Like you, I have only seen snippets of the interview, and read some extracts. What I saw quoted was that she closely linked, in terms of there juxtaposition as she was discussing concerns about being treated differently, matters of her ethnic heritage and her children not being given “royal titles”. The thing is, they do have royal titles. They were always going to be given royal titles. They just were not going to have the title of prince or princess because under the 1917 protocol those titles do not extend to the children of the monarch’s great-grandchildren who are not direct heirs to the throne. They do, however, extend to the monarch’s grandchildren so at the point that Charles becomes king they will then have the title prince or princess.
Interestingly here, Princess Anne’s children are not called Prince Peter or Princess Zara because Anne did not want them to have those titles. However, Andrew’s children are Princesses (Beatrice and Eugenie). What I haven’t seen clarified is that despite Archie being entitled to be known as the Earl of Dumbarton it was Harry and Meghan who instead decided that he should be styled Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with their wish that he grows up as a private citizen. So far from being denied any royal title he was entitled to, they themselves chose to not have him carry such a title.
There was no attempt to treat Harry and Meghan’s children differently. Indeed, the Queen appears to have extended courtesies to her that have not been extended previously so if there was any difference in treatment those differences seem to be in treating her and harry more favourably, not less.
oh i agree but he can say what he thinks or theres no point to discussion.
The problem is he doesnt let anyone reply so theres no back and forth - its all one way.
I said earlier I think Megans full of shit - its my view and im sticking to it.
What separates humans from animals is our ability no not act purely on impulse and filter our thoughts to our actions (amongst other things). It wasn’t serious last week when I thought about it as it’s something I often do but something I’d never do. Can you say honestly that you’ve never considered it? You’d be the only one as you’re thinking about it now.
I can’t escape the feeling that the majority of them are phonies and full of shit, tbh! There are very few members of the royal family who come across as genuine.
Being honest, I’ve no idea if she is or not but I would advise caution given the claims.
Plus I can well believe that the UK press can easily reduce someone to blubbering jelly once they decide that’s what they’re going to do. And I think it’s worth noting that point of whether the press decide if you’re a bad egg or not.
Agree with that. If you’re suggesting that many of them subscribe to the white supremacy, fuck the poor and have libertarian ideals then I could well believe it.
Meghan now excluded, i have to ask why doesn’t Harry just get the same treatment as Andrew? Andrew doesn’t have any duties anymore, but still has all his titles and still gets his money and security? For me it came across as if they didn’t want anything more than that everyone was treated the same there.
I think it’s sad, but unfortunately this world is full of Piers Morgans. They don’t give a shit about other people’s feelings and are just ruthless about profiling themselves. They are not interested in what damage they might do with it.
I will dip into that shortly but I did hear a snippet this morning that looked at this.
I think it said that testing brought the R number down by something like 30%. Tracing , in its current form less than 5%. I need to check those figures to be honest but disturbing if accurate.
Morgan just making a national RF debate all about him. His opinion isn’t that controversial. Walking off his show is all about attention and just makes him look like the prick he is.
