British police sources insist that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor ‘doesn’t need’ protection

archie1

There was some confusion between American viewers and British viewers about what the Duchess of Sussex said in the Oprah interview about Archie’s lack of title. To be fair, she didn’t explain it well because I don’t think she completely understood what was happening or, rather, not happening. If the Queen did nothing and simply allowed for the 1917 letters patent of King George V to stand, Archie would always have been untitled. It would have been the Queen’s discretion – and solely up to her, perhaps with Prince Charles advising – to decide whether or not to issue another letters patent to ensure that Archie would be titled in some way. Vanity Fair explains it:

The sticking point for Meghan, as she emphasized in the interview, was the title would allow Archie to receive royal security protection. But as some royal correspondents and tabloids pointed out, it didn’t actually break “protocol” for Harry’s son, who is only the great-grandchild of a monarch, to be denied the title of prince. And as Vanity Fair reported last year, the rules say that Archie could still become a prince after Prince Charles becomes king. As Meghan mentioned in the interview, the 1917 letters patent written by King George V has determined the titles for most living royals; the letters patent was written to limit the number of princes and princesses in the family, given how many descendants there were of Queen Victoria’s nine children. The letter said that all children of the sons of the monarch are automatically princes or princesses; for great-grandchildren of a monarch, only “the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales” (that’s currently Prince George) would automatically be considered a prince at birth.

Queen Elizabeth has issued subsequent letters patents to amend the status of her descendants. George, Princess Beatrice, and Princess Eugenie have received their titles from the original letters patent, but in 2012, another was released to state that all children of Prince William and Kate Middleton would be given the title, which is why Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis have theirs. When Princess Anne married her first husband, Mark Phillips, in 1973, the queen offered titles to her children, but Anne declined. She had also issued one in 1999 that said all children of Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, would not be styled as princes or princesses, even though they were entitled to it.

Ultimately, these decisions about titles and security costs are at the discretion of the monarch, and for years, Prince Charles has reportedly been interested in minimizing the number of people who count as official members of the royal family. Currently, cousins of the queen live at Kensington Palace and undertake roles as senior royals. In 2012, the Daily Mail reported that the removal of Beatrice and Eugenie’s security was a reflection of the fact that they had been dissuaded from fulfilling public roles, in keeping with Charles’s desire for a “slimmed-down monarchy.”

[From Vanity Fair]

“Ultimately, these decisions about titles and security costs are at the discretion of the monarch.” That’s what Meghan was trying to explain – it’s not that the monarchy was “taking away” Archie’s right to a title, it’s that titles for the Sussexes’ children were never even offered. The Queen – and Charles – did not think it would come back to bite them on the ass to consciously avoid giving the first mixed-race in the royal family a royal title. Meghan and Harry made it clear that they were interested in giving Archie a title, simply because it would have meant security and protection in a very real way. Speaking of, people in the police community said words about the Sussexes’ claims about protection:

The move to strip Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and their son of their security had nothing to do with the Palace’s stance on Archie becoming a prince, it emerged last night. Prince Harry claimed in the Oprah chat that when the Sussexes were in Canada he was told ‘at short notice security was going to be removed’.

But round-the-clock police protection is understood to have been taken away when they stepped down as working royals after a meeting of the government body that oversees protection. Prince Charles then reportedly said he would not fund their private security out of his own money. The assumption by Harry that taxpayers would fund security after he and Meghan left the UK was branded ‘arrogant’ and ‘unworkable’ yesterday.

Former chief superintendent Dai Davies, who led the Metropolitan Police’s royalty protection unit, said the couple’s plans were ‘utterly unrealistic’ and could have put British police at risk. Mr Davies said he was ‘gobsmacked’ that the couple expected British taxpayers to pick up the bill – estimated at £4million a year. He added: ‘It was utterly unrealistic to think they could continue to have their royal protection team working in America – in fact it would have put their [police] lives at risk.’

Archie’s title – or future title – was at the centre of the Sussexes bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey on Sunday. Meghan described her ‘pain’ officials had denied him the title of prince and accused Buckingham Palace of failing to protect him by denying him 24/7 security. She said Archie becoming a prince was neither her nor Harry’s decision and said it was Palace officials who revealed Archie ‘wasn’t going to receive security’.

Sources told the Telegraph the reason the couple lost their security privileges was because they stepped down as working royals. An insider told the newspaper: ‘Security was a big issue for them because there had been specific threats made against them.’

And another source told The Times: ‘The point they were making was stupid. A baby that can’t crawl wouldn’t get protection in its own right. It doesn’t need it. The baby doesn’t go anywhere independently, it’s with Harry and Meghan all the time.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, these people are conflating two things – Meghan was deeply concerned that her son would NEVER receive royal protection because of his lack of title, and she knew how many threats were being made against her family. The fact that no one in the royal family was concerned about the optics is bad enough, but there were very real threats against the entire Sussex family and they ALL needed protection. It’s a different thing when, in March 2020, their royal protection was pulled suddenly. They weren’t even given much of a chance to prepare for it and set up private protection. The removal of their protection was partly punitive, and partly an open invitation for those who wanted to harm Harry, Meghan and Archie. The Windsors were openly hoping to facilitate violence against the Sussexes.

Baby Archie meets Archbishop Desmond Tutu during a visit to Africa

Gigi Hadid Photo Call for Michael Kors W...

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

253 Responses to “British police sources insist that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor ‘doesn’t need’ protection”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. MaryContrary says:

    Is this supposed to paint Prince Charles in a better light somehow? Because what sticks out to me is that HE pulled security from his son, daughter-in-law and grandson.

    • bonobochick says:

      He pulled security and then someone(s) leaked their locations.

      • Sunday says:

        this is the key right here. pulling their security in general would’ve been ill-advised, dangerous, and immoral, but to do so and then have someone from the palace actively leak their location to reporters (and from there, any crazed hater out there) is what elevates this from hypothetically dangerous to a calculated and conscious threat to their lives.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        It was speculated at the time William leaked their location to a tabloid. That as soon as he knew… everyone knew. Then the Sussex shit the gates of communication to just Charles and Liz and then just Liz and no more leaks… Willileaks strikes again

      • Becks1 says:

        Their location was leaked in December I think – when was the security pulled? Then or later?

        William 100% leaked their location. Press were at KP for some kind of event (not a party I dont think, maybe a press briefing or something) and after that, Rebecca English had their location.

        Lets also not forget that William leaked to Dan Wootton about Sussexit itself.

      • Lesley says:

        Harry said during the interview that Daily Mail published their location. Where THEY got the information to go looking around Vancouver and the Islands Harry did not say.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      This is a man worth almost £100M, and will inherit HUNDREDS of millions more, upon death of his parents (esp. his mother). Are we to believe he couldn’t AFFORD to keep his SON & HIS GRANDSON safe?? Totally punitive, and it tells us that he WOULDN’T CARE if something DID happen to them.

      Appalling. Just more and more info about what shit people these are.

    • bobslaw says:

      How they get the optics of this so backwards is beyond me. Leaving aside the lack of feeling, how do they think this makes the BRF look good?

    • BabsORIG says:

      All these leaks to the tabloids plus the leaks of Harry’s and Megan’s whereabouts and the sudden pull of protection when they were in Canada remind me of 2 incidents. It was rumored that Harry was FORCED to “retire” from the army to come home and play second fiddle to William and also because it was believed that the family did not want Harry to be of higher ranking in the armed forces than William. Also, prior to that, Harry’s deployment in Afghanistan had been DELIBERATELY leaked to the tabloids, which subsequently exposed Harry and other soldiers and put them in harm’s way. Where am I going with this? Here’s my tinfoil theory: Harry was too popular and becoming too big of a personality than both heirs which became an issue with both his father and his brother. I think they have wanted for Harry to be disposed of for quite a while. Just like they did Diana. I think they wanted to expose Harry so he could get kidnapped or something which would have had him taken out of the picture without them soiling their hands. But I think the army PTB at the time were having none of it. I’m also beginning to believe that Diana’s security was removed but they purposely and falsely leaked that she refused them so that whatever happened to Diana would not be blamed on them. They did the same to Harry and his family, leaked the location where he was staying and hoped that someone would do them harm but the BRF wouldn’t be suspected. They do something to a person and then leak that said person CHOSE to do abcd. I no longer believe that it was Dodi that chose Henri, because all this info came out after Dodi and Diana were dead and couldn’t defend themselves or even counter any of said claims. I think when they tried and failed to have Meghan kill herself with Archie inside of her, they went back to what worked for them with Diana. Remove security leak where they’re staying, let someone cause them harm, and pretend the Sussexes refused security just like they refused the title. Those people are evil.
      On the title issue, I don’t know why I heard differently. My understanding was that Meghan said that Archie would not get any security because he had been refused a title. Not necessarily the prince title but maybe the Lord, Earls or something like that. This meant that without some title, when he stated school, he’d have no security because he would be a regular person. But the Sussexes were told that even when Charles became king, there would be changes made specifically to ensure that none of Harry’s children become princes of princesses. So they have been refused titles for their kids, they’re already concerns voiced about what a POC member of the royal family bloodline would affect how people viewed the monarchy, and then changes made so that Harry’s children don’t become princes or princesses even though Andrew’s and Edward’s children are titled even though they’ll never be working royals. That what caused the Sussexes to deduce that all this shit was being done because thier kids were PsOC.

      • Lianna says:

        I really believe that this family is full of sociopaths and also they wanted Meghan to suicide, or they would make an accident to happen. Kudos for puting this together. Also remember that Jack the Ripper was from the royal family, since the secret is still sealed in Scotland Yard while it shouldn’t, but, some people leaked the truth. This family is full of malignant narcisists and sociopaths or people with other serious and untreated mental issues. How can anyone defend the monarchy?

      • ElleE says:

        I am wearing the same tin foil hat that you are. Everything you say would explain the pain in Harry’s face. He isn’t stupid and when he says history repeating itself, he could mean all of it. They can’t “learn from the past “ and agree that his mother should have had her security taken away.
        I also think that Harry asked for Archie to be titled; why wouldn’t he? He may very well be the Queens favorite- he started to say something low he thought he would get credit or something fire all of the work he has done-he didn’t finish.

        Meghan didn’t explain that title thing well at all and Harry wasn’t there to correct her.
        We now all know that they wouldn’t allow Harry to lay a wreath, never mind allow his child to be titled.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        BabsORIG, I think what you said holds together well. The only thing I would add is about Archie and going to school. Clearly, he couldn’t have gone too school without protection. So, were they supposed to keep him hidden at home and get him a tutor? Really?

      • North of Boston says:

        “But the Sussexes were told that even when Charles became king, there would be changes made specifically to ensure that none of Harry’s children become princes of princesses.”

        I heard that as well.

        Just like there were multiple different conversations RE “concerns about the color of future theoretical Sussex children’s skin color and later soon to be Archie’s skin color” there were multiple aspects to the “baby-Sussex won’t be getting any titles” conversations. First part is when Archie’s born, there will be no change to allow him to receive a title (unlike the change done for Charlotte and Louis), secondly, as a result of that lack of title, there will be no royal security for him, ever, thirdly, you know that rule that means that when Charles becomes King, Archie will be entitled to a Prince title (and maybe others) because he’s the grandson of the ruling monarch? Yeah, that’s going to be changed. So that forever, the only of Charles’ grandchildren who WON’T have titles will be the bi-racial ones.

        And then …

        Oh, BTW, Prince Harry, son of the FK, Grandson of HM the Queen, who has received numerous death threats and whose wife and infant son have also received death threats by crazed racist idiots? Who had to flee England because press coverage was so vile it was stirring up even more threats of violence?

        Yeah, we’re going to:
        a) leak where you and your wife and infant child are staying
        b) pull your professional security protection at a moment’s notice and
        c) at the same time cut off your funding so you won’t be able to arrange your own professional security protection.

        Oh, and BONUS!
        d) your dad’s going to refuse to take your calls, your grandmum’s courtiers are going to refuse to put your calls through or at least give you the runaround and we’re going to ask for all your future plans in writing so it’s easier to leak them. And dear old dad is going to get his folks to spread rumors that he’s still funding your security and living expenses because he’s still on the sorry I f-d Camilla while courting, being married to your mother tour.

        K-bye!

        PS – Good luck with that deadly global pandemic! I guess we’ll read about it in the news if any of you catch COVID since we’re not gonna take your calls. Charles… out!

      • Christine says:

        I am also wearing that tin foil tiara.

        I have a very short point, that seems to have escaped the royal family. Prince Pedo’s daughters are princesses. In this equation, Andrew was the spare, since Anne has girl parts that gross out the monarchy, and, even though the only truly successful monarchs, the ones history remembers the most fondly, ARE WOMEN.

        But we are all supposed to believe that Charles is going to be king, but there is no room in the budget to protect one of his two children, and his grandchildren from that child. Pull the other one, royals.

        I am INSANELY curious to know if Camilla’s kids have security.

        ETA: I think Camilla’s kids should have security, absolutely, she was reviled, for a very long time, and her kids must have lived through a special version of hell, for all of their lives. I think ALL of the royals should have security, so long as GB has a figurehead on a pretend throne.

        My CHILD goes to a school in Los Angeles with a ton of security, because he is young, and the administrators at his school know that there are crazy people that target schools, when they want to make a point. We aren’t remotely fancy people, we just lucked into a school that cares about its students. It is ABSURD that anyone thought protecting Archie was a budget buster.

        Hell, sell the pair of earrings that you conned Meghan into wearing that came from murderers, that should help recoup your huge losses, from protecting Archie. I’d be happy to clip coupons, if that would help?

        ETA2: I need to stop pretending like I ever have a short point…

    • Yvette says:

      @MaryContrary … I believe that was Charles’s misguided attempt to force the Sussexes back into the fold and delay their official departure. I think Charles hoped his cutting financial support and leaving them out in the wind unprotected would eventually bring them home. I may be in the minority here, but I really don’t think Charles ever wanted them to leave and was hurt when Harry disregarded his advice to give the Windsors time to mull over the Sussex request.

      This also might explain why they didn’t/couldn’t stay in Canada, a Commonwealth Country. The move to Canada supports the Sussex claim that they suggested a move to one of the Commonwealth countries in order to put distance between themselves and the rabid British media as well as whatever issues existed with the Cambridges (*cough* Jealousy! *cough*).

      I wish the Queen had paid more attention to this at the time and, as Harry suggested, had not been swayed from meeting with the Sussexes by the Men in Gray. The Queen herself had considered sending the Sussexes to a Commonwealth country for a year or two so they could experience married life as normally as possible like The Queen and Prince Philip did and would get them away from the media mess in England. I wish the Queen had kept her scheduled meeting with Harry and Meghan when they arrived from Canada.

      • Humbugged says:

        His life was threatened before he was even born

      • MaryContrary says:

        Cutting off their security and refusing Harry’s calls, not to mention it was either CH or KP that let the Daily Mail and other tabloids know where they were- so it put their lives in jeopardy. Full stop. He knew they were already “out” so this excuse really doesn’t hold water.

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        ITA, Yvette. He wanted to manipulate them into returning by removing their security and cutting off their finances. I don’t believe he wanted them harmed. He wanted them scared and worried, so they return to the monarchy. Tyler Perry’s assistance ruined all their plans.

      • There were people on record wanting to rip the baby from her stomach. One guy in Britain got a prison sentence for publishing a picture of Harry with a gunshot to the head saying he was coming for him. The ramped up racist smears, the constant leaking of where they were, the fact that Charles had his team leak that he would pick up their expenses and security for one year and then obviously and privately pulled away from that commitment without forewarning Harry. Harry knew he could lose official security but his father seems to have encouraged him to believe if that happened he would step into the breach. The fact that official security was abruptly pulled while the Sussexes’ whereabouts was public knowledge and the threat and danger level remained high is criminal. If you need government level security and government ends that security, surely there are legal protocols in place for you to be allowed enough time to get alternate security in place. So I’m not buying this, the baby didn’t need protection BS. Royal protection officers have to know that if a primary target (Harry) isn’t achievable, secondary targets (Meghan and Archie) would be sought. This ass makes it sound like a terrorist or someone bent on harm would only touch the baby if it was alone in a public place. Hello, the Queen ended up with someone sitting on her bed at Buckingham Palace. Her security detail is just lucky he didn’t break in with the intent to kill her. Seems like there are lots of so-called royal 🤡 experts in government security in Britain.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Some woman travel to NYC during Meghan’s baby shower to confront her and “rip her fake baby bump” of her body. This crazy woman’s travel expenses were funded by group of people who believed Meghan was faking the pregnancy via crowd sourcing like ‘Go Fund Me”.

    • GrnieWnie says:

      It is just insane that security is tied to a title! Security should be tied to threat. Threat can be assessed by public exposure/proximity to the crown. Obviously, the child of the well-known son of a soon-to-be monarch is a target. Harry’s wedding was a massive television event before a global audience. None of those other cousins had anything comparable. The Firm can’t cultivate and exploit Harry’s profile when convenient, then quibble about technicalities that fly in the face of reason given his profile.

      As Lainey pointed out, the issue is not whether Archie SHOULD have a title (which of course he should, given that the title is tied to security). The issue is that he COULD have had one…and that the family was clueless about the optics of *not* giving this particular child, the first non-lily white child, a title. It is not about the specifics of the protocol. It is about the institution’s inability to recognize the utility of the protocol. That says it all. They were clueless or, if they weren’t clueless, they simply didn’t care.

    • Professor Plum says:

      And that he did it with full recognition that the lack of properly trained RPOs was deemed a factor in Diana’s death—something his son would have understood. For years, after 1997, the BM would cite Diana’s decision to dismiss her RPOs as a principal reason she was in the hands on the Al Fayeds’ dodgy security team. THIS is why Harry was so exercised about the security.

      • North of Boston says:

        OMG, that’s so true.

        Just like people pointed out the significance of sweet Archie’s current favorite words being “Drive safe!” to anyone who heads out of their house (given Diana’s tragic death) and i thought OF COURSE! The fact that CHARLES, of all people, decided to pull trained professional RPO’s from Harry, at a moment’s notice … and Harry’s wife and child, after all of them had been the target of credible threats, given the history of what happened to Harry’s mother … it’s just despicable. What an awful, heartless thing to do to your son. And OF COURSE Harry would light up about it, because he feared what might happen if he couldn’t protect his wife and child.

        One of the most heartbreaking moments of that interview was when Harry reflected on how awful it must have been for Diana, going through all this alone … when at least he and Meghan had each other. The obvious implication of that was that it was Charles who had let Diana go through that alone, and knowing the history, we (and sadly Harry) know that he set her up and tossed her to the wolves once she’d pumped out Charles’ ‘Heir and a spare”

      • SomeChick says:

        well, they said it was her decision (to give up security).
        me, I’m not so sure about that.

      • Dinah says:

        The Brits and the whole world believed the lie the royal family told that Diana gave up her royal security freely. Given the caring person she was and how she was hunted by the press and paps, living without security would have been the dumbest thing she would do. Giving up security for herself would have meant, bringing her boys in danger, when they were with her. Same fear Meghan aired in the interview: Please don’t take my husband’s security away, it endanger us all, the dead treaths are not gone”. What happend was that the palace created a situation for Diana to give up royal security; the security people they gave her were spying on her and were briefing details of her life to the royals and the press. That’s why in the end she refused royal security and had to pay for herself. Unfortunately she couldn’t afford enough (24/7).

        It is unbelievable how effective the spin and propaganda machine of the royal family, in cahoots with the British press, worked and still is working. It’s only now that more people are starting to question the Diana- gave-up-security lie, which stood for almost 24 years. It makes you question if there is more to all the theories vs the official cause of death given by the establishments both in the UK and in France.

        Let’s look at some other not welcoming and fabricated stories the queen’s palace machinery is able to leak and to flip:

        Meghan cried because of Kate, is sold to the tabs as: ‘Meghan made Kate cry’.
        Charles and the queen agreed to cut Harry and his family off from royal security and allowance, has become ‘Charles is funding their security and living & working expenses privately in the trial year’, while in fact Harry and Meghan are paying all these costs for themselves -within short notice – since they stopped being working royals.
        Charles and Willian took private flights to climate conferences, holidays and still do that for most of their distant work trips, is turned into, ‘Harry and Meghan are hypocrites. They take private jets to a babyshower and to a friends’ holiday mansion for a 3 day vacation’, while in fact the friends own these plains, so they are the ones paying, not the British taxpayer, and the friends carbon-neutralized the flights for them.
        The examples are countless.

  2. Elizabeth Regina says:

    How they can look themselves in the eye twist the truth and lie is beyond me. The very colour that makes him a target for racist hate and violence is the very reason they are using to deny him protection and security. Disgusting. The least Charles can do is pay for his own grandchild’s protection.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles is very cold hearted. This is his grandchild and he can open his wallet and easily afford the protection. Camilla when not in residence at Raymill has a legion of security people around the home. He can protect an empty house but not his grandson!!!

  3. MsIam says:

    Harry understood perfectly well about the taxpayer funded security but his dad not paying for security was unconscionable. And then for Charles to put that lie out there about him helping to pay for their home? They sent Katie Nicholl out on ET yesterday to try to defend Charles as being perfectly reasonable in cutting them off but then why lie earlier about offering help? I’m glad Harry shut that shit down asap! Didn’t someone post some nonsense on here about the royals knowing how to play the long game? Yeah, right.

    • Naomi says:

      yeah, i am still processing how actively horrible charles was to his own family. I thought W&K were behind most of this, and that he was sort of passively, quietly supported the Sussexes (even though he should’ve been vocally supporting them). but now, it’s clear that while W&K were definitely through Meghan under the bus a ton the *really* big issues were all Charles’s doing. One brother throwing you under the bus while the father is putting you in the line of fire with a bullseye on your back! My god, I’m glad they got out safely. Good thing Meghan had the friends (and not just any friends, but friends with money and connections) to get them out. If Harry had married someone less rich or less connected, this could’ve been much worse.

    • Red Snapper says:

      I disagree with Kaiser. They weren’t hoping for violence, they were trying to force H and M to come back to the UK.

      • Kalana says:

        I agree it was financial abuse but it was also reinforced with the threat of violence. Otherwise why would they forced to return? The DM even speculated about Archie’s security arrangements when Harry and Meghan returned to the UK.

        Charles has grabbed someone by the throat in anger. We all should be taking a much closer look at him. Especially if he’s regent in all but name.

        Even 24 years later, he’s still angry at Diana and still smears her in his biographies. Her money helped Harry and Meghan escape and I think it’s why there was a fit when Harry said he was his mother’s son.

        This family also continued tormenting Meghan when she was suicidal and pregnant.

      • M4lificent says:

        I agree. For all of their weaselly ways, I don’t think Charles and William would wish injury or death to their own grandson/nephew. But I do think Charles tried to create a situation that would leave them no other option but to return to the UK as full-time royals.

      • Mavmom31 says:

        You would like to think Charles wasn’t hoping for violence. But that’s why we have manslaughter in this country. He knowingly took actions that could have led to the death of his son and his family. He knew about the threats his son was receiving and that he would have to struggle to provide security for his family in a foreign country. Just because he was trying to scare them back home, doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be holding him COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE if something had happened to the three of them. He had the money to pay…even if he wanted to be stingy he could have just loaned it to them til they got on the their feet or gone halves for the first year. If you love your kid, you want the best for them. Now would not have been the time for “tough love.”

      • Petra says:

        I guess that makes it better @Red Snapper…that’s the point you’re actually making. Charles did not want to kill them, but if they get kill because of lack of security too bad.
        Serenity now… I’m trying not to be angry today.

      • Carol says:

        When I’m really uncharitable I think that what they were trying to do was set the Sussex family up to fail in a way that drained all the young family’s money so they would have to come crawling back (hopefully Harry alone) and would never again be able to attempt an escape again since they couldn’t earn an income as Senior Royals per QE2. Harry said clear as day that if he had not had his inheritance from Diana they would not have been able to do what they did and that stuck with me like a burr.

        It must burn the Royal Family that H&M were able to succeed so quickly and so thoroughly and now they are being compared so unfavorably to *Tyler Perry*

      • Prof Trelawney says:

        could be both — we’ll take away your security and expose you to harm and either (1) you come back cowed and docile and under our thumb forever, or (2) you get harmed and we can pull out the Diana playbook re security… Win-win for BRF.

        What they underestimated was H&M’s will, courage, and ability to fight back and defend themselves, on so many levels. It really is kind of a modern day fairytale…two brave young lovers up against a family that will do whatever it takes to survive…

        Option 1 was prob the preference but I think they’re fully capable of Option 2. The BRF have sacrificed others, esp those who trusted them, like the Tsars. Remember how gleeful Andrew seemed after Epstein died…

        Maybe too much tinfoil in my tea but that’s where I’m at today…

      • Agree Prof Trewlawney. Why is it we think only historical people in power were capable of wicked behavior? The British Monarchy has 1200 years of history proving just how awful many of them were (and I say are) capable of acting against family members. People today are just as capable of acting in similar manner to people long dead. As Harry said, the one thing The Crown definitely gets right is it is duty (to the survival of the monarchy) first, family second. The survival of the Monarchy is still more important then individual family members. They’re not going to easily allow any perceived threat to an institution (internal or external) that has survived 1200 years. There’s an inherent ruthlessness in that sort of survival.

      • North of Boston says:

        When I think about the BRF’s treatment of Harry (and Diana before him) I can’t quite shake thoughts of “the princes in the tower”.

        Just because someone is a Prince, or a son of the King or future King, doesn’t automatically grant protection or a shield from those who would wish him harm for their own gain, to mask their own insecurities or to deflect from their own misdeeds.

        Even if the ‘harm” is tear his wife to shreds and deny her any care so she kills herself and his, her unborn child or leak their location or “oops” pull their protection officers so they are vulnerable to attacks by racists, who BTW were spun up by PR spin family members provided.

        The whole thing seems like it could be right out of Shakespeare or some moral play … because what the British Royal Family/RR/tabloids missed was that Harry and Meghan, both individually and even moreso together, had the exact right mix of capabilities and characteristics to allow them to escape, survive and thrive.

        They have spent their adult lives being capable, compassionate, paying attention, developing friendships, alliances, putting the work in, leveraging all that to do good work, treat others with respect and advocate for those less fortunate. At the same time, they were navigating complex and dysfunctional families, and life in the public eye, not talking trash or even out of turn. They weren’t perfect, but they were human and personable and charismatic. All of that allowed them to generate a reserve of goodwill, which has come into play in the last year, allowed them to get back on their feet, build a life away from the BRF and The Firm, and imagine what wonderful things might come next.

        Not to be too sappy, but when they get all this behind them, I can’t wait to see who Harry and Meghan become in the world.

      • fishface says:

        The more I read about this, and look back at how the BRF has acted towards their own closest family members over the decades (Princess Margaret for instance), the more it’s obvious they they’ll go to any lengths to protect the institution….And this has been the case for centuries. What the Sussexes have endured is not a long shot from the way early monarchs of England behaved when it came to entrenching their positions – more than one royal sibling has come to a sticky end at the Tower for threatening the prospects of the reigning monarch.
        On Charles: I think he has a good relationship with William because they have both been raised as the future monarchs who think they are there by divine right. For them it’s all about the power. William’s relationship with his mother…hasn’t it been documented somewhere that all he ever worried about was how her troubles made him look. And I do think he’s insanely jealous of Harry. Would he go as far as to actively plot his own brother’s demise? I think he would justify it to himself that he was trying to protect the institution…

  4. Lola says:

    It’s not even true that “a baby doesn’t go anywhere by himself.” This means that Meghan and Harry could never go anywhere together without bringing Archie, because if they do an event and leave him at home, no protection.

    And what happens when he starts school?

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      What about just being taken out in a stroller with the Nanny? FFS TRF are unbelievably stupid! Didn’t something happen with George, when he was with Nanny Maria, and there was a pap hiding in a trunk of a car? And another time one in the bushes at KP (which is one of the reasons they gave to put in *higher* hedges around their apt.)?

      • Julia says:

        Yeah, that line made no sense to me. Even setting aside the threat of some nutjob trying to attack him, what about the risk of kidnapping? I mean, it’s not like his family’s wealth is a secret. You’d think the RF would be like: we don’t want to pay a zillion dollar ransom, so we’ll pay for security. I mean… it’s not even a family feeling thing! It’s just solid business sense.

      • Amy Too says:

        I’m now wondering if this is why Meghan looked like she was nearly in tears at the trooping color they had to attend when Archie was only a few weeks old. That was likely the first time he was away from his parents and their security and he didn’t have his own security and protection to keep him safe if someone wanted to target him while everyone was busy paying attention to the trooping.

    • Thaisajs says:

      Right? I mean, he wouldn’t necessarily need 24-hr-day protection, but it’s not like kids don’t grow up and go to school and on play dates and such.

    • Kate says:

      Didn’t they go on a tour and Archie stayed home? Or maybe that was a discussion. I can’t imagine anyone looking at that sweet baby’s face and not wanting to protect him.

    • Elizabeth Phillips says:

      Absolutely correct!

    • virginfangirl says:

      School is such a good point. But even before school. Surely both parents would be separated plenty of times from their child even when the child is under 5 years old.

  5. Merricat says:

    The BRF helped to whip up racist fury against Meghan and Archie, then refused to protect them. Despicable, and apparent to everyone now. Irreparable damage to the monarchy.

  6. Alexandria says:

    Then explain how you cannot provide private security for your own son before he was ready to start to earn money, who served to protect your mother. Explain. Cos we know you rich rich. We’re waiting.

    Thank you Tyler Perry.

    • Helen says:

      Right?

      Taking the brf out of it, I feel like this has done a lot for Tyler Perry, which is a weird thing to say. CB is the only celebrity news I read, so really only knew about the Madea movies. I’ve read and learned so much a out him in the past year, and I’m such a fan now.

  7. Sofia says:

    “The baby doesn’t go anywhere independently, it’s with Harry and Meghan all the time.”

    Well yes but he’s not going to stay a baby for life is he? Eventually he’s going to go to school where he’ll be away from his parents for 6-7 hours a day, 5 days a week at the very minimum. He’s going to need security then.

    • Lizzie says:

      Also not true, I assume Harry and Meghan go places and leave Archie with someone(Daria) who does not have any type of security.

    • lanne says:

      Please tell me they didn’t call that baby it

      • RedWeatherTiger says:

        Yes they did. Repeatedly. Just when you thing they can’t go any lower, they hit the sub-sub-basement.

        “And another source told The Times: ‘The point they were making was stupid. A baby that can’t crawl wouldn’t get protection in its own right. It doesn’t need it. The baby doesn’t go anywhere independently, it’s with Harry and Meghan all the time.’”

      • swirlmamad says:

        That was the one thing that stuck out for me like a sore thumb — “IT???????” WTAF.

  8. Case says:

    The way I understood it, they were told that Archie would never receive a title, even once Charles becomes king. She was concerned because she wants her son to have protection when he is older. Specifically, she and Harry wanted these protections because of the race element of the hate they receive; it seems by how they explained it that the royal family failed to understand how the vitriol aimed at them was more dangerous than the hate the others have received over the years. Hence the frustration over lack of title, because protection for Archie will be vital as he gets older.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Exactly

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes and because she mentions the title, the security, and the conversations about how dark he would be in the same segment – Meghan knew that they werent going to give him a title because he was mixed race. And if that’s not what it was about, that’s certainly what it looks like.

      • Belli says:

        And if that’s not what it was about, they’re being very slow to put out the actual reason.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Belli I’m seeing (on twitter) a lot of “this was always part of Charles’ slimmed down monarchy plan!” but then why wasnt it announced when they announced that all the Cambridge kids would be HRH? Say we are changing the convention, here’s what it will be going forward. so then George’s kids are HRH, but not Louis’s, etc.

        If it wasnt about his race, the fact that it wasnt discussed with Harry until he married a black woman who was pregnant with his child – is just a really bad look.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Becks1 – Forget what you are seeing on Twitter. According to Finding Freedom (Scobie), Battle of Brothers (Lacey) and Meghan and Harry: The Real Story (Campbell) Harry and Meghan were always part of Charles’ slimmed down British Monarchy. Lady Colin Campbell specifically describes Charles’ wish/plan for the full-time working Royals to be only the Sussexes, The Cambridges and Princess Anne.

        As for the rest according to Lady Colin Campbell: Andrew went away and is put out to pasture, the Wessexes would be part-time on an “as needed basis”, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are basically retired now and The Duke of Gloucester would be retired when Charles III ascends the throne.

        It is ok to dislike, disdain or even hate Lady Colin Campbell but she is well connected and her sources are impeccable even though she does highly embellish to get her POV across and sell books.

      • Becks1 says:

        @bay – oh I know they were always part of the “slimmed down” plan – I think that was all well publicized, none of that was something hidden (so I’m still not giving my money to your LCC lol) which is what makes this so weird. They wanted Meghan to keep working, didnt want to pay for her security – but Harry’s wife was always going to be a FT royal, that was always in the cards.

        Now maybe it was also always in the cards that Harry’s kids would not be HRHs, but again the time to announce that was when they issued new letters patent for the Cambridge kids.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks11 – Lady C already got my money so if you want to read the book I will loan it to you for free! LOL! LOL!

        I think the deal about Meghan continuing to work as an actress was all in the heads and mouths of the courtiers. I do not think the idea would have past the mustard or smell test with Charles or the UK public for the same reason the Netflix deal received such a volume of criticism .

      • betsyh says:

        @Becks1, I also puzzled over why it was suggested Meghan keep acting. It makes me think they did not want to make her a full-time royal and were already changing their minds about what a slimmed down monarchy would mean. Maybe they decided not to cut her off when they realized how bad it would look not to make the first mixed race member full-time.

    • Lila says:

      That’s exactly what Meghan said, but they’re trying to twist it to make it seem like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about or she was being too demanding.

      She said they wanted to change the convention so he wouldn’t be a Prince even when Charles is King. They don’t want to admit that there were talks to exclude the only non fully white child. That’s the truth.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “only non-white children”

        I still think that all of this was done to keep Harry in the Windsor Fold as it has been known and gossiped about for years that Harry wanted to and was willing to leave the BRF.

        Footnote: Harry discussing wanting to leave the BRF was one of many reasons, along with her private wealth, the courtiers hated Celsey Davy. Ms. Davy would have no problem leaving the UK as it was not her home.

    • Scal says:

      This. Normallly based on George V it would be expected that Archie would automatically become a HRH when Charles becomes king. What was expected was similar to sophie/edward’s kids is that he’d be made some kind of lord/duke so there wouldn’t be confusion when he gets a HRH. The queen made a similar exception for Louis/Charlotte to have a prince/princess title.

      instead what happened is HM were told NO title, NO HRH when Charles becomes king, and NO security at any level for Archie. Trolls and palace are trying to spin it as the prince issue, but that’s not what happened. It’s ABSURD that the grandchild of the future king wouldn’t have a HRH like all the rest of them.

  9. aquarius64 says:

    Calling it: Archie gets HRH on his 2nd birthday and Baby Girl Mountbatten -Windsor becomes HRH Princess X of Sussex upon birth to mitigate damage.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Probably not. There’s no reason to give them titles now. Harry and Meghan pay for their own security so that issue has been solved. The issue is that the Royal Family had no intention of providing security for Archie when he got older even though threats that have been made against the Sussexes.

      • Lanie says:

        And at this point, I’d never trust security given by BP anyway. We know what they were trying to do.

        Private security is safer.

      • Nanny to the Rescue says:

        I think they’d offer just to bury the hatchet (because it would look good, not because they’d care), but I think H&M shouldn’t accept them now.

      • Sunday says:

        @ Lanie I agree, private security is safer. in the same vein as biden having to replace certain secret service officers due to their questionable loyalties and involvement in the coup, I wouldn’t trust any protection sent on behalf of the crown at this point.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Probably not. There’s no reason to give them titles now.”

        Well there is if you do not want to piss-off the complete BIPOC & POC population (which I believe hovers around 67% of total population) of the Commonwealth of Nations. I do not understand why the Windsor’s never see the big long-term picture.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        This Windsors can’t see the big picture because they are basically rather stupid people – and it doesn’t help that Charles and William surround themselves with yes-men. That’s why they continue to self-sabotage.

    • Kalana says:

      I think it’s more likely they will stay actively angry with the Sussexes forever. Someone described this family as a cult and I think it fits.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        This family is deeply abusive on a structural level that spans generations – and abusers never like when their victims leave.

      • Dee Kay says:

        Yes to both @Kalana and @ArtHistorian. The Royal Family is like a 1000-year cult. My husband kept saying “It’s like they left a cult” when watching the Oprah interview with H&M.

  10. Penny says:

    What Meghan said, and it was hard to understand because Oprah kept interrupting, was that they were told there would be a change to the letters patent, so that Archie will NEVER be given a title, even when Charles is king, which is why I suspect Charles of being the one to ask about the baby’s color. Charles and William both.

    • harla says:

      I agree Penny! I think that William first brought up the baby’s skin color when Harry and Meghan were first dating, hence the rift, which is what Harry said in the interview but when Meghan got pregnant Charles continued the conversation with “how will this look for the institution?”.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I would say it would look “damn good” for the institution especially if the institution is being viewed by the population of a a member country of the Commonwealth.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Yeah – but these people are way too dumb and way too racist to realize that.

    • Belli says:

      That’s how I understand it.

      If everything happened as protocol, Archie wouldn’t have a title but would become a prince when Charles became King as a grandchild of the monarch.

      There are two things the royals wanted to change.

      1. Unlike Charlotte and Louis, Archie wouldn’t be getting the Letters Patent to give him a title before Charles was king. That might have been excusable because C&L are children of the direct heir and Archie isn’t.

      2. The royal family wanted to change the George V protocol that would make him a prince once Charles became king. So they wanted to change the rules specifically so that Archie wouldn’t get a title. This looks malicious.

      • bonobochick says:

        And the firm wouldn’t tell the Sussexes why they wanted to change that protocol to leave out Archie once Charles ascends (altho we all know exactly why)

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “That might have been excusable because C&L are children of the direct heir and Archie isn’t”

        Another reason is due to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. If Charlotte had been born first she would have been the direct heir to the throne but would not have been an HRH under the 1917 Letter Patent because the HRH would go to the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales which is George regardless of Charlotte’s birth order. It is sexist contradictions like this that will prevent The UK from becoming a Republic.

        The House of Commons (forget the House of Lords as no Monarch then no House of Lords in a Republic) has no interest in touching this mess. England & Wales (let alone Scotland and Northern Ireland) have so many contradicting laws and acts on the books that no Members of Parliament would touch drafting a written constitution with Boris Johnson’s ten-foot pole let alone their own 10-foot pole.

      • windyriver says:

        @bonobochick – I think that’s an important point also, that these people never felt it necessary to explain themselves in any way. This issue was one of several where Meghan said, “We never got an answer to that question.” Essentially, they were ghosted.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        And the way they talk about it, it’s worse than “does Archie not get a title”. It’s the Royal equivalent of declaring Archie illegitimate w/o saying it “out loud”.
        Which makes me wonder, again, why Meghan’s name was taken off the birth certificate. They never did put it back on, did they?

      • betsyh says:

        @Where’sMyTiara, That birth certificate change was so fishy. That was intentionally done. Eventually we’ll find out why.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Yeah Meghan knew what she was talking about. Everything she said was correct.

    • February-Pisces says:

      So they changed to law so when Charles becomes king archie still wouldn’t get a title, that he would have been entitled to. I think all this went hand-in-hand with ‘how brown will the baby be?’ discussions. It seems like race was a concern that was discussed between them. Even if only one of them said that comment to harrys face, both William and Charles are guilty of racism to archie. They were worried about having a brown blood born royal in that family and wanted to do everything they could to take away as much royal status from him.

      Did William get the law changed so all of his children would get titles upon birth, instead of waiting for Charles to be king?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “So they changed to law so when Charles becomes king Archie still wouldn’t get a title,”

        I do not think anything has been changed to date as we would have heard about it as the Letter Patent issued by Betty or Chucky would be public record and splashed on the front page of the Daily Fail,

    • Sunnee says:

      Penny that’s how I understood what Meghan said too. I swear that the BM is being purposely obtuse. Meghan said that they were changing the rules so that when Charles became king, Archie would not be a prince and would not get protection. Ever.
      It’s not part of the slimmed down monarchy because Charles envisioned that after he was king he would cut off his sibs leaving Will and Harry and their wives would be the only working royals.
      After H married a WOC that changed.

      • Amy Too says:

        I think Charles and his advisors were saying that he was considering changing the rule so that Archie wouldn’t even be a prince after he ascended and then that was used as the excuse for why they shouldn’t do the thing they did for Will’s kids for Archie when he was born. “There’s no reason to give him a title now if Charles plans to change the convention/protocol later to one that would exclude him. Then he might have to give it back, wouldn’t that be awkward? Better wait.” I don’t even know IF Charles is really going to issue new letter patent and really change the rules when he ascends, but his “considering it” was the excuse given for why they wouldn’t accommodate Archie with a title now.

        The only reason this is even all a question is because the Queen has lived sooooooooo long as to have multiple great grandchildren. Archie, as a male descendant, of a son of a monarch is entitled to an HRH, but because the Queen is still alive, they’re able to play these stupid games. “Well his grandfather isn’t technically the king yet so he doesn’t qualify at this time. And even though that’s exactly true for Will’s kids and we changed it for all three of them, we’re not going to do that for Archie because…. ummmm… Charles is maybe thinking about possibly changing that rule when he’s king anyways.”

        And so they “conveniently” have left the first biracial baby born into the family untitled and without security for at least the first few years of his life. In which they probably hoped Meghan and Harry would divorce and Archie would end up living in California, out of sight, out of mind. And then Meghan would be so mad at the royal family that she wouldn’t even *want* Archie to have a title anymore and be associated with them when Charles ascended and she would reject it. Or they could pull out some made up protocol about how kids who live in America, or whose parents arent married anymore, or whatever can’t be made Princes and still can’t qualify for security because titles and royal security are only for kids that live in the UK or something.

    • Exactly, PENNY (comment 10) — I love Oprah, but she did talk over or rush their answers several times which I found frustrating.

  11. Emily says:

    The most shocking part of that interview for me was that Charles would actively endanger his son and grandson like that.

    • Alexandria says:

      This is the most shocking to me too. This means that his son or his grandson being dead was an option he could take.

      The racism stuff was not so shocking because I’m not white. But that security removal told me he is scum. That’s the future King you all. I’m sorry for the minorities in the UK having to pay for this scum.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Same. That detail really shocked me to the core.

      • Prof Trelawney says:

        me too, I made a long comment up-thread but I think this is part of their playbook, see Tsars, Epstein, I think Diana. Prob not the preferred option but maybe seen as an “unfortunate” one.

        Also, Diana once said how disappointed Charles was when Harry was born because he wasn’t a girl, and had red hair. She said that was when their relationship effectively ended. I’m sure there’s a lot more to the father-son relationship since then but still…

      • Tessa says:

        It was also Obvious that Charles did not want to “try again” because it would complicate his time with Camilla. If he wanted a daughter he could have tried for one. Diana had said she had wanted more children. and Charles had his first Granddaughter Charlotte and since her birth no one on one “special” photo of Charles and his granddaughter was released. He just had one on one photos with the male children.

    • Gail Hirst says:

      Racists think POC are “less than”. Seems to me this is a classic case of Meghan, Archie & babe being treated as less human than the rest, thus less deserving of being treated like human beings. Instead they are either “instruments of destruction” or available to be thrown under the bus as needed. Racists think Harry betrayed them, that mixing royal blood w/that of a WOC has made HIM less worthy of protection.

      It’s just all so gross. And sad. And angry-making. And frustrating. Opportunity lost.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Same. The sheer cruelty to your own son and his family…it’s truly unconscionable. There is absolutely nothing Charles can do or say to explain that move.

  12. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    Charles could have simply paid for their security with Duchy funds. Why did he lie about supporting them financially? Now it seems Charles is trying to hide something.

    • Drun says:

      Yes, give them 3 months to get on their feet. Like Tyler did.

    • Nanny to the Rescue says:

      There are Duchy funds? Is that where Charles’ private money comes from? From Cornwall?

      Do the Sussexes get any money from the Duchy of Sussex?

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, his money comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. So when people say “charles supports will and kate” thats where the money comes from. The Sussexes no longer receive money from the duchy through charles.

      • equality says:

        The Duchy of Cornwall pays Charles’ family expenses and the Queen funds other royals through the Duchy of Lancaster. The other dukedoms (Cambridge, York and Sussex) are just titles without property.

      • Nanny to the Rescue says:

        Ah, thank you both for the explanations!
        I didn’t know how this works.

  13. Lauren says:

    I understood Meghan’s point about her son’s title. I don’t get how that flew over people’s head. Her point was always that there was talk that when Chuck became king Archie still wouldn’t have the right to the title and the protection that came with it. As for the police’s claims, I’ll keep side eying that for a while. Douchebags the lot of them.

  14. LaraW” says:

    I thought it was more about “he will never be a prince” once Charles becomes king, and they were specifically looking into changing that longstanding tradition because of the “what color is his skin going to be” baby. And because he will never be a prince, he was denied protection before he was even born.

    Also again with the money excuse.

    “PROVIDING SECURITY FOR A BLACK BABY WOULD DEFINITELY FORCE THE BRITISH POLICE INTO BANKRUPTCY!!”

    “PROVIDING A SECURITY DETAIL FOR THE BLACK DUCHESS WILL TIP THE BRITISH MONARCHY INTO FINANCIAL RUIN!”

    “PROTECTING THAT BLOOD TRAITOR PRINCE WHO PREFERS A BLACK AMERICAN DIVORCEE DEGREE WIFE TO US IS COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC AND SO EXPENSIVE WE WOULD HAVE TO START SELLING PIECES FROM CAMILLA’S JEWELRY COLLECTION.”

    “THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE IT’S WELL KNOWN PROTOCOL WHAT WOULD AN AMERICAN KNOW ABOUT VAUNTED BRITISH HIERARCHY FOUNDED ON CENTURIES OF COLONIALISM AND RACISM?”

    • Emm says:

      Yes yes yes!

    • equality says:

      They might want to watch that publishing amounts and acting like it’s a big deal. If they are saying it’s 4 mil just for H&M can you imagine what the others cost per year? That is what the royalists claim that the monarchy only costs a few pence a year per person and use this as their justification to exist. If you put out statements acting like it’s a large amount it might get people thinking about it.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Since we are on the topic of money: I did not completely understand the statement about Meghan continuing to work as an actress as “there was no money for her”. How could Meghan, as a member of the BRF, continue to work as an actress and not be seen as trading on her Royal marriage? What is the difference between Meghan working as an actress and the Sussexes having a Netflix deal? Are not both scenarios basically contractual employment with the Hollywood Industrial Entertainment Complex?

      • Amy Too says:

        Bay, Meghan also said she had no formal role or formal duties when she came in. I think they were honestly thinking about making her a non-working royal. So they wouldn’t be funding staff or an office for her. Harry would continue to be a working royal under KP and thus get funding from his dad now and then the sovereign grant once his dad was king but she would have to earn her own living because they weren’t going to fund her as a working royal. She would be a minor royal like Bea and Eugenie who have to make their own money with outside jobs or be funded privately with their parents money. Except Charles wasn’t going to pay for Meghan’s upkeep, even privately. I don’t know how long they had that idea for, because it was obviously stupid and would look HORRIBLE to exclude Harry’s biracial wife from any working royal duties and funding when it has ALWAYS been said that Harry’s future wife would be a working royal.

    • Agree LaraW. And still, ANDREW who has no current public function in the Firm still has government funded security. Do these clowns actually hear what they’re saying?

      Spot on, BayTampaBay. It’s like royal logic just goes further and further down the rabbit hole the more we find out or they leak.

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        Andrew, whose MUMMY intervened to ensure he continued to receive security.
        Even though he’s not even a part-time royal (unless being an international fugitive from justice for sex crimes is a part time job).

        Andrew, who still has his HRH, and his honorary military titles, and whatever patronages that didn’t tell him to go jump in the North Sea.

  15. Lilly (with the double-L) says:

    Like the police can be trusted to acknowledge and provide protection to POC. I’ve had situations where family and friends have needed protection and I don’t call the police, because I want them safe and healthy. That certainly includes babies. It’s common in our circle not to call the police for help.

    • Gail Hirst says:

      I am so sorry. I have never been afraid of police for my life. When my son was picked up for public drunkenness 1 week after his 18th b’day and had to spend Thanksgiving in jail, I did not worry he would not come out alive. That is my white privilege.
      Another moment when my white privilege blinded me was when I said “I don’t see colour” and was advised that was EXACTLY my white privilege talking, because POC don’t have the luxury of not seeing colour. They have to work around colour bias every single second of every single moment of their lives..even whilst sleeping, they are not safe in their own homes.
      The difference in our experiences @Lilly (with the double-L) is all about racism.
      I am so sorry.

      • Lilly (with the double-L) says:

        @Gail that you listened to being advised on your mindset and words is just a huge blessing to my day. Thanks. It is honestly a regular discussion and we have a family member who is now in long-term care. In the middle of his confusion we didn’t call for a welfare check and on the phone we said at the same time, “we don’t want him to get shot.” It’s certainly is something we have to consider. Improvements may be on the way though, especially with people like you. :)

  16. STRIPE says:

    Thanks for this clarification. Archie wasn’t “entitled” to a title, but neither were any of Williams kids after George, and they all got them. So let’s stop pretending we don’t know exactly why that is, shall we Liz/Chuck/Will?

    If anything, if you are the monarchy over a commonwealth that contains so many POC, it would look so so good for them to give Archie a title. That would have been great PR. Instead they were short sighted and racist. But is that a surprise?

  17. jugebair says:

    On a positive note, I will never get over how cute baby Archie is in that pic with the pompom hat and little Uggs nor how absolutely happy Harry looks with him

  18. Becks1 says:

    I’ve said this before but I think this was one of the weakest parts of the interview, in that it was hard to follow. I think that’s bc it was one area that Oprah didnt really know the details, so the questions and answers were sort of confusing.

    I do think Meghan was surprised to hear that Archie wasnt going to be a prince, but that would have been in keeping with the letters patent, and she refers to the “convention” of 1917, so she clearly was familiar with that. I think Meghan was surprised that they were tying the security to the HRH. “Well, we know he’s getting these death threats, but he’s not HRH, so no security for him.” And while yes he was an infant, he wasnt always going to be one obviously.

    But I think the big point she was trying to make was that they wanted to change the letters patent so that Archie would NEVER be a prince. They NEVER wanted him to be HRH. And she said she didnt really care about that per se, but the security was the issue for her.

    I did think it was kind of naive that Harry thought the royals would cover security for him in Canada after he stepped back – but it doesnt sound like they said to him, “if you stay in the UK you’ll have security.”

    The biggest issue in my opinion though is that it sounds like their security was pulled abruptly while they were in Canada and that was when they went to Tyler Perry’s house with his security. But again I think this part of the interview should have been clearer. This was a big point in my opinion.

    Finally – we all know Charles could have and should have paid for their security privately. Harry is a target bc he is the son of the future king. that future king should have paid.

    • harla says:

      I think Charles should have paid for their security for a while, say 6-9 months, at least until they got on their feet. And as I said below, the Queen insisted and was granted continuing security for Andrew to the tune of $300,000/yr.

      • Becks1 says:

        Absolutely. He should have given them 6 months to figure out their next steps, to find a place to live, etc. If Tyler Perry could do it, then Charles could have done it .

      • MsIam says:

        Didn’t he already budget $2 million from the Duchy of Cornwall for Harry, just like for William? So he can’t argue that it would be an additional expense. Charles was being an asshole to Harry just like he was to Diana. I hope he doesn’t get to skate under the radar about this.

      • Amy Too says:

        The fact Andrew who is no longer a full time working royal gets to keep his security but Harry who is also an HRH and who wanted to step back to part time had his security pulled during the negotiations “because protocol…” PLUS the fact that all three of William’s kids were made HRHs and have security despite not being grandchildren of the king (yet) but Archie couldn’t be HRH or have security “because protocol” just shows that all of this supposed “protocol,” all the conventions, and letters patents, and rules are changeable. The monarch can change them to accommodate whomever she wants at any time. She can keep the security for her grown up, non working royal HRH son even though the “rule” is that HRHs only get security while they’re still at school unless they start to do full time work for the crown and then the security is extended. She can make William’s kids HRH. They can even have male primogeniture changed for William’s kids. But they would not extend any of this grace or special favor to Harry and his black wife and his part-black baby. And they never gave Harry and Meghan a reason for why they wouldn’t, either.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I think the issue Harry had was that the Palace didn’t give him time to arrange for security. It was pulled on very short notice not that he wanted taxpayers security.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, and I want to know how short the notice was. Did they just wake up one morning and their security was like, bye, we’re out of here? it’s sounding like that was pretty close to what happened.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – I remember something about the Prime Minister of Canada making a statement on Sussex security provided by the Canadian Government then having to rapidly back-track due to public opinion on tax payers picking up the tab for the Sussexes. Then again, it was so long ago that I might be getting my stories and statements mixed up.

    • STRIPE says:

      I also think, with this clarification, that their frustration came from knowing that William’s kids (other than George) got titles they weren’t “entitled to,” so they knew that wasn’t a hard and fast rule

      • UptownGirl says:

        Yes, it was a clear indication that they weren’t following the rules of the 1917 dictation, otherwise, the other 2 Cambridge children would have followed suit of no titles. You can’t change the rules for one and not for the other. It reflects favoritism, which is exactly what Baldimort got but Harry did not. Furthermore, Harry is a prince, and will always be one so why shouldn’t Charles continue to protect him? Chucky can certainly afford it!!

      • Sunday says:

        exactly, it was two-fold: that the cambridge children got their titles outside of convention and so therefore archie could have as well, AND that archie would never get a title even when he was entitled to it through the 1917 precedent.

      • Becks1 says:

        I do want to point out that one of the reasons they changed it for the Cambridges was in case George was a girl – under the convention, if the Charlotte had been first born, she would have been lady charlotte, and the first born son (so lets say George was the second child), would have been HRH Prince George. someone realized that would have been a bad look so it was changed – it was, in large part, due to optics.

        So here, they either couldnt or wouldnt see the optics at play by denying Archie HRH.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – I posted a comment above about this exact matter regarding the contradictions between the 1917 Letters Patent and Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

        One thing that gets mixed up is that the Wessex children are HRHs. The HRH was never taken away. The Wessexes ask the permission of the Queen for the Wessex children to be styled in the manner of a non-royal Earl to which she agreed. When Louise and James turn 18 they can style themselves HRHs as the are both prince or princess of the United Kingdom. Like Harry & Meghan, the Wessex children just do not use the HRH in daily life.

    • Sunday says:

      I don’t think it’s naive for him to expect protection – whether or not Harry is/was a working royal, he is the current monarch’s grandson and the future king’s son. He is an extremely high risk target from any hostile individual or nation that wants to pressure the monarchy. Kidnapping him (or worse) would be an extreme point of leverage against the monarchy and the uk and so yes, he should have been protected regardless of his work status. It’s a matter of national security, not necessarily the personal security of harry himself (or meghan & archie).

      • Becks1 says:

        I dont think the expectation of security in itself was naive, but if he was going to move to Canada I can see it being more of an issue. So the RPOs just move there with him? Or does the british government talk to the Canadian government and cover the security? I can see that being trickier.

        BUT, I dont think that’s the big sticking point (being in Canada) because like I said, I dont think that they said “if you stay in the UK you’ll still get security.” So it was clear that the royal family was tying security to being a working royal.

      • Yes, SUNDAY. It has also been well known for years that the Taliban have an ongoing bounty on his head for his front line service in Afghanistan.

  19. Tiffany says:

    They were literally left to fend for themselves in Commonwealth Canada after having security straight up snatched and had to high tail it to California not only before a lockdown but put trust in Tyler Perry to look out for their physical well being and he foot the bill for it.

    This crap from the Fail just confirmed what those two said in the interview. They are just so awful at this and I am glad Chuck is getting burned to the ground on it.

    He is officially signing a check he can’t cash.

    • Yeah, and let’s all remember how fast that relocation was and how stealth it was. One moment they were in Vancouver and several days later it was known they were gone. It took the tabloids awhile to track exactly where they had gone. Obviously, Tyler Perry’s security team knew what it was doing.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Tyler Perry believes in “Paying It Forward”. Tyler knew the Sussexes would hit it big and will “Pay It Forward” ten times over.

  20. harla says:

    But the Queen insisted and was granted security to the tune of $300,000/yr be continued for Andrew after he stepped down.

    • Concern Fae says:

      Coz Andrew is a broke ass Prince.

      • Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

        Actually, Andrew is supposed to have money, that’s how he’s been supporting Fergie all these years. He absolutely could pay for his own security. I believe that he plays for Beatrice and Eugenie to have security.

    • ennie says:

      …And Anne’s children live in her state. They refused titles for the alright, but they bunk up with their mum because it is convenient.
      What did the RF want with Harry? terrible optics.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Anne’s estate is huge and I believe that both Peter and Zara each have their own small manor house on the Gatcombe Park Estate.

      • ennie says:

        the state might be huge, but the state they live in is protected, even if they officially are not.
        Win-win.
        If Harry and Meghan would’ve stayed in the UK after retiring of being full time royals. they could stay in Frogmore, and then probably receive protection entitled to him or the Windor state. Wh knows, Charles could have pulled security from them, Harry included, even while living in the UK.

  21. Cecilia says:

    Meghan was clearly talking about when charles becomes king because when she mention the convention she mention GRANDCHILDREN of the monarch. When she was pregnant with archie they talked about changing that provision. Leaving archie to be the first grandchild of a monarch without protection.

  22. Elizabeth says:

    They changed the rules to give princely titles to Will’s subsequent children and then refused to even give Archie — a BABY — basic security? It’s like… Archie wasn’t good enough. Wonder why.

  23. Liz version 700 says:

    There is no humanity in this family. Or rather the bit of humanity remaining in the Royals split town for CA. These folks left are sociopathic robots with no feeling or humanity left. God may save the Queen, but Charles doesn’t belong anywhere near heaven. As much privilege as Charlotte and Louis will have growing up, we will one day see William the Incandescent treating them as badly or worse.

  24. bonobochick says:

    Meghan said clearly in the interview that The Firm had been looking in to changing the 1917 convention so that once Charles ascends to the throne, Archie still wouldn’t get a Prince title. And that they wouldn’t tell her why.

    If it was all about slimming down the monarchy, then so be it, but then why not say that to the Sussexes? It’s an easy and true answer. Why play games? Why look in to changing the 19171 convention specifically over Archie? The Firm’s response smells

    • Becks1 says:

      And then why lie about it and make it sound like it was Harry and Meghan’s choice?

      • Lila says:

        Because they knew people would start questioning why the baby with the biracial mom isn’t getting a title.

        I 100% believe Meghan when she said they didn’t want to give him a title ever. Months before Archie was born, the Palace had their minions create the narrative that H and M wanted their children to have a “normal” upbringing. To make sure everyone thought this was their decision, they even had some reporters saying Charles would want all of his grandchildren to have the same standing. They wanted the world to believe they offered and H and M rebuked their offer.

      • North of Boston says:

        Same reason they leaked/lied about removing Meghan’s name from Archie’s birth certificate.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that they expected Harry to divorce Meghan. They could have shuffled her off back to the US and happily gone on their way. Whether she would have gotten security? I just don’t know. I do think they were trying to get Harry back to the UK to remain in his role ass Court Jester. They did not want Meghan to return–or Archie. If Harry hadn’t had the money from his Mother, would he have returned if they promised to give Meghan and Archie security? There isn’t anyway to approach this that isn’t blatantly racist. And really ruthless.

      • Sansa says:

        is it possible that the BRF took Meghan off of Archie’s BC because they thought the pressure and danger of no security would crack the Sussexes, which would then force Harry to come crawling back…with Archie? who might finally be granted a title if his father were brought to heel? idk, but maybe the shenanigans with Archie’s BC = both dehumanization and a poor attempt at leverage.

  25. Watson says:

    Charles is worth 400 million dollars. As a parent i cannot imagine withholding money from my children, especially in regards to security and in the face of death threats. He’s A TERRIBLE parent. Thank God for Diana who’s inheritance was used to set Harry up for freedom. She is still more protective of her kids than Charles is from beyond the grave.

    • Tiffany says:

      Agree.

      It’s not like they were asking for a trip to the moon, they just wanted to not be physically harmed.

      I would gladly foot the bill for that.

    • Mavmom31 says:

      There is not a dollar in my parent’s wallet that they wouldn’t pay out if my life was in danger. There’s no explaining it away.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Is Charles personally worth $400 million? That figure seems high to me for a “personal” net worth?

  26. Snuffles says:

    If you add everything together, it’s obvious to me that the goal was to strip them of every protection and funding in order to leave them SO exposed and afraid that they would come crawling back if only to be “safe”, but only if they agreed to be the family’s whipping post.

    ETA: I know that for Harry that this is still the only family he’s ever known and it hard to cut them off completely. And that part of him hopes they can work things out some day. But MAN, if I were him, I wouldn’t let them anywhere NEAR my wife and kids EVER AGAIN. And I wouldn’t even set foot on UK soil for the next few years because I just don’t trust these MoFos.

  27. Lizzie says:

    Andrew has security – enough said.

  28. lanne says:

    They still.don’t.get.it.

    Diana DIED because she didn’t have Palace security. It blows my mind that there are people in the Palace who think it would be perfectly acceptable for Harry, Meghan, and Archie to DIE in a racist attack. or to be taken hostage. They want another charismatic and beloved member of the RF to die and by martyred? We’re not talking about Meghan or even Archie. We’re talking about HARRY.

    Harry, I’m so sorry that your family thinks so little of you. How much they actively hate you because you didn’t want to spend your life as you’re brother’s court jester. How utterly conditional their love for you is. That they were willing to see you and your wife and child dead to make some kind of “point.”

    My guess is they were playing an “ends justify the means” game. Taking away their security and their funds would send them crawling back home to take their places in the back where they belong. Or better yet, just Harry returning with his head lowered. They really talked themselves into believing that Harry went to Hollywood to “set up Meghan and Archie in comfort” and then come back. They actually saw a man leaving his pregnant wife and child and returning to stand in line behind them as a positive thing. My god, these people are evil to their souls. Thank the lord Harry and Meghan escaped from that godawful place.

    Here’s a lovely thought: life in a royal palace is pretty crappy when you think about it. Big, cold buildings full of furniture that looks like museum pieces. Food that’s gone cold when brought from faraway kitchens. Badly cooked food that’s made to the crappy taste of the Queen. Historians have likened the palace interiors all over Europe to second rate hotels, libraries, and town halls on the inside. No European palace I’ve been inside as a tourist has struck me as a place where I would want to live. Imagine the Montecito house of Sussex–how beautiful that must be. Harry and Meghan have traded up in a big way.

    • lanne says:

      Come to think of it, I’m glad they don’t have Royal security. They would never be able to trust it. The royal security folks would have been spies, and they wouldn’t be trusted to do their duty if necessary. The security’s bosses would be the Palace, not Harry and Meghan. You know those gold dust covered shit advisors are blaming Meghan for “putting ideas in Harry’s head”. They prefer their idea of him as an empty-headed fool.

    • Lizzie says:

      I have alway assumed Harry was entitled to livelong security by virture of being grandson/son of a monarch.
      I am so glad they have been successful and this will never be a concern for them again. Debating the right and wrong can go on but their security is assured.

    • Good stuff, LANNE. And I think we’re all aware that everyone —in the public eye or private —- takes security much more seriously since 9/11 and everything that has followed in its aftermath all over the world. I can see Diana, pre 9/11 world, not wanting government security as she thought they would report back to palace. But, in today’s world, everyone that has a high level profile life lives with the necessity of security.

      • SS says:

        I wonder if Charles took her security away and then planted that “She gave it up on her own” in the papers. He did that to Harry.

      • North of Boston says:

        That’s one of the reasons that I like that Harry and Meghan are acquainted, have in their social circle people like Oprah and Tyler Perry and the Bidens … these are public figures who know from security threats. I imagine they have the sensibility and experts and resources to advise the Sussexes on the pragmatic, realistic and unfortunate reality of personal security required for public figures today, even as they step back from the Royal family.

        Because for Harry and Meghan, even if THEY personally choose to step back from the British royal family and live as private citizens, there are those who would target them because of what they represent, because of Meghan’s race and Harry’s affiliation with her, or because they want to make a point to the British government or the Queen or to try to influence policy makers in the UK.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        @SS: It’s certainly food for thought. Look at how the palace created and reinforced multiple false narratives around the Sussexes, from choosing to decline titles for Archie to Harry blindsiding the queen with the Sussexit announcement. Who’s to say they didn’t do the same with Diana’s security?

  29. Faithmobile says:

    Let’s not forget that at the same time their security was yanked the BRF leaked to the press their exact location whilst knowing there were death threats. That’s dark.

  30. Onomo says:

    A dream headline: if Charles can’t protect his own family, how do we know he will protect England?

    Another dream headline: it’s time England fully reckoned with how the royal family gained its wealth; the case for slavery reparations from England

    Will never happen. But one can dream.

    Finally – if anyone is aware of Jane Elliott, she tried to go to England and do anti-racism work there (where she asks white people to stand up if they would be ok to be treated like a Black person) and the Brits wouldn’t even admit that there was any basis to the exercise she asked them to do.

    England has a serious racism problem, and its history books are as problematic as the US and the tabloids are just the colonialist monster using and abusing people as the English government always have.

    • Lizzie says:

      I wish I remember where I read this (cnn?) but the number of non-white journalists in UK is very low, That is a large part of the issue, not only are articles written by white people but apparently have mostly white collegues.

      • Alexandria says:

        Charlene White quit as press awards show host because she disagrees with the Society of Editor’s racism statement. Black UK media professionals are firmly on HM side because they live it and they know how the media work. UK is a mess.

        I am from a Commonwealth country and cannot wait for it to be dissolved.

  31. Gah says:

    Yes I was waiting for this conversation to happen!! All the wolves out there are wailing about the letters patent but that is not what Meghan was saying at all!

    She was saying they (Charles and staff) were talking about not giving the Sussex kids titles at all ever even when Charles became king.

    That was the issue. My god how the press twists this stuff and willfully gets it wrong.

    Also why is no one talking about the part when Megs said they didn’t want to extend security to HER after the wedding. Like WTF.

    So let’s not defend them from the racist mobs, contribute to the lies and racist coverage, deny mental health care and connection, drive them out of the country, leak their whereabouts and then pull security.

    That timeline is pretty damning.

    • P says:

      That was the part that jumped out at me: that the RF was not going to provide Meghan with any security (even before Archie). What was the plan for them? Was Harry going to continue to be W&K’s third wheel while Meghan worked a 9-5 with zero security? Were they going to get ducal titles? Patronages? Would she be allowed to attend family events?? It was a single throw-away line from Harry, but there’s way way more to it and it brings new meaning to his “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets” outburst. They weren’t going to give her sh*t.

      • Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

        I remember that, that the palace encouraged Meghan to continue acting because there was no money to pay for her security. That also says to me that they were hoping that she would be making movies or whatnot in the US or Canada, while Harry continued to play third-wheel and William & Kate tried to throw more suitable women in his face. I truly believe that they thought his marriage to Meghan would be a starter marriage for him.

      • P says:

        @Elizabeth – I think it also makes sense given that environment that they would have their Plan B ready to deploy if things didn’t work.

  32. Mina_Esq says:

    My favorite part was how the lives of police officers would have been in real danger had they stayed with H and M, yet a baby that can’t crawl was not in danger whilst in that same situation. And pah-lease. Spare me the working royal nonsense. That’s not the criterion for offering protection. Level of risk is, and their relationship to the monarch and the line of succession. Monarchy is based on birthright. If it were a job, Keen would lose her protection due to poor attendance and performance.

    • 👏🏼👏🏼Excellent point MINA_ESQ. I totally missed that one. Trained government security team, armed and dangerous at high risk in Canada, but baby, whose family they’re being paid to protect was in no danger. 🤦🏻‍♀️ And you’re right. I remember in Jan 2020, there was an article quoting head of government agency in charge of this branch of security who was asked about whether security could be pulled. He said Royals didn’t determine that, that it was determined by ? MI5 based on security threat level. And as Harry stated, he was told threat and danger level had not changed but government security level was still being suddenly cancelled forcing him to scramble.

  33. QwietStorm says:

    I was wondering if there was some impediment keeping Harry from accessing his own monetary resources. Because from what I’d read, he was supposed to have received some millions of pounds from his mother and also from the Queen Mother. Meghan also had her own resources. In which case they would have been able to pay for their own security for at least a year or so, until they started earning. But Harry was upset at losing the financial support of his father. So this makes one question whether he could get to his own cash or not. Most of us would not be concerned about being on our own with tens of millions of own funds. Am I misunderstanding something?

    • tee says:

      I think it was the immediacy of the funds being stripped that was the problem. So yeah, their personal assets may not have been accessible in such short notice.

    • Lizzie says:

      Harry said he used inheritance from his mother or they would not have survived.

    • Petra says:

      Meghan and Harry’s money were probably in investment. It takes time to liquid to cash, and Covid-19 quarantine just started at that time.. All the BFR had to do was give Harry and Meghan a month notice to get their affairs in place and liquidate some investments. The breathing space is what Tyler Perry provided for them.

      • QwietStorm says:

        @ tee and Petra: Thanks for the input. I had not taken into consideration how difficult it is to move money out of the country, and the enormous penalties one would have to pay to liquidate quickly. So if the Sussexes were denied funds for the short time they may have been needed, yeah, that really sucks. Its unnecessarily punitive, even childish to behave like that to your son and his family.

      • North of Boston says:

        Exactly!
        It takes time to liquidate funds you don’t expect to have to access (I know this not from personal wealth – I wish – but from cash management for corporations)

        And I imagine the logistics of having to conjure a professional private security force from thin air after having RPO’s vanish at a moment’s notice is not easy …

        especially in a ‘foreign’ country (M & H were temporary visitors to Canada), and also especially –
        a) in the midst of a looming deadly global pandemic that is about to close borders … so even if you ‘knew a guy’ who might have a team, good luck with flying them in, and
        b) you have no cash assets to front their set up, and
        c) someone is leaking your location to whoever may want it for whatever purpose and
        d) you have zero experience setting up your own, personal security services … aside from being a soldier in Afghanistan serving your country as part of a group of armed forces or being an actress maybe playing a soldier in a play/tv show … because all your security experts/consultants disappeared when dear old dad pulled them.

        and also, did I mention the ‘people are leaking your location’ and ‘it’s a looming pandemic and borders are closing’ part? Because that means if you don’t change your location STAT, you’re stuck like a sitting duck, with apparently “threat level HIGH” aiming at you and your family.

        In case there is any doubt that Charles is a horrible human being, putting his son, his DIL and his grandchild in this situation for WHATEVER reason* just seals the deal.

        *yeah, I understand the strategery that if you cut off all of Harry’s options in a crisis, maybe just maybe he will return to the fold. But if part of that ‘strategery’ is increasing the risk that your son, DIL or grandson might be killed, tortured, held hostage, turned into a ‘statement’ kill for who knows what lunatic, or even increasing their FEAR that could happen? Guess what? You don’t pass basic ‘I am a parent’ or even “I am a marginal human being” threshholds. Do not pass go, do not hope to at any point in the future to redeem your legacy as British monarch … Humanity doesn’t care how many BIPOC you visit at vaccination clinics.

  34. Jen says:

    1. I don’t understand why Archie is not a Lord.

    2. The palace said Prince Charles would privately fund the security until they got on their feet. He could have also privately fund Archies protection, given the threats. The queen at times privately funds the York Princesses. There is more to unpack here. Does Lady Louise and her bro have security?

    3. All the other babies had nannies. Nanny M took The babies on walk with protection.

    I call Bs.

  35. Jen says:

    1. I don’t understand why Archie is not a Lord.

    2. The palace said Prince Charles would privately fund the security until they got on their feet. He could have also privately fund Archies protection, given the threats. The queen at times privately funds the York Princesses. There is more to unpack here. Does Lady Louise and her bro have security?

    3. All the other babies had nannies. Nanny M took The babies on walk with protection.

    I call Bs.

  36. Anna says:

    This is how these royals operate. Look at Monaco. He has a son with a Black woman and Monaco royal family including the prince refuse to acknowledge the child. It was when the news broke–and mind you, it was a long-term relationship he had with this woman–that all of a sudden he married the blonde, blue-eyed white woman and had the twins who now are first to the throne. It’s such utter bullshit. But Black and BIPOC folks know how it goes. We’ve been watching this and suffering its consequences for centuries.

    • NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

      Albert and Nicole were together for a long time but Rainier wouldn’t allow Albert to marry her. Rainier played it off like a passing fling but they were in a relationship for a time. Albert always acknowledged that he fathered the boy and he had a large hand in his Alexandre’s upbringing and in raising him. Nicole Coste however, did not want him raised in Monaco and his family were just as awful to her as they were to Meghan.

      • Alexandria says:

        I’m curious about Princess Angela of Liechtenstein’s experience but I guess we’ll never know. I hope their press is not like UK press and the family is kind to her and her son.

    • Lianna says:

      Albert has a white child, Jasmine, that he refused to recognize until he couldn’t deny anymore. Also Albert loved his black lover but wasn’t allowed to marry her (not sure if it was racism from Rainer or anything else, like classisism, for example). He always had a relationship with his black son, but he didn’t want his existence to be known because he is a bastard and more children could claim his paternity.

      But the Monaco royals aren’t racist, except maybe Rainer.

    • Yeah and it has been rumored that those babies were created in vitro by artificial insemination —- not because Albert can’t, but because Charlotte wouldn’t.

  37. Guildish says:

    Sources told the Telegraph the reason the couple lost their security privileges was because they stepped down as working royals.

    Again. Andrew was fired as a working royal and he still has his security privileges.

    • MsIam says:

      Because his mother insisted on it. The queen needs to give parenting lessons to Charles evidently. Also Pedo is scum but isn’t/wasn’t he paying for Beatrice and Eugenie’s security too? imagine Pedo being a better dad than Charles. Charles is being vindictive here and its shameful.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Also, Andrew resides either at Buck House in London or Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park not in a foreign country.

  38. Ashton says:

    They are going to twist every word she said to make her look bad. They did not care if he had a title, they wanted their child protected. They made it clear the title comes with security. And yes I know there is some ancient out of date rule that it’s when Charles becomes King then his grandchildren get titles minus William because his children automatically get titles because he’s in line for the throne. The fact is the Queen does have the power right now to give them a title and chose not to, CHOSE not to title his child. I don’t think Charles will title the children either. Harry’s kids are being treated as less than and they know it. I don’t understand how that is not very clear in all of this mess.

    • Lila says:

      These reporters are ignoring the fact that they wanted to CHANGE the 100 year convention just so Archie wouldn’t be HRH while having concerns about his skin color and discussing what it would mean for them. It’s absolutely disgusting.

  39. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    The moves designed here were to break Harry and Meghan up over all else but the palace went overboard. Of course everyone would forget about that first “ghastly marriage” Harry had (and the kids he produced from it) when he “decides” to come home. Harry of course will always be welcome back but Meghan and her children are not.

    Under no circumstances was Charles expecting the Netflix and Spotify deals. He expected Harry to fail and do what he was told and come home with his tail between his legs. He expected Harry to run through the money Diana left him quickly. He thought he could spend the past year using the British media putting Harry and Meghan under a microscope. Instead Harry made a clean break by buying his house and paying back the renovations on Frogmore.

    Given the rumors of just how little involvement Charles had with Harry’s upbringing, I doubt they ever had a close relationship and I doubt that there will be much of a relationship with anyone in the royal family once Elizabeth and Philip are gone.

    • MsIam says:

      If I was Harry I would announce my last name is now Archewell and be done with it. People know who he is, he doesn’t need Sussex. And since they don’t want to acknowledge Archie and the new baby who did not even get a mention in the queen’s statement, then they don’t need the name Windsor either.

      • Petra says:

        @Mslam, we’re sharing a brain.

      • NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

        Funny you mention that….

        There are rumors in Denmark aristocratic circles that Harry and Meghan will announce their new last name imminently and it will be Mountbatten.

      • Golly Gee says:

        Yes…but then his son’s name would be Archie Archewell, which would be fine if he was a hero in a Stan Lee comic whose alter ego was named Ginger Snaps (!?)

  40. Lexistential says:

    Complete bull. London’s police seems infested with the same racial obtuseness and denial in the Palace and press. I am really glad H & M have their own security they are paying for because that is what I would trust.

    Change a title eligibility and Letters Patent- gross, but to deny a basic right of security for the first mixed-race royal great-grandchild with the threats out there is truly reprehensible. I hope Charles never gets any good PR again after this.

  41. Andrea says:

    I don’t believe the Canadian people wanted to foot the bill. Security was pulled.

    • Alexandria says:

      But that’s alright. Canadian people shouldn’t, neither should Americans. British people don’t have to but they don’t have a choice anyway because they still have to foot Andrew. Point is there’s always private security and as father, Charles should have forked out. I guess he can’t even be a father!

    • Guildish says:

      Don’t get me wrong. I like Harry and Meghan. The pull their weight and show their work. I’m rooting for an obscene amount of success on their behalf as it will benefit so many people while at the same time stick it to the Royal family.

      But it was not our duty to pay for security for Harry and Meghan if they decided to live in Canada full-time. He was born into the Royal family and his security should be paid for by them. Why should Canadians foot the bill for the Royals. We already pay $1.53 per person for their maintenance which is more than the Brits $1.27 per person. And we don’t benefit from the global tourism industry Britain gets as a result of the Royal family!

      It’s time for Canada to get rid of this archaic system. We’re shelling out over a billion $$ every year on Governor Generals, Lieutenant Governor Generals in every province as well as homes, security, travel, pensions, Royal visits, etc. for these grifters who do nothing for our economy. They get put into these jobs and never leave! After 2020 we should be using those funds for education/hospitals/reducing our deficits and any number of other programs to help fight off the increased cost of living coming our way.

      • lanne says:

        Nobody says it is your duty to do so, least of all Harry and Meghan. But what that kind of talk does is play right into the Firm’s hands. It was supposed to be the bludgeon by which Harry and Meghan would be kicked home. Your issues with paying for royals sound be with paying for royals period. It’s not Harry and Meghan’s fault that you have to pay for the royal family, but they definitely wanted you to think that.

  42. Andrea says:

    At the time, I sort of recall a bit of a uproar that Canada was expected to foot the bill.I think the RCMP pushed back against providing security, rightly or wrongly. I also sort of recall her engaging in some philanthropic work in BC however briefly they were there. I think if the RCMP had provided security and they could have done a little charity work they likely would have stayed in Canada. But I can also see why the Canadian government / Canadian people were like, hold up, how much is this security costing us. I’m just surprised that BP didn’t find them work somewhere in the commonwealth, but I don’t think there was much will there on the part of the institution.

  43. Lizzie says:

    IIRC secret service accompanied trumps middle age children on foreign trips. And he extended thier covererage for 5 more years. We are paying for Javanka’s security every day and their loser one-term father sits in FL everyday.

    • Lanie says:

      He extended their coverage for 5 more months, I thought.

      As adults, none of them were entitled to any secret service detail, but the right wingers sure didn’t complain about those costs.

      Obama and his family had to get early secret service protection when he ran for President in ‘08 because of the racist threats against them. The British media and police acting like this isn’t the case for Archie and Meghan even today let’s me know that they are indeed racist and likely want bad things to happen.

  44. Paisley25 says:

    I went to school with the children of a very rich family. Not Royal level rich, but very rich. The kids had full time security that came to school with them and stayed on site all day. When one kid was terminally ill, his hospital room had 24/7 security. They were just at high risk for being kidnapped for money and had a number of threats. They were not an internationally known family. They didn’t have to worry about being kidnapped/killed for political reasons. They didn’t have crazy fans all over the world who were obsessed with them.

    Security is crazy expensive. I’m pissed that the Royal family isn’t paying for this when Harry and his family have needed this since day one just because of their proximity to the throne which they have no control over.

    Also, this family is stupid. If Harry’s kids weren’t getting a title due to Charles’s plan, it should have been explained to him pre-marriage. And by Charles himself and not one of the middle men. And then the plan should have been tossed out the window when Meghan entered the picture due to both optics and an increased need for security. This family is even dumber than I thought and are surrounded by inflexible idiots.

    • Mavmom31 says:

      Totally agree! They issued the patents for Will’s kids in 2013…before Harry even met Meghan. If those were the last one you planned on handing out before Charles in on the throne then say that. If you also plan on denying HRH’s to Harry’s kids even after ascension to “slim down” the royal family, why wasn’t that explained pre-Meghan?!? It’s just too convenient.

  45. Mavmom31 says:

    Thank you for bringing up this point because everyone keeps trying to make Meghan look stupid instead of listening to what she was saying about what is protocol and what she was OFFERED.
    1) They dragged her because she didn’t take a picture outside the hospital but it wasn’t arranged (It makes the whole shenanigans around hiding Archie’s birth even weirder)
    2.) They told everybody that she and Harry were hippies that didn’t want their kids to have titles
    3.) They told them they weren’t going to give him an HRH like Will’s other kids at birth (why not?)
    4.) They told them that when Charles becomes king, he plans to slim down the HRH list and exclude Harry’s kids (very convenient)
    5.) At the end of the day, why does she have to justify her baby having a title? All these other kids were just born. Why is the future king singling out my kid not to give titles and styling to? They want to make her seem like a social climber begging for an HRH so bad!!!

    Honestly, I feel like everything we know what happened is based on leaks that they didn’t control. It’s like Vanilla sky all over again.

  46. Kyliegirl says:

    The conversation around protection has always been ugly. Just after Diana’s death and for years after, the royal reporters and commentators have claimed Diana would be alive today if she had maintained her royal protection. At the time Diana was no longer a senior member of the royal family nor was she a working member of the family. Many of these royal reporters and commentators are the same ones stating Harry, Meghan and Archie deserve no royal protection. It just sickening that they really have no empathy and compassion for this family. Seems like if they can’t make money off of them, they are of no use anymore so who cares what happens. It would be very interesting if roles were reversed. Harry was the heir and William and Kate decided to leave with their children. Would the conversation be the same? I bet it would be. To this day people still say Diana should have had royal protection. Why is it so different for her son and his family?

  47. HK9 says:

    If the RF minions are reading this please know this-anyone who knows anything about security knows that whole family needs security 24-7 until they die. If you say otherwise, you’re not fit to do your jobs. But then again, neither is Charles right now so I guess the ineptitude is across the board. They’re a useless lot.

  48. Miranda says:

    Well, I guess it’s lucky for Harry and Meghan that, by American standards, Archie is more than old enough to be given an AR-15 so he can protect himself, huh?

    *weeps quietly*

  49. Lionel says:

    I’m so curious about Edward’s kids. The article says the Queen denied them the Prince/ss titles in 1999, which was long before they were born. So was this Ed and Sophie’s choice? Or is there a longer tradition of “youngest kid’s children matter less” even without the obvious racism?

    Also, isn’t Archie entitled to be called the Earl of Dumbarton? I understand this doesn’t automatically = security which is of course the main issue. But I’m curious as to whether the Palace told H&M that Archie couldn’t even use his courtesy title.

    • lanne says:

      queen didn’t deny them–Edward and Sophie decided not to use them. Those kids are HRHs, but they can decide if they want to use the styling or refuse it when they are 18. At the time, it was decided they not be HRH because the palace was still reeling from Diana

      • Paisley25 says:

        But was it really Edward and Sophie’s choice or were they denied and the palace just said it was their choice? I never questioned it before until now, but after Harry and Meghan’s experience I have to wonder.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        It was Edward and Sophie’s choice. Edward & Sophie talked about it. They did not come right out and say it flat out but they did not want their children in the position of the York Princesses. Edward & Sophie chose a hybrid between the Peter & Zara Phillips model and the Beatrice & Eugenie York model; The Wessex children are styled AND titled in the proper aristocratic manner of a non-royal Earl.

      • Dinah says:

        Whether it was Edward and Sophie’s choice or not to USE their kids’ HRH styles, their children were given titles AT BIRTH, so they ARE HRH, and therefor NOW, till they become adults and probably longer, (will) have security.

        According to Meghan, they were not offered the HRH or any other title option for Archie by the queen. Means that Archie has no royal security NOW in his own right/ to his own name. That was their issue; no royal protaction for Archie NOW, and probable never.

        Maybe Archie can get royal security when his grandfather becomes king and – if the laws have not been chanced by then – opt for his legal right to become a titled/HRH prince and the right to have royal security.

    • Alexandria says:

      Their kids are HRH and they can decide to use them or not after 18. Their stylings were their parent’s choice.

  50. Mich says:

    I mentioned yesterday that it seems like Charles pulled security and cuts funds before the press started going nuts that security must be pulled. That seems VERY much like it was coordinated directly by Charles to me.

    I want them to spill ALL the tea about that miserable SOB. He should NEVER be King.

  51. Leah says:

    He’s the son of two high profile people and there are some people in the world who are nefarious. Kidnapping is still a threat in the world. I don’t understand why they would think he’s not important enough to garner security, he’s still the great grandson of a queen.

  52. February-Pisces says:

    Ok it’s tea time. According to a font on LSA who has their insider sources, the conversation about archie’s skin came from Willie and camilla’s tampon (aka Charles). Then when harry appeared Willie said something along the lines of well if he’s dark there’s always a solution to that (abortion), and some other stuff must have been said too. Buts that’s literally how horrific these people are. William is truly a monster.

    • sassafras says:

      this feels accurate to me. I don’t think there would be this much pain and drama if it was simply a curious (albeit clueless and casually racist) question about how black a one quarter black baby would be at birth.

    • February-Pieces. I’m not sure that quote makes sense. You cannot tell the color of a baby’s skin in vitro. So saying if baby is dark the solution is to just get an abortion makes absolutely no sense.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I have no idea of the context of how it was said, that was what was posted. My guess is that Willie was chatting sh*t about what the babies skin colour might be and said things like ‘might as well just get rid of it’. Or something along those lines.

  53. sassafras says:

    I knew there would be rationalization about how a baby is always with his mom and dad… until they go to work? Then who is protecting Archie? Nanny? C’mon.

    I mean, I get it. Titles, money, a smaller working royal family, we’ve heard about all this “modernization” for decades now. I don’t blame the BRF for that.

    But what we’re hearing now is different than what we heard before; that Charles wanted the focus to be on his sons and their families.

    Unless they’re white?

    Again, I can see behind the scenes the BRF saying, “okay, only grandchildren of the monarch, okay William’s kids get the exception because siblings/ he’ll be Prince of Wales” BUT… Archie will get prince when Charles ascends to the throne…and we’ll pay for security.

    Because we keep getting told that Charles is pretty damn handy with his Duchy money and there was definitely some to spare to keep security on until Harry/Meg figured out their next steps…

    And that brings me back to the sticking point, really. Charles is a grandpa. A father. And he didn’t act lovingly or kind throughout this whole thing. Rules, patents, titles. Who cares? Your freaking dad should be trying to help, not manipulate or hurt.

    TL; DR: Screw Charles.

  54. Zut alors says:

    So they wanted to change the rules so Archie and his siblings wouldn’t be given titles once their grandfather ascended the throne. If Meg and Harry had stayed in the fold, they would have been unable to work outside of royal functions. How did they think the Sussexes’ would have been able to afford the security for their children?

  55. FancyHat says:

    Wow this is an ugly look for the police.

  56. Vanessa says:

    I’m so gladly that everyone outside of the British audience are seeing Charles and William for what they are their carefully crafted Image is being shattered to pieces. I think everyone knows that it was Williams who asked about Archies skin tone and I’m sure he said it a lot more offensively I think William and Kate we’re behind the whole Title shenanigans and Charles didn’t stop them he decided to go along with their plans even if it cost him Harry and any future grandkids . The Royals know they F up badly on the PR aspects that’s why their suddenly picture driving because that the only defense they can use Right . Meghan and Harry called them out and the evidences to back up everything they said in the interview. Especially when you have the palace come out and defend Kate against everything under the sun but Meghan they said and I remember this clearly the Kensington Palace they said and I quote they can’t deny everything about Meghan because some of it is True. There was a clearly double standard when it comes to the Sussex’s verse everyone else I’m sure Charles make sure That Camilla kids and grandkids have protection. Every time the royals reporters try to defend the royals against something they end up admitting it the truth .

  57. Yeah, let’s go there. Are Camilla’s children and their families receiving protection? Government funded or privately paid by Charles?

  58. JustMe says:

    And another source told The Times: ‘The point they were making was stupid. A baby that can’t crawl wouldn’t get protection in its own right. It doesn’t need it. The baby doesn’t go anywhere independently, it’s with Harry and Meghan all the time.’

    A Reminder to this ignorant source – The Lindbergh Baby!

    • L4frimaire says:

      Also, the press and public are so obsessive about Archie, and felt so entitled to him. I just recall there was this demand in the press to strip them of all protection, all patronages,and the family always capitulates to the press.

  59. Gk says:

    These people are idiots. If anything happened after that, it would be worse then Diana( a child involved). Royal family & advisers really need someone to tell them how things appear to the outside world.

  60. JK says:

    Harry has served 10 years in the military and undertaken two tours in Afghanistan. I think that makes him and his family especially deserving of protection regardless of ‘change of status’ or whatever bs rules and excuses the palace has been giving. Even if he hadn’t served, he is Charles’ son, dammit.

  61. Noor says:

    Security vs the title of Prince for Archie.

    These are 2 separate issues. Conflating the 2 issues confused our thinking.

    On the subject of security the questions are :
    1 Does Archie need security?
    The answer is yes. Archie needs security on the same basis that children of the rich and famous need bodyguards for their children to deter kidnappping, etc.

    2. Should Archie as a royal gets state-funded security?
    This is up to the royal family to decide and their answer is NO.

    3 Does Archie need a title of Prince in order to be provided with state funded security?
    NO. Beatrice and Eugenie do not now have stae funded security even though they are titled as Princess.

    4. Should Prince Charles as a father withdraw their security before they are financially independent ?
    No, he was reckless and punitive. He should at least have given them sufficient notice that he will not pay for their security.

  62. Noor says:

    The other issue is should Archie as the grandson of Prince Charles be given the title of Prince at birth?

    Under current rules, it is Archie’s birthright as the grandson of the heir to the British throne to be designated as Prince when Prince Charles becomes King. He retains this birthright until and unless the rule is changed.

    It seems to be a matter of common sense and courtesy to give him this title of Prince at birth as it is inevitable that he will be Prince when Charles is King.

    The Queen was willing to do this for Charlotte and Louis and should extend that same courtesy to Archie. To do otherwise would be discriminatory. The Queen could have told Prince William to wait for Charles to be King before his second and third children could be titled but she did not. Thereby the Queen herself has created a precedent that she should follow for Archie

  63. LRob says:

    Their knee jerk reactions to the Sussexes complaints are so predictable; they did not read the historical significance of the moment properly at all. For appearances, the Queen should have announced that Archie would carry one of Harry’s lesser titles, e.g., Earl of Dumbarton, until Charles becomes King and then he would be accorded the title of Prince, unless his parents declined. If Charles never becomes King then IMO William will not issue new letters patent to grant him that title.
    -Re security, this is what SHOULD have happened since the threat level facing the Sussexes was never lowered: Sussexes given several months notice that their tax-funded security would end; Prince Charles personally to pay for continued coverage (even as a loan) until Harry could arrange to cover it himself. Tell me which family member and child face the threat that Harry & his family do every day. And give me a break, you allow a BLACK billionaire Hollywood mogul to protect your grandson and show you up for being the petty bully you are? Yes, Charles, that’s on you.

  64. blunt talker says:

    The poster namedYvette-Hit the nail on the head-Charles was trying to force Harry, Meghan , and Archie to stay in the UK-By taking away their security and cutting financial support that would force them back to the UK-He was not going help them leave peacefully/he was using force to make them stay-Tyler Perry got in his way-I just read that Prince Charles is a descendant of Vlad the Impaler-Count Dracula-Now we know where he got his mentality from-Even if Charles did not approve of them leaving-to be this harsh towards his son and grandson is out right evil-Now I see the anger Harry has for his father-this is very telling-Thank God Harry got themselves out of the UK-God please help guide and protect the Sussex family.

  65. Lesley says:

    More shadowy comments made by unnamed sources. I wish that these sources would stand up and put their names to what they have said. At this point I’m more likely to believe that the RPOs were removed due to the hounding of the tabloid press saying that Harry and his family should NOT have security because they had stepped back. A knee jerk reaction which could have left them exposed to a crazy who had been goaded on by the likes of Piers Morgan.

  66. L4frimaire says:

    I read a critical article in the Atlantic on this interview and it made me angry because it said that individuals in the monarchy know the score and put up with a few negative articles in order for their life of luxury. It was just dismissive of the racism, saying basically the other royal wives got the same treatment, except for a bit of racism, like racism abd attacking your very personhood is no big deal. It didn’t acknowledge the onslaught of negativity aimed at her many to just dismiss it as “she knew what she signed up for” and lack of substance of her and Harry as persons is just offensive. I don’t expect these two to reinvent the wheel ,but being able to live their life, carve out their niche and earn a living is not a ridiculous expectation. I get really angry when people defend institutions that have a lot of structural issues and cause deliberate harm to individuals. The fact that they couldn’t even pay lip service to what she was going through and not once tell the press to back off. Even if they weren’t crazy about her, they saw what her work brought to the family and the good press it brought the institution ( not her). If anything, they should have respected Harry enough to give his new wife some room to adjust, not just attack her. Like I’ve mentioned before, I’m afraid for them because the blowback is so strong against them, has been against them from the beginning and won’t ease up for a very long time. The press is certainly shook but the monarchy, they’ll just dig in and attack more.

  67. Ragnarok says:

    When Archie comes to adulthood he can forfeit the British citizenship keeping only the American.He can study in Harvard or Yale,and then through his mother he could become a senator or even a President of the USA.Harry and Meghan have very powerful friends who could support Archie in any political aspirations he might have.I know that is a far fetched scenario but it’s also the Best Revenge.!

    • Prof Trelawney says:

      I like this! Not that Archie should have any pressure on him, but it does feel like a true modern day tale for the ages of brothers and power and overcoming the odds, plus the romance between H&M at the heart of it. Whatever happens, they’re free and hopefully safer now. And Archie — and his sister — can become whoever they want to be.

  68. Julie says:

    We work paycheck to paycheck sometimes in the UK. no one is entitled to my tax payer money for bodyguards. Not her family or anyone else no one. Thank you

    • Sid says:

      Apparently the royal family is entitled to your tax money for bodyguards, and quite a bit of it.

  69. Ali says:

    so I hear the Monarchy is just a figure head they dont actually run the country so what do they do? and to top it off Queen Liz doesn’t even make her own decisions, huh? Why are the even still around and that goes for the monarchy in every country. Why?