Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[TipsyTraveler]

Can someone tell me why the queen rewrote the rules to give Charlotte and Louis prince and princess titles? I know George was entitled to it, but the other two were given special exception by the queen, correct? I suppose the excuse for why she would do that for Charlotte and Louis but not Archie will be that the first two are direct descendants of a future king (assuming everything goes to plan) and Archie’s not, but I can see how it could make H&M feel like there was an imbalance playing out among the great-grandchildren, those for whom special exceptions will be made and the one for whom they will not. Especially, if this was happening in tandem with hushed conversations regarding concerns over how dark their child’s skin may be and how that will look for the monarchy, as they said.

Although, I wasn’t fully clear on the timeline being discussed regarding the title and the security. Initially, I thought they were talking about from the time of Archie’s birth, but the more I listened I started to think they were talking about when Charles takes the throne, when he would normally be entitled to the title of prince and a personal security detail, that they were being told he wouldn’t receive it and no one could give them a straight answer for why.

 

[tcufrog]

Ouch! Royal family,



They didn’t name names or dish a lot of dirt, but it offered more insight than I was expecting. The simple fact that my child wasn’t going to receive security protection would have been enough for me to run from that situation like my hair was on fire. Before this, my opinions on the royal family/their history of scandals/Megxit have always fallen into the mentality of “Eh, who really knows what’s happening behind the scenes? Everyone’s probably a little right and a little wrong, it’s complicated, blah, blah.” But, that colorism garbage was too far for me and I’m left thinking the royal family is trash. I’m more supportive of H&M than I’ve ever been. I’m glad they got out. My husband, who has never paid a lick of attention to the royal family, watched with me. I asked what he would have done in Harry’s position. “I would’ve left that family prior to the wedding.”

I just want to come in on the whole skintone thing. It’s only natural to be curious how a child looks when it was born. Maybe this royal was speaking out loud what most people think. Most people are curious to know how a child looks when both parents come from different race/ethnic backgrounds. We have mixed races / ethnic couples within our family and when there’s pregnancy there’s always the family discussion wondering what side the child’s gonna take more from. these conversations are often initiated from the parents themselves. Now maybe making a statement like I hope that child’s not too dark that something different and crossing lines. I haven’t watch the interview yet so I don’t know what Megan and harry were implying specifically in this situation

I struggle to believe she wasn`t "allowed" to have help with mental health issues after apparently going to HR. Saying someone (again not named) told her it would look bad for her to be seen having help. We`d never have known she had help unless they decided to share if that was the case.

Where was her husband then who would do anything to help her. William, Catherine and Harry himself launched the Heads Together charity which brought 8 mental health charities to unite together.

Harry couldn`t have found her help? My husband is the first person I turn to......and he would make darn sure I was ok. He had the ways and means to make this happen. But, I truly don`t believe she was told she couldn`t have any help.

I found the clips I`ve seen too self serving and won`t watch the full interview tonight. From people who have seen it saying there wasn`t one word of, you know maybe we made a mistake along the way.......it seems to be all "woe is us"

No questions about her family, nor the criticisms levelled against them about their hypocracy and again with the colour of their childs skin.....no context. You can`t just throw out half accusations, which is what they`ve done.

As mousefan pointed out above, depending on the context this could have been a regular conversation between families. We don`t know.....we don`t know any of it first hand.

Having Scottish roots, I have a couple of cousins who have very red hair, when one who is a typical pasty skinned white girl married a very dark Italian man many years ago, they joked she had no idea what colour her childs hair and skin would have, she hoped the child would predominantly have his skin colour so they could sit longer than 4 minutes in the sun before burning.

Could it have been a similar conversation? Not a clue......but to drop hints about racism in his family and not follow through is cowardly and leaves more questions to be answered. As they should be if it was said in a racist way, no one would deny that.

I have had in-laws ask when my baby was born what the child's skin color is. Trust me. It's incredibly hurtful and offensive. That happened after my 14-year-old was born and my husband still refuses to have contact with the relatives who asked that. There is no innocuous way to ask that of a biracial or multiracial couple.

 

[snappy]

Meghan can’t win. And when you say she’s an actress, she was in a few shows. She’s not an Oscar caliber level actress. I feel for her. The whole situation she was in was toxic and everyone questions everything she does.

I hope they move on and have happy lives. I do worry about their offspring in the event Meghan ends up in another crisis.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Can someone tell me why the queen rewrote the rules to give Charlotte and Louis prince and princess titles? I know George was entitled to it, but the other two were given special exception by the queen, correct? I suppose the excuse for why she would do that for Charlotte and Louis but not Archie will be that the first two are direct descendants of a future king (assuming everything goes to plan) and Archie’s not, but I can see how it could make H&M feel like there was an imbalance playing out among the great-grandchildren, those for whom special exceptions will be made and the one for whom they will not. Especially, if this was happening in tandem with hushed conversations regarding concerns over how dark their child’s skin may be and how that will look for the monarchy, as they said.

Although, I wasn’t fully clear on the timeline being discussed regarding the title and the security. Initially, I thought they were talking about from the time of Archie’s birth, but the more I listened I started to think they were talking about when Charles takes the throne, when he would normally be entitled to the title of prince and a personal security detail, that they were being told he wouldn’t receive it and no one could give them a straight answer for why.

The declaration came from King George V not QEii. She made the exception that any daughter would be in line of succession by order of birth not giving preference to sons. Only the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes and princesses until the POW becomes king. He can then bestow the titles to his grandchildren. At least this is my understanding

 

[cabanafrau]

Can someone tell me why the queen rewrote the rules to give Charlotte and Louis prince and princess titles? I know George was entitled to it, but the other two were given special exception by the queen, correct? I suppose the excuse for why she would do that for Charlotte and Louis but not Archie will be that the first two are direct descendants of a future king (assuming everything goes to plan) and Archie’s not, but I can see how it could make H&M feel like there was an imbalance playing out among the great-grandchildren, those for whom special exceptions will be made and the one for whom they will not. Especially, if this was happening in tandem with hushed conversations regarding concerns over how dark their child’s skin may be and how that will look for the monarchy, as they said.

Although, I wasn’t fully clear on the timeline being discussed regarding the title and the security. Initially, I thought they were talking about from the time of Archie’s birth, but the more I listened I started to think they were talking about when Charles takes the throne, when he would normally be entitled to the title of prince and a personal security detail, that they were being told he wouldn’t receive it and no one could give them a straight answer for why.

I think William's children are all granted the titles as they are expected to be the children of the future monarch, and actually grandchildren of a monarch prior to that.
It does seem cold that Archie, and his sibling if his parents had remained, wouldn't automatically be granted the same -- unless the parents refused it. I'm not saying H & M refused it, I'm saying theoretically if a parent said, thanks, but no thanks, the parent's wishes should have stood. I think it's Princess Anne and Prince Edward who did that with their kids, while Andrew's daughters are princesses.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I have had in-laws ask when my baby was born what the child's skin color is. Trust me. It's incredibly hurtful and offensive. That happened after my 14-year-old was born and my husband still refuses to have contact with the relatives who asked that. There is no innocuous way to ask that of a biracial or multiracial couple.

I have seen it happen with every single interracial family I’ve known and in a large number of the POC families in my circle, as well as in schools and workplaces where people have been either rewarded or denigrated based on the darkness of their skin. I’m well past the point of having any tolerance for it.

 

[Tink-osophy]

...it suits their narrative to imply it was a racist action to deprive Archie of the title. Never mind that he wasn’t getting that title, no matter what. ...

THIS! Sadly.

It seems the whole thing was masterfully crafted to persuade as many people as possible to accept a very specific narrative and even, then, to get them to intimidate doubters into shutting up.

I wonder if the people criticising those of us who are questioning the details would be so happy to be accused and condemned so dramatically on a huge public stage with no voice or defence of their own..

The idea that people questioning (rather than lapping up) what has been said, are 'mean-spirited' is a classic twist of the situation and is a popular way, these days, of dismissing unwanted opinions. ...................Overstate what people are doing and you get to over-criticise them for it! You can even distort the truth to look completely different.

Effectively this was a very one-sided courtroom - so one-sided that no one else got to speak and no one got to cross--examine. Nor, if H&M have their way, will they. They're allowed to say anything in a very highly rehearsed and edited presentation and no one is allowed to question?

 

[Tink-osophy]

What concerns me, too, is that this is a great way to turn groups of people against one another.

Influence one 'side' to shout down any opposing arguments on your behalf.

I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle of this mess, but how does anyone get to that, especially if gagged? It's just not sensible to accept everything you're being spoon-fed just because people don't like the discomfort of cross-examination!

Their accusations are too big to ignore and if they are sure they are telling the truth why would they need to manufacture such a controlled 'interview', let alone avoid any follow-up? If you are absolutely presenting the truth, you should be able to argue it in court, so-to-speak.

There are holes in what they say and even in the way they have chosen to orchestrate saying it - as well as in their attempts to shut down any response.

Plus, what does it say that not only was he willing to pillory his dad this way, but it was something she had already done to hers?

They have decided to deal with whatever ills, by throwing a whole country under a bus, people aren't going to stand idly by.

 

[Donald13]

I'm sure MM believes everything she says. I'm willing to bet she could even pass a lie detector test. Megs is always the victim. EVERYBODY else is the problem. Notice a pattern?

No because I don’t follow her around and write down everything she says. And if it’s an act, she’s not the first.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

The declaration came from King George V not QEii. She made the exception that any daughter would be in line of succession by order of birth not giving preference to sons. Only the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales are princes and princesses until the POW becomes king. He can then bestow the titles to his grandchildren. At least this is my understanding

Charlotte and Louis are titled Princess and Prince.

ETA: And this is where my confusion lies. I thought only the oldest child, George, would have the title of Prince until Charles took the throne, then the titles could be given to his siblings. Am I understanding this correctly, at least how it’s normally supposed to work if the queen hadn’t made an exception to give them these titles?

 

[morgan98]

Charlotte and Louis are titled Princess and Prince.

Charlotte and Louis are the children of the oldest son (William) of the Prince of Wales (Charles).

 

[Tink-osophy]

It's sad, really, that some posters still think ridiculing people they don't agree with is a mature or intelligent comment on anything. If you don't agree do the intelligent thing and say why without insults. Pointing and laughing is the kind of thing you're supposed to learn not to do in Kindergarten.

If you don't think this is a potentially big turning point, maybe brush up a bit on history.

 

[mousefan73]

Is that genuinely how the rules work? If it is, it seems must have changed during the Queen's lifetime. As a child even before her uncle assumed the throne I believe Elizabeth and Margaret both were referred to as princesses. Although I guess that's technically equivalent to William, Harry, Andrew's daughters right now.

I believe it’s because when they were born they were grandchildren of the Monarch. Archie is a great grandchild.

I have had in-laws ask when my baby was born what the child's skin color is. Trust me. It's incredibly hurtful and offensive. That happened after my 14-year-old was born and my husband still refuses to have contact with the relatives who asked that. There is no innocuous way to ask that of a biracial or multiracial couple.

I am sorry how that is hurtful. For us it’s like asking does the baby have blue or brown eyes. This was never an issue in our family.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Charlotte and Louis are the children of the oldest son (William) of the Prince of Wales (Charles).

Sorry, I just edited my previous post to to try to be more clear. I thought only the oldest son of the oldest son would carry the title prior to Charles taking the throne. Is that right?

 

[Cheburashka]

Can somebody explain why she had to kneel when she first met the Queen. I believe it was before they were married correct? From my understanding only subjects ( which she at that time was not) need to kneel. In royal receiving lines only those who are citizens of the commonwealth kneel? As an American not required?

She didn't have to curtsy- no one forced her or called her out. People typically shouldn't curtsy to another country's royals, but being engaged to a royal of another country is a grey area. After you're married, though, it is no longer a grey area. Notice that unlike every other royal bride, she chose not to curtsy to the Queen as she left the alter after "marrying" (I have to use quotes as I'm not sure what to call that now) Harry. That is tradition and we've seen it at every other royal wedding, but Meghan walked right past the Queen without stopping. And no, I don't believe for a second that she had never watched another royal wedding or wasn't told by anyone that was expected. I think Meghan is the type who never wants to curtsy to anyone, which is fine, unless you choose to marry into a royal family.

 

[Pink Partridge]

It's sad, really, that some posters still think ridiculing people they don't agree with is a mature or intelligent comment on anything. If you don't agree do the intelligent thing and say why without insults. Pointing and laughing is the kind of thing you're supposed to learn not to do in Kindergarten.

Again, I am totally treating this for what it is: Trashy Reality TV.

Don't go on television for my entertainment and act silly if you don't want to be laughed at. Meghan isn't for real. She is (poorly) acting and it is comic relief.

(I think we agree, @Tink-osophy )

 

[Tink-osophy]

LOL did you all hate Diana this much, too?

? ? ?

Diana was awesome. Pretty much a whole country loved Diana. And though she struggled and, like all of us, made some mistakes, she is still respected and remembered fondly. I think a big part of that was her heart was genuine.

 

[fortwildernessishome]

It is how countries were formed in the olden days, but nowadays, they are symbols of unity and can bring people together. That's something republics cannot always say with their chosen heads of state, which causes usually more division nowadays.

By reading a little of this thread it seems like the Monarchy is the opposite of "symbols of unity" and "bring people together"!!

 

[NotUrsula]

But the Archbishop has some explaining to do if he performed a marriage rites without witnesses and a second ceremony for show. He performs religious ceremonies not civil. Two different animals.

Any other cleric would, certainly, but who exactly would the Archbishop of Canterbury have to explain it to? The only person who outranks him ecclesiastically is the Queen, and she was probably informed at the time.

The second ceremony was the legal ceremony, with a license and witnesses, and performed in a sanctuary within the UK's rules for when & where a legal marriage ceremony may be performed. It would have been the first one that was "for show", and I'm sure that the fact that a license was already active and a legally-binding ceremony was scheduled only 3 days later played into his decision to grant the request. (It might have been illegal to perform such a ceremony at one time, but not after the repeal of the Marriages Act.)

 

[TippyThomas]

It's sad, really, that some posters still think ridiculing people they don't agree with is a mature or intelligent comment on anything. If you don't agree do the intelligent thing and say why without insults. Pointing and laughing is the kind of thing you're supposed to learn not to do in Kindergarten.

If you don't think this is a potentially big turning point, maybe brush up a bit on history.

You keep saying things about insults but only one side of them. Have you read some of the unbelievably insulting things said in this thread as a whole? Really?