring to. I don't see where I said the broach is not racist.

Princess Michael of Kent. She wore a Blackamoor pin in Meghan's presence. Blackamoor art is a European art style from the Early Modern period, depicting highly stylized figures of black people. Common examples of items and objects decorated in the blackamoor style include sculpture,. jewelry, furniture, and decorative art.
Princess Michael of Kent chose to wear a Blackamoor which was a gift to an occasion at the Palace where Meghan was present. She has since promised not to wear the broach. End FACTS.
Do we know her intent? Nope. But we sure can make up a lot of stuff about it.
End FACTS.
Click to expand...

Nice how you selectively quoted from the Harper's Bazaar article about the brooch. You missed this part:

The accessory is a piece of blackamoor jewelry, which fetishize images of slavery. Some might argue that European renditions of blackamoor art depicted black figures as noblemen, but they still exoticize people of color and are considered dated, racially insensitive, and even taboo today.
Click to expand...
 
I keep thinking that it wasn't communicated to H&M until they were pregnant because it is a contentious issue and if they never had kids, why would you even mention it?

Or if H&M divorced or Meghan passed away without them having children and Harry married again and had some kids they may decide to let his kids have a title depending on who Harry married?

For example, if Harry remarried a Royal princess from another country, would they really not title his kids Prince/Princess of the UK?

I don't know....it's all a bit hard on the head...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

Similar threads

VGThuy
The Shibutanis Thread 7 . . . Years Later
Replies
10
Views
2K
my little pony
my little pony
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
ISU trying to modernize, is it working?
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
jägerbomb
jägerbomb
peibeck
2025 (78th Annual) Tony Awards
2 3
Replies
88
Views
3K
overedge
overedge
BaileyCatts
The Amazing Race - S37
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
On My Own
O
AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)
Nostalgia videos
Replies
4
Views
859
sadya
sadya
Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information