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
1499500502504505732

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,978 ✭✭✭wyrn


    Maybe H&M just changed their minds.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    All these self-entitled people making one thing conditional on another. Dreadful



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    "The first member of color in this family, not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be,"


    Sure you said yourself that he (and now Lillibet) was only entitled to it after the death of the queen, as a grandson of a reigning monarch. So nothing to do with skin colour as insinuated by the above quote from your clip



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    How can anyone who goes out of their way to help another human being be self-entitled? Tyler Perry is the very opposite of self-entitled.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    The Cambridge children (the younger two) were not automatically entitled either. The Sussex children were treated differently. I wonder why that was? Can you give an explanation as to why they were Princess & Prince from birth?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Looks like the month of May is going to be full of drama for the RF/British tabloids.

    Piers Morgan, former editor of the Mirror is going to be busy then!



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Probably because they are the children of a future king?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Yes, it can be explained easily - by the fact that the Cambridge children were all automatically entitled to the titles prince/princess. The letters patent issued in the early 20th century stated that only the eldest son of the eldest son of the prince of Wales would automatically be prince, but it was amended by the queen to include all children of the eldest son of the prince of Wales in 2012. This was before the cambridges first child was even born but was intended to cover the eventuality that if their first born was a girl she would not be given a title which would go to any possible brother instead.

    Here is the text.

    "The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour."


    So the Cambridge children were entitled to it automatically, since 2012. Nothing to do with Harry and Meghan who hadn't even met at the time. The letters patent clearly only applies to the children of the eldest son of the prince of Wales, which Harry is not. This was all explained at the time the letters patent was issued and ad nauseum after h&m complained it was due to racism.

    Post edited by ceadaoin. on


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    No, only the eldest great grandson of the monarch was automatically entitled under the King George V 1917 ruling. The Queen had to make a new ruling to include the rest of the Cambridge Children in 2012.

    Thanks for supplying the detailed ruling that this is the case.

    Now explain why the Queen did it for the rest of the Cambridge children and not for the Sussex children (particularly knowing that it would happen automatically when Charles would become King anyway).

    The Palace claimed that H&M had refused titles which they denied was the case in their Oprah interview. Why would the Palace declare something like that particularly as Archie was born when both H&M were still titled HRH and were working royals (Archie was even on a working royal tour of South Africa) and also both H&M were good scape goats for the antics of the rest of the working royals. So which is it do you think. (a) The Palace are just bullies or (b) they are racists - they didn't want the child of an African-American tainting the royal bloodline?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    I’ll need to start a seance to ask the late Queen. Gimme a moment



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Meghan and Harry said a lot of things in that interview as well as others that turned out not to be true. Also Harry has since admitted to taking drugs so his judgment might not be the best either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    You could just question Charles and William (or better still, some of the 'royal experts'). I'm sure they would be able to explain why it was announced by the palace that the Sussex's had refused the titles for their children when its obvious now that they had not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    I think they would remember if they had refused titles for their children. Anyway, its not judgement, its just factual that they didn't turn down the offer of titles as the Palace claimed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    As far as I can recall the change was made for Williams kids because he is in the direct line of succession, that when Louis was born then he didn't automatically go ahead of Charlotte in the direct line of succession. Like Andrew did to Anne when he was born because he was male. This was all done in 2013 (Succession of the Crown Act) and preceded Harry meeting Meghan by three years. Nothing changed and their children would always be Prince/Princess per the letters of patent as it was. It was Meghan who said there was a desire to have this changed. It wasn't considering that they have now started using that style for their kids (and it is acknowledged). What may have happened was that they were partial to Charles’ desire about enacting a so called slimming down of the monarchy and since paranoid Harry was no longer in the direct line since George was born he was playing the tape forward and feeling that any of their kids (who would be even further down the line of succession) might not automatically get a title if Charles followed through with his plans. Maybe this was what Meghan was alluding to.



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,018 Mod ✭✭✭✭HildaOgdenx




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,678 ✭✭✭Multipass


    Welcome to empire 2.0 Princess Lilibet. 😂😂😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    I see '****' is finally sticking to 'the fly' of Harry's memoir Spare. Simon Case, William's former Private Secretary who was managing the Meghan bullying allegations is up to his neck in it now. 🤣

    https://www.politico.eu/article/cabinet-secretary-simon-case-british-civil-service-spy-chief-prince-harry-william-royals-spare/



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,859 ✭✭✭superflyninja




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Be right back




  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Being an utter pedant here but it shows Scobie's lack of well..ability to google.

    Earl is a peerage title. Prince is a courtesy title. So in a legal sense in the UK, Prince /Princess is just a nice prefix you use. Earl/Duke etc have a certain legal status conferred on them. That's why they get given titles upon marriage to her kids and her grandkids if the parents wished.

    So they rejected an actual title with legal meaning in the UK for Archie and Lillibet but chose the meaningless courtesy one. It's almost as if an American who's only royal point of reference is Disney was doing the choosing. 🤔 A countess, duchess or earl are probably percieved to be far lower down the pecking order after princess maybe? As well as that, American immigration rules have stipulations regarding usage of foreign titles if you live there.

    And as well as that, their statement said that they wouldn't be using the titles conversationally (so presumably not calling Prince Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton in for his dinner), but only in an official capacity. But as they aren't working royals, or children of working royals who have no official positions, there is no official capacity in which to use them...



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    In the Netflix documentary, Harry waaagghed on about how he didn’t ask to be royal, that he was born royal, and that was his justification for pressing for ongoing security- he had the opportunity to break the royal thing with his kids and he hasn’t done that- he’s some hypocrite



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    "Now explain why the Queen did it for the rest of the Cambridge children and not for the Sussex children (particularly knowing that it would happen automatically when Charles would become King anyway)."

    But why male models? She explained why she did it for all the Cambridge children. She was pretty clear about it. As to why not for the Sussex children, well I'd imagine it's for the same reason the letters patent only applies to the eldest child of the prince of Wales - they are in line for the throne and the Sussexes are not. Like it or not, royalty is based on a hierarchy. Harry didn't indicate he had any problem with it back in 2012. As you say it would happen anyway when Charles became king, she probably didn't think it would ever be an issue.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    They never make any sense hence the fascination for us and the likely head melt for anyone associated with them. So they had to escape the cruel and racist Royal family who didn't hug them and who didn't ask them if they were ok. They had to find freedom from the awful racist press pack (some of whom called their child the N word) for a better life on their own terms in the US. They didn't want their kids going through a restrictive non loving childhood/lifestyle which caused their psychedelic drug advocating father genetic pain, which took his mother’s life and caused his wife to become suicidal but now they want their kids to have their birth right courtesy titles which ties them to the people they now say aren’t racist at all but just need their enlightened help with the baptism of their child conducted by an ex-journalist and the news broken via People magazine, a famous gossip mag in the US.

    Post edited by valoren on


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    And THAT , is South Park episode 2 😀 well done!



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The definition of a sleaze bag.

    Wonder did William hire him for these qualities?

    Get the vastly more popular couple out of the picture.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    Vastly more popular couple? If they ever were that, they (H&M) have certainly shifted that dial!



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Well popularity contests aside, William is starting to look quite unhinged, the evidence of psychopathic traits is starting to mount, maybe his uncle isn't the most dangerous creep hanging around the homestead.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Oh look who got papped again. Anybody want to guess the agency who did the papping? 😄



  • Advertisement
Advertisement