And the actual practical outworking of this "attack" and "weakening" will be what, beyond the 14th root of bugger all?
Gah. The whole thing reeks of the pointlessness of the whole charade of placing people on pedestals because of accidents of birth. It's 2021 ffs, not 1421.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
If you marry according to the rites and ceremonies of the CofE it does.
Well, the CofE might think that. As said, if the couple consider their wedding the first time they bump uglies, then the rest is just paperwork.
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
No, but it's lazy to assume that the different treatment of the children of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge is because of racism, which is what you did.
No. That's not what I did. It is what H & M's interview leads directly to. I repeated it. The child did not get a title, the child thus would not have security protection. The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
Treating some children differently from others is kind of built into the concept of titles that are obtained by an accident of birth ...
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
And the actual practical outworking of this "attack" and "weakening" will be what, beyond the 14th root of bugger all?
Gah. The whole thing reeks of the pointlessness of the whole charade of placing people on pedestals because of accidents of birth. It's 2021 ffs, not 1421.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
If you marry according to the rites and ceremonies of the CofE it does.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can easily imagine a couple married at the registry office with a church blessing following feeling as though the church blessing is the “real” wedding, regardless of what the state and church say. What’s real to the couple and what’s legal in the eyes of the state don’t have to be the same thing.
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
No, but it's lazy to assume that the different treatment of the children of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge is because of racism, which is what you did.
No. That's not what I did. It is what H & M's interview leads directly to. I repeated it. The child did not get a title, the child thus would not have security protection. The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
The child is not getting security not because he doesn't have a title but because his parents are not getting security. His parents are not getting security for reasons well publicized (in Canada) at the time of their initial flight to BC. That is to say, the British police (who were in charge of the Sussex's security in the UK) have no right to function or do anything at all in Canada (which was the putative home of the Sussexes at the time). So they were not entitled to British security protection. The question was then, would Canada provide security as it had in the past when Harry was visiting Canada. The answer was no: Harry received security in Canada as a visiting dignitary when he visited previously, but as a (supposedly) resident with no role either Royal or in Canada, he was not entitled to taxpayer funded security in Canada.
It is clear that the Sussexes simply did not understand what they were doing or the implications of their actions. (they might well have decided to do the same thing in any case, but that's not my point) If you leave the functioning royal family, which is your choice, then you give up the rights and privileges that come from being part of it.
I believe, the Duke does not understand that his standing as a celebrity is based almost entirely on the fact that the good things he has done -- which are as good as but no better than many others have done from time to time -- are only celebrated because he is a prince and a member of the royal family. He is close to being famous just because he is famous, not because of anything he has done or will do.
No. That's not what I did. It is what H & M's interview leads directly to. I repeated it. The child did not get a title, the child thus would not have security protection. The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
It's not any less lazy thinking just because it's the Duke and Duchess doing it. I am certain that the Duchess has experienced the whole gamut of racism from within the royal household - everything from active animus against her because of her skin tone through to the wide array of casual racist thoughtlessness that privileged white folks who mostly interact only with other privileged white folks often exhibit.
But let's be quite clear. Under the terms of George V's 1917 Letters Patent, Archie doesn't get a royal title. In recent years, there has been a significant move to streamline the monarchy, and reduce the number of titled hangers-on cluttering up the palace hallways. In that context, the Duke and Duchess thinking that the Letters Patent might be expanded to cover their children is absurd. No reasonable person could imagine that that was likely.
It is very much more likely that the reverse will happen, and that Archie will never get a royal title. And he's the first in line for a pruning: as mentioned before, the children of the Princess Royal have no titles; the children of the Duke of York are both princesses, and will not pass titles to their own children; the children of the Earl of Wessex do not use the royal titles that they are entitled to, and their children will not be royal.
Unless a change is made, Archie will become a prince when the current Prince of Wales ascends to the throne. But he'll only ever be the King's nephew, or the King's cousin, so it would be entirely in line with the move for a slimmed-down monarchy to never give him a royal title. (He'll be in a similar situation to that occupied by HRH The Duke of Kent, for example.)
One of the things I find strangest about the whole thing, is why one would move to the US thinking it would be less racist and the press less intrusive. Or why you’d think moving to another country would make the U.K. press suddenly stop writing stories.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can easily imagine a couple married at the registry office with a church blessing following feeling as though the church blessing is the “real” wedding, regardless of what the state and church say. What’s real to the couple and what’s legal in the eyes of the state don’t have to be the same thing.
But then the question would be why they didn't just get married in church in the first place. Admittedly the CofE won't marry some couples but then those couples can't officially have a blessing in the CofE either.
RE: private weddings and public weddings. It happens quite a lot. My son and his wife got married privately a few months before their public wedding. The private ceremony did not detract in any way from the public ceremony.
Maybe it’s just me, but I can easily imagine a couple married at the registry office with a church blessing following feeling as though the church blessing is the “real” wedding, regardless of what the state and church say. What’s real to the couple and what’s legal in the eyes of the state don’t have to be the same thing.
But then the question would be why they didn't just get married in church in the first place. Admittedly the CofE won't marry some couples but then those couples can't officially have a blessing in the CofE either.
Isn’t that what Charles and Camilla did—registry office followed by a blessing in St. George’s Chapel, because they couldn’t have a church wedding?
Or perhaps the couple in question are in a country where the registry service is the legally required ceremony.
The point is there can be a difference between the moment at which the state or the church consider a couple to be married and the moment at which the couple consider themselves married.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
Why would they want two weddings ?
On interview it was because the public wedding was dominated by the spectacle in which they were bit players.
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
No, but it's lazy to assume that the different treatment of the children of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge is because of racism, which is what you did.
No. That's not what I did. It is what H & M's interview leads directly to. I repeated it. The child did not get a title, the child thus would not have security protection. The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
The child is not getting security not because he doesn't have a title but because his parents are not getting security. His parents are not getting security for reasons well publicized (in Canada) at the time of their initial flight to BC. That is to say, the British police (who were in charge of the Sussex's security in the UK) have no right to function or do anything at all in Canada (which was the putative home of the Sussexes at the time). So they were not entitled to British security protection. The question was then, would Canada provide security as it had in the past when Harry was visiting Canada. The answer was no: Harry received security in Canada as a visiting dignitary when he visited previously, but as a (supposedly) resident with no role either Royal or in Canada, he was not entitled to taxpayer funded security in Canada.
It is clear that the Sussexes simply did not understand what they were doing or the implications of their actions. (they might well have decided to do the same thing in any case, but that's not my point) If you leave the functioning royal family, which is your choice, then you give up the rights and privileges that come from being part of it.
I believe, the Duke does not understand that his standing as a celebrity is based almost entirely on the fact that the good things he has done -- which are as good as but no better than many others have done from time to time -- are only celebrated because he is a prince and a member of the royal family. He is close to being famous just because he is famous, not because of anything he has done or will do.
Harry has never been the sharpest knife in the box. He had to be given 'special help' to pass 2 A levels so that he could go to Sandhurst
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
In theory, it should be no different from speculating "I wonder if they'll have your curly hair" etc. Which in general is a pretty silly thing to do, because you get the grandchild you get, and speculating about their features in advance is only going to lead to disappointment when "I hope they have your eyes" doesn't happen.
In practice, because racism, speculating about skin tone is rather more loaded than speculating about eyes, hair, and freckles.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.
Maybe she is, but are you perhaps suggesting that she lied about a *royal* asking the question in some way or other?
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
In theory, it should be no different from speculating "I wonder if they'll have your curly hair" etc. Which in general is a pretty silly thing to do, because you get the grandchild you get, and speculating about their features in advance is only going to lead to disappointment when "I hope they have your eyes" doesn't happen.
In practice, because racism, speculating about skin tone is rather more loaded than speculating about eyes, hair, and freckles.
Only if you assume that the person asking is a racist.
One of the things I find strangest about the whole thing, is why one would move to the US thinking it would be less racist and the press less intrusive.
One way of looking at it is that they've left one elite for another, which is slightly more inclusive (because there are far more black celebrities than black members of the UK aristocracy). In terms of the press; I do think that the UK press are in a class of their own in making unwanted intrusions into private lives - and I've heard a number of celebrities and music personalities comment on how it was possible to get away in LA in a way that it wasn't in London, both due to press and proximity of everything.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
In theory, it should be no different from speculating "I wonder if they'll have your curly hair" etc. Which in general is a pretty silly thing to do, because you get the grandchild you get, and speculating about their features in advance is only going to lead to disappointment when "I hope they have your eyes" doesn't happen.
In practice, because racism, speculating about skin tone is rather more loaded than speculating about eyes, hair, and freckles.
Only if you assume that the person asking is a racist.
Or know the person well enough to know that the assumption is a safe one. Honestly this makes it sound like black and brown people go around taking offence at completely innocent remarks at the drop of a hat.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
Having first hand experience of mixed race couples and children, this tangent is bit bizarre.
Grandparents of all ethnic backgrounds are interested in how their grandkids will turn out, the family nose, curly hair, brown skin and all. And in my experience the most direct questions and discussion usually come from the non-white grandparents who don't feel the cultural need to tip-toe around the issue.
Of course "I hope they won't be too brown" would be an indicator of a problem.
The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
And it's nonsense.
Which brings me back to one of my general rules. If someone is giving some kind of talk, and they say something wrong about a thing that I know about, then there are good odds that some of the things that they say about the things that I don't know about are also wrong. If, on the other hand, what they say on the topics that I understand is correct, then there are better odds that they're also right in areas where I don't have expertise.
--Meghan said that there were several months when she wasn't allowed out on her own, AIUI. E.g., she wanted to get together with some friends for lunch--hoping that would give her some support. She was told that she couldn't, because she was too much all over the place in the media, at that point. Even though she hadn't done anything to cause that.
--Strange (to me) thing she mentioned: she wasn't allowed to keep her keys, passport, and various other things. AIUI, that's standard.
--When she tried to get help, she first talked to several individuals in The Firm. (The family themselves, I think.) No good. So she finally went to Human Resources, as you would in an American company to get help that was covered under their insurance and such. The woman she spoke with was very sympathetic. But she told M that there was nothing HR could do, because she wasn't considered an employee of The Firm.
I was boggled that The Firm even has HR.
--I think the interview was a chance to get a word in edgewise. BTW, they weren't paid for it. Oprah made that very clear.
--From what I remember of Diana's Big Interview, that was very different. D was a different person, in different circumstances, with a different personality. (No criticism of her intended.)
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
George H.W. Bush (Bush-43) called a particular grandkid "my little brown one". (Grandkid via Jeb and his Latina wife, Columba.) I don't know how it was intended or experienced. It *might* have been both intended and received as a term of endearment.
Or not.
FYI: We don't know who among the royals made the dark skin comment. Harry adamantly refused to say, and IIRC Meghan did, too.
@Golden Key typically in the uk, if you want mental health support, you ask your doctor not your employer. And whilst cross cultural misunderstandings are a thing - Harry would know this, and has talked about accessing mental health support himself in the past.
'The Queen's government must be carried on' was the watchword of the civil service, of which I once had the honour to be a minor part. 'Service' and 'duty' are perhaps unfashionable words these days. I, for one, miss them.
It isn't the Queen's Government - we elect it and not her. Time was when "service" and "duty" meant speaking the truth to power, however unpalatable those words may be.
Yes. But that's not the duty of the Sussex's and that's not the service they are required to give. Their duty is to the Queen and their service is to protect the Monarchy. This is because the exposure of personal bad behavior by members of the Royal Family becomes a shit show fanned by Fleet St and its counterparts internationally. It is not about the truth of the Monarchy as an institution at all. I exclude the commission of serious crimes by members of the Royal Family, such as those alleged against Prince Andrew. They should be investigated by the proper authorities, and the Royal Family should co-operate with those inquiries.
Royal misbehavior and the reporting of it goes back to the Georges if not longer. Dirt sheets have a long history. My guess, without researching the point, is that Diana openly participated in the process of manufacturing gossip rather than keeping schtum or using proxies. That is materially different, and a mistake, and I am very unhappy that Harry has allowed himself to repeat it. They can do interviews, of course, but they should consist of stuff like Harry reflecting on his time as a soldier, or talking about his work with Veterans, or Megan talking about her career, and issues she wishes to highlight.
Speaking more generally, the role of the Monarch in Britain is different to her role in Australia. AIUI her powers are more extensive in Britain, and perhaps less well defined. I can see how that is problematic. I claim that as this particular family was appointed by Parliament after the Stuart heirs were deemed unsuitable because they were Catholic, the basis upon which they rule is subject to change at the will of Parliament. It may be that constitutional reform could tidy up not only the powers of the Monarchy, but the vestiges of the Aristocracy as well. I urge Britons to consider this possibility as an alternative to a directly elected or appointed Head of State. A hereditary, fully clipped Monarchy is quite handy, constitutionally. Its the Aristocracy you don't need. #clementatleebestpmeva
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
In theory, it should be no different from speculating "I wonder if they'll have your curly hair" etc. Which in general is a pretty silly thing to do, because you get the grandchild you get, and speculating about their features in advance is only going to lead to disappointment when "I hope they have your eyes" doesn't happen.
In practice, because racism, speculating about skin tone is rather more loaded than speculating about eyes, hair, and freckles.
Only if you assume that the person asking is a racist.
Or know the person well enough to know that the assumption is a safe one. Honestly this makes it sound like black and brown people go around taking offence at completely innocent remarks at the drop of a hat.
And you are assuming that they are. There is no way of knowing.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
George H.W. Bush (Bush-43) called a particular grandkid "my little brown one". (Grandkid via Jeb and his Latina wife, Columba.) I don't know how it was intended or experienced. It *might* have been both intended and received as a term of endearment.
As I recall, GHW Bush made that comment to a companion at a sporting event, while pointing out his grandkids seated in another part of the stadium.
I'm no fan of GHWB, but I didn't find that remark particularly offensive, as the kids' skin colour is something that probably would have easily distinguished them from most of the people around them. I think he probably got in trouble because of the word "little"(which can have belittling overtones when applied to adults), and "brown"(which can sound more about race than just skin-tone).
Had he said "They're the ones with the darker complexion", there probably wouldn't have been much controversy.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
In theory, it should be no different from speculating "I wonder if they'll have your curly hair" etc. Which in general is a pretty silly thing to do, because you get the grandchild you get, and speculating about their features in advance is only going to lead to disappointment when "I hope they have your eyes" doesn't happen.
In practice, because racism, speculating about skin tone is rather more loaded than speculating about eyes, hair, and freckles.
Only if you assume that the person asking is a racist.
Or know the person well enough to know that the assumption is a safe one. Honestly this makes it sound like black and brown people go around taking offence at completely innocent remarks at the drop of a hat.
And you are assuming that they are. There is no way of knowing.
I think in general context will provide the key, the person making the claim would have a better understanding of their context than mine and so I wouldn't automatically dismiss claims that a particular instance was racist (it's not the case that the only way of making that claim is an unfounded assumption that someone is racist).
Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brou-ha-ha about the private ceremony may be an example of a change to the ABC's role that I think is long overdue. Is it absolutely necessary for the ABC to be the senior chaplain of the Royal Family?
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
In theory they could all have their own chaplains but I think that in recent memory Princess Margaret was the last one who did-- I am open to correction on this.
However, the archbishopric is far older than the English crown, let alone the British crown, and it is Canterbury which historically brings authority to the monarchy, rather than the other way around. He is the anointer, and this is part of the series of actions (proclamation, acclamation, etc) which makes one a sovereign in more than a simply legal manner.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.
Maybe she is, but are you perhaps suggesting that she lied about a *royal* asking the question in some way or other?
I find it difficult to believe any of her allegations.
I noticed that Oprah never asked why she had got the wedding invite when they were not even friends
If your starting point is support for the British monarchy, you're going to process the interview through the lens of your support. Those who don't tend to be more neutral. Strident negativity about them probably exists, but most people here are relatively indifferent thus more neutral. If any one only of reports from this couple are true, it's enough to be horrified.
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
All legitimate children of the monarch are automatically a prince or princess - what is known as a "blood" prince or princess and automatically entitled to HRH - and it used to be that when they married the wife automatically became HRH Princess + name of prince. For example, when the late Queen Mother married Prince Albert (later George VI) she became HRH Princess Albert.
It used to be the case that all male children of a monarch were given a royal dukedom on their marriage. However this has gone into abeyance as an automatic thing: the Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, was given the title Earl of Wessex when he married, and it was also decided that the wives of junior princes wouldn't get HRH.
Princess Anne's children don't have titles because she and her first husband, Mark Phillips, turned down a title for him.
Children of a prince do not automatically get title any more, particularly if their father isn't likely to ascend the throne. At the time of Prince Andrew's divorce it was generally agreed that he would be the last "minor" son to have children who automatically became a prince or princess. It has always been the case that children if minor princes didn't get HRH - before the abdication the present monarch was styled Princess Elizabeth of York - just like Harry's title before the wedding was Prince Henry of Wales.
As a royal duke Harry has subsidiary titles, and his heir is entitled to the honorific of Earl of Dumbarton. It us up to his parents whether or not they decide to use it, just as his forthcoming daughter will automatically be styled Lady XXX of Sussex.
Protection/security is a separate issue. Princess Anne specifically asked that her children not have it, similarly Prince Edward for his children. Protection was removed for princssses Beatrice and Eugenie c10 years ago.
@NOprophet_NØprofit@john holding
Archie doesn't have a personal protection officer (PPO) because royal children don't. It was only when Prince Charles was sent to Gordonstoun that he got a PPO, same for his brothers. Anne got one when she was slightly younger because she started boarding when she was younger.
I don't think William and Harry had their own PPO before Eton either.
NONE of the Queen's great-grandchildren has a PPO.
I note republicans are gleeful, but in my mind, just because the Royal Family are terrible people does not logically equate to dumping the monarchy. There are certainly been terrible presidents in Republics, just look at the United States of America.
I think the best reason for abolishing the monarchy may be that it’s inhumane. Nobody should be born into this weird shit and be made to think that it’s their duty.
I think the best reason for abolishing the monarchy may be that it’s inhumane. Nobody should be born into this weird shit and be made to think that it’s their duty.
Does go to show the monarchy does need to be updated.
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
All legitimate children of the monarch are automatically a prince or princess - what is known as a "blood" prince or princess and automatically entitled to HRH - and it used to be that when they married the wife automatically became HRH Princess + name of prince. For example, when the late Queen Mother married Prince Albert (later George VI) she became HRH Princess Albert.
It used to be the case that all male children of a monarch were given a royal dukedom on their marriage. However this has gone into abeyance as an automatic thing: the Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, was given the title Earl of Wessex when he married, and it was also decided that the wives of junior princes wouldn't get HRH.
Princess Anne's children don't have titles because she and her first husband, Mark Phillips, turned down a title for him.
Children of a prince do not automatically get title any more, particularly if their father isn't likely to ascend the throne. At the time of Prince Andrew's divorce it was generally agreed that he would be the last "minor" son to have children who automatically became a prince or princess. It has always been the case that children if minor princes didn't get HRH - before the abdication the present monarch was styled Princess Elizabeth of York - just like Harry's title before the wedding was Prince Henry of Wales.
As a royal duke Harry has subsidiary titles, and his heir is entitled to the honorific of Earl of Dumbarton. It us up to his parents whether or not they decide to use it, just as his forthcoming daughter will automatically be styled Lady XXX of Sussex.
Protection/security is a separate issue. Princess Anne specifically asked that her children not have it, similarly Prince Edward for his children. Protection was removed for princssses Beatrice and Eugenie c10 years ago.
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
All legitimate children of the monarch are automatically a prince or princess - what is known as a "blood" prince or princess and automatically entitled to HRH - and it used to be that when they married the wife automatically became HRH Princess + name of prince. For example, when the late Queen Mother married Prince Albert (later George VI) she became HRH Princess Albert.
It used to be the case that all male children of a monarch were given a royal dukedom on their marriage. However this has gone into abeyance as an automatic thing: the Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, was given the title Earl of Wessex when he married, and it was also decided that the wives of junior princes wouldn't get HRH.
Princess Anne's children don't have titles because she and her first husband, Mark Phillips, turned down a title for him.
Children of a prince do not automatically get title any more, particularly if their father isn't likely to ascend the throne. At the time of Prince Andrew's divorce it was generally agreed that he would be the last "minor" son to have children who automatically became a prince or princess. It has always been the case that children if minor princes didn't get HRH - before the abdication the present monarch was styled Princess Elizabeth of York - just like Harry's title before the wedding was Prince Henry of Wales.
As a royal duke Harry has subsidiary titles, and his heir is entitled to the honorific of Earl of Dumbarton. It us up to his parents whether or not they decide to use it, just as his forthcoming daughter will automatically be styled Lady XXX of Sussex.
Protection/security is a separate issue. Princess Anne specifically asked that her children not have it, similarly Prince Edward for his children. Protection was removed for princssses Beatrice and Eugenie c10 years ago.
While I admire TheOrganist's grasp of detail regarding titles and who gets what, I can't bring myself to criticise Harry for not being on top of it. Indeed, I admire his intelligence for not being immersed in the latest protocols in these matters. It beggars belief to learn that in 2021 the UK remains immersed in such niceties of status designed to put everyone in their appointed place at the expense of decent human values. That individuals in the royal family routinely courtesy to the Queen in the confines of the palace, or anywhere else for that matter, is bizarre. The behaviour of the royals' mendacious running dogs in the tabloid press, which we learn is regularly courted in the palace, in spreading their cancerous racist innuendo lays bare the rotting core of Britain's glory. It's all part of a nation fittingly ruled by Boris Johnson. "Milton! Thou shouldst be living at this hour:/ England hath need of thee: she is a fen/ Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen."
*If* Harry wasn't particularly aware of the title intricacies and benefits, maybe he just doesn't think that way? He may not have been concerned until he was married, with a baby on the way. It may have been like a fish being aware of what substances are in the water they swim in. They might not think of it, until there's a problem.
Pardon my American ignorance, but I don't know how *anyone* makes sense of all the details and intricacies, let alone tracks them--unless they're passionate about it. Or they help put together Burke's Peerage.
Somewhere--early on this thread, I think--someone from the UK was upset about outsiders using improper formats. I think one was "Princess X" should be "Name, (assorted words)".
The thing is, most Americans don't know about any of that, not even at that level. Some passionate fans of all things royal may understand it well. But the rest of us are doing well to get through "ok, princess and prince are the rulers kids; sometimes, they have other titles, too, like Duchess/Duke of this or that; and you have to address some of them in a particular way, and curtsey to the queen".
Many of us like the idea of royals--we just don't want to be *ruled* by them. Diana and Sarah/Fergie were popular here. For women, I think a lot of that was growing up with the meme of being a princess, since we were tiny tots. Our lives didn't go that way. But we felt for Diana, especially, because she got to be a princess--and it didn't work! Life was awful for her, in many ways. And if the princess meme we grew up with didn't work, what then?
When Diana died, the British consulate here in SF put out a condolence book in the lobby for people to sign. A LOT of people did. I was one. I wasn't an extreme fan, but I liked her.
I like Fergie/Sarah very much, too. She lived in the US for a while, and many of us were glad to have her. Things got messy for her, too. I gather she's come back from that, to some extent. I wish she'd occasionally be on TV or something, and for something happy. But that might well be bad for her, and I don't want *that*. When she lived here, she had a couple of TV specials (or a mini-series) where she tried out new and interesting challenges. One of them was at a place here in N. California, where people learn tightrope, high wire, and high acrobatic work as a way of taking good risks and facing their fears. F/S did that. IIRC, she did high acrobatics on the trapeeze. I thought she was brave, and good--for a beginner. It wasn't a flashy, celebrity-madness thing. She just joined a class in a pre-existing program, and the class was filmed.
GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties. End of.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane. But there are compensations. Just don't effing well talk to people like Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, or any other of those people whose job it is to "entertain" us. If people want to be entertained by stuff about the Royals, just watch The Windsors.
Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
Having first hand experience of mixed race couples and children, this tangent is bit bizarre.
Grandparents of all ethnic backgrounds are interested in how their grandkids will turn out, the family nose, curly hair, brown skin and all. And in my experience the most direct questions and discussion usually come from the non-white grandparents who don't feel the cultural need to tip-toe around the issue.
Of course "I hope they won't be too brown" would be an indicator of a problem.
As a grandparent of mixed-race children, thank you for this bit of sanity.
I've never said the royals are for entertainment. The interview that H & M did with Oprah wasn't entertainment, nor was it intended to be. It wasn't done in an entertaining style. It wasn't like the Jerry Springer show, or even Dr. Phil. It wasn't even like Oprah's old talk show, which wasn't extreme. This was very quiet and very simple, and done in a very simple place.
Not sure if you've seen it, but you might consider it.
Comments
Well, the CofE might think that. As said, if the couple consider their wedding the first time they bump uglies, then the rest is just paperwork.
Treating some children differently from others is kind of built into the concept of titles that are obtained by an accident of birth ...
The child is not getting security not because he doesn't have a title but because his parents are not getting security. His parents are not getting security for reasons well publicized (in Canada) at the time of their initial flight to BC. That is to say, the British police (who were in charge of the Sussex's security in the UK) have no right to function or do anything at all in Canada (which was the putative home of the Sussexes at the time). So they were not entitled to British security protection. The question was then, would Canada provide security as it had in the past when Harry was visiting Canada. The answer was no: Harry received security in Canada as a visiting dignitary when he visited previously, but as a (supposedly) resident with no role either Royal or in Canada, he was not entitled to taxpayer funded security in Canada.
It is clear that the Sussexes simply did not understand what they were doing or the implications of their actions. (they might well have decided to do the same thing in any case, but that's not my point) If you leave the functioning royal family, which is your choice, then you give up the rights and privileges that come from being part of it.
I believe, the Duke does not understand that his standing as a celebrity is based almost entirely on the fact that the good things he has done -- which are as good as but no better than many others have done from time to time -- are only celebrated because he is a prince and a member of the royal family. He is close to being famous just because he is famous, not because of anything he has done or will do.
It's not any less lazy thinking just because it's the Duke and Duchess doing it. I am certain that the Duchess has experienced the whole gamut of racism from within the royal household - everything from active animus against her because of her skin tone through to the wide array of casual racist thoughtlessness that privileged white folks who mostly interact only with other privileged white folks often exhibit.
But let's be quite clear. Under the terms of George V's 1917 Letters Patent, Archie doesn't get a royal title. In recent years, there has been a significant move to streamline the monarchy, and reduce the number of titled hangers-on cluttering up the palace hallways. In that context, the Duke and Duchess thinking that the Letters Patent might be expanded to cover their children is absurd. No reasonable person could imagine that that was likely.
It is very much more likely that the reverse will happen, and that Archie will never get a royal title. And he's the first in line for a pruning: as mentioned before, the children of the Princess Royal have no titles; the children of the Duke of York are both princesses, and will not pass titles to their own children; the children of the Earl of Wessex do not use the royal titles that they are entitled to, and their children will not be royal.
Unless a change is made, Archie will become a prince when the current Prince of Wales ascends to the throne. But he'll only ever be the King's nephew, or the King's cousin, so it would be entirely in line with the move for a slimmed-down monarchy to never give him a royal title. (He'll be in a similar situation to that occupied by HRH The Duke of Kent, for example.)
But then the question would be why they didn't just get married in church in the first place. Admittedly the CofE won't marry some couples but then those couples can't officially have a blessing in the CofE either.
Or perhaps the couple in question are in a country where the registry service is the legally required ceremony.
The point is there can be a difference between the moment at which the state or the church consider a couple to be married and the moment at which the couple consider themselves married.
On interview it was because the public wedding was dominated by the spectacle in which they were bit players.
Harry has never been the sharpest knife in the box. He had to be given 'special help' to pass 2 A levels so that he could go to Sandhurst
Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.
In theory, it should be no different from speculating "I wonder if they'll have your curly hair" etc. Which in general is a pretty silly thing to do, because you get the grandchild you get, and speculating about their features in advance is only going to lead to disappointment when "I hope they have your eyes" doesn't happen.
In practice, because racism, speculating about skin tone is rather more loaded than speculating about eyes, hair, and freckles.
One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.
Maybe she is, but are you perhaps suggesting that she lied about a *royal* asking the question in some way or other?
Only if you assume that the person asking is a racist.
One way of looking at it is that they've left one elite for another, which is slightly more inclusive (because there are far more black celebrities than black members of the UK aristocracy). In terms of the press; I do think that the UK press are in a class of their own in making unwanted intrusions into private lives - and I've heard a number of celebrities and music personalities comment on how it was possible to get away in LA in a way that it wasn't in London, both due to press and proximity of everything.
Or know the person well enough to know that the assumption is a safe one. Honestly this makes it sound like black and brown people go around taking offence at completely innocent remarks at the drop of a hat.
Having first hand experience of mixed race couples and children, this tangent is bit bizarre.
Grandparents of all ethnic backgrounds are interested in how their grandkids will turn out, the family nose, curly hair, brown skin and all. And in my experience the most direct questions and discussion usually come from the non-white grandparents who don't feel the cultural need to tip-toe around the issue.
Of course "I hope they won't be too brown" would be an indicator of a problem.
And it's nonsense.
Which brings me back to one of my general rules. If someone is giving some kind of talk, and they say something wrong about a thing that I know about, then there are good odds that some of the things that they say about the things that I don't know about are also wrong. If, on the other hand, what they say on the topics that I understand is correct, then there are better odds that they're also right in areas where I don't have expertise.
--Meghan said that there were several months when she wasn't allowed out on her own, AIUI. E.g., she wanted to get together with some friends for lunch--hoping that would give her some support. She was told that she couldn't, because she was too much all over the place in the media, at that point. Even though she hadn't done anything to cause that.
--Strange (to me) thing she mentioned: she wasn't allowed to keep her keys, passport, and various other things. AIUI, that's standard.
--When she tried to get help, she first talked to several individuals in The Firm. (The family themselves, I think.) No good. So she finally went to Human Resources, as you would in an American company to get help that was covered under their insurance and such. The woman she spoke with was very sympathetic. But she told M that there was nothing HR could do, because she wasn't considered an employee of The Firm.
I was boggled that The Firm even has HR.
--I think the interview was a chance to get a word in edgewise. BTW, they weren't paid for it. Oprah made that very clear.
--From what I remember of Diana's Big Interview, that was very different. D was a different person, in different circumstances, with a different personality. (No criticism of her intended.)
George H.W. Bush (Bush-43) called a particular grandkid "my little brown one". (Grandkid via Jeb and his Latina wife, Columba.) I don't know how it was intended or experienced. It *might* have been both intended and received as a term of endearment.
Or not.
FYI: We don't know who among the royals made the dark skin comment. Harry adamantly refused to say, and IIRC Meghan did, too.
1) the UK become a Republic
2) The Church of England becoming disestablished.
The rest of the post also reflects my view, but this stood out for me.
Yes. But that's not the duty of the Sussex's and that's not the service they are required to give. Their duty is to the Queen and their service is to protect the Monarchy. This is because the exposure of personal bad behavior by members of the Royal Family becomes a shit show fanned by Fleet St and its counterparts internationally. It is not about the truth of the Monarchy as an institution at all. I exclude the commission of serious crimes by members of the Royal Family, such as those alleged against Prince Andrew. They should be investigated by the proper authorities, and the Royal Family should co-operate with those inquiries.
Royal misbehavior and the reporting of it goes back to the Georges if not longer. Dirt sheets have a long history. My guess, without researching the point, is that Diana openly participated in the process of manufacturing gossip rather than keeping schtum or using proxies. That is materially different, and a mistake, and I am very unhappy that Harry has allowed himself to repeat it. They can do interviews, of course, but they should consist of stuff like Harry reflecting on his time as a soldier, or talking about his work with Veterans, or Megan talking about her career, and issues she wishes to highlight.
Speaking more generally, the role of the Monarch in Britain is different to her role in Australia. AIUI her powers are more extensive in Britain, and perhaps less well defined. I can see how that is problematic. I claim that as this particular family was appointed by Parliament after the Stuart heirs were deemed unsuitable because they were Catholic, the basis upon which they rule is subject to change at the will of Parliament. It may be that constitutional reform could tidy up not only the powers of the Monarchy, but the vestiges of the Aristocracy as well. I urge Britons to consider this possibility as an alternative to a directly elected or appointed Head of State. A hereditary, fully clipped Monarchy is quite handy, constitutionally. Its the Aristocracy you don't need. #clementatleebestpmeva
And you are assuming that they are. There is no way of knowing.
As I recall, GHW Bush made that comment to a companion at a sporting event, while pointing out his grandkids seated in another part of the stadium.
I'm no fan of GHWB, but I didn't find that remark particularly offensive, as the kids' skin colour is something that probably would have easily distinguished them from most of the people around them. I think he probably got in trouble because of the word "little"(which can have belittling overtones when applied to adults), and "brown"(which can sound more about race than just skin-tone).
Had he said "They're the ones with the darker complexion", there probably wouldn't have been much controversy.
I think in general context will provide the key, the person making the claim would have a better understanding of their context than mine and so I wouldn't automatically dismiss claims that a particular instance was racist (it's not the case that the only way of making that claim is an unfounded assumption that someone is racist).
In theory they could all have their own chaplains but I think that in recent memory Princess Margaret was the last one who did-- I am open to correction on this.
However, the archbishopric is far older than the English crown, let alone the British crown, and it is Canterbury which historically brings authority to the monarchy, rather than the other way around. He is the anointer, and this is part of the series of actions (proclamation, acclamation, etc) which makes one a sovereign in more than a simply legal manner.
I find it difficult to believe any of her allegations.
I noticed that Oprah never asked why she had got the wedding invite when they were not even friends
So why did he even mention it to her ?
All legitimate children of the monarch are automatically a prince or princess - what is known as a "blood" prince or princess and automatically entitled to HRH - and it used to be that when they married the wife automatically became HRH Princess + name of prince. For example, when the late Queen Mother married Prince Albert (later George VI) she became HRH Princess Albert.
It used to be the case that all male children of a monarch were given a royal dukedom on their marriage. However this has gone into abeyance as an automatic thing: the Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, was given the title Earl of Wessex when he married, and it was also decided that the wives of junior princes wouldn't get HRH.
Princess Anne's children don't have titles because she and her first husband, Mark Phillips, turned down a title for him.
Children of a prince do not automatically get title any more, particularly if their father isn't likely to ascend the throne. At the time of Prince Andrew's divorce it was generally agreed that he would be the last "minor" son to have children who automatically became a prince or princess. It has always been the case that children if minor princes didn't get HRH - before the abdication the present monarch was styled Princess Elizabeth of York - just like Harry's title before the wedding was Prince Henry of Wales.
As a royal duke Harry has subsidiary titles, and his heir is entitled to the honorific of Earl of Dumbarton. It us up to his parents whether or not they decide to use it, just as his forthcoming daughter will automatically be styled Lady XXX of Sussex.
Protection/security is a separate issue. Princess Anne specifically asked that her children not have it, similarly Prince Edward for his children. Protection was removed for princssses Beatrice and Eugenie c10 years ago.
Prince Harry should have known all of this.
Archie doesn't have a personal protection officer (PPO) because royal children don't. It was only when Prince Charles was sent to Gordonstoun that he got a PPO, same for his brothers. Anne got one when she was slightly younger because she started boarding when she was younger.
I don't think William and Harry had their own PPO before Eton either.
NONE of the Queen's great-grandchildren has a PPO.
Does go to show the monarchy does need to be updated.
Harry has never been very bright.
So she would know what their child was facing, and what she was facing.
Brighter than Andrew, I think.
*If* Harry wasn't particularly aware of the title intricacies and benefits, maybe he just doesn't think that way? He may not have been concerned until he was married, with a baby on the way. It may have been like a fish being aware of what substances are in the water they swim in. They might not think of it, until there's a problem.
Pardon my American ignorance, but I don't know how *anyone* makes sense of all the details and intricacies, let alone tracks them--unless they're passionate about it. Or they help put together Burke's Peerage.
Somewhere--early on this thread, I think--someone from the UK was upset about outsiders using improper formats. I think one was "Princess X" should be "Name, (assorted words)".
The thing is, most Americans don't know about any of that, not even at that level. Some passionate fans of all things royal may understand it well. But the rest of us are doing well to get through "ok, princess and prince are the rulers kids; sometimes, they have other titles, too, like Duchess/Duke of this or that; and you have to address some of them in a particular way, and curtsey to the queen".
Many of us like the idea of royals--we just don't want to be *ruled* by them. Diana and Sarah/Fergie were popular here. For women, I think a lot of that was growing up with the meme of being a princess, since we were tiny tots. Our lives didn't go that way. But we felt for Diana, especially, because she got to be a princess--and it didn't work! Life was awful for her, in many ways. And if the princess meme we grew up with didn't work, what then?
When Diana died, the British consulate here in SF put out a condolence book in the lobby for people to sign. A LOT of people did. I was one. I wasn't an extreme fan, but I liked her.
I like Fergie/Sarah very much, too. She lived in the US for a while, and many of us were glad to have her. Things got messy for her, too. I gather she's come back from that, to some extent. I wish she'd occasionally be on TV or something, and for something happy. But that might well be bad for her, and I don't want *that*. When she lived here, she had a couple of TV specials (or a mini-series) where she tried out new and interesting challenges. One of them was at a place here in N. California, where people learn tightrope, high wire, and high acrobatic work as a way of taking good risks and facing their fears. F/S did that. IIRC, she did high acrobatics on the trapeeze. I thought she was brave, and good--for a beginner. It wasn't a flashy, celebrity-madness thing. She just joined a class in a pre-existing program, and the class was filmed.
I'm sorry if that seems inhumane. But there are compensations. Just don't effing well talk to people like Oprah Winfrey, James Corden, or any other of those people whose job it is to "entertain" us. If people want to be entertained by stuff about the Royals, just watch The Windsors.
As a grandparent of mixed-race children, thank you for this bit of sanity.
I've never said the royals are for entertainment. The interview that H & M did with Oprah wasn't entertainment, nor was it intended to be. It wasn't done in an entertaining style. It wasn't like the Jerry Springer show, or even Dr. Phil. It wasn't even like Oprah's old talk show, which wasn't extreme. This was very quiet and very simple, and done in a very simple place.
Not sure if you've seen it, but you might consider it.
Something that he should have been explaining to her as soon as their relationship became serious.