Harry & Meghan 16

[Alisamer]

There are a zillion tiaras and I doubt any of the current family members will go without at their wedding. Even if Charles said "no" to the ones technically "in the vault" some of them are essentially on a sort of lifetime loan to various princesses, plus Anne and Sophie have their own as well that aren't part of the jewels that were owned by the queen. Even one of the queen's tiaras apparently didn't technically belong to her until the 2000s when she inherited it. 

Charles certainly could say "no tiaras for you!" if he wanted but that seems the sort of thing he'd hand-wave off to Camilla to deal with, knowing that even if he didn't agree to loan any from the collection he's in charge of, there are still others out there they could borrow. Apparently with the Queen, she would choose 3 or so tiaras from the ones not on permanent loan to anyone else, and the bride got to choose from those. So the younger princesses (except likely Charlotte) are unlikely to have the option of the Cartier Scroll, the Cambridge Lover's Knot and the Lotus Flower tiaras for example, as those are on loan to Kate. 

The biggest part of the interest in the royals for many people is the sparkly stuff, the fashion, and the antiquities. Might as well dust off something from the vault now and then. It's more frugal than saying no and then having them go have something made special, IMO. 

But honestly anything could happen. We're in 2023 and the next "big" royal wedding will likely be George or Charlotte who are still little kids. The others are farther down the line of succession and less public generally. Maybe one of the boys will marry another boy, and no tiara is wanted or needed. Maybe one of the girls will marry a girl, and they'll want to borrow two tiaras. Maybe the trend when some of them get married is not to wear anything on the bride's head, or to wear only fresh flowers, or they'll choose to have something made that suits just them. Maybe some of them just won't choose to get married at all. 

[VGL]

I think the Modern Sapphire tiara looks better on Camilla than it did on the late Queen.   It would sort of get lost in her hair but with Camilla we can see the tiara.

 

Anne's grand daughters would likely wear one of her tiaras for their weddings and Louise would likely wear one of Sophie's.   It would not surprise me though if the late Queen left some sort of instruction that Louise could wear something from Granny's collection.  

 

I've wondered if a visit to the vault was a sort of rite of passage that the late Queen did with her grand daughters.

[tabitha2]

Stands to reason if all the other GD’s got tiaras from the main collection or historical family pieces(Zara) Louise should as well. 

[viii]

Yesssss to a royal lesbian wedding with double tiaras!!

[Jackie3]

If I were a royal, I'd bypass the whole "Will you lend me a tiara" business, and wear flowers in my hair. Flowers are prettier than any jewels money can buy, IMO

Most likely the jewels were stolen anyhow, and I wouldn't want anything to do with that. 

 

 

9 hours ago, viii said:

Once again, you’re wrong. Camilla was supposed to be called Princess Consort upon Charles’ ascension to the throne (as they agreed in their 2005 wedding). In the last few months of her life (I believe it was around the Jubilee), the Queen made a statement saying she wanted Camilla to be known as Queen Consort once they become the ruling monarchs. And… that’s what happened. Camilla is Queen Consort and goes by Queen Camilla, just like every other married-in before her. The Queen Mother wasn’t known as Queen Consort Elizabeth. She was Queen Elizabeth. Mary of Teck was Queen Mary. It’s basic knowledge. Pause the trolling and pick up a book sometime. 

There were several Queen Consorts who proudly used the term Queen Consort. They were a bit less ambitious than Camilla, I suppose. The wives of King Henry II and King Edward II come to mind, among others.

Your rationalization makes sense to you, though, it seems.  However, other authorities --such as this associate professor of British history--were surprised at the title change.

Quote

"Like everyone else, I was surprised to see Camilla announced as Queen Camilla, as opposed to Queen Consort Camilla, which Queen Elizabeth had indicated was how she expected Camilla to be addressed once she became the monarch," says Nicoletta Gullace, an associate professor of British history at the University of New Hampshire.

 

Even the NPR author expressed surprise

Quote

And it refers to the king's wife as "Queen Camilla" for the first time, officially dropping the word "consort" from her title.

That's raised some eyebrows, in large part because of Camilla and Charles' controversial relationship and the palace's previous stance on her position (more on all that below).

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168260561/king-charles-coronation-invitation-camilla-queen-consort

 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Jackie3

[nelliebelle1197]

11 hours ago, viii said:

Once again, you’re wrong. Camilla was supposed to be called Princess Consort upon Charles’ ascension to the throne (as they agreed in their 2005 wedding). In the last few months of her life (I believe it was around the Jubilee), the Queen made a statement saying she wanted Camilla to be known as Queen Consort once they become the ruling monarchs. And… that’s what happened. Camilla is Queen Consort and goes by Queen Camilla, just like every other married-in before her. The Queen Mother wasn’t known as Queen Consort Elizabeth. She was Queen Elizabeth. Mary of Teck was Queen Mary. It’s basic knowledge. Pause the trolling and pick up a book sometime. 

@tabitha2 the question was would the tiaras be loaned out, which would be under Charles’ approval. Simple. You’re right, I doubt he would care and would let Camilla handle it, but that wasn’t the question. 

OMG I am rolling. You are awesome.

[Jackie3]

 

So it WAS about racism, all along.

I'm wondering where the outrage is against those 6 UK cops. The ones who made racist remarks against Harry and Meghan.

Harry and Meghan made similar accusations in the past--and they were roundly ridiculed here and elsewhere.

Now it seems they were right all along.

Isn't anyone mad about these six gross retired police officers? They seem like awful people. . . .at least to me. They make me mad. . . am I the only one?

But the investigation clears something up: It WAS about racism all along. Harry and Meghan were telling the truth.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

17 hours ago, viii said:

Yesssss to a royal lesbian wedding with double tiaras!!

Or men wearing them! They’re not just for Elton John anymore! 

@just_ordinary While I agree that Beatrice’s pandemic wedding helped hide her disgraced father, I think she wouldn’t have waited if the scandal hadn’t happened. She was about to turn 32, and seems to have wanted to start a family, rather than waiting indefinitely. Also, the wedding was only postponed for six weeks because of Covid, so she may have been able to use some arrangements that were already in place.

[Alisamer]

So I'm approving a post by our one-track-Troll because despite her being unhinged she, this time, has brought up an ACTUAL incidence of real racism! And that's important to acknowledge and discuss. If I'd seen the article earlier I'd have posted it myself.  Discussion of the troll is between the lines here, scroll down for the actual issue going on.

_________________________________________________

Of course Trolletta has somehow equated the existence of actual racism against Meghan and Harry into confirming that everyone who has commented on Meghan ever with anything except abject praise is also racist. Because apparently "I think that outfit doesn't flatter her" is the exact same as dropping the N-word somehow.

And she claims that Meghan and Harry were "roundly ridiculed here and elsewhere" for pointing out racism. If that happened here please send me links because I've missed it if that happened (not you, dear Trollinetta, sorry but I don't trust your judgement).

What I have ACTUALLY seen here is people saying essentially "It's awful that people have said, and the media have published, racist things about Harry and Meghan. It's even worse that they've faced racism from within Harry's family. (Damn, Princess Michael!) I'm glad they feel able to point that out." with also some discussion about HOW they chose to do so and how it's unfortunately not surprising a family that skews old with traditions that skew ancient and who have lead a colonialist country for ages might have some racist people in it. Luckily M&H seem to know the difference between actual racism and criticism about other, unrelated things, though they have also mentioned other things as they are also discussing the racism. 

It's possible to think Harry and Meghan's airing of dirty laundry about the royals might have been done in an unwise way, while still supporting them in pointing out racism aimed at them both from within and without the family. And that's what I've personally seen here. From everyone except the Troll who Cries Racism. 

Quick summary of the troll for those who wisely have her on ignore: "Some former police officers who all retired before Meghan met Harry are still friends with each other and said horrible racist things about her in chatting with each other. That CLEARLY means that I was right and because there has finally been an incident of REAL racism, that means that everyone who has ever said anything even mildly not adoring about Meghan is in fact proven to be a horrible racist themselves." With repeats of "it WAS about racism all along!!!111ELEVENTY!" She also didn't share a link about the actual current event. 

_________________________________________________

Here's a quote from an article:

Quote

Six retired police officers have been charged with criminal offences in the UK over offensive racist messages which referenced Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Former Metropolitan Police Service officers who retired between 2011 and 2015 have been charged under Communication Act 2003. According to a statement by Metropolitan Police, the inappropriate messages were allegedly sent in a closed WhatsApp group from August 2018 to September 2022.

"Some of the posts referenced the government's Rwanda policy, while others joked about the recent flooding in Pakistan, which left almost 1,700 people dead. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also featured in several images alongside racist language," the BBC reported.

The actual content of the messages hasn't been released but it sounds vile. 

It's disgusting that in 2023 anyone anywhere thinks it's OK to judge people due to their race or heritage, but it happens everywhere and frankly isn't all that uncommon among cops in the US so I'm not surprised it's happened in the UK among cops as well. I'm very glad that they are all being charged criminally. They have a court date September 7 so hopefully there's an update. Anyone here from the UK have any idea what sort of consequences this sort of charge might carry? 

I am fairly certain that something like this happening among retired police officers in the US would be ignored entirely - they're retired, they are allowed to be horrifically vile terrible people since they are on their own time, now. I don't think there'd be criminal charges for something like that unless they were actively planning some sort of attack. 

I looked up the Communication Act they are being charged with and it seems the relevant part is "Sending a malicious communication using social media was made a criminal offence."

It seems not to apply to the media, from what I've seen, which seems understandable in the context of "freedom of the press". Is this the sort of thing that everyday people can be charged with in the UK? Or is it because they are retired police and presumably on a government pension? 

I'm fairly certain if we had that law here in the US, a certain former President would have been locked up before he was ever elected. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Alisamer

[rosamundi]

56 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

It's disgusting that in 2023 anyone anywhere thinks it's OK to judge people due to their race or heritage, but it happens everywhere and frankly isn't all that uncommon among cops in the US so I'm not surprised it's happened in the UK among cops as well. I'm very glad that they are all being charged criminally. They have a court date September 7 so hopefully there's an update. Anyone here from the UK have any idea what sort of consequences this sort of charge might carry? 

I am fairly certain that something like this happening among retired police officers in the US would be ignored entirely - they're retired, they are allowed to be horrifically vile terrible people since they are on their own time, now. I don't think there'd be criminal charges for something like that unless they were actively planning some sort of attack. 

I looked up the Communication Act they are being charged with and it seems the relevant part is "Sending a malicious communication using social media was made a criminal offence."

It seems not to apply to the media, from what I've seen, which seems understandable in the context of "freedom of the press". Is this the sort of thing that everyday people can be charged with in the UK? Or is it because they are retired police and presumably on a government pension? 

I'm fairly certain if we had that law here in the US, a certain former President would have been locked up before he was ever elected. 

 

I'm curious as to the Act they've been charged under - the Communications Act 2003 is mostly about provision of services, the power of the regulator, and technical stuff like that. The usual statute for racist and other abusive messages is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, people have been charged under that for sending (for example) appalling messages to Black footballers after the England men's team was knocked out of the men's football world cup.

However, they've been charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and so could face up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

Edit: I've just fallen down a rabbit hole and am reading the sentencing guidelines. The Malicious Communications Act appears to be for messages sent over public services, such as twitter, or Facebook, or any other service where the messages can be read by anyone. As these messages were sent over WhatsApp, which is private, the MCA doesn't apply and the Communications Act does.

Anyone could be charged under these statutes, their being retired police officers wouldn't make a difference. As police officers, I would speculate that they would face punishments at the higher end of the scale because even as retired officers they're held to a higher standard than most people. For instance, Wayne Couzens, who kidnapped, raped and murdered a young woman in London in 2021 received a whole-life tariff because he used his status as a police officer, and his warrant card, to commit the crime. Edit: there may be an uplift to the punishment due to the offence being racially aggravated.

I know serving police officers who are convicted of serious crimes can lose their future police pension, but I don't know if that applies to retired officers who are already drawing their pensions, or if this charge would pass the necessary seriousness threshold for that to happen. If the maximum fine you can receive is £5,000, stopping someone's pension for the rest of their life in addition would probably not be legal.

Edited August 17, 2023 by rosamundi

[Alisamer]

Thanks! I'm in the US so from my perspective, the idea of being criminally charged for something you said in a private WhatsApp chat - unless it rises to the level of conspiracy or solicitation or inciting rebellion or some other crime - is pretty unusual to me. And as the world has seen, it's possible to even do many of those actual crimes publically with no consequences until it become egregious, especially if you have some power or money, in the US. 

From a US perspective, I'm a little torn. Like, absolutely throwing around racist speech is clearly wrong morally. They should definitely be named and shamed, IMO. And while I'm glad to see they are being punished for what they did, this law applying to private communications is kind of squicky to me as I've grown up with the right to free speech (within limitations) being taught as a core value for the country. 

But they are in the UK, and under UK law they can get charged, and frankly they deserve whatever they get for being gross awful excuses for humans. Because if they are saying that sort of thing about Meghan, imagine what they must be saying about people of color as a whole! 

And if they aren't saying those things about people of color in general, just about Meghan, then I'd consider that targeted hate speech, personally. *

And also wonder if it's a chicken/egg situation - are they racist, and therefore hate Meghan? Or do they hate Meghan, and throwing around racist insults are their low-effort way of justifying their hate? Meghan had plenty going against her that was not race-related, when it comes to joining the royal family. She was an American divorcee engaged to a high ranking royal - nearly the exact situation that caused a crisis in the monarchy within living memory, AND the same situation that kept Charles from marrying Camilla from the beginning, like he'd have clearly preferred. Her being biracial certainly added to the concern among the more racist members of the family, but even if she'd been a lily white woman with a perfect background in their eyes, there still would have been some stress about the whole thing. 

I think the issues some people have with Meghan marrying Harry DOES have to do with racism, to be clear. It is about racism. But it's not all about racism, at least for Harry's close family, I think. Racism is the worst bit, and the most awful. And it seems to be what many people outside the royal family has a problem with, and that the media seems to want to run with. 

But also not every criticism is racist. 

* I think if someone is willing to toss out racist slurs and insults in any situation, they are racist. Because someone who isn't wouldn't stoop that low even in an extreme situation. So these cops are clearly racist. I'm glad they got called out and are facing consequences.

[rosamundi]

13 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

From a US perspective, I'm a little torn. Like, absolutely throwing around racist speech is clearly wrong morally. They should definitely be named and shamed, IMO. And while I'm glad to see they are being punished for what they did, this law applying to private communications is kind of squicky to me as I've grown up with the right to free speech (within limitations) being taught as a core value for the country. 

I think (and I could be wrong here) that it's because it was in a group chat with several people. Sending racist jokes to your mate is one (horrible but not illegal, as far as I know) thing. Sending racist jokes to a group chat passes the boundaries of criminality because you're effectively publishing to lots of people.

i confess I haven't kept up with this case very well. Since the murder of Sara Everard by a police officer there's been so many stories coming out about criminal wrongdoing at the Met that it's genuinely hard to keep track.

[klein_roeschen]

52 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Thanks! I'm in the US so from my perspective, the idea of being criminally charged for something you said in a private WhatsApp chat - unless it rises to the level of conspiracy or solicitation or inciting rebellion or some other crime - is pretty unusual to me. And as the world has seen, it's possible to even do many of those actual crimes publically with no consequences until it become egregious, especially if you have some power or money, in the US. 

From a US perspective, I'm a little torn. Like, absolutely throwing around racist speech is clearly wrong morally. They should definitely be named and shamed, IMO. And while I'm glad to see they are being punished for what they did, this law applying to private communications is kind of squicky to me as I've grown up with the right to free speech (within limitations) being taught as a core value for the country. 

I'm wondering here how they got these chats that got on for years. Hopefully it was a whistleblower. Because here in the European Union there are talks about digital privacy for years and the concern for softening privacy laws to monitor digital communaction not only to the point of things posted publicly on social media but also messenger services like WhatsApp. Or making the providers of said messenger services somehow responsible for monitoring posted content and notify the authorities about suspicious messages that could lead to a crime. Which would make any kind of digital private communication not private anymore. Here are politicians very eager to screen any kind of data for "security" purposes and make a real data protection a thing of the past.

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

The actual content of the messages hasn't been released but it sounds vile. 

It's disgusting that in 2023 anyone anywhere thinks it's OK to judge people due to their race or heritage, but it happens everywhere and frankly isn't all that uncommon among cops in the US so I'm not surprised it's happened in the UK among cops as well. I'm very glad that they are all being charged criminally. They have a court date September 7 so hopefully there's an update. Anyone here from the UK have any idea what sort of consequences this sort of charge might carry? 

I am fairly certain that something like this happening among retired police officers in the US would be ignored entirely - they're retired, they are allowed to be horrifically vile terrible people since they are on their own time, now. I don't think there'd be criminal charges for something like that unless they were actively planning some sort of attack. 

I looked up the Communication Act they are being charged with and it seems the relevant part is "Sending a malicious communication using social media was made a criminal offence."

It seems not to apply to the media, from what I've seen, which seems understandable in the context of "freedom of the press". Is this the sort of thing that everyday people can be charged with in the UK? Or is it because they are retired police and presumably on a government pension? 

I'm fairly certain if we had that law here in the US, a certain former President would have been locked up before he was ever elected. 

And on the other hand I'm somewhat get used to news in Germany that again a private message group from police officers or soldiers was detected that contained not only hate speach, but also conspiracy stuff, right wing and nazi stuff and even child pornography. So here I'm not surprised that the UK has the same problem and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

That Harry and Megan where one of the topics isn't a surprise either. They where the most public target for that vile talk and I suspect if these messages where from 2008-2016 Barack Obama would also be a hot topic. Rasists do rasist things and I also suspect that many of these messages are not only racist but also very sexist against Megan. And as far as many of us come in terms of acknowledging racism, classism, entitlement and privileges, not many ar as open and inclusive as most of us posters here. I hear vile stuff every day about refugees, immigrants, LGTBQ or people who don't share their disgusting views on these groups from strangers, costumers, co-workers and people I know personally. Or what should be done with them or that they have no rights to dignity, freedom or services of the state. As far as we have come since the WWII, many people still habor these hatefull ideas, voice these hatefull ideas and would stand by clapping if some of the crimes of the past would happen again, or worse. Megan here is at the moment the most prominent victim and I hope that this is used to get these men to get their deserved verdict. But out there are millions more who share their views and for them these men are the victims.

[Coconut Flan]

From what I read and heard yesterday a member of the group printed them out and sent the messages in.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

From what I read and heard yesterday a member of the group printed them out and sent the messages in.

He wanted to be arrested?

[Destiny]

18 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

He wanted to be arrested?

whistle-blower, n.

One who ‘blows the whistle’ on a person or activity (see whistle, n. 1b.iv), esp. from within an organization.

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Whistleblower

ETA I love that we are apparently judging for doing the right thing? It’s C- level trolling at BEST. I shall now go back to not feeding the troll.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Destiny

[Coconut Flan]

I'm guessing there were more members in the group than the ones who were making racist comments.

[Alisamer]

3 hours ago, Destiny said:

 

ETA I love that we are apparently judging for doing the right thing? It’s C- level trolling at BEST. I shall now go back to not feeding the troll.

I’m starting to think it’s literally impossible for anyone to do the right thing except trolly girl and the Sussexes themselves. And I’m not convinced Harry won’t get accused at some point. I can’t wait to hear how it was racist for the guy to turn in these people for being racist. 

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I'm guessing there were more members in the group than the ones who were making racist comments.

 

Are you defending this WhatsApp group? Or imagining that it's full of good-hearted souls plus 6 bad eggs?

Why'd the good ones stay in the group? Would you have stayed? The group was active for a long while.

There were still (at least) six pretty racist jerks on the police force, no. matter how many good ones you imagine exist.

Personally, I wouldn't be defending this group. I don't think there were as many kindhearted souls there as you think.

At the end of the day, it was about racism. 

 

[klein_roeschen]

6 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I'm guessing there were more members in the group than the ones who were making racist comments.

That's the funny thing with hatefull people. They get used to be secure and content in voicing their hatefull thinking to likeminded people that they think that everyone with the same background (culturally and skincolor) then they have the same mindset. But it only needs one to whistleblow and I'm thankfull for everyone who made that known.

7 hours ago, Destiny said:

whistle-blower, n.

One who ‘blows the whistle’ on a person or activity (see whistle, n. 1b.iv), esp. from within an organization.

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Whistleblower

ETA I love that we are apparently judging for doing the right thing? It’s C- level trolling at BEST. I shall now go back to not feeding the troll.

The beauty of written messages is that you can very easily see who made these comments and who didn't. So I don't think that the whistleblower will face much legal troubles.

[rosamundi]

7 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I'm guessing there were more members in the group than the ones who were making racist comments.

I think so, from this article, which references "serving officers" being in the group as well as these retired ones, and says that a member of the group shared messages from the group with Newsnight (a BBC current affairs programme).

[TN-peach]

Just from a US law perspective (I don't know the exact details of what was said) - but racist, homophobic, sexist hate speech is protected speech; however, if those police officers were testifying in court and their motives were being questioned and they denied ever saying anything -ist then their statements could be used to impeach their testimony.  Think Mark Furman in the OJ Simpson trial - I personally don't think he planted the glove but HE LIED when he said he never said the n-word.  Then, when the defense played the tapes of him saying it, Furman's credibility was GONE.  If you would lie about that, what else would you lie about?! 

Also, many law agencies keep a "secret" list of officers who are not allowed to testify in court because if their background was probed too deeply then the case might be in jeopardy. 

I am not shocked that they would say racist things about Meghan.  I bet they also said sexist things about both Kate and Meghan also. 

[Alisamer]

15 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I'm guessing there were more members in the group than the ones who were making racist comments.

That's true. People will say all sorts of things in places they consider private or semi-private, in front of people, if they assume the people hearing them will agree with them. Meghan, for example, almost certainly has had this happen to her - she generally passes for white, so it's likely she's overheard or had said to her things that no one would have said in her presence if they knew she was biracial.

I'm white and have (thankfully fairly rarely) overheard people saying things they'd never have said if a person of color was within earshot. If they say it directly to me, and they aren't in a position of power or a threat, I try to say something about it. If it's a slur, what usually comes out of my mouth is "that word is not OK." Which hey, not such a powerful thing there, I know. But I'm introverted and easily flustered and that's what I usually can manage. If it's the person restating a stereotype, I tend to go with something like "I have not found that to be true, all people are different." Again, not a strong thing to say, but I do try to use my "bless your poor little heart" voice and look when saying it. Better than just smiling and nodding, at least.

My thought is maybe the person who turned them in was a newer addition to the group? It may be more likely that it's a person (new to the group or not) started out letting a word here or there slide - thinking, "oh, that's just his generation" or "OK, not cool but I don't want to be kicked out of the group" but then when it began to ramp up began printing things out and collecting the evidence. 

Remember these are cops - they know that adequate evidence is required to charge someone with something, and a single slur isn't going to result in consequences as it's too easy to wave off as having drank a little much or something. I can see why they might have hung around observing for a bit, collecting receipts, so that it's not just one guy getting in trouble for saying things, everyone in the group who contributes to the racism gets consequences. If this person had blown the whistle at the very first bigoted comment, they'd have been booted from the group and the rest would have just privately continued to share their racism.

Cops will sometimes spend many months undercover building relationships with criminals to gather evidence against them, so it makes sense to me that one of them would observe and document for some time before coming forward.

[Jackie3]

So everyone else in the group were secretly appalled by the racist comments. These good folks 

• Said nothing
• Remained in the group for years
• Did nothing at all (except one whistleblower)
• Continued to reach the comments.

How likely is this, really?

Do you stay in groups that make horrible racist comments?

This is not a group I'd be defending. Their "goodness" is largely imaginary.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

Supposedly Harry and Charles are meeting for peace talks.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/20/prince-harry-king-charles-set-date-for-peace-talks-report/