|
|
Post by lesserknownpea on Mar 10, 2021 22:21:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by auntiepeas on Mar 10, 2021 22:30:16 GMT
Just thought I’d share this here for anyone interested in wider reaction in a Commonwealth Country - it’s an opinion piece by a younger journalist and is currently the number 2 story on the front page of one of the two major media sites in NZ. Here’s an excerpt:
I have nothing against Elizabeth. She comes from a difficult era and has held the throne while public expectations and societies have undergone massive change.
The fact that Harry and Meghan could not speak more highly of her, as they lifted the lid on an otherwise toxic family, speaks to her power as a diplomat and bridge builder.
However, I think it is now clear her family is unsuitable to lead.
We lose nothing by cutting them off.A Crown that tolerates racism and cruelty cannot be New Zealand's head of state Here’s the full text for anyone unable to, or uncomfortable with, clicking on links: OPINION: Her silence baffles me. The Firm has been accused of blatant racism and inexcusable cruelty from within and against their own ranks. They do not seem to care.
These accusations seriously challenge the British monarchy’s already feeble claim to rule, especially over countries such as New Zealand.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s shocking revelation about racism within his family cannot be ignored. He says a member, or members, of his family had concerns about the likely skin tone of the couple’s children.
Harry made the brave decision to call out racism within one of the oldest institutions in the world. I thank him for having the courage.
There may well be a different side to this story, but the Queen and her well-paid spin team have failed to communicate that. They issued just a short statement on Wednesday morning (NZ time), saying they were “saddened” to learn of the struggles of Harry and Meghan.
It said the family would, in private, take seriously the issues – “particularly that of race”.
Let’s talk about that issue “of race”, or more clearly, what appears to be the racism that exists behind palace doors.
Harry and Meghan were at pains to say it was not the Queen or Prince Philip who made those sad remarks, but he said they were made in conversation among other members of his family.
As head of the family, and the monarchy, the Queen should name names. Harry has said he will not do so, because the damage caused would be too great.
But the Commonwealth deserves to know.
The countries over which the Queen reigns are incredibly diverse. Here in Aotearoa, we value that diversity. As a large Pacific nation, we are privileged to be home or host to people from across Te Moananui a Kiwa and beyond.
We need to know if a future head of state believes their citizens are somehow damaged or worth less because of the colour of their skin.
I’m proud to have both British and Māori whakapapa.
I think greater multilateral co-operation, which the Commonwealth represents, is exactly what the world needs as it faces multiple global crises.
But it cannot be led by someone whose views could be described as racist. I and many in the Commonwealth will be proud of our mixed heritage, even if its leaders are not.
Although the Queen issued a short statement, it was the absence of any meaningful words that spoke volumes. The Crown has all but remained silent, as it has done on so many occasions when the public has needed it to step up.
I have nothing against Elizabeth. She comes from a difficult era and has held the throne while public expectations and societies have undergone massive change.
The fact that Harry and Meghan could not speak more highly of her, as they lifted the lid on an otherwise toxic family, speaks to her power as a diplomat and bridge builder.
However, I think it is now clear her family is unsuitable to lead.
We lose nothing by cutting them off.
The only reason to keep the Queen or future kings as our head of state is that Te Tiriti was signed between Crown and rangatira. However, constitutional experts such as lawyer Moana Jackson, academic Margaret Mutu, and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer say this should not stop us. Treaty obligations and principles can be realised, even better managed, through a local head of state, they say.
Replacements for the Crown could be empowered to ensure proper governance, act as a check on the Government and uphold New Zealanders’ rights. This seems infinitely better than having a London-based family in charge, who are first and foremost concerned with their own privilege.
They tried to hide Meghan away when she told them of her deteriorating mental health. Prince Charles stopped taking Harry’s calls. Prince Andrew has not co-operated with the FBI’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
They do not represent the values of Aotearoa.
And we have known these issues for a very long time, as Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out when asked about the allegation of racism.
“I don't know why everyone is so surprised that the Crown is racist,” she said.
She’s right. It’s time to end their reign of racism. |
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,097 
|
Post by used2scrap on Mar 10, 2021 22:35:23 GMT
Former presidents retain security for their entire lives. I think that’s a better comparison than losing health insurance when average people leave a job. During the interview, a bunch of front pages from tabloids were displayed on the screen. Some of those headlines were horrific. That is not press *anyone* would want. Harry is not a former head of state, and even former Presidents’ children don’t get security for the rest of their lives. The press is absolutely disgusting. I can’t imagine dealing with it. Probably part of why William reportedly told Harry to slow things down so she could really understand what she was getting herself into. But to still be complaining several years later about press coverage over a reported dust up over bridesmaids dresses? What did Meghan want “the firm” to do? Correct the papers and make sure everyone knew it was Kate instead of her? Like that was going to happen. And it’s really odd to be complaining about press intrusions into privacy while she’s publicly talking about Kate’s private behavior. Never mind what’s actually true about what actually happened. I wish them good luck in trying to control the narrative; they haven’t succeeded thus far and now they’ve kicked a public hornets nest with “the firm” on the defense just as California begins loosening up restrictions and they’ll likely be out and about more. |
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,030
|
Post by Sarah*H on Mar 10, 2021 23:07:02 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents?
Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne?
|
|
|
|
Post by mom on Mar 10, 2021 23:13:33 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents? Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne? Andrew and maybe Anne is where I’d put my money. More so on Andrew. Edit: and there's always the known racist Princess Michael of Kent. |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Mar 10, 2021 23:18:00 GMT
Former presidents retain security for their entire lives. I think that’s a better comparison than losing health insurance when average people leave a job. During the interview, a bunch of front pages from tabloids were displayed on the screen. Some of those headlines were horrific. That is not press *anyone* would want. Former presidents do, but their children don’t. I think Harry is more in the level of Chelsea Clinton than Barack Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by gar on Mar 10, 2021 23:29:27 GMT
Just thought I’d share this here for anyone interested in wider reaction in a Commonwealth Country - it’s an opinion piece by a younger journalist and is currently the number 2 story on the front page of one of the two major media sites in NZ. Here’s an excerpt:
I have nothing against Elizabeth. She comes from a difficult era and has held the throne while public expectations and societies have undergone massive change.
The fact that Harry and Meghan could not speak more highly of her, as they lifted the lid on an otherwise toxic family, speaks to her power as a diplomat and bridge builder.
However, I think it is now clear her family is unsuitable to lead.
We lose nothing by cutting them off.A Crown that tolerates racism and cruelty cannot be New Zealand's head of state Here’s the full text for anyone unable to, or uncomfortable with, clicking on links: OPINION: Her silence baffles me. The Firm has been accused of blatant racism and inexcusable cruelty from within and against their own ranks. They do not seem to care.
These accusations seriously challenge the British monarchy’s already feeble claim to rule, especially over countries such as New Zealand.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s shocking revelation about racism within his family cannot be ignored. He says a member, or members, of his family had concerns about the likely skin tone of the couple’s children.
Harry made the brave decision to call out racism within one of the oldest institutions in the world. I thank him for having the courage.
There may well be a different side to this story, but the Queen and her well-paid spin team have failed to communicate that. They issued just a short statement on Wednesday morning (NZ time), saying they were “saddened” to learn of the struggles of Harry and Meghan.
It said the family would, in private, take seriously the issues – “particularly that of race”.
Let’s talk about that issue “of race”, or more clearly, what appears to be the racism that exists behind palace doors.
Harry and Meghan were at pains to say it was not the Queen or Prince Philip who made those sad remarks, but he said they were made in conversation among other members of his family.
As head of the family, and the monarchy, the Queen should name names. Harry has said he will not do so, because the damage caused would be too great.
But the Commonwealth deserves to know.
The countries over which the Queen reigns are incredibly diverse. Here in Aotearoa, we value that diversity. As a large Pacific nation, we are privileged to be home or host to people from across Te Moananui a Kiwa and beyond.
We need to know if a future head of state believes their citizens are somehow damaged or worth less because of the colour of their skin.
I’m proud to have both British and Māori whakapapa.
I think greater multilateral co-operation, which the Commonwealth represents, is exactly what the world needs as it faces multiple global crises.
But it cannot be led by someone whose views could be described as racist. I and many in the Commonwealth will be proud of our mixed heritage, even if its leaders are not.
Although the Queen issued a short statement, it was the absence of any meaningful words that spoke volumes. The Crown has all but remained silent, as it has done on so many occasions when the public has needed it to step up.
I have nothing against Elizabeth. She comes from a difficult era and has held the throne while public expectations and societies have undergone massive change.
The fact that Harry and Meghan could not speak more highly of her, as they lifted the lid on an otherwise toxic family, speaks to her power as a diplomat and bridge builder.
However, I think it is now clear her family is unsuitable to lead.
We lose nothing by cutting them off.
The only reason to keep the Queen or future kings as our head of state is that Te Tiriti was signed between Crown and rangatira. However, constitutional experts such as lawyer Moana Jackson, academic Margaret Mutu, and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer say this should not stop us. Treaty obligations and principles can be realised, even better managed, through a local head of state, they say.
Replacements for the Crown could be empowered to ensure proper governance, act as a check on the Government and uphold New Zealanders’ rights. This seems infinitely better than having a London-based family in charge, who are first and foremost concerned with their own privilege.
They tried to hide Meghan away when she told them of her deteriorating mental health. Prince Charles stopped taking Harry’s calls. Prince Andrew has not co-operated with the FBI’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
They do not represent the values of Aotearoa.
And we have known these issues for a very long time, as Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out when asked about the allegation of racism.
“I don't know why everyone is so surprised that the Crown is racist,” she said.
She’s right. It’s time to end their reign of racism.This makes me incredibly sad. The Queen who has devoted her whole adulthood essentially, to serving the UK and the commonwealth, doesn’t deserve this. She is having to sit back and watch it be all be trashed in front of her. The racism is 100% wrong , no question - but now the entire Monarchy is suspected because they wouldn’t specify who they meant. She’s still working at age 94, her 99 year old husband has just had heart surgery and she also has to deal with the fallout of this. I know many of you won’t agree but then you haven’t lived your entire life with the Monarchy and this Queen as part of the fabric of your life. I am trying to think of an equivalent, an analogy for the USA but I can’t. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 10, 2021 23:45:14 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents? Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne? Under the current 1917 decree, the grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to HRH and prince/princess titles so in theory ARchie would have the title when Charles ascends. In the interview, Meghan said that there was discussion about changing that decree so that Archie would not receive the title even after/if Charles ascends. For reference, Elizabeth II issued a decree that her third son's children would not hold those titles so there is is plenty of precedent for modifying the protocol. There has been pretty extensive press about Charles' desire to shrink the size of the monarch, so I don't think it's outlandish to believe that it was discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 10, 2021 23:46:12 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents? Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne? Honestly, I forgot about him.  |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 10, 2021 23:50:03 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents? Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne? Under the current 1917 decree, the grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to HRH and prince/princess titles so in theory ARchie would have the title when Charles ascends. In the interview, Meghan said that there was discussion about changing that decree so that Archie would not receive the title even after/if Charles ascends. For reference, Elizabeth II issued a decree that her third son's children would not hold those titles so there is is plenty of precedent for modifying the protocol. There has been pretty extensive press about Charles' desire to shrink the size of the monarch, so I don't think it's outlandish to believe that it was discussed. I am so confused right about now. I had thought that they didn’t want Archie to be a prince. Was I imagining things? |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 10, 2021 23:50:27 GMT
As an aside, I think the security issue SHOULD have been handled like we do former president's children. There have been multiple instances where we have extended the security for specific needs. During college is the most common scenario, but if there is a specific issue or threat to a former president's family, I am 100% supportive of extended security as circumstances warrant. In the middle of the fiasco, I think it was inappropriate to cut off security. I think over time, security could have been phased out, but in the middle of things it caused unnecessary angst. As much of people want to compare them to other royals, they certainly weren't treated by the press in a similar manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 10, 2021 23:51:50 GMT
As an aside, I think the security issue SHOULD have been handled like we do former president's children. There have been multiple instances where we have extended the security for specific needs. During college is the most common scenario, but if there is a specific issue or threat to a former president's family, I am 100% supportive of extended security as circumstances warrant. In the middle of the fiasco, I think it was inappropriate to cut off security. I think over time, security could have been phased out, but in the middle of things it caused unnecessary angst. As much of people want to compare them to other royals, they certainly weren't treated by the press in a similar manner. Fair point. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Mar 10, 2021 23:52:35 GMT
Under the current 1917 decree, the grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to HRH and prince/princess titles so in theory ARchie would have the title when Charles ascends. In the interview, Meghan said that there was discussion about changing that decree so that Archie would not receive the title even after/if Charles ascends. For reference, Elizabeth II issued a decree that her third son's children would not hold those titles so there is is plenty of precedent for modifying the protocol. There has been pretty extensive press about Charles' desire to shrink the size of the monarch, so I don't think it's outlandish to believe that it was discussed. I am so confused right about now. I had thought that they didn’t want Archie to be a prince. Was I imagining things? That was actually my comment way back on page 1 or 2. The statements at the time absolutely indicated that they were choosing for Archie to not have a title, so I was confused as well. This interview indicated that it was not their choice - and particularly as future security was also tied to being a prince, there was a lot of angst about the entire thing. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 10, 2021 23:57:14 GMT
I am so confused right about now. I had thought that they didn’t want Archie to be a prince. Was I imagining things? That was actually my comment way back on page 1 or 2. The statements at the time absolutely indicated that they were choosing for Archie to not have a title, so I was confused as well. This interview indicated that it was not their choice - and particularly as future security was also tied to being a prince, there was a lot of angst about the entire thing. Thank you for clarifying that. I was beginning to think that I had imagined it. |
|
|
|
Post by auntiepeas on Mar 11, 2021 0:03:22 GMT
This makes me incredibly sad. The Queen who has devoted her whole adulthood essentially, to serving the UK and the commonwealth, doesn’t deserve this. She is having to sit back and watch it be all be trashed in front of her. The racism is 100% wrong , no question - but now the entire Monarchy is suspected because they wouldn’t specify who they meant. She’s still working at age 94, her 99 year old husband has just had heart surgery and she also has to deal with the fallout of this. I know many of you won’t agree but then you haven’t lived your entire life with the Monarchy and this Queen as part of the fabric of your life. I am trying to think of an equivalent, an analogy for the USA but I can’t. You’re entitled to your own opinion and I mean you no disrespect at all gar but I just cannot agree with you. And I have lived my entire life with the Monarchy and this Queen as part of the fabric of my life. We all, Her Majesty included, deserve the opportunity to hear and react to the truth so that we may grow and become the healthiest versions of ourselves. |
|
Gennifer
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,241
|
Post by Gennifer on Mar 11, 2021 0:05:22 GMT
As for the comparison to those of us who work at our own jobs, my employers have never told me what I could do on my days off, or required that I accept being hated, threatened, isolated, and much more. Nor has my boss, who has been (at various times in my life) my grandma, my uncle, my mom, and my younger brother ever required me to curtsy when I see them. |
|
Gennifer
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,241
|
Post by Gennifer on Mar 11, 2021 0:15:48 GMT
This makes me incredibly sad. The Queen who has devoted her whole adulthood essentially, to serving the UK and the commonwealth, doesn’t deserve this. Doesn’t seem like such a hardship to me. Is it always awesome and wonderful and a fairy tale? No, but it’s not a life of drudgery, either. There’s a whole lotta perks that come with the gig. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:53:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 0:37:31 GMT
Former presidents retain security for their entire lives. I think that’s a better comparison than losing health insurance when average people leave a job. During the interview, a bunch of front pages from tabloids were displayed on the screen. Some of those headlines were horrific. That is not press *anyone* would want. Whilst I totally agree that some of the British Press need to clean up their act. I was taken aback a little as to the reason they needed to add, as you mentioned, some quite horrific images. Images that I had no recognition of or could associate with any publication here. More than once the images were headed by The Globe a title I knew nothing about and had never seen it here in the UK. I googled The Globe and the Enquirer another publication not sold in the UK and found they are both US publications and these are some of the images, outright lies and even the British press don't sink this low. Why was it necessary to intersperse images that had nothing to do with their interview or the reason they left the UK allegedly because of the UK press? And they really think they can have their privacy and control what gets published about them?   ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by beebee on Mar 11, 2021 1:06:28 GMT
Former presidents retain security for their entire lives. I think that’s a better comparison than losing health insurance when average people leave a job. During the interview, a bunch of front pages from tabloids were displayed on the screen. Some of those headlines were horrific. That is not press *anyone* would want. Whilst I totally agree that some of the British Press need to clean up their act. I was taken aback a little as to the reason they needed to add, as you mentioned, some quite horrific images. Images that I had no recognition of or could associate with any publication here. More than once the images were headed by The Globe a title I knew nothing about and had never seen it here in the UK. I googled The Globe and the Enquirer another publication not sold in the UK and found they are both US publications and these are some of the images, outright lies and even the British press don't sink this low. Why was it necessary to intersperse images that had nothing to do with their interview or the reason they left the UK allegedly because of the UK press? And they really think they can have their privacy and control what gets published about them? ![]() ![]() ![]() I don't think they left because of the press. I think it was because they did not have the support from within. He said as much at the end when Oprah asked. Obviously, just my opinion though. |
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,097
|
Post by used2scrap on Mar 11, 2021 1:06:49 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents? Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne? Under the current 1917 decree, the grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to HRH and prince/princess titles so in theory ARchie would have the title when Charles ascends. In the interview, Meghan said that there was discussion about changing that decree so that Archie would not receive the title even after/if Charles ascends. For reference, Elizabeth II issued a decree that her third son's children would not hold those titles so there is is plenty of precedent for modifying the protocol. There has been pretty extensive press about Charles' desire to shrink the size of the monarch, so I don't think it's outlandish to believe that it was discussed. It was being discussed (slimming the monarchy) before Meghan came along though. It kind of reads to me that they turned down the title initially to look like they were above it all right now, thinking full well that it would change when Charles became King anyways. But then when they pulled the trigger and quit, were shocked to realize just how much they were walking away from. Devil’s advocate, how can Charles be seen to slim the monarchy then all the sudden be bestowing titles on private citizens who weren’t children of working royals? There are news articles adamantly denying that titles dictate security levels, not to mention reports Charles himself was willing to pay for security himself. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:53:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 1:27:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:53:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 1:28:36 GMT
Whilst I totally agree that some of the British Press need to clean up their act. I was taken aback a little as to the reason they needed to add, as you mentioned, some quite horrific images. Images that I had no recognition of or could associate with any publication here. More than once the images were headed by The Globe a title I knew nothing about and had never seen it here in the UK. I googled The Globe and the Enquirer another publication not sold in the UK and found they are both US publications and these are some of the images, outright lies and even the British press don't sink this low. Why was it necessary to intersperse images that had nothing to do with their interview or the reason they left the UK allegedly because of the UK press? And they really think they can have their privacy and control what gets published about them? ![]() ![]() ![]() I don't think they left because of the press. I think it was because they did not have the support from within. He said as much at the end when Oprah asked. Obviously, just my opinion though. The expected support to deal with the press. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 1:53:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 1:33:01 GMT
Under the current 1917 decree, the grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to HRH and prince/princess titles so in theory ARchie would have the title when Charles ascends. In the interview, Meghan said that there was discussion about changing that decree so that Archie would not receive the title even after/if Charles ascends. For reference, Elizabeth II issued a decree that her third son's children would not hold those titles so there is is plenty of precedent for modifying the protocol. There has been pretty extensive press about Charles' desire to shrink the size of the monarch, so I don't think it's outlandish to believe that it was discussed. It was being discussed (slimming the monarchy) before Meghan came along though. It kind of reads to me that they turned down the title initially to look like they were above it all right now, thinking full well that it would change when Charles became King anyways. But then when they pulled the trigger and quit, were shocked to realize just how much they were walking away from. Devil’s advocate, how can Charles be seen to slim the monarchy then all the sudden be bestowing titles on private citizens who weren’t children of working royals? There are news articles adamantly denying that titles dictate security levels, not to mention reports Charles himself was willing to pay for security himself. I've no doubt he would have. It was pretty certain that the British taxpayer wasn't going to fork out to pay the security of a self imposed private citizen living in another country. |
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Mar 11, 2021 1:58:43 GMT
As for the comparison to those of us who work at our own jobs, my employers have never told me what I could do on my days off, or required that I accept being hated, threatened, isolated, and much more. Nor has my boss, who has been (at various times in my life) my grandma, my uncle, my mom, and my younger brother ever required me to curtsy when I see them. I worked for the US Government for almost 40 years. There were many things I could and could not do away from the workplace or "off duty." I think when you are a government employee, and the taxpayer is footing your pay, they do feel they have say over what you do and don't to protect the institution. I see this situation more like that than I do the person who works in the private sector. Just for the sake of commenting, I learned to curtsy as a little girl, and I used to curtsy to my grandparents. Granted I am old now, but it's not unheard of to know how to curtsy, and anyone who has ever seen a Disney Princess movie has seen bowing and such to the King or Queen. I really think Meghan could have winged it and been ok. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Mar 11, 2021 2:00:19 GMT
Here's an interesting article on who has security and who doesn't and how that is decided All the WORKING Royals who don't get full protectionSome of the main points: While they didn't say so using those exact words, H & M did mislead people watching that it was solely the Royal family's decision to refuse security for them & their child. There was no mention of 'RAVEC' which is set up to calculate the risk for each person and they get their security based on that information, and it will change over time according to their current risk level. They definitely said Archie would not get security because he was not given the title of Prince and that is simply untrue. Even if they remained working Royals in the UK it sounds like they would have only had security when they attended events and not 24/7 and not for any babies. They seem to think they they are entitled to the same level of (publically funded) protection as William and his family but their situation is not the same. Harry still seems to struggle with the concept that he isn't even "the spare" now and that he is no longer on the same level as William when it comes to being "royal". He's pushing 40yo...time to grow up dude - and stop competing with your brother and go live (and pay for) your own life. |
|
|
|
Post by KiwiJo on Mar 11, 2021 2:02:17 GMT
Just thought I’d share this here for anyone interested in wider reaction in a Commonwealth Country - it’s an opinion piece by a younger journalist and is currently the number 2 story on the front page of one of the two major media sites in NZ. Here’s an excerpt:
I have nothing against Elizabeth. She comes from a difficult era and has held the throne while public expectations and societies have undergone massive change.
The fact that Harry and Meghan could not speak more highly of her, as they lifted the lid on an otherwise toxic family, speaks to her power as a diplomat and bridge builder.
However, I think it is now clear her family is unsuitable to lead.
We lose nothing by cutting them off.A Crown that tolerates racism and cruelty cannot be New Zealand's head of state Here’s the full text for anyone unable to, or uncomfortable with, clicking on links: OPINION: Her silence baffles me. The Firm has been accused of blatant racism and inexcusable cruelty from within and against their own ranks. They do not seem to care.
These accusations seriously challenge the British monarchy’s already feeble claim to rule, especially over countries such as New Zealand.
Prince Harry and Meghan’s shocking revelation about racism within his family cannot be ignored. He says a member, or members, of his family had concerns about the likely skin tone of the couple’s children.
Harry made the brave decision to call out racism within one of the oldest institutions in the world. I thank him for having the courage.
There may well be a different side to this story, but the Queen and her well-paid spin team have failed to communicate that. They issued just a short statement on Wednesday morning (NZ time), saying they were “saddened” to learn of the struggles of Harry and Meghan.
It said the family would, in private, take seriously the issues – “particularly that of race”.
Let’s talk about that issue “of race”, or more clearly, what appears to be the racism that exists behind palace doors.
Harry and Meghan were at pains to say it was not the Queen or Prince Philip who made those sad remarks, but he said they were made in conversation among other members of his family.
As head of the family, and the monarchy, the Queen should name names. Harry has said he will not do so, because the damage caused would be too great.
But the Commonwealth deserves to know.
The countries over which the Queen reigns are incredibly diverse. Here in Aotearoa, we value that diversity. As a large Pacific nation, we are privileged to be home or host to people from across Te Moananui a Kiwa and beyond.
We need to know if a future head of state believes their citizens are somehow damaged or worth less because of the colour of their skin.
I’m proud to have both British and Māori whakapapa.
I think greater multilateral co-operation, which the Commonwealth represents, is exactly what the world needs as it faces multiple global crises.
But it cannot be led by someone whose views could be described as racist. I and many in the Commonwealth will be proud of our mixed heritage, even if its leaders are not.
Although the Queen issued a short statement, it was the absence of any meaningful words that spoke volumes. The Crown has all but remained silent, as it has done on so many occasions when the public has needed it to step up.
I have nothing against Elizabeth. She comes from a difficult era and has held the throne while public expectations and societies have undergone massive change.
The fact that Harry and Meghan could not speak more highly of her, as they lifted the lid on an otherwise toxic family, speaks to her power as a diplomat and bridge builder.
However, I think it is now clear her family is unsuitable to lead.
We lose nothing by cutting them off.
The only reason to keep the Queen or future kings as our head of state is that Te Tiriti was signed between Crown and rangatira. However, constitutional experts such as lawyer Moana Jackson, academic Margaret Mutu, and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer say this should not stop us. Treaty obligations and principles can be realised, even better managed, through a local head of state, they say.
Replacements for the Crown could be empowered to ensure proper governance, act as a check on the Government and uphold New Zealanders’ rights. This seems infinitely better than having a London-based family in charge, who are first and foremost concerned with their own privilege.
They tried to hide Meghan away when she told them of her deteriorating mental health. Prince Charles stopped taking Harry’s calls. Prince Andrew has not co-operated with the FBI’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
They do not represent the values of Aotearoa.
And we have known these issues for a very long time, as Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer pointed out when asked about the allegation of racism.
“I don't know why everyone is so surprised that the Crown is racist,” she said.
She’s right. It’s time to end their reign of racism.Not everyone in New Zealand goes along with this - personally I think it’s a load of tripe and does not represent my views in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Mar 11, 2021 2:02:42 GMT
But for a couple who is seeking privacy, why did they pick Santa Barbara? It's also VERY expensive, so when your neighbor is one of the richest people in the world, do you really have no money or just no current royal income? Because I'm really thinking they can pay for their own security, just like their neighbors probably do. |
|
|
|
Post by KiwiJo on Mar 11, 2021 2:06:16 GMT
I'm surprised no one has suggested Andrew as the potential racist. He has certainly demonstrated his lack of character in other regards. And related to Andrew, how is it possible that he was able to gallivant around the world with Jeffrey Epstein but Megan wasn't allowed to even hold onto her own identifying documents? Is it the case that Archie will be offered the title of prince if/when Charles ascends to the throne? Andrew and maybe Anne is where I’d put my money. More so on Andrew. Edit: and there's always the known racist Princess Michael of Kent. Princess Anne?? Good grief, she is the most level-headed, sensible, practical and kind-hearted of all the Royal family. Sure, she doesn’t stand for any nonsense, but I bet that would also mean she wouldn’t stand for any racism being displayed either! |
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Mar 11, 2021 2:19:33 GMT
Those who have an interest in body language Made me want to see more, especially when he talks about his family and the issues of race. I think it may have been his father, because I believe someone, maybe pjaye but if not sorry, mentioned it is not unusual to wonder about what traits a child will inherit, and in a mixed race situation he may have asked Harry if he had thought about it. I also don't think it is egregious to be curious, or to be concerned about how the child will be treated in life. If whoever said it was like, "Harry, do you really want to have a black child that looks nothing like you and has none of your traits because everyone knows red hair and white complexion is not dominant. Are you aware of the things people will say and how they will treat your child if he or she looks black?" I can hear that in many white families pretty much everywhere. Of course not pea families but certainly my own family would bring it up just about like that. In fact, they have, when my cousin had a child of mixed race. The child's own grandfather didn't want to hold him. My cousin hears things about her child all the time, and she is in her 30's and some guys won't date her because she has a black child. Her other two children live with their dad, and people have said to the kids, "You have a black brother?" Not, you have a brother. Maybe peas are hopefully as enlightened about racism as we seem to be, but from where I'm sitting, I would expect they would wonder about genetic traits far more than they wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Mar 11, 2021 2:47:04 GMT
Andrew and maybe Anne is where I’d put my money. More so on Andrew. Edit: and there's always the known racist Princess Michael of Kent. Princess Anne?? Good grief, she is the most level-headed, sensible, practical and kind-hearted of all the Royal family. Sure, she doesn’t stand for any nonsense, but I bet that would also mean she wouldn’t stand for any racism being displayed either! The only reason I might could see Princess Anne was because of her being older and more cut to the chase, where others might take a less offensive and less direct approach. |
|
