BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 11:49 AM

That was a good update, Howard, and Steve contributed a helpful quote to the conversation.

And I love that quote, The most important title I will ever have is ‘Mom’.”

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 03:29 PM

As William left [a London school he'd been visiting], a reporter asked him: “Is the royal family a racist family, sir?”

The duke, with the duchess by his side, replied: “We’re very much not a racist family.”

This is being splashed all over the media as if it's the gospel truth. Of course, William is the very opposite of Harry - he's the absolute darling of the tabloids (and of our ultra-sycophantic BBC royal correspondent, Nicholas Witchell). A throwaway remark, in stark contrast to the painstakingly-gleaned disclosures from Meghan and Harry, will undoubtedly prevail. I despair.

As a not-so-amusing aside, here's a selection of "witticisms" uttered by the "non-racist" Duke of Edinburgh down the years:   

On a trip to China in the 1980s, he warned British students: "You'll get slitty eyes if you stay too long."

During a visit to Oban in Scotland in 1995, he asked a driving instructor: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the (driving) test?"

- In 1999, while on a tour of a company near Edinburgh, Scotland, he saw a poorly wired fuse box.
"It looks as though it was put in by an Indian," he said.

- While touring Australia in 2002, he asked an Aborigine whether they still threw spears at each other.

- In 1967, he was asked if he would like to go to Moscow to help ease Cold War tensions.
"I would very much like to go to Russia - although the bastards murdered half my family," he replied.

- On a trip to Australia in 1998, he asked a student who had just returned from a walking tour in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: rich-joy
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 05:21 PM

As a Colonial from Down Under, I have had only a mild interest in the Royal Family, and their occasional scandals, just make for some amusement. However, I did feel that the introduction of Ms Markle (Foreigner, Divorcee, Person of Colour, Commoner) into the Family would be, in the long run, a Very Good Thing for helping to drag the monarchy into the modern world and to adjust to it. So, I watched That Interview, and like Steve, thought Megs came over quite well.

Then I started watching News clips and YouTube clips to gauge reaction and was interested to find that I was left wondering if we had all watched the same Interview!!??    Yes, "Context is Everything"!
I rather think that those who only saw the advertising and news clips, came away with a different perspective (surprise surprise :) and reacted to just what the mischief-makers amongst the media, wanted.
(I come from the country that gave the world Rupert Murdoch - and yes, we're really very sorry about that :(

As Meghan & Harry - and a great many others - have tried to point out, the tabloids that so many of the population are addicted to, have no interest in the concept of Truthfulness.    Down Under, we have a huge market in what are sadly termed "women's magazines", which are our version of British tabloid newspaper fiction and which keep pumping out the gossip and falsehoods - but it would seem huge numbers of people actually believe their content ……… and keep buying them.

If I watch a YT clip, I tend to also browse many of the Comments which, I find, can be very instructive!    In this case, re most of the clips that I saw reporting the M-H Interview, I was then astounded - and completely appalled - at the quantity and level of Vitriol - Venom - Misogyny - Hate (and Racism too) that was being flung at the couple - but esp at the woman - and in more than a few comments, the view was expressed that "Poor Harry" was just really stupid in allowing himself to be snared by The Evil One.   [BtW, I didn't get the impression that these were just adolescent time-wasting Trolls!]    It's really quite incredible, the amount of BAD things that are attributed to her (and she’s not even made 40 yet!) - sociologists will, I feel, study this phenomenon for years to come!

The Commenters also seem to feel safe in their self-righteous indignation, to use what may even be their real name (at least, it's not often an obvious coverup moniker) and there are probably more female than male - but not exclusively. Of course it's difficult to assess what country they may be from, though some do say "I'm American and I think she's evil too"!! Although, some then bring in the absolutely shocking idea of Meghan being a Woke Democrat, so you know what level of thinking and prejudice is being displayed there!! Certainly any level of compassion or empathy - or tolerance - is rare. And these people so rabidly consumed by it all, are likely Parents too ..........

In the short term, I don't think this Interview has had the results they were perhaps hoping for, as it's brought out even more hatred, but a few years down the track, things could (hopefully) be different.
And maybe that's their job in this lifetime : Agents of Change.

So as a Colonial 'Catter, that's my 2cents worth on the controversy. If I was an avid Conspiracy Follower, I may even contend that there are Dark Forces at work, shaping our dramas and fuelling our distrust of folks who don't look or think the same as us - but that couldn't be true, could it? Coz surely we're not silly enough to allow that kind of manipulation of ourselves ...... are we??!!

R-J

"What the World needs now, is Love, sweet Love; It's the only thing that there's just too little of ....."

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: meself
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 05:29 PM

Yes, the internet has been educational in more ways than one. The deep well of pure, unadulterated hatred that is out there is ... (no longer) startling.

Subject: RE: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 06:18 PM

I think it's instructive that, at the moment, the murder (if that's what it is) of Sarah Everard is explosively highlighting the widespread harassment and physical abuse of women. It just isn't good enough to pile the responsibility on women for fixing this: don't go out on your own, be careful which route you take, don't drink, don't stay out late, careful how you dress... All this is completely unconscionable and completely unacceptable. It is disrespectful to women, of course it is, and I'm seeing a similar disrespect being shown to Meghan Markle, and I'm thinking that it's largely because she's a WOMAN who has infiltrated and poisoned the royals (yeah, as if they aren't already poisoned root and branch). Not only a woman, but a BLACK woman. And, an INTELLIGENT black woman. If women feel justifiably scared of walking the streets, they're scared because of MEN. Meghan has put her head above the parapet, and sure, much of the abuse she's getting is from women, but the MEN at the helm of the tabloid press who think that people like me are "woke" connive in this, and their papers are prime movers in promoting this disrespect of women. Meghan is ideal material for them. The whole royal thing annoys me to death and I wish that none of it existed, but I think she's being very brave and may well regret the negative attention that is raining down on her. I hope they can manage a decent private life even though I'm a bit jealous of their wealth, without too much flack thrown at them.

We seriously need to educate MEN to respect women as fellow human beings. How we do that is for another time/another thread, but we really must try to get away from this male-dominated society. Society is loaded against women. Meghan has managed her life well in order to get where she is, smashed the glass ceiling. Maybe that's the cause of the vitriol she gets from many women. But the responsibility for achieving a balance in society that is fair to women falls squarely on the shoulders of us blokes. To be continued, I should think...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 07:39 PM

I just found this piece in the Guardian, contributed by Nadifa Mohamed, a fellow republican, which is why it chimed with me:

"As Meghan has learned, the monarchy is still built on breeding, ancestry and caste"

A couple of quotes from it:

"It is painful for me, as a republican, to have to step out in defence of any member of the royal family but I feel as though Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is receiving the ire intended for a much larger target of young Black women who have stormed into previously closed-off institutions...."

"...The conversation between Meghan and Oprah is fascinating because of the frank way they talk; a huge, global audience watches as two Black women discuss the outrageous experiences of one of them and hear all of the gory, suppressed details for the first time. Oprah gasps as she hears what Meghan and Harry have had to put up with.

An ancient British institution tamed by an unprecedented level of public scrutiny from two world-famous Black women. I never expected to see it, the silenced becoming the silencer."

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: rich-joy
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 07:46 PM

Yes indeed, Steve.
I note that in Australia, with a population of only 25,702 million, one woman dies every week, at the hands of a man "in a domestic situation" - plus those killed "in general". I think that could be even worse that the UK stats???
And of course there's the pathetic example set by our own Parliament in the treatment of women, which is currently flooding our news down here.

As regards Haz & Megs, I think they made the best decision to get out of the country and away from that institution, and I really hope they can continue to live in peace and love and good health.

Cheers, R-J

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: rich-joy
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 07:52 PM

cross-posted.

But I had read Nadifa Mohamed's piece in the Guardian and liked her comment :

".... Breeding, ancestry, caste are the building blocks of the monarchy and aristocracy and still determine who we believe is superior and inferior.

I dread to think what would have happened to Meghan if she’d had the temerity to marry the heir rather than the spare."

R-J

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 08:27 PM

Yeah, I very nearly quoted that bit as well! In the spirit of know-thine-enemy, I looked at the online front page of the Mail On Sunday on Sunday. Article after article was going straight for Meghan's jugular. But each and every one of them painfully avoided any insinuation as to her race. These scurrilous rags know exactly how to be as nasty as possible whilst avoiding saying anything that would have them bang to rights. The misogynists and would-be abusers must derive a lot of succour from stuff like that. We have a big problem.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: rich-joy
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 09:29 PM

I'm probably the last one in all of Christendom to watch this, but I got a few laughs from it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oxlCKMlpZw
An Afternoon with Prince Harry & James Corden
•Feb 26, 2021

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Acorn4
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 05:21 AM

Perhaps they could change Archie's name to Prince by deed poll? You know like "the singer formerly known as...." but the other way round?

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 06:39 AM

There's a lot of guff going around that Meghan is hissyfitting because Archie is not a prince. Well she just isn't. She was and is fully aware of the protocol that currently obtains. At the time of her wedding, the protocol was that Archie would become a prince as soon as Charles takes the throne and not before. This she knew. But during her pregnancy, and only then, she was advised that the protocol was going to be changed and that Archie would not, after all, become a prince. Nothing has been made public about this, though it's known that Charles has expressed a desire to "slim down the royal family." Now Charles is not a sensitive man and is fully capable of making clumsy steps. Plenty of form there. A move which excludes Archie from a role he was fully expected by his parents one day to inherit is going to look a lot like...well, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Jos
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 07:41 AM

William could still make Archie a prince, couldn't he, once he becomes king?
It could be a good move if there are still tensions between William and Harry.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 08:18 AM

I would have thought it was up to the mudcatters' committee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 09:28 AM

What I originally posted for was because a post said that the fact Archie wasn't made a Prince was racist. That is based on misinformation as was most the rest of the post in question in all truth. So yes there is a lot of hate flies about on the net but there is a lot of false info too. Both are a problem. Jos re when William becomes king, which could be a long time off yet, the way I read it no that would not qualify Archie to potentially become a Prince. When William becomes monarch it would be his children and grand children who would qualify. His children already have the title. When Charles becomes king then Archie would theoretically qualify as a Prince. That is when the decision would be made.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 06:31 PM

I once called in to a conservative radio talk show which was asking for liberals and moderates to call in as to whether a lot of the reaction against Obama was racist.

I called in and I used the term "free-floating racism" in my attempt to explain a lot of the reaction against the President and Michelle Obama that did not specifically call him out on a political or Presidential issue. The radio hosts did not allow me to make my point and were abusive.

I don't know enough of the detailed background of Harry, Meghan, the Royals, etc. But I have a sense of a kind of Kabuki theatre where most of the moves are pre-planned and understood by both sides. Why this should be is beyond me at present. One of my friends said that they always thought of Meghan as white and didn't realize there was a racial issue until the wedding.

I still think the broader issue is one of family politics, inheritance and power concerns, and the racial angle is an additional playing card held by both sides. A game where the rules are still being decided between moves. More interesting than Kabuki.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Neil D
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 08:34 PM

Personally, I feel like the entire concept of royalty is a couple centuries beyond its use by date. I agree with Backwoodsman's comment that this is nothing more than opium for the masses," a distraction for the dullard cap-doffers, forelock-tuggers, and flag-worshippers.

In simple words, it’s a pile of horse-shit, and best avoided."
And I would avoid it if that were possible without living low-tech in the wilderness. As it is, I can't turn on my computer or TV without being confronted by these stories. I am especially perplexed by Americans' fascination with the very royal family that we fought two bloody wars to be shut of. So, since I can't avoid it, I'll make a couple observations.

Why would anybody be surprised that one of the oldest, richest and whitest family's on Earth just might harbor a racist or two. Every family has that eccentric uncle who makes inappropriate remarks at Thanksgiving.

I hate a tease. If the Markles have the nerve to make the accusation of racism, then they should be willing to name names. That way we could avoid the absurdity of Vegas bookmakers setting odds in some kind of "Who's the Royal Racist Sweepstakes".

I've seen comparisons being made between MM and Wallis Simpson, both bein American, commoner divorcees who married into the royal family. But the similarity ends there. Let's not forget that Simpson was also sleeping with Nazis while she was sleeping with the king and this was well-known in the highest levels of the British government, even though it was kept quiet at the time. That had as much to do with objection to their marriage as her nationality, commonness and past marital status. Also, The D of W was herself a notorious racist, frequently referring to the citizens of the Bahamas as lazy n*****s.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: meself
Date: 12 Mar 21 - 08:48 PM

This whole thing seems to be getting a lot more attention in the States than in Canada, to judge by what I encounter flipping through the channels.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 08:07 AM

Let me be the first to apologize for the American invasion by Oprah for disturbing the peace in the UK more than what Russia's Putin did.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 09:14 AM

"If the Markles [sic] have the nerve to make the accusation of racism, then they should be willing to name names."

I'm not too sure about this. Don't forget that the skin colour remark was made in private. Whilst I don't doubt that the comment was made in Harry's presence, the context is not known. It's hard to imagine a context in which a comment like that to a prospective father wouldn't be offensive, but hey ho. And let's not forget, by the way, that Harry has been the victim down the years of completely unjustified and publicly-shouted doubts about whether he is actually Charles' son, specifically using his hair colour as "evidence." Ring a bell? Exposing the remark without naming a name puts the ball into the royal family's court. It's up to them to meet the racism accusation, and we know that there is form. Naming a name could result in court action for slander. His word against the alleged culprit with no ability to bring substantial evidence. Counter-productive, I would think.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 10:36 AM

A racist remark or conjecture may be by an unnamed individual, but Meghan did name names when it came to the yellow rags that have tormented her. And she won in court.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 10:38 AM

In any other context, such as hair colour or height, speculating as to whether a child's appearance is likely to favour his mother or his father in looks would be seen as perfectly reasonable and inoffensive.

How far speculation about skin colour should be taken as different enough to be necessarily or intentionally offensive is unclear. There could be room for misunderstanding.

Pretty evidently Meghan misunderstood the position as regards royal titles, if she thought Harrys's children had an automatic right to be princes or princesses, and that Archie was being discriminated against. I'd have thought Harry might have pointed out that out. After all his cousins, the children of Anne and Edward, aren't princes or princesses.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 11:39 AM

She did not misunderstand, as I've said a good few times. She knew that he didn't qualify to be called a prince now, but understood, as did the rest of the planet, that he would become a prince once Charles takes the throne. That protocol seems to be under threat now, as Charles has intimated that he's going to slim down the royal family. The couple were told of this only when Meghan was pregnant with Archie. The ludicrous yarn that Meghan, a sharp, bright young woman, would misunderstand all this has spread like a rash and is being used to demonise her. It simply isn't true.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 11:43 AM

Meghan could name names when things are down in black and white. In this case the remark was made in an eminently-deniable private conversation. I think they were well-advised to hold back on the naming of the name for the time being.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Jos
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 11:58 AM

Being interested in the possible skin colour of a child is perfectly natural.
Being concerned about it, suggesting that it could be a problem, is very different.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 02:29 PM

Any assumption that Harry's children would automatically be princes or princesses, even once Charles became king would have just that, an assumption. In the previous generation the only one with an automatic right was Charles, as direct heir. . A special arrangement was made in the case of Prince Andrew"s children - not a particularly encouraging precedent as it turned out, some may feel.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: keberoxu
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 03:22 PM

Years ago -- a generation ago, indeed --

I recall John Lydon publicly speaking up to
congratulate Princess Diana
for starting to take down the monarchy,
and I imagine he thinks the same of her son Harry at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 05:31 PM

"Any assumption that Harry's children would automatically be princes or princesses, even once Charles became king would have just that, an assumption..."

At the time Harry and Meghan were married, that was the protocol established many decades ago, before this queen was queen. A son of the couple would be made a prince once Charles was in the throne. There was no hint that that protocol would be changed until Meghan was pregnant. I think they have the right to feel aggrieved. And suspicious as to the racial context of any such change....

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 07:02 PM

You're right there Steve. I had a look at the protocol from 1917 and it does indicate that. Along with other oddities, for example having the consequence that neither Elizabeth and Margaret were styled as princesses until their father became king,

But I'd think it likely that when Charles declared back in 2019 his intent to slim down the Royal Family, without specifying how, that might have had a lot more to do with the fallout from his brother Andrew and family.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 21 - 07:34 PM

That could well be the case, but Harry and Meghan were married well before 2019. Honestly, I don't really give a rat's ass about all this, despite my rathe passionate input to this thread, but I don't like to see egregious injustices doled out by people who benefit from my tax handouts.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 03:01 AM

The idea though that a scaled down Royal Family is new (happening only since Andrew has been involved in a scandal or since Meghan came on the scene) doesn't hold water. Andrew was claiming 9 years ago that the idea Charles had of making the monarchy a more scaled down modern monarchy was pushing both himself and his daughters to the fringes! Re the Mail article below from 2012 which clearly says Charles was intent on reducing the role of all except the main players.

Plus on Edward's wedding over 20yrs ago the palace released a statement saying Edward would not be a Duke (which was protocol up until then) but instead just an Earl until Prince Philip dies, and that his children would not be awarded the HRH title prince or princess. They were the first of the male line in 100 years not to be awarded it. It says though Edward and Sophie agreed to it the decision was the Queen's. Agreeing to it and going along with it is not necessarily the same as volunteering for it.

Plus the 1917 Letter Patent is not written in stone and is already changed. The Queen issued a new Letter Patent in 2012 stating that all the children of the heir to the throne's first born would have the HRH title. This was in response to the change in law which stated that if the first born was female they would still be heir as they are the eldest. That is why the Cambridge's children are all HRH as shown in the second link from 2018 which again at the end of the article states Charles wanted a smaller amount of tax funded royals performing royal duties.

That was just from quick google searches I am sure there is much more out there!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180012/Princes-war-How-Charles-plans-slimmed-monarchy-driven-dagger-Andrews-heart--spa

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/wessex/revealed-why-edward-sophies-children-are-not-awarded-the-title-of-prince-and-princess-15130

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 07:21 AM

The trouble with all this is that we are not privy to conversations that took place between "senior royals" and the couple before, during and after the wedding. We have the word of Meghan that they were told only when she was pregnant with Archie that the protocol that would eventually have him made a prince (i.e., when Charles becomes king, not before) was going to be set aside, with all the negative implications regarding his future security and safety, as she saw it. If you choose to believe her expressed stance, and I see little reason not to believe it, she is far more concerned with Archie's future safety than with pomp and status. It's up to you whether you think that this couple, very much in the public eye, victims of the tabloids and living where they can, and will, be easily pinpointed, have a point. As for slimming down the royals, you're right to point out that Charles has been rattling on about it for donkeys' years. The trouble is, his mother won't die, and he has never properly articulated his notions in public. He's just asking to have the racism finger jabbed at him if Archie doesn't get his princely position. It seems clear that her maj is lukewarm about making big moves in the slimming-down direction, having set things in train in the opposite direction decades ago. Some rather quick changes will have to be put in place once the Queen dies if Charles is to get his way, and it will look even worse if he does piecemeal things such as denying Archie as a first move...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 07:35 AM

Incidentally, Allan, in your Mail link (a pain in the neck as it takes ages go load) it's amusing (and instructive) to read about how, in 2012, the pre-Meghan Harry is very much in the senior royal in-crowd, the "indispensable Harry," as the paper puts it. So what's changed...?

...Oh, hang on, he married a woman of colour...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 07:51 AM

Same as things always change Steve. I am not a royalist but I know how it works. Andrew and Archie are not the very top A Team. That is Charles then William then William's children. Princess Margaret was very much in the A team but her offspring much less so. Then Andrew, Anne and Edward were very much so but their offspring less so. So it will be with Harry. He is A Team because his father is heir to the throne. However Archie will be a grand-child to the monarch just as various lesser royals are currently grand-children to the Queen. It is less A team than William and Kate's children will be who will be children of an heir to the throne. That is nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 09:36 AM

And it is a perfect demonstration of the fatally-flawed system of privilege by accident of birth to which we are all subjected.

Over the past few years, I’ve become more and more convinced that the French had it right where Royalty are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: meself
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 01:17 PM

I don't follow this stuff at all - other than here! - so I don't see what difference it makes if someone has the title Prince, or Duke, or Earl, or Duke of Earl. I would say, throw around the titles all you want - but get rid of any outlandish/expensive entitlements that go along with them. I'm all for certain people by privilege of birth being the only ones allowed to wear a certain type of hat - how else are we supposed to know they're special? Heck, I wouldn't even care if the cost of the hat were contributed to by my taxes - but when it comes to footing the bill for, say, exotic travel, and household staff, that's where I start getting testy ... !

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 03:16 PM

How much of the cost of security for royal family members is covered by taxes and how much by The Firm is unknown to me, but it seems The Firm decided to stop covering Harry himself. Meghan objected to the prospect of still being in that "senior royalty" and putting her baby "out there" to be seen in public at events and not have a measure of protection to cover them like it did Harry.

This isn't about hats, this is about the apparently calculated decision to stop paying for Harry's security as a way to force him to toe the line. It didn't work. He doesn't stop being known as a royal just because they say the rest of the royal family aren't going to treat him that way any more. Whoever is involved in running The Firm (and it may not be the top royals themselves, it might be like their own bizarre version of a Home Owner's Association, some one or cadre within the family they all agree knows the rules and allow to dictate to them who can do what according to the covenant they sign. It also reminds me of the senate Parliamentarian here in US Politics.) This is about The Firm hanging one or more of their own out to dry.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 04:22 PM

Yep. It stinks. From an in-crowd indispensable royal to an outcast in a few short years. So what happened?

Well, he went and fell in love and wed a person of colour, and gave the royals the shakes over skin colour when he went and got Meghan preggers... Silly boy...

Am I getting warm?

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Mar 21 - 06:46 PM

Considering the somewhat indirect way Elizabeth I got to the throne, one shouldn't jump to conclusions as to exactly how unlikely progress to the Royal seat may....progress. Nobody foresaw King Ralph!

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Mar 21 - 03:14 PM

Oh, and Stephen Colbert had this to say about the royal refutation.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 16 Mar 21 - 03:45 AM

SRS the UK stopped paying for the security (and yes it is from the public purse funded by ordinary British working people) only when Harry and Meghan had stepped down from being full working members of the Royal Family and had even moved away from the UK. Just as Prince Andrew's two princess daughters had their protection withdrawn a decade or so ago because they were thought to be not performing enough duties.

I am really baffled at why some non British people think us UK taxpayers should continue funding these incredibly wealthy people when they are no longer working members of the royal family?

I suppose grannie could have chosen to fund their security herself instead. After all her supposed favourite son, Andrew, now has no significant income other than his navy pension and is funded directly from his mother's personal income instead! But that one is down to her - not the people of the UK. And the Sussexes seem to have been careful not to criticise her at all. One would like to think it is because Harry truly loves his grannie but I imagine a "step too far" idea might be floating about somewhere too.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Mar 21 - 12:08 AM

Well, Alan, as non-British viewers of the scene unfolding, we don't know who was paying for the security and that's why we asked. It sounds like the family should be paying for it if they're not out there doing the UK version of Disneyland with all of their tourist-attracting activities. After having had a deadbeat president who spent millions of dollars on his Secret Service protection and travel to all of his golf trips, paid for by taxpayers, we certainly know the consternation of footing the bill when the party should have been more responsible (doing his job) and could have paid for some of his own way.