Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Options
1…5758606263…732

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,939 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    You mean in the way she altered it to make Prince George and any other siblings automatically prince/princess before the earlier convention stated?

    So what's the issue with the same treatment for Archie? Harry and Meghan said there was talk about "changing the convention" for Archie. So you're saying, change it again since 2013? He's the child of the only other senior royal family of Prince Charles. I don't think the convention changed, I think Queen Elizabeth issued a special rule for Williams children. Then they talked about changing the actual convention in light of Harry's child. Why...

    It was changed to include the eldest son of the prince of Wales
    children because the heir to the throne in the UK is the Prince of wales. I don’t think they want to change the rules but I do recall something about Charles supposedly wanting to narrow done the royal family like they do in other country.

    Like in other European countries with monarchy there is the royal house and the royal family. They don’t lose titles they just are in a different tier. But that was just a report and it happened around the time of Prince Andrew’s daughters wanting to be working royals. Anyway Charles can’t change anything yet.


  • Options
    #1773
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Sure that’s what she’s saying, but she also said he wasn’t given a title due to being mixed race. Which is inflammatory rubbish.
    Recollections may vary..

    I already explained the George + siblings thing. It was amended in 2013 before anyone even knew Meghan existed. It has nothing to do with her.

    How do we know it's not due to being mixed race though?

    She/Harry say these conversations about his skin colour in which there were "concerns" about it, were happening at the same time as the discussion about changing the old King George Convention.

    Of course they are going to say "recollections may vary," but in fairness, Meghan also said she wasn't able to follow up on why these discussions were being had. So we're discussing it now...
    The convention wasn't being amended. Queen Elizabeth announced her own decision (not sure what it's called). Do you have a link that says the King George Convention was amended? I haven't seen it but would definitely change my views if you have a link that that law was changed for all royal births and not just a one time exception.
    In absence of a changed convention then, why were these discussions being had?
    Do you not think Harry especially, and Meghan would have understood if Queen Elizabeth changed the convention all those years ago in 2013?
    To me, it's clearly not the case, they clearly don't have that understanding, and don't know why they were now discussing the change specifically for Archie.


  • Options
    #1774
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Princes George, Louis, and Princess Charlotte are great grandchildren. Why alter for them now, though? Why do you think this was done when there was a convention in place already to come into play when Prince Charles becomes King?

    I already said in my previous post, they didn't make the choice to not have Archie titled as clearly stated in the interview.

    I remember the queen changing these things. Originally only Williams eldest son was entitled to be titled. Any other children would become titled when Charles becomes king. The queen changed it to include all the children of the heir (william) and
    It was a move with the modern times and allowed princess Charlotte to be in line to the throne.
    I also remember hearing that Charles wanted to 'streamline' the Royal family, but as it stands Archie is due a title when Charles becomes king.


  • Options
    #1775
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    How do we know it's not due to being mixed race though?

    She/Harry say these conversations about his skin colour in which there were "concerns" about it, were happening at the same time as the discussion about changing the old King George Convention.

    Of course they are going to say "recollections may vary," but in fairness, Meghan also said she wasn't able to follow up on why these discussions were being had. So we're discussing it now...
    The convention wasn't being amended. Queen Elizabeth announced her own decision (not sure what it's called). Do you have a link that says the King George Convention was amended? I haven't seen it but would definitely change my views if you have a link that that law was changed for all royal births and not just a one time exception.
    In absence of a changed convention then, why were these discussions being had?
    Do you not think Harry especially, and Meghan would have understood if Queen Elizabeth changed the convention all those years ago in 2013?
    To me, it's clearly not the case, they clearly don't have that understanding, and don't know why they were now discussing the change specifically for Archie.

    It was a letters patent she issued which overrode that piece of convention. This article explains it.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-56325934

    Archie was never entitled to be prince at birth but would be once Charles inherited the throne.


  • Options
    #1776
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I remember the queen changing these things. Originally only Williams eldest son was entitled to be titled. Any other children would become titled when Charles becomes king. The queen changed it to include all the children of the heir (william) and
    It was a move with the modern times and allowed princess Charlotte to be in line to the throne.
    I also remember hearing that Charles wanted to 'streamline' the Royal family, but as it stands he is due one when Charles becomes king.

    I don't think your post is accurate.

    Obviously the main point to that being Charlotte and Louis are already both titled Princess and Prince.

    William isn't the heir yet, Charles is.

    Obviously, the King Charles Convention still stood. If it didn't, why would Harry and Meghan think something was wrong about all this and call it out? Harry would know more than anyone.

    Does anyone have a link about the decision Queen Elisabeth made on this?

    Side point, the whole reason Meghan and Harry even care about this, is that the prince title allowed for protection since they are 'HRH.'
    They said that the already inherent risk had increased due to racist death threats stemming from their mixed race marriage.

    So in light of this, why wouldn't the royal family either title Archie in line with his cousins, or provide for his protection? They're not short on money or options.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Can we talk about this one - where did this idea come from, our parent's time when we swept everything under the carpet and did as we were told by our elders and parish priest?

    When is it appropriate to speak up then, never? Not in the face of racism, rape, sexual assault, harassment, corruption... never??

    What does that message send-protect the people who are perpetuating these harms against others? Why shouldn't anyone speak up on these matters, especially when the people directly involved refuse to acknowledge or deal with these harmful issues impacting one's life?

    There are chains of command. Take somebody experiencing bullying in any profession, e.g. the CO being bullied by the EO. The reason that chains of command exist, as well as HR, is so that the context can be understood and both sides can be fairly heard. Now imagine if the CO announces on the work WhatsApp group with 1,000+ employees that the EO is bullying and that same CO hasn’t even spoken with their HEO yet. Would it not be better to go up the chain of command and to pressure the powers-that-be to deal with it. Putting it on WhatsApp means that there is no chance now that the EO will have a fair hearing (whether or not somebody is guilty, they deserve a fair hearing). It will blow into something huge. The EO will potentially lose their job (not saying that they shouldn’t, but the punishment needs to be administered according to the level of severity). And who knows what they bullying actually is (is it somebody being demanding versus somebody fat-shaming the colleague in front of others). By all the people in the WhatsApp will remember is that the EO is a bully


  • Options
    #1778
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    How do we know it's not due to being mixed race though?

    She/Harry say these conversations about his skin colour in which there were "concerns" about it, were happening at the same time as the discussion about changing the old King George Convention.

    Of course they are going to say "recollections may vary," but in fairness, Meghan also said she wasn't able to follow up on why these discussions were being had. So we're discussing it now...
    The convention wasn't being amended. Queen Elizabeth announced her own decision (not sure what it's called). Do you have a link that says the King George Convention was amended? I haven't seen it but would definitely change my views if you have a link that that law was changed for all royal births and not just a one time exception.
    In absence of a changed convention then, why were these discussions being had?
    Do you not think Harry especially, and Meghan would have understood if Queen Elizabeth changed the convention all those years ago in 2013?
    To me, it's clearly not the case, they clearly don't have that understanding, and don't know why they were now discussing the change specifically for Archie.

    You really are intent on running with this racist angle to a baby and a title..

    It’s been pointed out to you clearly.

    Meghan and Harry don’t remotely believe it, even if they did make a racist accusation based of some comment they allegedly heard..

    Deviousness here is all this is. And their deviousness has worked on some..


  • Options
    #1779
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    It was a letters patent she issued which overrode that piece of convention. This article explains it.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-56325934

    Archie was never entitled to be prince at birth but would be once Charles inherited the throne.

    Meghan and Harry said the discussion was around changing this convention though. So the question is... why?


  • Options
    #1780
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    I don't think your post is accurate.

    Obviously the main point to that being Charlotte and Louis are already both titled Princess and Prince.

    William isn't the heir yet, Charles is.

    Obviously, the King Charles Convention still stood. If it didn't, why would Harry and Meghan think something was wrong about all this and call it out? Harry would know more than anyone.

    Does anyone have a link about the decision Queen Elisabeth made on this?

    Side point, the whole reason Meghan and Harry even care about this, is that the prince title allowed for protection since they are 'HRH.'
    They said that the already inherent risk had increased due to racist death threats stemming from their mixed race marriage.

    So in light of this, why wouldn't the royal family either title Archie in line with his cousins, or provide for his protection? They're not short on money or options    .

    So maybe then use some of your fortune to fund your own security instead of buying a $36 million dollar house beside Oprah. Priorities?
    When they left they said one of the reasons was wanting to be financially independent, now a year later the two millionaires pushing 40 are crying about having to fund their own lifestyle.


  • Options
    #1781
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    How do we know it's not due to being mixed race though?

    She/Harry say these conversations about his skin colour in which there were "concerns" about it, were happening at the same time as the discussion about changing the old King George Convention.

    Of course they are going to say "recollections may vary," but in fairness, Meghan also said she wasn't able to follow up on why these discussions were being had. So we're discussing it now...
    The convention wasn't being amended. Queen Elizabeth announced her own decision (not sure what it's called). Do you have a link that says the King George Convention was amended? I haven't seen it but would definitely change my views if you have a link that that law was changed for all royal births and not just a one time exception.
    In absence of a changed convention then, why were these discussions being had?
    Do you not think Harry especially, and Meghan would have understood if Queen Elizabeth changed the convention all those years ago in 2013?
    To me, it's clearly not the case, they clearly don't have that understanding, and don't know why they were now discussing the change specifically for Archie.

    Did the queen of today have a time-machine to travel back to 2013, before Harry ever met Meghan? How could it have been racially motivated if she changed the law BEFORE Meghan met Harry


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    I don't think your post is accurate.

    Obviously the main point to that being Charlotte and Louis are already both titled Princess and Prince.

    William isn't the heir yet, Charles is.

    Obviously, the King Charles Convention still stood. If it didn't, why would Harry and Meghan think something was wrong about all this and call it out? Harry would know more than anyone.

    Does anyone have a link about the decision Queen Elisabeth made on this?

    Side point, the whole reason Meghan and Harry even care about this, is that the prince title allowed for protection since they are 'HRH.'
    They said that the already inherent risk had increased due to racist death threats stemming from their mixed race marriage.

    So in light of this, why wouldn't the royal family either title Archie in line with his cousins, or provide for his protection? They're not short on money or options.

    No.
    George V declared great grandchildren would no longer be Prince or princesses, except the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
    The queen changed this in 2012 ,to include all children of William.
    Archie is still entitled to be Prince when Charles becomes king.
    All of this was done in 2012/13 many years before MM was even famous.
    So absolutely nothing to do with any child being mixed race, nothing.


    With respect to security, the Royal family have no input. The British Police deal with and decide the security detail.


  • Options
    #1783
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    So maybe then use some of your fortune to fund your own security instead of buying a $36 million dollar house beside Oprah. Priorities?
    When they left they said one of the reasons was wanting to be financially independent, now a year later the two millionaires pushing 40 are crying about having to fund their own lifestyle.

    Well, Harry says the decision came quite suddenly and while they were in Canada to pull his protection. This was before they bought a house and before Tyler Perry came to the rescue.

    It takes time to be financially independent. So why wouldn't you protect your son and grandson in the meantime?


  • Options
    #1784
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    It's just a conversation, why are you being so aggressive and calling me "pathetic?"

    Is there some reason you don't want a conversation about it?

    Also, that is backseat modding. Don't tell others what to post.

    Ok,

    Apologies. I will remove that.


  • Options
    #1785
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    No.
    George V declared great grandchildren would no longer be Prince or princesses, except the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
    The queen changed this in 2012 ,to include all children of William.
    Archie is still entitled to be Prince when Charles becomes king.
    All of this was done in 2012/13 many years before MM was even famous.
    So absolutely nothing to do with any child being mixed race, nothing.

    The Queen didn't remove or change the actual law of the King George convention. She issued a letters patent to make a change for Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis (why?).

    Then they discussed changing the actual law when Meghan was still pregnant with Archie.


  • Options
    #1786
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Well, Harry says the decision came quite suddenly and while they were in Canada to pull his protection. This was before they bought a house and before Tyler Perry came to the rescue.

    It takes time to be financially independent. So why wouldn't you protect your son and grandson in the meantime?

    British Police pulled their security.I
    Harry is either very naive or stupid if he believed that the British Police are going to supply security detail for a family living in Canada!


  • Options
    #1787
    BettyS
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭BettyS


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Well, Harry says the decision came quite suddenly and while they were in Canada to pull his protection. This was before they bought a house and before Tyler Perry came to the rescue.

    It takes time to be financially independent. So why wouldn't you protect your son and grandson in the meantime?

    You know Stateofyou, there are sadly many genuine examples of racism in this world. By alleging that the rule was introduced to avoid a mixed-race child becoming HRH, has been disproven on the basis of the rule change long before Harry met Meghan. By making blatantly untrue claims, you are drawing attention away from the genuine racism that happens


  • Options
    #1788
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Well, Harry says the decision came quite suddenly and while they were in Canada to pull his protection. This was before they bought a house and before Tyler Perry came to the rescue.

    It takes time to be financially independent. So why wouldn't you protect your son and grandson in the meantime?

    Well isn’t he a bit stupid now to have left (while declaring he wants to be financially independent) before evaluating the risks of what that would actually mean. Did they actually expect to be funded when they weren’t even working royals anymore? Says more about their entitlement and naivety than anything else.


  • Options
    #1789
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    British Police pulled their security.I
    Harry is either very naive or stupid if he believed that the British Police are going to supply security detail for a family living in Canada!

    Yes, because they were filling in when the royal security was pulled from them.

    Harry is not naive or stupid. He didn't choose to be born, and the reality is he inherited the risk.


  • Options
    #1790
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    The Queen didn't remove or change the actual law of the King George convention. She issued a letters patent to make a change for Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis (why?).

    Then they discussed changing the actual law when Meghan was still pregnant with Archie.

    Why?
    To make things more modern I assume. She issued the patents before George was even born


  • Options
    #1791
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    Yes, because they were filling in when the royal security was pulled from them.

    Harry is not naive or stupid. He didn't choose to be born, and the reality is he inherited the risk.

    What are you talking about?
    British Police are the security for The royal family


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    retro:electro wrote: »
    Well isn’t he a bit stupid now to have left (while declaring he wants to be financially independent) before evaluating the risks of what that would actually mean. Did they actually expect to be funded when they weren’t even working royals anymore? Says more about their entitlement and naivety than anything else.

    I don't think he ever thought his own family would pull his security, and before he could arrange his own. Do you think anyone deserves something like that?


  • Options
    #1793
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    What are you talking about?
    British Police are the security for The royal family

    The Canadian police. Didn't the Canadian Prime Minister say they had to stop providing the security? So for a time they were, in the absence of British security.


  • Options
    #1794
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    I don't think he ever thought his own family would pull his security, and before he could arrange his own. Do you think anyone deserves something like that?

    They didnt.
    For the i don't know how.many times, the Royal family have no input into their security.
    It is done by British Police and paid for by British taxpayers.


  • Options
    #1795
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    The Canadian police. Didn't the Canadian Prime Minister say they had to stop providing the security? So for a time they were, in the absence of British security.

    Why would you think the British or Canadian police should supply security for Harry and his family?


  • Options
    #1796
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why?
    To make things more modern I assume. She issued the patents before George was even born

    Yes, but it didn't change the convention. Then they decided to consider changing it while she was pregnant with Archie. It wouldn't have been an issue, if they had said don't worry, he will still have the utmost protection in light of the risk and especially increased risk. Buckingham Palace were quite aware of this as in the early days, they released a statement about it (was it not on behalf of Harry?) about the racism and they said they had to increase their staff to monitor the hate on social media.
    So why not protect their son's family in light of that.


  • Options
    #1797
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,701 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    All this talk of security is a red herring..

    Do folks truly think that Harry and Meghan are not protected?

    Whether they pay for it or not, there’s no way a member of the Royal Family is not being watched/guarded... member, or x member..


  • Options
    #1798
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Why would you think the British or Canadian police should supply security for Harry and his family?

    I don't actually think they should. It's something that happened for a time while they were there, that's why it was brought up. I think Harry's family should have looked after him and their grandson, personally if they had to.


  • Options
    #1799
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    walshb wrote: »
    All this talk of security is a red herring..

    Do folks truly think that Harry and Meghan are not protected?

    Whether they pay for it or not, there’s no way a member of the Royal Family is not being watched/guarded... member, or x member..

    Harry said that Netflix and Spotify deals were not part of the plan. He said they signed those deals in order to have/afford protection. So what does that tell you.


  • Options
    #1800
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Stateofyou wrote: »
    I don't think he ever thought his own family would pull his security, and before he could arrange his own. Do you think anyone deserves something like that?

    Well he is quite naive then because straight away when they announced they were leaving, the Queen had Harry, Charles and William in for talks and I’m sure they would have addressed to him the security issue. I think they had several talks actually and it took days to work around an agreement. Actually one of the terms of “Megsit” was that they would have to fund their own security so he was not as blindsided as he makes out


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    bubblypop wrote: »
    They didnt.
    For the i don't know how.many times, the Royal family have no input into their security.
    It is done by British Police and paid for by British taxpayers.

    But- Queen Elisabeth could have also issued a letters patent, or else stepped in personally. No? In light of increased risk? Harry said they acknowledged there was no change in risk. So why wouldn't you?


Advertisement