Race, title and anguish: Meghan and Harry explain royal rift

To be honest, I don't know and don't care... the upper crust British toffs are a snotty nosed bunch anyway, focused upon whether you went to their private school or one equivalent to theirs and looking down upon you otherwise. Most of those types have their heads shoved so much up their own self-beloved asses that they really don't see reality that the normal people have to face, and they haven't the slightest clue upon reality.

Of Princess Diana's Sons... Harry is the closest to a normal Person. Privileged, yes, but acts normal. His antics of past, were certainly those of any other normal person of his age group. And the Press Loved it!

Then he encountered MM.... and the Press didn't like that. She's certainly not Publicity shy, and .. American!

So they leveraged upon the fact that MM is an American TV person seemingly looking for the next big "look at me" item to make $ regardless how she does it. And... here we are. "Umphrah Wimpy" Shows, or whatever they call them these days...

I really dislike that American way, but see it time and again ... hence the reason why we have Umphrah (or whatever her name is) hosting a "tell all, cry and look innocent" show... I turn off those things... wake up to the real World, and smell reality - no one really gives a damn about anyone else, really - especially well to do toffs squabbling amongst themselves. These shows are only as interesting as watching and waiting for major car crash during an F1 race....

asiafriendMar. 10  07:22 am JST

NOMINATIONToday  12:36 pm JST

"Oppressed" millionaires being interviewed by an "oppressed" billionaire. I think I will pass on this one.

Well said

Not quite. Oprah did work her way up from bad beginnings. She deserves some credit for that. She didn't marry to get to 'the top'.

Thunderbird2Mar. 8  05:52 pm JST

This was just sensationalist pap.

A C list actress marries a prince and doesn't expect to be headline news?

"Oh leave us alone!" (poses for photos)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're having a baby)

"Oh leave is alone!" (talks about the 'taboo' of losing an unborn child)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're going to America to get away from the media!)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're having another baby)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're going to expose dirty doings at Buck House on a global broadcast)

I have no sympathy for either of them. Meghan would have to have been an utter moron if she expected to be left alone by the media after entering the Royal Family. As an 'actor' (who filmed a steamy romp in a filing room in that series she was in) she should realise that mass exposure comes with the job.

As for Harry - what an enormous disappointment he is. Then again, he always has been a media tart... getting drunk and behaving like the spoilt brat that he is.

Meghan wanted her fame and fortune but it comes with a price. Now she realizes that her carriage has become a pumpkin again because the press won't leave them alone? Sorry babe, you're on a prince's arm - everyone will notice. Just like the press always tries to find dirt on Prince Andrew - Sarah Fergie, Koo Stark, the 16 year old. Chucky and Camille. You made the bed, you will lie in it now.

You should've realized that when you went into the acting field in the first place but you had to go bigtime. As the neo-cons of America love to say, 'Suck it up, cupcake'.

Hello, you two, be careful not to go too far or the British people may find that they can do just fine without the royals and you know without the royals you market value may drop quite a bit and you both may need a new business idea.

And why the fuss about your baby not getting a title, if the royals are as bad as you make them it is probably better off without one.

The British tabloids made money by hounding Diana to death, and then they made money by lamenting her early passing. They were on their way to doing the same thing to Meghan. That the royal family would not protect her is a damning indictment of them, as well. By standing up for and with his wife, Harry took a very different path from his father. Good on him. He is made of better stuff.

NOMINATIONToday  12:36 pm JST

"Oppressed" millionaires being interviewed by an "oppressed" billionaire. I think I will pass on this one.

Well said

Bet uk is so happy to get rid of her. Victim complex millionaire living in expensive California now. Oppressed. Lol

Let's not forget:

Virginia Roberts Giuffre alleged that the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficked her to the prince at least three times, charges that Andrew has denied, while a former employee of Epstein’s has claimed he saw Andrew “grinding” with a topless girl on Epstein’s Little St. James—a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands dubbed “Pedophile Island.”

Whereas Prince Harry was stripped of his military titles upon stepping down from his royal duties, Prince Andrew has been allowed to keep his titles despite also stepping back from royal duties following the Epstein allegations. Buckingham Palace has failed to conduct an investigation into Andrew over it and instead has been pursuing a dubious “bullying” case against Markle.

Quite hypocritical actually! Anyone want to defend this?

It seems like an obvious double-standard by those defending the royals! Quite hypocritical actually!

Stephen Colbert Defends Meghan Markle, Slams British Royals’ Jeffrey Epstein Ties

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-colbert-defends-meghan-markle-slams-british-royals-jeffrey-epstein-ties?source=articles&via=rss

just find it slightly amusing that the American Contingent on this website are all suddenly experts on the history of the Royal Family, because one American Woman was subjected to alleged 'bad treatment', or are rabid anti-monarchists, with no good reason!

I'm a Canadian who has seen too many abuses by many governor-generals and who has seen the extent of the despicable treatment shown towards Princess Diana. If you think I will apologize for having issues with the Royal Family and for holding republican (in the sense of believing in a republic like the Irish rather than any form of constitutional monarchy) values, you better take a seat because you will wait a very long time. Many of us, including many Brits, feel the same because of the Royals' behavior.

We have only heard one side of this story so far.

And whose fault is that? They have been pathetic at communicating before and they are still pathetic at communicating now. If communication is not the Royals' cup of tea, then it's their own problem. There are other royal families doing a better job at sounding not so tone deaf out there.

@theResident

I can assure you @Silvafan that the Royal Family has put up with a lot more criticism than this over the years. They have adjusted accordingly. Your 'outrage' I actually find quite comical.

This interview will have been forgotten about in a month. When the Queen sadly does leave the stage, Harry and Meaghans offspring will become titled. Harry will patch things up with his Father and Brother and he will probably spend time in both countries, as will she. I actually see the marriage lasting.

As for criminal cover ups, come on, which country has members of the Elite who havený had their fingers burnt? Lets NOT hark back to pre WW2. The World was a very different place.

I see you are deflecting now. You are now attacking some imaginary outrage red herring.

Do you not have a logic response?

@Numan wrote:

Everything will be better for the couple and their family once Charles is king. Grand kids become prince and princes, the couple will probably get a stipend, and the couple will probably negotiate a limited work schedule as Royal members He is probably more understanding of their situation than Prince William.

Not only that but you are repeating what @Numan said earlier (the person who called everyone out earlier).

That is truly comical!

I can assure you @Silvafan that the Royal Family has put up with a lot more criticism than this over the years. They have adjusted accordingly. Your 'outrage' I actually find quite comical.

This interview will have been forgotten about in a month. When the Queen sadly does leave the stage, Harry and Meaghans offspring will become titled. Harry will patch things up with his Father and Brother and he will probably spend time in both countries, as will she. I actually see the marriage lasting.

As for criminal cover ups, come on, which country has members of the Elite who havený had their fingers burnt? Lets NOT hark back to pre WW2. The World was a very different place.

@theResident

@Silvafan: In what way have I criticised Oprah Winfrey at all on this thread? Having a chuckle about Tom Cruises behavior is in no way derogatory to her. We are not so much 'defending' the Royal family but simply stating facts. I'm not even anti MM - just find it slightly amusing that the American Contingent on this website are all suddenly experts on the history of the Royal Family, because one American Woman was subjected to alleged 'bad treatment', or are rabid anti-monarchists, with no good reason!

We have only heard one side of this story so far.

Who fault is that? Also, you do not need to be an experts on the royals or their protocols to recognize signs of bullying, racism, bigotry, and/or elitism. The Brit contingency on here are just as confident to believe that there is no examples of bigotry and that MM is b"h which someone on here has already said without even knowing the royals or her personally! However, we do know that the royals are willing to cover up criminal acts committed by family members!

What we do know is that something has to change within the royal structure given the fact that they seem to have learned very little from the tragedy of Princess Diana with the exception of Harry and Meghan. Perhaps this interview will be a wake-up call for everyone in the family — once the shock of the Oprah interview has subsided.

@Silvafan: In what way have I criticised Oprah Winfrey at all on this thread? Having a chuckle about Tom Cruises behavior is in no way derogatory to her. We are not so much 'defending' the Royal family but simply stating facts. I'm not even anti MM - just find it slightly amusing that the American Contingent on this website are all suddenly experts on the history of the Royal Family, because one American Woman was subjected to alleged 'bad treatment', or are rabid anti-monarchists, with no good reason!

We have only heard one side of this story so far.

@theResident

No Numan - Jimizo is referring (quite correctly) to Tom Cruise re 'whoopng noises'

So.....Oprah's entire body of work is diminished including this interview because of Tom Cruise's unexpected antics on her show! Or, because they spoke about things that you did not want to hear regarding the royals.

W........ privilege?? The same thing happened a couple months when certain TV host and failed president lost his re-election campaign.

Does Tom Cruise's actions make Harry and Meghan's statements false?

It is not hard to defend Harry and Meghan, but you, Jimizo, and others are having a hellava time defending the royals. It explains why you all have resorted to name calling. You all do not have much to say!

So what to do with all inheritances? Should everything go to the government when people die

Yes.

@zichi: She did indeed convert to C of E - But she did not renounce her US citizenship and, in fact had to go through the same steps as any other spouse to acquiring 'Leave to Remain' which she still has but as of now does not hold a UK passport as she did not reside in the UK for 5 years. Of course she would have never been denied 'Leave to Remain'' and of course it was fast tracked. Archie, and their next child hold/will have dual citizenship.

@Lazarus knows. I am British English and so I am entitled to an opinion on this subject. I believe you too are entitled to an opinion. But your lack of knowledge and lack of research is working against your arguments. My opinion does not matter and yours certainly doesn’t. Lots to say without knowing your subject is pointless

The walk on royal egg shells skirted gingerly around the boss of "The Firm" and her enigmatic consort while revealing that "royalty" are actually mere mortals composed of flesh and blood families with personnel problems like all the rest of us. I do wonder, like many others, if Charles really is Harry's dad which might partly explain the root of the estrangement. Harry did say that he still loved his father and I found that admission endearingly human reminding me of the raw emotion I felt a quarter of a century ago when I stood just feet away from the two young boys who walked past me silently following in sorrow the coffin of their mother.

“I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped,” Harry said, before adding, “My father and my brother, they are trapped.”

So true, but truth be told, we're all of us trapped, too; you digs your own hole in life until it becomes too deep to get out from. From now on Harry and Meghan are going to need all "the Best of British" they can get because the bulldog bite of the UK gutter press hasn't finished with them by a long chalk.

Monarchies in this day and age should be no more than figureheads, a reminder of the past. That said,....

It does seem to me tragic that the Brits would treat Meghan the way they did Diana. The tabloids made money while hounding Diana to death, and then they made money lamenting her premature death. Disgusting.

The bottom line is this . She is American. 

Which has nothing to do with anything. Ungrateful people come in all shapes of colors and nationality.

A nasty evil trump like person.

What?? Trump or any other politician right or left or international has nothing to do with this woman, give it a rest. She’s her own person and choose this path.

It's all about me. It's My Way or No Way

Yes! There you go, exactly! It’s all and only about her.

Considerable coaching is undertaken before the marriage on what to expect and what we expect as a 

Royal Family.

Do not be fooled by the Fake Tears, remember, she is an actor.

I completely agree with that.

Prince Philip has been know to make the odd racist comment.

More than a few actually. But when the Nazis invaded Greece he joined the Greek navy and volunteered to fight the fascists, unlike the Duke of Windsor who was sent to Bermuda because his pro-fascist views meant the government couldn't trust him.

The Daily Mail and the Murdoch tabloids have turned Markle into a hate figure for the far right to distract attention away from the Tories catastrophic failure over corona virus and Brexit.

Londoners 'hurt' by Royal skin color comment

https://www.yahoo.com/news/londoners-hurt-royal-skin-color-165920998.html

The issue of racism and what part it may have played in Meghan's struggles with her husband's family, and with life in the public eye, is one that divides the British public.At one end of the spectrum, many Britons, especially in the Black community and in younger age groups, empathize with Meghan and see her as a victim of racist attitudes in the media and potentially in the royal establishment.At the other end of the spectrum, other Britons, especially older white people, dismiss Meghan's complaints as baseless and undignified, saying she should show more respect for the institution into which she married.

So, Britons who are people of color understand the racism that Meghan has experienced and ignorant and/or older White Britons who are part of the problem and thrived because of it do not believe racism exists. I wonder how many on this thread fits into one these categories.

Piers Morgan slammed by Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu and Trisha Goddard over Royal Family racism claims

https://news.yahoo.com/piers-morgan-slammed-dr-shola-mos-shogbamimu-trisha-goddard-093834881.html

This is how it is being played out in the UK. The royal family can suppress Prince Andrew child trafficking, but they can protect Prince harry's wife from the public and the tabloids that she won a lawsuit against.

Meghan did not make the Duchesses of Cambridge cry. The Duchesses of Cambridge made her cry, and the royal family or "the firm" did anything to defend her or correct it!

‘THEY WANTED HERO AND VILLAIN’: MEGHAN MARKLE SAYS KATE MIDDLETON MADE HER CRY AND PALACE COVERED IT UP

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-cry-oprah-b1813759.html

Basically, Harry and Meghan had to stand up for themselves, and people are angry.

The duchess’s admission comes after she and Prince Harry revealed that they were actually married three days before the royal wedding.

I understand why because many of the racists and elitist were against it!

poor things! where should I send my donation?

Royal racism??? Well, there are a few high ranking royals in the past who were actually quite fond of a famous German with a little mustach. Prince Philip has been know to make the odd racist comment. Once warning a British student in China that "If he stayed any longer he would get slitty eyes". And lets not forget Prince Harry's choice of Halloween costume.. an SS officer uniform.

The Royals aren't racist. When Japanese wives of western guys in Japan, for example, are pregnant, it's common for in laws and others to wonder whether the kid will have blond hair or will look more western or eastern. It's simply curiosity. I've heard such things a number of times over the years.

If the Royals were racist, they would have objected to the marriage.

If Meghan is that thin-skinned, then no wonder she had mental health issues. She does have a certain reputation for being, um, "sensitive".

Considering 1) how much effort the Royals have put in sweeping Andrew's sins under the rug, 2) how many divorces have gone on within the Royal Family for over 5 decades, and now 3) how they have done nothing to support Harry and Meghan against the racist/xenophobic BS fueled by Murdoch-owned tabloids, the level of dysfunction can't be any clearer in that family.

Before you throw crap at me, I suggest all of you to read on Prince Albert II of Monaco. He fathered 2 children before he got married, including a biracial son who is now 17. Nevertheless, Albert is proud of recognizing both children as his own, even though they are not part of the line of succession. For those of you that being a decent person doesn't come before royal traditions, think about that.

When a Japanese royal female marries out of the family, she leaves behind her royal status, lives quietly (and, we hope, happily) and we never hear from her again, end of story.

That kind of view is the reason why people are despising royal families more and more. Traditions are garbage when they do nothing good for the people having to endure them. And by good, I don't even mean wealth; there is more important than wealth.

Wait. You’re telling me that the same royal family that includes Prince Phillip might have racial issues? I mean, sure, he told British exchange students in China not to stay too long or they’re ‘become all slitty-eyed’, and there was that one time Princess Michael saw no problem wearing a big blackamoor brooch to a Christmas party. And countless other ‘slip-ups’. But I’m sure Meghan is just exaggerating.

A lot of talk of the racist element, but none on the gingerist stuff.

I think this guy has it more or less worked out (Reginald D Hunter):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oce28VRfY7k

Sigh. Now the Harry and Meghan Show is going to start showing up here every day? God, please no.

The bottom line is this . She is American.

She is a Social Parasite.

In my country, she is known as The Witch B---h.

A nasty evil trump like person. It's all about me. It's My Way or No Way

Considerable coaching is undertaken before the marriage on what to expect and what we expect as a

Royal Family.

Do not be fooled by the Fake Tears, remember, she is an actor.

@the resident Listen, you might learn something. The royal family is an institution rooted in colonialism, white supremacy and racism. The legacy is right there. So all you BRITS shouldn't be now surprised that a comment would have been made by several members of the royal family about how dark Archie’s skin is. The majority of you who SUPPORT the monarchy is more outraged that Harry and Meghan came out to speak their truth than at the actual outrage of racism. The monarchy wanted to hide the truths, and they didn't want the jewels tarnished!! Like Harry said he saw the same thing that happened to his mom!! This explains why one brother has a head full of hair and the other brother bald in the top!!!

When a Japanese royal female marries out of the family, she leaves behind her royal status, lives quietly (and, we hope, happily) and we never hear from her again, end of story.

@ Cleo This holdover from patriarchal pre-history lingers on across cultures in the 21st century. The expectation for women remains the way it was when they (like land, cattle, concubines and children) were nothing more than property. Women are expected to shut up. Be silent. Their opinion and their truth are not required. Alas, this misogyny is perpetuated not only by men but also by women against other women.

Useless monarchy!

Disgusting family and institution. These two are well out of it.

But the fascination with them continues, not least from angry males who feel Harry has been emasculated. 

Who will spit venom and character assassinations at MM.

They will be along soon, to tell us the obvious - not all males.

Yes, we know. But there are some very vocal males who fear strong, black/mixed race women. It's their worst nightmare and they will do anything they can (in their limited fashion) to denigrate and take her down.

All that said - monarchies are archaic and have no place in the modern world. All their lands, properties and ill-gotten gains should be taken from all of them and distributed amongst the needy, the marginalized, those who struggle against the brutalities of late capitalism.

If toasted had somehow crowbarred transphobia into this cry for help, she would have hit the identity politics trifecta!

Time to abolish the royal family and all the institutions involved with it. Also the House of Lords

The C of E has to go as an established church. The House of Lords is a national disgrace.

I remember a great description of members of the Lords ‘sailing back into the chamber upon waves of Glenfiddich’.

This tabloid rubbish with these two C-listers talking to Oprah Winfrey is not the root of the problem. They should have gone full Oprah Winfrey and held the interview in a studio along with whooping noises, screams, gasps and tears to do it justice.

ClippetyClopToday 05:28 pm JST

It's 320 years since the Monarch had any real power. @Lazarus, Stop clutching at straws.

Not quite. The Queen secretly and successfully lobbied the government in the early 70's to amend a shareholder transparency law that would have revealed her massive personal wealth. I'd argue that individuals who can amend laws do have 'real power'.

The Queen has put pressure on governments on at least three other occasions to have laws changed:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal

zichiToday 08:33 pm JST

Time to abolish the royal family and all the institutions involved with it. Also the House of Lords.

I wouldn't give a tenner for the lot of them. I have some sympathy for Harry and Meghan though.

The Royal Family is much loved and respected in the UK by the majority of citizens

Lol.

I'm amazed at all these issues only being uncovered once the new Queen KnowItAll entered the Royal Family.

The woman is a complete mess.

Psychological therapy required.

I asked for one word.

OK. Fair enough. Therapy.

Being born into immense wealth and being able to still retain it despite criminal activity is not an institution that can be countenanced nor supported.

Abolishment!

Psychological therapy required.

I asked for one word.

That's not a fair criticism because the constitutional monarchy we have today (which I'm advocating for) didn't exist at the time of the English civil war. It emerged in the aftermath. There hasn't been a civil war since

Sure. But the modern day United States is not the same as it was 160-odd years ago. Why are you so forgiving with British progression but absolutist about IS progression?

One possible reason is that a hereditary monarchy provides a greater incentive for longterm good governance. A King (or Queen) who will eventually hand over the kingdom to his children and grandchildren has a greater stake in the success of his subjects than a politician elected to a 4 year term. Many politicians are opportunists looking to extract as much as possible from the state for the benefit of their narrow constituency. They have no longterm interest in balancing the competing interests of society as a whole.

Why is a Queen less interested in personal well-being? You are attributing super-human attributed to royals that do not stand up to scrutiny, especially given the corruption that we know the royals have been involved in.

That's not exactly what happened. The courts held that parliament had never been prorogued despite everyone thinking otherwise. What Boris had done had zero legal effect. It was as if he had done nothing at all. There was nothing for the Queen to do.

Yes - but it was the courts who made that decision. If there were no courts, it would have been let through, which we know because the Queen allow an illegal prorogation(sp?). I am not saying courts are bad. I am saying the monarchy, which rubber stamped an illegal dismissal of parliament, is.

They could have lived off on the British taxpayers money, but they opted out. They especially the woman deserve the respects

Somehow, "naive" isn't the word that comes to mind when I hear her speak.

What is the word that comes to your mind when you hear her speak?

3 words.

Psychological therapy required.

@Lazarus Knows

The monarch did not prevent the English civil war.

That's not a fair criticism because the constitutional monarchy we have today (which I'm advocating for) didn't exist at the time of the English civil war. It emerged in the aftermath. There hasn't been a civil war since.

Understood. Why do you think that one particular remnant of feudalism, that of a family given special privilege, power, and wealth, should exist in the 21st century

One possible reason is that a hereditary monarchy provides a greater incentive for longterm good governance. A King (or Queen) who will eventually hand over the kingdom to his children and grandchildren has a greater stake in the success of his subjects than a politician elected to a 4 year term. Many politicians are opportunists looking to extract as much as possible from the state for the benefit of their narrow constituency. They have no longterm interest in balancing the competing interests of society as a whole.

Uh, according to the courts, he did. That's what the Supreme Court of the UK ruled. That's why parliament resumed. Johnson illegally prorogued (sp?) parliament. And the Queen did nothing. 

That's not exactly what happened. The courts held that parliament had never been prorogued despite everyone thinking otherwise. What Boris had done had zero legal effect. It was as if he had done nothing at all. There was nothing for the Queen to do.

The devastating conclusion, in this display of public recrimination, Is the lack of communication.

Surely there must have been a moment when, all concerned could have sat down and worked out their differences? 

The means were/are at hand.

By having the power to dismiss and replace any prime minister who is ratcheting up partisan political tensions to dangerous levels or is grossly incompetent.

The monarch did not prevent the English civil war.

I don't consider a constitutional monarchy to be feudalism. But it obviously depends on how you define it. Most medieval historians can't agree on a definition.

Understood. Why do you think that one particular remnant of feudalism, that of a family given special privilege, power, and wealth, should exist in the 21st century, given that — as we have established — the existence of a monarchy cannot prevent civil war.

According to the courts he didn't, so I'm not sure what you expected from the Queen.

Uh, according to the courts, he did. That's what the Supreme Court of the UK ruled. That's why parliament resumed. Johnson illegally prorogued (sp?) parliament. And the Queen did nothing. If the Queen is there to safeguard against democracy (???) then one would think this would be the time to do it.

Now, you might ask, "hold on, Lazarus, you think the Queen, an unelected official, should just overrule the prime minister?", to which I say, no. Because I don't like the idea of unelected rulers. But an unelected sovereign overruling an elected official is the thing that you are arguing in favor of.

The easy solution, of course, is to get rid of unelected head of states. I.e., down with the monarchy.

@Lazarus Knows

This doesn't follow. How does an unelected head of state prevent civil war? 

By having the power to dismiss and replace any prime minister who is ratcheting up partisan political tensions to dangerous levels or is grossly incompetent.

Or, to be more down to brass tacs: you are arguing in favor of feudalism. Why do you think feudalism is good?

I don't consider a constitutional monarchy to be feudalism. But it obviously depends on how you define it. Most medieval historians can't agree on a definition.

Boris Johnson illegally stopped parliament like two years ago and the Queen did nothing. 

According to the courts he didn't, so I'm not sure what you expected from the Queen.

You can argue until you're blue in the face Lazarus but it's still irrelevant!

Can you give me a rational argument against my position that people shouldn't be given power, wealth, and privilege by dint of birth?

I have no sympathy for either of them. Meghan would have to have been an utter moron if she expected to be left alone by the media after entering the Royal Family. As an 'actor' (who filmed a steamy romp in a filing room in that series she was in) she should realise that mass exposure comes with the job.

They seems like a perfectly ordinary pair of humans, put under enormous stress by the media and their family. There is probably another side to this story, but she was undoubtedly given bad press from the start from the likes of the Daily Mail, unlike the perfect Kate, who has kept her mouth shut like a mannequin. You have figures like Prince Andrew with incredibly murky backgrounds who get a bit of a free ride, but Meghan is treated like a witch.

That might be argued. The 17th century "civil war" involved Scotland in various ways, and I think the 18th century Jacobite rebellions could be classed as civil wars.

I just screwed up. Luddite is right, it was the English Civil War. It's my bad.

@M3M3M3M3

It seems to be well established protocol that only the children and grandchildren of the reigning monarch receive the title of prince/princess. The only exception for great-grandchildren is if they are in the direct line of succession, as is the case with William and Kate's child prince George.

To mislead the public by continuing to present this as some sort of arbitrary racial discrimination against her son is quite disingenuous. It calls her credibility into question.

Prince Charles becoming King will make Archie and his sister prince and princess. It is not hard to believe that the people within in the Royal and general British public are racist because the Royal Family's history supports Meghan's claims. There are scores of jealous white women and men who do not like that Harry married an African-American woman. I only need to have conversations with my African-Brit friends understand some of the racism that goes on. Look no further than football!

Meghan Markle Was Awarded an Initial $627,000 in Her Privacy Lawsuit

https://observer.com/2021/03/meghan-markle-court-case-hearing-privacy-lawsuit-update-wins-legal-costs/

Everything will be better for the couple and their family once Charles is king. Grand kids become prince and princes, the couple will probably get a stipend, and the couple will probably negotiate a limited work schedule as Royal members He is probably more understanding of their situation than Prince William.

You are aware that Britain had a civil war of its own?

No, it didn’t.

That might be argued. The 17th century "civil war" involved Scotland in various ways, and I think the 18th century Jacobite rebellions could be classed as civil wars.

This was just sensationalist pap.

A C list actress marries a prince and doesn't expect to be headline news?

"Oh leave us alone!" (poses for photos)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're having a baby)

"Oh leave is alone!" (talks about the 'taboo' of losing an unborn child)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're going to America to get away from the media!)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're having another baby)

"Oh leave us alone!" (we're going to expose dirty doings at Buck House on a global broadcast)

I have no sympathy for either of them. Meghan would have to have been an utter moron if she expected to be left alone by the media after entering the Royal Family. As an 'actor' (who filmed a steamy romp in a filing room in that series she was in) she should realise that mass exposure comes with the job.

As for Harry - what an enormous disappointment he is. Then again, he always has been a media tart... getting drunk and behaving like the spoilt brat that he is.

It is beneficial to have a understanding of how The Royal Households of the United Kingdom all their collective departments are charged with supporting members of the British Royal Family.

Inside the Royal Household

https://www.royal.uk/inside-the-royal-household

Media Centre | The Royal Family

https://www.royal.uk/media-centre

The failures have been most destructive in these areas

Could be argued that Harry and Meghan interview actually hasn't reveled much that could not already be in the public domain.

The context, with the sensationalist manner of delivery, bombshell this/that, plus the tone and emotional leveraging with oodles of sexed up PR management

It's 320 years since the Monarch had any real power. @Lazarus, Stop clutching at straws.

Not quite. The Queen secretly and successfully lobbied the government in the early 70's to amend a shareholder transparency law that would have revealed her massive personal wealth. I'd argue that individuals who can amend laws do have 'real power'.

Where above did I state that the Royal Family do 'no real work'

Here:

It's 320 years since the Monarch had any real power. @Lazarus, Stop clutching at straws.

Where above did I say that 'I like it' or 'It's here'

This is a fair question. I assumed, to my error, it seems, that you liked it, because you are hellbent on defending it.

Are you aware the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme?, are you aware of the Princes Trust?

Are you aware that charities exist in republics?

Are you actually aware of the powers the Queen DOES constitutionally hold? I don't think you are? I suggest before you comment further you go and research.

I took you at your word when you said they hold no real power. My mistake, perhaps.

Also, am I allowed to freely roam The White House if I visit Washington. I think not. Silence Lazarus, Silence.

No. The White House, unlike Buckingham Palace, is a place where the government does work.

Where above did I state that the Royal Family do 'no real work'

Where above did I say that 'I like it' or 'It's here'

Are you aware the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme?, are you aware of the Princes Trust?

Are you actually aware of the powers the Queen DOES constitutionally hold? I don't think you are? I suggest before you comment further you go and research.

Also, am I allowed to freely roam The White House if I visit Washington. I think not. Silence Lazarus, Silence.

No, it didn’t.

My mistake, I was conflating England with the UK. Please accept my sincere apologies. Not being sarcastic, I know that Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish people might feel bad about being conflated in this. That was a genuine screw-up on my part.

Why the need to air their grievances in public ?

Anyway, congrats to Meghan - she’s made Yoko Ono look like an angel

What happened to our dear Prince ?

He was so loved, respected and so popular until that american actress came along.

You are aware that Britain had a civil war of its own?

No, it didn’t.

They do have significant reserve powers.

Hang on, is the monarchy good because it has no powers or because it is all-powerful? Can you guys get the story straight?

A constitutional monarchy is a good safety valve if democracy ever goes off the rails.

Boris Johnson illegally stopped parliament like two years ago and the Queen did nothing. What you're saying isn't true.

The wealth and hereditary nature of the monarchy ensures that they can't be easily corrupted by monied interests or a short term political agenda.

Why was it recently revealed that the Queen has significant holdings in overseas businesses and territories?

Or, to be more down to brass tacs: you are arguing in favor of feudalism. Why do you think feudalism is good?

If America had and English-style monarch it's likely that your Civil War could have been avoided.

This doesn't follow. How does an unelected head of state prevent civil war? You are aware that Britain had a civil war of its own?

Oh, cool. So, explain to me why people with no power deserve to be kept in luxury by dint of their brith while millions of Britons live in abject poverty.

They do have significant reserve powers. A constitutional monarchy is a good safety valve if democracy ever goes off the rails. The wealth and hereditary nature of the monarchy ensures that they can't be easily corrupted by monied interests or a short term political agenda. If America had and English-style monarch it's likely that your Civil War could have been avoided.

You weren't told you can't have an opinion, just rightly that it counts for very little.

I was told it was "irrelevant", with the implication that it was because of my national origin. Which I have argued is, itself, irrelevant.

I really don't think I need to explain anything to you when you are now starting to criticise poverty levels in the UK and using that as a justification to abolish the monarchy.

Rats, I was premature before. Excuse my previous post.

Comparing the attitude of the UK towards a vote for a President is absurd. You ARE aware how close your actual popular votes have been?

Yeah. I am not claiming that the US system is right. What I am claiming is that voting for a head of state is better than not having a say in who that head of state is.

You [are] aware that we don't [vote[?]]for the Queen?

Yes. That is what I think is bad.

And you are aware that France is a Republic and Belgium is a Monarchy?

Yes. That's my point. Republics are better for tourism.

You aware that in the UK 'Palaces'' are open to tourists?

Can I go to Buckingham Palace and explore the halls at any time of my convenience?

You are aware of the horrific poverty levels in the USA and most of Europe?

Yes. They are also bad. I am not claiming that poverty is caused by monarchy. What I am asking is why you think, while poverty exists, that a single extended family should be given millions of pound per year to do nothing.

I am not going to even justify any comparisons with China which is little more than tyrannical dictatorship that neither our countries (assuming you are American) deserve to be compared to.

You have fundamentally misunderstood my post. I was not saying the the UK was comparable to China in terms of freedom. Obviously, this is not the case. The UK has dramatic problems, but the pale in the face of China's crimes against the peace. What I am saying is that the "don't comment on somewhere's politics if you're not from there" is arbitrarily applied. I don't like arbitrariness.

You are totally entitled to your opinion, but I am afraid your knowledge of the Royal Family, the work it does and its popularity it totally incorrect.

I don't claim to have special knowledge of the Royal Family. You, yourself, said it does no real work. The popularity of it I don't dispute. I am claiming that things that are popular can still be wrong.

As evidence, you have made no arguments for the continuation of the Royal Family other than "I like it" and "it is here".

I really don't think I need to explain anything to you when you are now starting to criticise poverty levels in the UK and using that as a justification to abolish the monarchy. Comparing the attitude of the UK towards a vote for a President is absurd. You ARE aware how close your actual popular votes have been? You aware that we don't for the Queen? And you are aware that France is a Republic and Belgium is a Monarchy? You aware that in the UK 'Palaces'' are open to tourists?

You are aware of the horrific poverty levels in the USA and most of Europe?

I am not going to even justify any comparisons with China which is little more than tyrannical dictatorship that neither our countries (assuming you are American) deserve to be compared to.

You are totally entitled to your opinion, but I am afraid your knowledge of the Royal Family, the work it does and its popularity it totally incorrect.

@Lazarus Knows: Surely, that is for UK citizens to decide. A referendum however would be a total waste of money as regular polls indicate an overwhelming majority would choose to retain the current system.

Absolutely it is for the citizens of the UK to decide. But telling me I cannot hold an opinion on it is a different matter.

There are many non-US citizens who have opinions on who the President should be. It is right and natural that they hold these opinions. It is not right for them to have voting rights in the US based on their opinions.

I have opinions on — what I believe to be — unjust hierarchies in countries of which I am not a citizen. I note that on this site, where there is a significant amount of anti-China sentiment (and often rightfully so) no-one says "abloo-bloo if you're not Chinese you can't have an opinion about Premier Xi".

I don't presume to vote for anyone but myself. But I will not hold y tongue in the face of injustice because I don't live in a place where injustice exists.

I will not let the right cancel me.

It's 320 years since the Monarch had any real power. @Lazarus, Stop clutching at straws.

Oh, cool. So, explain to me why people with no power deserve to be kept in luxury by dint of their brith while millions of Britons live in abject poverty.

Literally, explain to me why some people deserve to be given millions of pounds to do nothing of any public good - by your own admission - while poverty exists in the UK.

And don't give me "but muh tourism" - France has opened its palaces to tourists, and make much more in money compared to its closest equivalent with a Royal Family, Belgium.

Tell me why you believe that some people are magically destined to be better than others.

@Lazarus Knows: Surely, that is for UK citizens to decide. A referendum however would be a total waste of money as regular polls indicate an overwhelming majority would choose to retain the current system.

It's a he said she said situation. How can we ever really know the truth? -And I don't care to.

And why publicly air the dirty laundry? No matter which family we come from such matters ought to be kept private. Sharing them publicly only serves to make things worse. Also, it does come across as two highly privileged people complaining about how hard their life is to another highly privileged person. It doesn't sit well.

I'm sorry that you are opposed to openness and transparency in public life.

The purpose, whether Windsor and Markle know it or not, is that it reveals how even the Royal Family are, themselves, subjects to an antiquated system that should have been destroyed a century ago.

I have no sympathy for "Prince Harry". I have an abundance of sympathy for Harry Windsor, and also for his wife.

Anyone who has kept up with the news of the Japanese Imperial Family (whose abolishment I also support) know that the strictures and systems that surround actual human people restrict and negatively impact their lives. The same is true of the British Royal Family.

Let Britain be a republic. Let monarchy perish from the earth. Let the "royals" be free.

@Erik Morales: Yes, of course there is a cultural difference. Sorry if I came across a little pompous. Some of the more wayward Royals have, over, many years found solace in America - Which in general ( and by that, I mean the press) are obsessed by younger members of the Royal Family. Americans(s) as you rightly point out do like and respect the Queen. The majority (and the same in reverse when it comes to the US being a Federal Republic) do not understand how a constitutional monarchy is OR how it works.

Their popularity has been up and down over the years, has survived scandals, abdications, even a possible, rumoured coup attempt in the early years of the war by the Kings Brother to retake the throne with the help of Hitler.

Charles and Diana, between them did a lot of damage to the credibility of the Crown, BUT it was already on the way to be being restored by the time she sadly died. Much credit must go to the Queen for restoring the reputation of the family.

It's 320 years since the Monarch had any real power. @Lazarus, Stop clutching at straws.

@Lazarus Knows - Modern History. Really..You want to go back that far? Some people cannot just move on.

"Move on", says someone openly advocating for the extension of feudalism.

Prolefeed.

I think Harry is getting played.

It's a he said she said situation. How can we ever really know the truth? -And I don't care to.

And why publicly air the dirty laundry? No matter which family we come from such matters ought to be kept private. Sharing them publicly only serves to make things worse. Also, it does come across as two highly privileged people complaining about how hard their life is to another highly privileged person. It doesn't sit well.

@Lazarus Knows - Modern History. Really..You want to go back that far? Some people cannot just move on.

It seems to be well established protocol that only the children and grandchildren of the reigning monarch receive the title of prince/princess. The only exception for great-grandchildren is if they are in the direct line of succession, as is the case with William and Kate's child prince George. 

To mislead the public by continuing to present this as some sort of arbitrary racial discrimination against her son is quite disingenuous. It calls her credibility into question.

If Charles becomes king, Archie and his sister will automatically get princely royal titles by virtue of being grandchildren of the monarch, unless the monarch chooses not to do this.

.

“I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped,” Harry said,

Harry is still trapped.

.

@theResidant I think there is a cultural difference of view points on this topic. I dont understand the anger towards H&M but yet again I am American. Luckily these people have no political power like they did 250 years ago. I will admit I did not realize the British public was this emotionally involved with the royal family, I shall respect that. We do like the queen and Millions of Americans watched Prince Charles tie the knot along with Brits. We just ask for Megan to be accepted and seen as a human.

Textbook damage control, 2021.

When facing criticism, scream "Racism". If asked to name names, don't.

doesn't matter,

If this is true, its just disgusting!!!

You will ALWAYS get people to fall for it.

To think that a C-list American TV actress did more to topple the Royal family than George Washington ever could.

The notion that "Americans shouldn't have an opinion on the monarchy" betrays a deep ignorance of US history.

However people think about them, in the end, they deserve dignity like everyone else. @ Eric Morales - I agree with you.

If you are NOT a UK Citizen @Lazarus Know, then your 'down with the monarchy' comment is also irrelevant.

It isn't, actually.

As an American I will support Meghan and Harry with their new American lives

Gonna send them a monthly cheque?

Megan basically implied that the palace refused to grant her son the title of “Prince” (and thus the police security that goes with that title) because of the mixed race of the child. There were apparently discussions by the institution/firm/palace about how dark the child was going to be.

The title of prince is usually granted to the sons of the monarch and sons of the sons of the monarch.

Archie is the son of a son of a son of the monarch.

Megan basically implied that the palace refused to grant her son the title of “Prince” (and thus the police security that goes with that title) because of the mixed race of the child. There were apparently discussions by the institution/firm/palace about how dark the child was going to be.

It seems to be well established protocol that only the children and grandchildren of the reigning monarch receive the title of prince/princess. The only exception for great-grandchildren is if they are in the direct line of succession, as is the case with William and Kate's child prince George.

To mislead the public by continuing to present this as some sort of arbitrary racial discrimination against her son is quite disingenuous. It calls her credibility into question.

If you are NOT a UK Citizen @Lazarus Know, then your 'down with the monarchy' comment is also irrelevant.

Erik Morales is right.

@Erik Morales: As an American, your opinion counts for very little. As a Brit - my opinion (for example) that the Voting system, Electoral College AND your entire system of Government should be updated also counts for very little!

Personally, I quite like Harry and Meaghan and do wish them well in the USA. The mud throwing will subside eventually. The Royal Family is much loved and respected in the UK by the majority of citizens, the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William have worked incredibly hard to restore their image from the lows of the early/mid 1990's.

Of course I cannot possibly condone Prince Andrews alleged actions along with Epstein. Its a disgrace - but at the end of the day how much criminal was he that one of your 'shady older male members' - i.e. Trump.

The Royal Family will prevail over this , and Harry and Meaghan AND the American Public will soon realise the Royal Family are much bigger then this media circus these days. It will take just one U.S. tour by Wiliam and Kate to prove that.

Media twaddle that will be forgotten about in a month. Good for Oprah though - I'm sure she earnt a lovely fee from CBS.

There is no need for the British royal family anymore. As an American I will support Meghan and Harry with their new American lives. How about they investigate one of their shady older male members who was best friends with J Epstein....

Megan additionally said that she was having suicidal thoughts, and asked about checking herself into a facility, but the palace wouldn’t allow it.

It's the 2020 remix "I wanted to go to Rehab, but they said "No! No! No!"

When I was expecting my two, people often commented on who they would take after. As it turned out they both take mostly after not me exactly, but my side of the family. It's what babies do, they mix and match the DNA they're given to play with in the womb.

Really? Thanks for sharing.

The queen needs to step up and take back control of the institution/firm/palace.

Megan basically implied that the palace refused to grant her son the title of “Prince” (and thus the police security that goes with that title) because of the mixed race of the child. There were apparently discussions by the institution/firm/palace about how dark the child was going to be.

Megan additionally said that she was having suicidal thoughts, and asked about checking herself into a facility, but the palace wouldn’t allow it.

This conduct by the institution/firm/palace should not be tolerated.

Disgusting family and institution. These two are well out of it.

But the fascination with them continues, not least from angry males who feel Harry has been emasculated.

Who will spit venom and character assassinations at MM.

They will be along soon, to tell us the obvious - not all males.

Yes, we know. But there are some very vocal males who fear strong, black/mixed race women. It's their worst nightmare and they will do anything they can (in their limited fashion) to denigrate and take her down.

All that said - monarchies are archaic and have no place in the modern world. All their lands, properties and ill-gotten gains should be taken from all of them and distributed amongst the needy, the marginalized, those who struggle against the brutalities of late capitalism.

It's hard to like these two, but even harder to like the other side that harbours someone who had sex with a trafficked under-age girl. With Britain run by the Bullingdon Club from Eton for most of the last decade, privilege is still there front and center in Britain, with the Royal Family at the top of the tree. Any claims that the country is now some kind of overly woke quasi-meritocracy are way off the target.

There is a brilliant story here about how "royal commentators", basically sychophantic rent-a-gobs who appear on the news and tell the British public what to think about the Royal Family, were duped into giving their opinions before they even saw the interview. Needless to say, they were happy to dismiss the couple, especially Meghan, and keep the royal flag flying.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/07/royal-commentators-hoaxed-into-critique-of-meghan-interview-before-seeing-it

Compared with all of us here, she hasn’t any reason at all to complain about anything. She is crying out from a very high level and it is not so thankful to the court to widely lay out internal details to the public, if those are true or not. To make it short, she had no noblesse before and she also couldn’t manage to get a very small bit of it afterwards.

I can only assume that The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, reaming members of the Royal family did not want to accused of cashing in “way, shape or form” from Oprah Winfrey not so private tête-à-tête.

Only naivety on display, is the Buckingham Palace officials and courtiers that thoroughly underestimated, Duchess of Sussex. Self-efficacy, smart, made of much sterner stuff.

No way Meghan is going to sit back a take any nonsense from the “help”.

It has been reported the Daily Mail, the Duchess says a member of the royal family told Harry they were concerned about how 'dark' Archie would be.

questions about his skin color 

If this is true, its just disgusting!!!

Depends how the questions were phrased and the feeling behind them.

Wondering whether a baby will take after its mother or its father or some other relative isn't racist.

When I was expecting my two, people often commented on who they would take after. As it turned out they both take mostly after not me exactly, but my side of the family. It's what babies do, they mix and match the DNA they're given to play with in the womb.

When a Japanese royal female marries out of the family, she leaves behind her royal status, lives quietly (and, we hope, happily) and we never hear from her again, end of story.

These two wanted out, they got out. I'm more than ready not to hear from them again.

and the anguish she had over discussions about her son that ranged from questions about his skin color 

If this is true, its just disgusting!!!

And again, why were they not paid to do this interview?

You're asking us?? Hang on let me make a few calls and get back to you on that....

Looks like Harry is now estranged from his father and brother.

So, Harry met Meghan and did not tell her what it would be like to be part of the Royal family? And again, why were they not paid to do this interview?

Even if one of the things they said were true, it’s pretty horrible for the the Firm and it’s staff. I can believe much of what is being said.

Naive.......yeah right!

I would be more inclined to side with her & Harry if they just led a quiet life now but they seem to WANT to be in the news as it will help keep some $$$ rolling in for them.....

The royals are useless trash.

That's a nice garden they're sitting in.

Somehow, "naive" isn't the word that comes to mind when I hear her speak.

What is the word that comes to your mind when you hear her speak?

Abolish the monarchy.

“I will say I went into it naively because I didn’t grow up knowing much about the royal family,” Meghan said. “It wasn’t something that was part of conversation at home. It wasn’t something that we followed.”

Somehow, "naive" isn't the word that comes to mind when I hear her speak.

Why were they not paid to give the interview?