[ SECRET POST #5180 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5180 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________






















06. [SPOILERS for Brand upon the Brain!]
[WARNING for mention of suicide]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for End Roll]
[WARNING for mention of suicide]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for probable discussion of sexual assault?]



__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for mention of sexual assault/rape]



__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for discussion of rape?]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for mention of sexual harassment]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for mention of domestic violence]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for discussion of pedophilia]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #741.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That interview certainly screwed things up pretty royally (pun intended) in Britain. Even less people like Meghan now and for the first time more people dislike Harry than like him.

[philstar22]

And considering the generally racist reactions from the general public Meghan has already received, this is hardly surprising. It was in part the rest of the British Royalty's failure to protect her from and defend her against that racism that led to Harry and Meghan leaving in the first place. So it's hardly surprising that the British public is continuing to be as racist towards her as they already were.

[(Anonymous)]

What more do you think they could/should have done? Prince Charles, noted for his pro-diversity, walked her down the aisle when her own father wouldn't/couldn't.

[philstar22]

How about protect her more than they did freaking Prince Andrew? They seem more interested in protecting a rapist than they did a completely innocent woman whose only faults were being a half-black American woman who the British press and people just decided they didn't like.

They should have spoken out against the attacks in the press and from the public, particularly the racist ones. They should have been very clear that Meaghan was one of them, that once she and Harry were married she was a royal as much as any of them, and that racism against her wouldn't be tolerated. They should have had her back. Instead, they themselves treated her differently, deciding that her and Harry's child wouldn't be real royalty even though Harry's brother's kids were, so they only possible explanation for that would be that Meghan is seen as not a real royal by marriage (and what reason could there be for that if not race?). And they refused to directly speak out against the racism directed at Meghan or to defend her when they've been extremely strong previously in defending even entirely undeserving royals like Prince Andrew.

It is clear that Meghan was viewed as different, and that they didn't really think she was joining the family in the same way. Harry did the right thing and defended his wife even though his family wouldn't. It was all the more traumatic for him and made him more protective because it brought back memories of what his mother went through.

[(Anonymous)]

Good point about Andrew - he should certainly be thrown to the wolves.

Speaking out against attacks in the British press has never ever worked, though, particularly not when it comes to royals. I wasn't in the UK for the duration of Harry and Meghan's stay there, so I can't speak to what was and wasn't done, but the wedding all seemed pretty inclusive to me (speaking as a white person.)

Children not being real royals? My understanding is that they're out of the direct line, but once the Queen dies, they will get titles as grandchildren (or niblings) of the monarch. Thus, we have Prince Michael of Kent, and his wife Princess Michael, who certainly is a nasty piece of work. Yes, it's all convoluted and archaic but no I don't think it's racist?

If Harry and Meghan want to bring down the monarchy they've certainly got closer to it than anyone I can think of, so yay to them for having a damn good try at it, I guess. It might be a case of be careful what you wish for.

[philstar22]

Why are Prince William's son's princes but Prince Harry's son is not going to be? William and Harry are brothers, there is no reason why Harry's kid shouldn't have the same title as William's kid. They are treating Harry's son (or will-be son) differently than other kids that should be the same. What reason would there be for that besides them seeing Meghan differently and therefore not seeing Harry's kid as equal and giving him a lesser title?

Marry and Meghan don't want to bring down the monarchy. They want to live their lives. They want to be able to live safely and protect themselves as much as possible from the racism and other attacks they've so far gotten. They believe that they can better do that apart from the monarchy than they could while still a part of it. Harry in particular does not believe his wife is safe in the royal family. He remembers what happened to his mother and it makes him want to protect his wife even more.

[(Anonymous)]

Harry's child/ren are out of the direct line of succession, but iirc they will become princes and princesses when the Queen dies, and they're then grandchildren or niblings of the next monarch. Thus we get Prince Michael of Kent, also not in the direct line of succession.

Would they want titles for the kids? Anne's don't have titles, from memory. Andrew's did, but he was very hung up on being second in line to the throne and we know where that went.

It's archaic and convoluted but that's what you get when you marry into the royal family.

As for the royal family not protecting Harry's mother, she turned down protection from what I remember? It's been a while.

[dantesspirit]

Princess Anne's two kids, Zara and Phillip, don't have titles *because she refused them*, not because they were never offered.

Prince Andrew's daughters are titled, because he and Fergie didn't refuse them when offered. But they are also not high up in the ranking as far as the crown goes either.

Typically, the grandchildren of the monarch *are* titled, unless the parents refuse the titles.

So yes, Archie should have been a prince in his own right. He is still in direct line- Harry is still 6th in line, making Archie 7th.

And yes, if I remember correctly, once the divorce was finalized, Diana turned down extensive protection that she would have had , had they remained married.

[(Anonymous)]

Succession is a little weird, but unless you are in the direct line, titles aren't automatic and even then, it sort of depends on how far you are from a certain title. Titles can get conferred, though - the Duke and the Duchess of Sussex were given by the queen. Anyway, if William hadn't had any children, then Harry would be next in the line after him, if Charles hadn't had any children, it would have gone to Andrew after Charles (Anne is older, but it wasn't until Charlotte that they changed male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture). So right now, it goes Elizabeth->Charles->William->George->Charlotte->Louis->Harry->Archie and Harry (and Archie) will get further away from the succession if William has more children and if George, Charlotte, and/or Louis later have children.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep. I guess it's because I've got some familiarity with British history/European history but it's so weird that people don't know this is how it works and it's not some spiteful invention to diss Harry and Meghan, LOL.

Blame George V

[(Anonymous)]

It all goes back to George V (Queen's grandfather) who, at the time, decided to cut down on all the extra titles floating around the family (considering he is the grandson of Queen Victoria - he had 8 aunts and uncles having multiple children so its not that odd he wanted to curtail the titles).

His limits were basically the titles of prince and princess being given only to the children of the monarch, children of the monarch's sons and "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales".

Now the queen has the power to change the rules and she did that all ready for all of William's kids to be princes and princesses since he's the heir to follow Charles.

Here's the thing I don't see people talking about --- Archie isn't alone in not having a title. The other 5 grandchildren are also without title. In fact the only thing we do know Megan and Harry did that the others didn't is that they actually turned down a lord title for Archie when he was born.

And like the other user said -- once Charles is king Archie could pick up a prince title depending on relations at the time and if Charles feels like doing so as his mother did for William's kids.

Re: Blame George V

[(Anonymous)]

Here's the thing I don't see people talking about --- Archie isn't alone in not having a title. The other 5 grandchildren are also without title. In fact the only thing we do know Megan and Harry did that the others didn't is that they actually turned down a lord title for Archie when he was born.


... which is why the whole hinting at "our son doesn't have a title bc racism" feels so disingenuous to me. They must know the real reason why Archie isn't officially a prince, and pretending like it's a calculated insult is... wow. But it works because many Americans (including philstar, look at all that righteous outrage!) don't know George V's decision and they don't realize that the reason why Meghan and Harry's kid doesn't have a title is because he was never entitled (ha!) to one in the first place, according to rules established before his parents were even born, and that he's not being singled out because he's biracial.

[(Anonymous)]

William is the oldest son, that's why. I don't mean to be rude, but... are you at all familiar with how primogeniture works? I'm not saying it's a great system, but it's not at all new. When it comes to the throne, Harry's kids aren't equal to William's. That's got nothing to do with race, it's a firstborn vs. second thing. Like... you can look at English history for centuries and see that playing out. It's why Elizabeth became queen and her sister Margaret didn't. It's why Charles is heir and not his younger siblings, it's why his kids are ahead of his siblings' kids. They didn't invent this to get back at Meghan.

[(Anonymous)]

Meghan and Harry's children would not be princes/princesses even if she'd been white. George V set down the convention, the current batch of royals have been following it since before Meghan.

Note: When the Queen dies and Charles becomes king, THEN Meghan and Harry's children will get titles. It's archaic and complicated, but it's not down to race or to spite Meghan. You're just not familiar with how this stuff works.

[(Anonymous)]

True, but the Queen also made William's younger two children a Princess and Prince when they too should not be.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. And she could ignore the rules for Meghan and Harry's children, too... but that would be making special exceptions for them, which isn't the same thing at all as deliberately withholding a title because of racism. Philstar couldn't conceive of any reason why Harry's children would be treated differently, probably because she doesn't understand the basics of primogeniture, succession and George V's decision. I'm just pointing out that the obvious is being overlooked.

tl;DR

[(Anonymous)]

This is for two reasons. One, it's because William is the heir to the heir. When the Queen dies and Charles becomes king, William will be the heir to the throne and Harry will be the king's son, yes, but not the heir. Harry's children will hold the same relevance within the family as Andrew and Edward's children do, which is to say not much at all. Beatrice and Eugenie aren't that much younger than William and Harry and while they do court media attention, they have never been working royals, despite having titles. Prince Edward's children are still minors, and while they do legally have titles, they don't use them and have been raised in relative privacy.

Second, the law dictating the British line of succession was in the process of being amended around the time William got married, both to remove the barrier against a person in line marrying a Catholic (which restored among others, the Queen's cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, and more distantly, the King of the Netherlands who are both Protestant, but have Catholic wives), and to remove the male-preference succession in favor of absolute primogeniture. The original Letters Patent removed the right to a royal title for great-grandchildren of the monarch except for the "eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales" but with the law change, that led to a problem. There was a 50/50 chance that William and Kate's first child would be a girl, who would automatically be third in line and whose position would no longer be displaced by any younger brothers. However, according to the 1917LP, any daughters of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be styled simply Lady [name] Windsor. This meant that should William have a daughter first, she would be styled as the daughter of a Duke, while her younger brother would enjoy the title and style of a British prince. The Queen issued the Letters Patent to circumvent this, so that a firstborn daughter would not be outranked by her secondborn brother. Since Harry isn't expected to become king, this didn't need to apply to his children, since they would all be styled as children of a duke until Charles became king.

[ill_omened]

Yeah.

I say this as someone in a long term relationship with an American (some of you are alright), people outside the UK do not understand just how badly an American Celebrity going off on one and going onto possibly the biggest platform they possible have to complain about the Royal family without specifically naming anyone, particularly about racism, and how hard their life is goes down.

You'll get some opinion pieces on your side and BBC looking for clicks showing a bit of twitter outrage so they can be at the centre of a 'conversation', but I probably couldn't intentionally design anything more effective at making the British public turn against you.

[(Anonymous)]

i saw it described as "two millionaires sit in a billionaire's garden and they all moan about how much their lives suck"

[(Anonymous)]

That's hilarious.

[(Anonymous)]

Lmao perfect

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty accurate tbh.

[(Anonymous)]

???

I don't think we watched the same interview. Meghan and Harry seemed pretty happy to me. It looks like they've both gotten the help they needed.

And it's not like depression cares how famous you are or how much money you make. I think it was pretty great that they were advocating for mental health resources and taking away some of the stigma of depression. If rich and famous people come forward with their mental health issues, it might help other people recognize their own issues enough to get help.

I haven't even told my PARENTS that I needed help recently. Not because I fear them thinking that I'm "moaning about how much" my life sucks, but because there still is a lot of stigma.

[(Anonymous)]

Hahaha brilliant description.

[(Anonymous)]

This is hilarious from the cop-fucker who thought black kids deserved their deaths at the hands of white supremacists.