BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:36 AM

The ads are why Mrs Steve recorded it - we can just fast forward through them. We make a habit of that. But guess what - no ads if it's the BBC (which this one isn't). As I understand it, security is provided, or paid for, for them by some benefactor where they live now. I don't doubt that the royals are manipulative, mean-spirited and feeling entitled, which is why I have this visceral feeling of sympathy for Meghan. Nothing to do with her devastating good looks, of course. I'm far too ancient to be harbouring such sentiments... ;-) I don't swallow the guff about her not knowing what she was letting herself in for. Surely love isn't that blind...

God knows why I'm talking about this. It's probably because I know I have to cut my nine-inch-high grass today...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:41 AM

They stayed at a house on Vancouver Island for a while, but when the security was pulled and the COVID crisis was shutting things down, they raced for the border to get to safer digs. As it happens, the actor and producer Tyler Perry set them up in his California mansion/compound for several months while they looked for a house of their own.

The night of the interview there was a lot of glee on Twitter that, in effect, Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey decided it was time to tear down the British Monarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:14 AM

It's getting somewhat difficult to fill people in on what was in the interview, when people want to talk about it without having watched it. I understand some folks just haven't seen it YET, but "it's stupid, I won't watch it, but here's what I think about what I didn't watch."

Not you, Steve. Nine inches, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:22 AM

The idea that having the title of "prince" would make them more safe though is nonsense. Just because someone says it is so in an interview does not make it fact. They either have the security paid for them or they don't - regardless as to if Archie is a prince or not. It doesn't even make sense!! Harry is a prince so if being a prince guaranteed they didn't have to pay for their own protection then they already would have that guarantee - irrespective of Archie's lack of a title. Re this story from almost 10 years ago in connection with general security not being provided out of the public purse for royals apart from the very nearest to the throne. Seriously if folks in the US who have watched this programme think the couple should get free round the clock protection then why don't they crowd fund it instead of somehow implying people in the UK are bigoted for not providing it???
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angry-prince-andrew-pay-three-778240

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Pamber
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:26 AM

I haven't watched but could you tell me whether there is any increased chance that the royals will fold up their ents and go forth and multiply. Sorry but I want ot live in this century
Paul

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:53 AM

Good point Pamber ;-) Plus it is bad enough paying for royals who do their job without being expected to pay for ones who don't want to do their job anymore. You'd think she'd be happy that her son would have inherited the title Earl of Dumbarton - but were folk in Dumbarton actually asked of they even wanted an earl? I suspect that none of the lot of them know the first thing about Dumbarton

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 11:55 AM

Fold up their ents? What do you know that Tolkein didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: meself
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:16 PM

I find it odd how readily grown-up adults will accept unquestioningly what someone they don't even know tells them about their life. I've had people tell me in the most sincere tones things about their experiences that I knew for a fact were not true, or were at best only half true - am I unusual in that respect? I have no particular feeling for Harry or Meghan one way or the other - but I would be no more inclined to take everything they say at face value than I would what I was told by some talkative stranger sitting beside me on the bus.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:19 PM

I am kind of on the same line as Paul. And it is ironic how folks in some other countries seem to be so worried about the rights of the royals etc when they long kicked the royals out of power in their own country!! I think the end of royalty is some way off yet mind. Though their popularity is less in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. In a pre-royal wedding poll it was found that only 41% of Scots actually support the monarchy - as opposed to 55% in England, 52% in Northern Ireland and 49% in Wales. There were a lot of people who just didn't care one way or the other though!! The numbers who oppose the monarchy were a bit less. 28% in Scotland though that is double the numbers who oppose it in England. I do think though that a lot of support is directed specifically towards the Queen herself. I mean I am 60 and she has just always been there so I suppose to many it is comforting. The next generation went through some real troughs though - and it looks like the new generation may well do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:26 PM

Meanwhile 6,200,000+ deaths worldwide from COVID-19 and vaccine shortages distract most of us from our in-laws nastiness.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 12:45 PM

Allan continues to speak about an interview when he didn't listen to what they had to say about their concerns, WAV walks in with is racist BS and I think this thread has run it's course. This is just setting up a battle scene now.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 04:56 PM

It has been requested that this be opened again, but fair warning, I will delete off topic and racist posts and it still may be closed if it doesn't stay civil.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 06:32 PM

I made a mistake yesterday when I posted this: "The theatrical pause from Oprah when Meghan stiltedly made the skin colour claim, then '...Wow...'"

She actually said "...What?!...". I didn't get this second-hand. I was watching the news without my hearing aids in. Sorry about that.

I have to contest the assertion that we needed to have watched the whole thing before commenting. Jeri, the telly and radio stations were awash with the saga yesterday, and it's still rumbling on today. I should think that every bit of it that has been pointed up as controversial or sensational has been seen by the people posting here, whether we've endured the whole thing continuously or not. Not quite as good, maybe, but we should not be regarded as disqualified.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 07:32 PM

Thanks for reopening. I had commented on another thread that it had been stated I was commenting on an interview that I hadn't watched and I had no way to respond to that. It may be true that I did not watch the actual interview but highlights from the interview have been shown non stop on news channels since it was on and reporting has also been pretty non stop. I think I've seen and hear more than enough to make my comments relevant enough!!!

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:21 PM

Steve, if you listen to Piers Morgan's take on the interview you won't be getting anything substantive about the interview. If people are going to talk about it, they should give it a listen first. Common Sense.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:27 PM

There was no mention of Archie having a vestigal tail and horns.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:38 PM

Well in deference to Jeri and Maggie, I've just watched the whole thing end to end. As I said, and I can also confirm this to Allan, all the shocking and controversial bits have been abundantly aired in snippets on our screens. It was quite instructive to watch Oprah teasing things out of the couple in a gentle, friendly yet quite penetrating way. There was more than a hint of leading questioning at times but that served to keep them going, and Meghan stood up to the interrogation very well. A thread running through the whole thing was that we were hearing one side only. However, it wasn't easy to pick out any real inconsistencies (waffle, especially from Harry, was a different matter).

The way they characterised the diseased relationship between the institution and the tabloid press was fairly shocking and pretty believable. Another first impression was Harry really ought to have called Meghan by her name, not "my wife," "she" and "her", often with a wave of the hand in her direction, which he did nearly all the time.

So I can talk about it now. I feel like I've been punishing myself this evening. One thing I can say is that nothing I've heard has helped convince me that our royal family is anything other than a rigid and unpleasant throwback that really ought to have had its day. Won't happen, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:40 PM

I can assure you, Maggie, that if I ever listen to anything Piers Morgan has to say it will be (a) a complete accident, (b) will last no more than twelve seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 08:49 PM

I much enjoyed the treatment given by Stephen Colbert . I think it ran a fine line staying clear of accusing anybody of either race prejudice OR claiming a right to princehood rampant.

I figured there would be people in this thread who might know off the top of their heads whether there are simply matters of marriage between a prince of the blood royal and a commoner which transcend race? That did not come up in the Oprah interview.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:06 PM

Well if you enjoyed that piece of crap you must have a strange sense of humour. I mean, don't you just love the way he says something he thinks is witty, then waits for the reaction... It was quite clear to me that Harry and Meghan had a prior agreement with each other, though not with Oprah, who tried her best, that they were not going to name names apropos of the most damaging accusations, and were not going to directly criticise individual royals. Had they done that, they would have lost sympathy and respect, as those individuals were not there to have the right of reply. Your man clearly hasn't got a grip on that. Glad you enjoyed it. I think we can do better.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 09:44 PM

If 'my man' is Stephen Colbert, he very much had a grip 'on that'. He played with the interview without taking it seriously, which I think was justifiable. As for his waiting for a reaction, maybe you'd understand if you saw more of what entertainers are going through from the land of Zoom. He usually has someone, maybe a member of his family, off in the outfield. They can usually be heard off-mike reacting to his sallies.

As to the Oprah interview I believe at the beginning she and Meghan brought up that there had been no pre-interview understanding, but that doesn't mean that each party had done their research and had specific goals that were to make them look good.

I still have a question as to whether or not the kids would have titles regardless of race, because the issue is not necessarily race, but being a muggle, er, 'commoner'.

And I'm not normally given to ghost sighting, but the spectre of Diana loomed large Sunday night.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:09 PM

Muggel,

touche'

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 21 - 10:31 PM

Stephen Colbert is a multi-talented comedian who worked with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show then had his on show on Comedy Central before moving to host a late night talk show. That up until early 2020 was taped in front of a live audience. Enter COVID-19. Everything is paced differently now with these talking heads working from home. For the same reason the Oprah interview was conducted out of doors under the pergola of a property belonging to a mutual friend of both women. So much is being done outside or very well-spaced.

I agree, "muggle" is a good term to use here. :)

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: meself
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 12:47 AM

I would be content to see the monarchy of Britain and the Commonwealth gradually gear down to the scale of some of the remaining European royals - more or less ordinary people who are dusted off and hauled out for special occasions and then left to go about their business. I don't suppose that would be possible, though, even if they wanted that themselves .....

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: mg
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 01:04 AM

it is my understanding that archie would not get a title until charles or william becomes king. one obstacle is irregularities in the reporting of the pregnancy and birth which leads to speculation that he was born of a surrogate..fine with everybody most likely but then they can't receive a title unless the law is changed.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 02:16 AM

I agree, "muggle" is a good term to use here. :)

so is 'pergola'!

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 03:14 AM

You are absolutely spot on MG in that Archie does not qualify, as yet, for the title prince. Since 1917 the only people who qualified to take the title Prince or Princess have been the children of monarchs (ie like Charles, Andrew, Anne and Edward) and the children of the sons of monarchs (like William, Harry, Beatrice & Eugenie) and the eldest living son of the son of the Prince of Wales (ie George). George's siblings Charlotte and Louis did not themselves qualify. It is unusual for the children of a direct heir to the throne to not qualify as Prince or Princess because monarchs don't normally live as long as the present monarch has. So she stepped in with a Letter Patent to specify that all of the children of William and Kate will be Princes and Princesses. If the Sussexes feel their family are being treated as not so important - then that is because they are actually not so important. The whole edifice of the monarchy is built on the idea of one person and his immediate family being deemed more important than all the others. She married into the royal family but she did not marry into an heir to the throne. They are the B Team if you like. Harry is/was A Team as the son of an heir - but through time they will become even more B Team as William's three grow up.

Just step back the generations. Princess Margaret's two children (not given the title Prince and Princess) were at one time fifth and sixth in line for the throne. But how big a percentage of the British public would even recognise them now???

Whether Harry's kids are given the title once they would normally qualify for it would be up to Charles in the end - and he seems to be pushing for a more slim downed monarchy anyway. It is being modernised gradually. Charlotte now keeps her place in the succession despite having a younger brother. Things change all the time so maybe Charles has intimated that Archie would not be offered the title of Prince come the time. That is perfectly possible - but whether it is down to racism or just a modernising and further scaling back of the royals and concentrating on the main family (ie William and Kate's) is a different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 06:16 AM

It wasn't clear to me from the interview quite how concerned she was about whether titles were in the offing. It sounded more like she was worried about no security without the titles, that their ultimate safety would be compromised as the tabloids made bloody sure that we all know where they are. How genuine that was is moot.

Although the line of questioning about her mental state jarred with me, the picture she painted about the several years of entrapment, restrictions as to her freedom and the absolute refusals to offer her help, all leading to the desperate feelings she described, was very plausible. I've railed against the royals all my life and I'm trying to examine my conscience here as to whether the interview confirmed my bias. I have a visceral feeling that it was easier to avoid that because she was not identifiable as a traditional royal. Wrong accent, wrong colour, unsnobby and very personable, and coming across as a damn sight more intelligent than any royal I've heard recently. Not sure about grounded. Am I absolutely sure that her urge to possess the regal kudos didn't override what should have been her worldly common sense about what she was letting herself in for? Not sure about that. I mean, all that Diana history...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 08:07 AM

"He played with the interview without taking it seriously, which I think was justifiable."

Well I was piqued by some of the comments here into watching the whole thing, which I wouldn't have done had I not wanted to take it seriously. What he was doing with it (yeah, playing with it) was far worse than what some of the non-watchers here have been accused of saying. His remarks were scathing and unmeasured.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 08:58 AM

Her concerns about Archie being a prince seemed twofold. Firstly, she seemed to think he was being treated differently from other great-grandchildren of the Queen, with the implication that this was because of race. However none of the great-grandchildren have titles, with the exception of the Cambridges' because they are in the direct line of succession. Secondly, she seemed to think that if he were a prince he would automatically be entitled to security, which is simply wrong. Security is decided by the Home Secretary and Metropolitan Police and based on itelligence-based assessments of risk - in any event, a baby would not get separate protection.

How could she be so so staggeringly misinformed? Surely she had carefully planned what would and would not be revealed, and this did not come out by accident. Harry must be familiar with the intricacies of royal protocol, if she is not. I can't believe she was too stupid or too lazy to make sure of the facts beforehand. Was it arrogance that only "her truth" mattered, regardless of the facts? Or was it deliberate, knowing that the allegation (especially with hints of racism) would be damaging and the target American audience would sympathise with her and not know or care about these details?

The whole interview seemed to me to be a brand-building exercise, aimed at establishing a narrative of her as a victim of Old World snobbery and racism. Oprah let her get away with it, and only occasionally challenged her or asked probing questions.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 09:28 AM

Then we weren't watching the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 09:36 AM

I didn't think she had a problem with Archie's not having a title. I think I already said it, but I think they both were rather happy about that. It was the lack of security, and it does seem like he should have had that. There was ONE person in the royal family who brought up Archie's skin tone, and it was quite clear he has a good relationship with the Queen.

Mostly, it seemed like it was the tabloids that were the real problem. Thankfully, I don't have to read them, other than what I see on the internet.

I think we, meaning humans of all nations, can be a race of busy-bodies, and minders-of-other-people's-business. We all KNOW what's going on, even if we're nowhere close to any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 10:01 AM

Well, Jeri, we give the royals the most amazing start in life, best schools, best hospitals, best palaces, best estates, luxury travel, etc., and pay them big mazumas on top of that to keep them in the lifestyle they think they're entitled to. But then it's none of our business...?

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 10:11 AM

The personal stuff, yeah, it's not anybody's business. Or if they don't like it, they can just leave.

Oh, they did.
We do it with celebrities, too. Takedown "documentary" on Michael Jackson, for example. Mostly any tabloid, anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Allan Conn
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 10:23 AM

They had full police protection paid for by the British public because of their position as major players within the Royal Family. When they walked about from being full time members of the Royal Family and moved to another country then that fully funded protection was withdrawn and they were expected to pay for their own! Just as happened to the daughters of Prince Andrew a decade ago who were deemed to not be doing enough royal engagements to warrant the public funded 24 hr protection. Of course Steve is right in that British citizens have a right to an opinion when they are working supposedly for us and their protection would have been funded by us. The people in control at the Palace are not stupid - they know fine that spending on the Royals can be a thorny topic in the UK. Especially if vast ongoing funds were then lavished on a family who were no longer full working royals.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 11:57 AM

How could she be so so staggeringly misinformed? Surely she had carefully planned what would and would not be revealed, and this did not come out by accident. Harry must be familiar with the intricacies of royal protocol, if she is not. I can't believe she was too stupid or too lazy to make sure of the facts beforehand.

That's quite a pronouncement, Howard. Did you not hear her say that she didn't "Google Harry"? Why would she know all of the intricacies of the royal inner circle? She was entering into a romantic relationship, she didn't intend to apply for a high-level job, but was simply aware that there was a lot to go with the relationship (and expected to be "protected" and offered tutoring in how to get along in that environment. It didn't happen.) Your dismissive attitude toward a talented modern American woman of color speaks to more than just the interview being discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 12:13 PM

Regarding Meghan not being clear about whether it was the protection or the title she was concerned with. I think that was by design. She had a concern with safety and a concern with equal treatment. Why not a concern with the trappings of power as well? She was pretty dismissive of that issue when Oprah asked her point-blank, but that is the answer for the public. That kind of hereditary power is the ONE THING she does not have already. That door is currently closed, but why put a deadbolt on it yourself?

I'm sure she's seen King Ralph!

As others with more knowledge have already stated, the lack of princely designation is there for historical reasons; not necessarily race. I would think that she should be informed as to these issues but she is probably aware that the general public is not. Particularly in America.

I am also sure that someone with a few letters after their name has done an economical analysis of what the royals have meant to the economy of Great Britain, factoring in what they own, what they do or do not pay taxes on, what value they present in terms of tourism and possibly how they effect the Commonwealth, what value is derived from their services. I am also certain that it is far from definitive. Economists love playing the game of putting monetary amounts on things the rest of us think of as 'priceless'.

English history is such a mass of everything the human race can use against itself. The English have cheerfully fought over titles, brought their sovereigns to terms, and lopped off their heads when convenient. If the broad mass of the English didn't want a Royal family, they would not have a royal family. That 'royal' label has an attraction all its own. It is its own kind of race. It promotes one out of all linkage to their ability. At pivotal points in history it has been purchasable and transferable.

It is the free hall pass of the high school of the world.

It is the reason that paparazzi can afford their own lunches when no one is buying.

If Harry's and Meghan's kids are not royal, their need for security is far less (not absent). Meghan's concern over this is obvious, even if her motivation is not.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 01:28 PM

Maybe her motivation was not obvious, but it behoves us to start the consideration off from a neutral standpoint. The interview raised a few enigmas, and when I'd watched it, despite my anti-royal sentiments and suspicions of her claims to naivity, I formed some opinions that are full of caveats, as I've expressed. I think that's only fair, and I'm not the sort of chap who sits in front of the telly watching something I don't want to watch for an hour and a half if I've already made up my mind in advance. There's a whole nother side to all this that we haven't heard, despite how honest and plausible we thought Meghan was (and I thought she was, on the whole).

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 03:35 PM

Interesting response from Stephen Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTdAQAT80aM

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 03:58 PM

Well he didn't do it for me at all first time round, and he's incredibly unfunny, but he's damn right about Piers Morgan! Something of a sideshow, though, the Piers thang, innit...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 05:31 PM

my impression of Philip is that he is a snob and a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Murpholly
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 06:14 PM

Third rate actress nabs her prince and then turns petulant when has to curtsey to senior royals without receiving such obeisance herself. Hope they stay in America out or our way. We hve too many royals. from a dedicated republican who still admires the amount of work undertaken by Queen, Philip, Charles and Ann.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 21 - 06:29 PM

Or, actress* nabs third-rate prince whose family turns petulant...

Cor, what's in a perspective!

*The more enlightened among us use "actor" for 'em all these days...

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 12:02 AM

Another county heard from.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Jos
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 03:50 AM

It sounded to me as if she was surprised at having to curtsey, not petulant about it, and she seemed quite pleased at having learned to do it properly.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 03:51 AM

SRS, you misunderstand me. By "beforehand" I did not mean the relationship (although her lack of curiosity is a little surprising) but the interview itself. If you are going to use an interview which will be broadcast to millions around the world to complain that your son has been denied the title of prince, surely it would be wise to check beforehand that he was entitled to it in the first place, and secondly to check whether that would then have entitled him to be provided with security, if that is her real concern?

In fact she did let slip that she was aware of the protocol which means he is not a prince, but I suspect many people missed that as she had already got her point accross. She then suggested that he might still be denied the title when Charles becomes king, but if that is true it is probably refers to Charles' wider plan to slim down the royal family, which reports suggest was triggered by Andrew's disgrace rather than being directed at her, and which reports also suggest has been undermined by the Sussexes' departure, since they apparently were to play a key part.

She seems to be asking that an exception be made for her son despite them having resigned from their royal roles. Instead the message she put across was that they are being treated unfairly, with the implication that it is because of her race.

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 06:16 AM

(My Gawd, why oh why am I allowing myself to get enmeshed in this....)

Meghan knew that Archie is not entitled to be a prince, as he is (a) not a grandchild of the Queen, (b) not the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Now there are shenanigans surrounding this. First, the Queen relaxed the protocol a few years ago which then allowed all William's brood, not just his eldest son, to be princes and princesses. Second, under current protocol Archie should become a prince as soon as Charlie becomes the big enchilada, which can't be that much longer in coming unless Her Maj becomes the world's oldest woman. There are two caveats here. First, does that still apply now that Archie's dad has flown the coop - who knows? Not I! Second, when we eventually have King Homeopath I, he's been saying vague things about "slimming down the royals," though nobody yet knows what that means. Charlie had better tread carefully there. If it's perceived that the "slimming down" has been used to prevent Archie's princitude from coming about, the whole issue of skin tone will be resurrected and we'll have yet another right royal bunch of wigs on the green. As we know, one of the chief attributes of our royals is their utter inability to tread carefully. How long does popcorn keep?

Incidentally, lifted from the interview:

The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.

Asked if Archie being a prince was important to her, she replied: “If it meant he was going to be safe, then of course.”

She added: “All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment I don’t have. I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’m clear on who I am, independent of that stuff. The most important title I will ever have is ‘Mom’.”

Meghan was not asking for something that would have made Archie an exception, and she knew the protocols. The couple were told during her pregnancy with Archie that the protocol would be changed when Charles got the big job, preventing Archie from becoming a prince. Nothing has been made public about that. If that actually happens, and here's me being all whimsical, I suppose the couple would have a strong case under the Trade Descriptions Act...

Seems to me that Archie either becomes a prince under the current protocol once Charles is on the throne, or else there's going to be a mighty race row, and it won't be of the couple's making....

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 08:24 AM

Ovweall the Royal family has challenges the average family does not have and have evolved rather well. One challenge is occaisionally changing the entire bloodline. They do learn from their mistakes. After Henry the 8th there is slightly less mysogeny, After Richard the 3rd there is less serial nephew killing and after the abdication of a Nazi sypathizer Britain seems in good hands. Perhaps introducing new blood to the Royal family may one day result in dilluting the percentage of Neanderthal genes in the family. (Even today white people have far more Neandeerthal genes >3%, than black people <1%.)
Apologies to those who are offended by Neanderthal racism in these remarks. ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: meself
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 11:09 AM

So - Neanderthal genes are bad? Please justify your Neanderthal racism ... or not ... !

Subject: RE: BS: OPRAH with Meghan & Harry
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 21 - 11:14 AM

One nun dead!