Thomas Markle rushed to hospital after a suspected stroke.

I still haven't seen any real proof that Megan is a liar and lued about anything, just arguments about marriage and her fear that Archie may not be accepted

Sharp Tula Vista, California was the hospital, where he had surgery before the wedding.

We are having a lovely time, thank you so much for good wishes. We came back to our rental house ( it’s amazing, gorgeous house to sleep twelve, although only ten of us here till tomorrow) early today so I wasted a bit of time on Gransnet
Yes, I understood what you were saying about your grandparents and I think it was lovely and romantic. I’m glad they eventually got it legally sorted though as the legality does confer certain legal rights that living together doesn’t.
The main thing is that Meghan and Harry are married legally. I know this because I watched it on television. I have to admit that I didn’t regard the rehearsal of our marriage as the actual marriage but maybe Meghan didn’t understand as things are very different with regard to getting married in America.

I hope Mr Markle makes a full recovery. It has been mooted that Meghan wants to visit him. I hope she does. Estrangement is rarely pleasant for the people concerned although for some it is the better option.

But GGPs weren't waiting to get it legally sorted. They considered it legally sorted. Well, it was legally sorted...it was pretty wild in Scotland in them days They got regularly married just before their second child was born I expect it was something to do with that.

Anyway, none of it matters. You having a lovely time with your family, that matters!

Oh, I see.
But thank you, that is what matters

We’ve just put a cheese board out so I’m away to sample some local Devon cheeses.

I thought the issue that was brought up regarding the title was not because of the title itself but because having one would mean having security. They were worried about his security or lack thereof. I will have to go watch it again, it has been a while.

As for the marriage ceremony, it is becoming more common here in the US for couple to have a small ceremony ahead of a bigger one for family and friends. I haven't heard of friends and family being put out by this and think the bigger celebration was a farce. But I suppose they are out there.

While it may not have need THE legal ceremony, it may be what was the most important part of the process for them and what they want to remember.

volver

My great grandparents got married in a Scottish irregular ceremony.

As I'm sure some of you know, you just stood up in front of someone else - anyone else, not a minister - and said "we're married now". They considered themselves married for 2 years, in fact they were married for 2 years, before the minister said it as well and wrote it in the book.

Marriage isn't always what we think it is.

Just thought that was relevant...

I'd never heard of that.

I think my pregnant great-grandma was jilted at the altar.

I wonder if I come back to this in two days time the same comments about the same event on the garden will still be appearing ……

imaround
Only working royals get security, and then only when they are actually working on royal duties. Only those in direct line to the throne get 24 hour security and also security for their children. Therefore:

Charles and Camilla get 24 hour security
William, Catherine and children get 24 hour security
Edward and Sophie get security only when performing royal duties
Anne gets security when performing royal duties

Obviously the Queen gets 24 hour security too.

That’s it! No other security provided. If any of the other royals want it, they pay for it themselves.

Harry and Meghan pay for their own security because they don’t fit into any of the categories whereby it would be provided by the state.

I assume some of the Queen’s cousins who are still doing a bit of royal duty work now and then would also get some security provided as and when required. I think the Duke of Kent might fit into that description.

Lucca

I wonder if I come back to this in two days time the same comments about the same event on the garden will still be appearing ……

I did try to vary it a bit

Lucca

I wonder if I come back to this in two days time the same comments about the same event on the garden will still be appearing ……

I know what you mean. I know I’ve explained on other threads about who gets security and why, and I’m not claiming to be the fount of all knowledge, but I do happen to know that.

OK, I understand the security issue better. I also went and pulled up the interview and my perception of watching what she actually says is different than others here.

At the time Megan and Harry were working royals and were provided security. The press were all over the two of them so, as a mother, I understand why they would both want security for Archie. The tabloids were already hounding them as a couple and they wanted to be sure that their son was safe. I think any responsible parent would want that. However, I also understand why protocol would have prevented that. Here is her actual quote from the interview:

"They said [he's not going to get security], because he's not going to be a prince. Okay, well, he needs to be safe so we're not saying don't make him a prince or princess, but if you're saying the title is what's going to affect that protection, we haven't created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder you've allowed that to happen which means our son needs to be safe." Meghan said no good explanation was given: "I heard a lot of it through Harry and a lot of it through conversations with family members."

Seems to me that Harry may be to blame with a lot of what was happening, though everyone loves to throw Megan under the bus for being the mastermind of the move to the US. Several times throughout the interview she mentioned that she had heard from Harry that...

Them turning down a title is not true either.

"Meghan added that reports she and Harry didn't want Archie to have a title weren't true.

"No, and it's not our decision to make [on whether he'd have a title]. Even though I have a lot of clarity of what comes with the titles good and bad...that is their birthright to then make a choice about.""

I completely 100% believe that the media in the UK was at best Xenophobic. I have seen it happen multiple times on GN threads, so it is not a stretch to think that same attitude would happen in the UK press. Americans are not beloved in the UK.

There were racist stories in the press. Does that mean the royal family is racist? No. Does that mean that Megan was subject to racist headlines? Yes. Could it have been that by the time the question was asked about Archie's skin tone, Megan had had enough? I cant say because I do not know her. But if it were me, I would say yes.

Asking a person what color their child could be is racist, even though some of you may not agree. It should not matter what color a child's skin is.

Even after all of this topic, I still do not understand how it relates to her not seeing TM. A loving father would never stage photo ops with the very tabloids that were writing racist stories about her. The more I look into him, the more I realize that he is not a good person and he is using his daughter to make money. So is Yvonne Samantha, the step sister.

He has not been contrite at all. In fact, he has double and tripled down. An apology without a change in behavior is not a true apology. He gets paid from the media and looses contact and instead of working to repair that, he sells her letter and sets up a Youtube channel to badmouth her.

THAT is an offense to God IMO. I would never betray my children like that in order to make a buck.

I saw and heard Meghan and Harry, when showing newborn Archie to the country, say they didn’t want a title for him. They said it, I heard it, and so did many other people. Whatever she said later about titles is beside the point. They said they wanted no title at the time of his birth ( well a few days later when we first saw him.)
If they or she is linking a title to security later on during the interview, it’s a moot point. Security is NOT awarded by title, but by work! Working royals get security when working. Others get security because they are in direct line to the throne. Meghan and Harry got full security whilst they were working royals. Now they’re not working royals and so they don’t get security paid for by us. They pay for their own security. Incidentally they continued to receive paid for security whilst they lived in Canada for six months after they left the UK. The UK paid for part of it, and Canada paid for part of it. Apparently the Canadians were none too happy about paying but pay they did. When they left to go to live in America their paid for security ended. America refused to pay and so they now pay for their own security.

They are NOT working royals. None working royals don’t get paid for security. It’s got NOTHING to do with Archie not having a title.

Well if security is for "working royals" perhaps someone can explain why Prince George has his own security guards who follow him to school and hang around during the day. I'm not suggesting he doesn't need it just that it isn't as clearly demarcated as some pretend. It would seem fairly obvious that if they had remained in the UK Archie would be in just as much (if not more) danger . And with evidence of plans to set bombs at PG's school and stalking incidents The case for protection for Archie would seem to be overwhelming.

Thank you for.pointingbtgatbout Maddy. I will go and find that interview.

Interestingly, instilled across an article that days thebtax payers are demanding Andrew's security be removed after he lost his military titles. I am going to research that more as well. He was no longer a working royal.

I image that George has security as he is in direct line to the throne? Does Charlotte as well?

I think all the children of William, as a direct heir to the throne, receive round the clock security.

As far as I’m aware, Andrew pays for his own security. I’m not sure if he still pays for security for his daughters but he did when the rules over who gets security were changed and his daughters lost theirs.

As I understand it, because M+H were full time working royals when they lived here, Harry’s children would have got security. I confess I’m not 100% on that. However, they do not get security as none working royals who actually live abroad. The very suggestion that we should pay for security for an abdicated royal who lives abroad is an anathema to me. I’d prefer a republic, I certainly don’t want my taxes spent on protecting very rich people who do no work for the UK and don’t even live here. That of course is my opinion, unlike the other things I mentioned which are facts.

It’s worth remembering that Louise and her brother James, grandchildren of the Queen, do not get security, and appear to be safe. Why is Archie, a great grandchild, not even a grandchild of the Queen, at more risk than they are. The answer of course, is that he is not. Apart from the fact that he lives in gun ridden America, where 19 children were shot dead just this week. If they are concerned about safety, perhaps the UK would be a safer option.

But it’s their choice, but they shouldn’t expect me to pay for it.

Ok, I looked at length and couldn't find an interview that had Megan and Harry saying they were refusing Archie a title. The only thing I found was a news report that they had refused the Earl of Dumbarton because it started with dumb. It was credited as "a source told the Telegraph".

I found this information only on:

Marie Claire
Scotsman
the Sun
Mirror
Telegraph

I also watched the short interview when they presented Archie to the media. They never said they didn't want a title. Not when he met with photographers right after the birth and not in the short 3 minutes they spoke with the press.

They then announced his name on Instagram. In it they presented him as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. Which of course means he is not using a title, but I am not finding anything from their own mouths that said they had not chosen a title as Maddie said.

Maddie, maybe you can point me in the right direction since you said that you saw and heard them say it along with the rest of the country. I am not finding it.

My sources:

Interview with the press: youtu.be/in7iDzSXXv0

Interview announcing birth: youtu.be/D8FZTOeiigg

Name announcement: www.instagram.com/p/BxNPb_9B0fn/

We cross posted Maddy.

I understand that they would not get security once they moved abroad. And it was very generous for the UK citizens to pay security for the few months they lived in Canada. But this is about how, when she was pregnant and working royals, they were told that Archie would not be provided a title or security.

I understand how the rules work. I understand that Archie would not have been entitled to a title or security as a great grandson of the queen.

I have not seen anything other than a tabloid report that they refused a title vs. they were told he wouldn't have one as they said in their interview.

I should also point out that I am unable to find anything other than tabloid reports that Andrew had 24/7 security before the sex trafficking trial. (the Sun, Express, The Guardian)

I assume that these reports are not true either after 2011 when the Princesses lost their security and that the tabloids are trying to stir the pot.

I don’t think they need to worry about security with all their Net Flix deals and tv appearances.they are in a huge gated complex of a house in America surrounded by the people they enjoy mixing with. They have the money to pay for security should they feel the need but it’s much nicer someone else paying for it. No titles as they wanted. I do suspect that now the British Public on the whole who are sick of their antics and pleased they relocated, don’t miss them, that they want back in the fold they consider racist, also that balcony position, that would be worth a lot of Net Flix after all.

You sound very bitter! Specially about Netflix.

maddyone

I saw and heard Meghan and Harry, when showing newborn Archie to the country, say they didn’t want a title for him. They said it, I heard it, and so did many other people. Whatever she said later about titles is beside the point. They said they wanted no title at the time of his birth ( well a few days later when we first saw him.)
If they or she is linking a title to security later on during the interview, it’s a moot point. Security is NOT awarded by title, but by work! Working royals get security when working. Others get security because they are in direct line to the throne. Meghan and Harry got full security whilst they were working royals. Now they’re not working royals and so they don’t get security paid for by us. They pay for their own security. Incidentally they continued to receive paid for security whilst they lived in Canada for six months after they left the UK. The UK paid for part of it, and Canada paid for part of it. Apparently the Canadians were none too happy about paying but pay they did. When they left to go to live in America their paid for security ended. America refused to pay and so they now pay for their own security.

They are NOT working royals. None working royals don’t get paid for security. It’s got NOTHING to do with Archie not having a title.

Hear hear.
I cannot grasp why H&M cannot understand a simple enough principle. Nor does it have anything, directly or indirectly, to do with his mother being mixed race.
As for the rejection of “ Earl of Dumbarton” because it starts with “dumb” - that is so daft it could well be true!

Apologies. I cannot find the clip where Archie’s name was announced. However since a title doesn’t automatically bring with it paid for security it is a rather moot point. Possibly I saw a name announcement rather than the parents saying it, so apologies.
The simple fact of the matter is that Harry’s children aren’t yet entitled to a title until such time as Charles becomes king. Then they will be entitled, but whether the parents will choose to use one, like Andrew did for his children, but Edward chose a lesser title for his children, remains to be seen. They will still not be entitled to security, paid for by us, as the parents are not working royals.

I hope in time we will become a democratic republic. Then only the president and family would be entitled to paid for security and there would be no wider family with entitlement at all.

Well I wouldn't actually pay for security for any of them except (if we have to have them) the monarch and the heir. The rest of the family can pay for their own, they have enough money.
I do understand why having seen the responses and attitudes towards George starting school M&H might have worried about what would happen to Archie and if he would get the protection they thought he needed. Sensibly they chose to move away and give their children some privacy.