Thomas Markle rushed to hospital after a suspected stroke.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ……

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

Agreed maddyone. But my point was that the important thing to my GGPs was that they considered themselves to be married, and so did everyone around them, even though the paperwork took a couple of years to catch up. 3 days doesn't seem that bad to me.

(ps - hope you are having a lovely time!)

So why all the fuss? Why twist it into an issue about race which it wasn't, and feign upset about your son not being given a title which you've already said, you don't want him to have? .

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...

That’s very interesting volver, but the law surrounding legal marriage in England is different than it is in Scotland as I understand it. That’s why years ago young English couples who didn’t have parental permission to get married used to elope to Scotland in order to get married. There I believe they could marry without parental consent.

My Bangladeshi friends got married in a mosque but they understood the law perfectly. They got married in the registry office three weeks before in order that it would be legal. They celebrated both ceremonies but only lived together after the mosque ceremony.

Archie wasn’t/isn’t allowed a title legally. Letters Patent would need to be changed in order for Archie to be given a title. That’s the truth of it. Whether we like it or not, that is the truth. When Prince Charles becomes king, at that point Archie will be legally allowed the title of prince but his parents may decide that they don’t want a title for him exactly as Edward and Sophie decided they didn’t want the titles princess/prince for their children although they were legally entitled to those titles. Titles aren’t recognised in America anyway, and I saw the interview when Archie was introduced to the world where Harry and Meghan clearly said, and I heard it, that they did not want a title for Archie.

A marriage is a legally binding contract which is recognised by the law and/or the church, if it isn't in the UK and probably in other countries too, it isn't a marriage.

On the day of our wedding, the vicar discovered that the bans hadn't been read in the parish I was living in so, he had to dash to the nearest registrar and get a special licence or our wedding wouldn't have been legal.

Had that not happened without a doubt for us, our family and friends it would have been an extremely important service, but it wouldn't have been legal.

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 suppose it depends if you think that marriage is a commitment made by two people to each other or just a legally binding contract which is recognised by the law and /or the church. Both concepts have their place. but I can see nothing wrong in the couple regarding either as more important to themselves. I can certainly see that you might regard a very public and ceremonial event as something less personally important, particularly if you looked at the history of past such events.

Smileless2012

Why would there even have been a conversation about Archie being given titles that it was not in Prince Charles' gift to give? They were talking about Archie not having a title now, not at some point in the future.

Precisely Annie I mean for goodness sake the Archbishop eventually made it clear that he couldn't have possibly married them 3 days earlier, because he'd have been breaking the law when he married them in church.

We do know the truth now though don't we Summerlove, they didn't get married 3 days before the televised ceremony and Archie wasn't denied a title because he's mixed race.

No, we don’t.

But keep thinking we do if you would like.

Huh?