n their new roles as Canadian celebrities who do charity work, Harry and Meghan are no longer public property

At last the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be able to escape the racism, the misogyny, the distortions, the intrusions, the fictions, the cruelties

So that’s them gone, then. It’s not hard to see why – the media drove them out, more than any other single factor, and their role just wasn’t worth the sacrifices.

No one does understatement and euphemism like the Queen. In the Buckingham Palace statement, her meaning is clear: “I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.” 

“Intense scrutiny” means “the press made their lives hell” and “independent life” means they don’t wish to put up with it any longer. It bears repeating that the intense media interest in Diana contributed to her death in 1997 – when Harry was 12 years old. Prince Harry certainly holds the press responsible, and is plainly determined to make sure that his wife and son would not continue to be subject to that same sort of treatment. Anything else – their roles in the pecking order and all the rest of it – is secondary. 

When the Sussexes decided to sue the newspapers recently, the defence the Mail on Sunday put up for its coverage of their lives was instructive. Meghan “is a major public figure, whose fitness to perform royal duties on behalf of the Crown and to be the recipient of public money is a proper matter for public scrutiny, and whose conduct, past and present, both in public and private, including her conduct in her relationships with her family and other people, is rightly of enormous public interest”. Further, she and Harry “rely on publicity about themselves and their lives to maintain the privileged positions they hold”. Fair game, in other words. 

The threat followed that they’d call Meghan’s father into court and tear chunks out of her. Anyone in any doubt about the media campaign of hate being waged against Meghan need only to reflect on those words and actions.

In effect, though, that Mail on Sunday defence document represented a guide for Harry and Meghan to use to escape media “scrutiny”, ie persecution. The HRH titles will be ditched, they will not represent the Queen, they will “step back” from royal duties, they won’t take taxpayers’ money and will pay back the money spent on refurbishing their Windsor “cottage”. They’ll live in Canada, and they’ll be at best celebs doing charity work rather than British public or state figures in the traditional sense. Thus there can be vastly less “public interest” – in the media’s own terms – in their private lives. 

The rest is detail. The bill for the security detail can be dealt with; they will be able to generate revenues of their own; the accountants can sort out the tax. They’ll not need a food bank. No one beyond some frustrated editors cares that much. 

It’s a shame, of course. They were good at the job, and a much-needed modernising influence. The Queen has acknowledged that and wishes them well, with much love in that statement, tinged with some anxiety; so much for a furious rift with granny. She too wants them to have a “happy and peaceful new life”. 

At last Harry and Meghan will be able to escape the racism, the misogyny, the distortions, the intrusions, the fictions, the cruelties. They have proved that they don’t have to take it, and that they can indeed opt out. They are no longer public property. 

The British monarchy has lost two of its brightest stars. The royal show will go on, of course, as it did after Diana, or the abdication of a king in 1936. 

But Harry and Meghan will be missed, most of all by the British tabloid press. They won’t have Meghan to kick around any more.

(Source: Independent)

Harry and Meghan: The big question Canadians have about move

Many Canadians have an affection for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. But one big question is hanging over the shock news of the couple's part-time relocation to Canada - what will it cost?

There has been plenty of chatter in Canada since Prince Harry and Meghan said they would be stepping back as senior royals and spending part of their time in North America.

The duchess is spending time on Canada's west coast with their infant son as the couple flesh out the details of their move away from their role as full-time royals, with her public outings closely followed.

But the main preoccupation hovering over the royal couple's decision to spend part of their time in Canada comes down to who will foot the bill - especially if they are spending the bulk of their time as private citizens.

Some have outright rejected the idea of the public shouldering any costs for the couple.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend part of their time in Canada

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois - a federal party that represents the interests of Quebec, a province where attitudes towards the monarchy tend to be frostier than in the rest of Canada - said Quebecers should not have to pay a dime.

Yves-Francois Blanchet quipped he was already paying for a Netflix subscription, where he could watch The Crown, a drama about Queen Elizabeth II's reign.

He is not alone in not wanting to fork out any cash.

A public opinion poll released this week by the non-profit Angus Reid Institute indicated that 73% of Canadians have no interest in paying any of the costs for security and other expenditures associated with their relocation.

"This view is consistent across demographic groups including age, gender or region or political preference," the organisation said in a release.

Just 3% of respondents told the pollster that Canadians should pick up the tab for security and other necessary costs, and 19% said they were fine with paying a portion of the bill.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a taxpayer advocacy group, says the current debate over who should ante up for costs related to the members of the monarchy is different from those that regularly bubble up in Canada.

The country is a constitutional monarchy - its head of state is Queen Elizabeth II - and things like Royal tours and the office of the Governor General, who is the Queen's representative in Canada, are paid for by the public purse.

"Normally when we get into debates about the cost of the monarchy in this country there's a pretty clear line - people who are monarchists and people who are small 'r' republicans," says Aaron Wudrick, the organisation's federal director.

But the relocation of the duke and duchess has "changed the dynamic".

"The distinction is a bit like a friend who comes over for dinner and you're happy to prepare their meal versus them deciding they're going to move in and still expecting you to cook for them all the time," he said.

"I think that's how a lot of Canadians see this. I actually don't think it's about the dollar figure, it's a general view that people who have a lot of means and the capacity to pay for themselves should be doing it."

The duke and duchess themselves have not said they expect Canadians to pick up the tab, Mr Wudrick notes, and federal officials have admitted it's not clear yet how costs may be divided - or what those costs would be.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told broadcaster Global News this week that "there's still a lot of decisions to be taken by the Royal Family, by the Sussexes themselves as to what level of engagement they choose to have".

The question of security costs is "part of the reflection that needs to be had and there are discussions going on", he said.

So while the Queen has agreed to the couple's wish to step back as senior royals, become financially independent and to split their time between the UK and Canada, the details of the transition are still being worked out.

Mr Wudrick says that "in the interests of settling everyone down - maybe this is all a tempest in a teapot - it would be helpful if the duke and duchess could provide some clarity on what their expectations are".

John Michaelson, with the Monarchist League of Canada, agrees answers should come sooner rather than later.

Most Canadians don't spend much time thinking about the Royal Family or their official role in Canada, he says, and the benefits of the institution are often hidden from view - the thousands of community, ceremonial, and constitutional engagements the family and the Queen's representatives there carry out annually across the country.

The league have released regular reports on costs related to the Canadian Crown for the past 20 years "to try and bring the point home that this is something that we get great benefit from and it doesn't cost a great deal", he said.

The tally is approximately C$1.68 ($1.29; £0.99) a year per Canadian for the general cost of the Crown, according to their most recent study.

Mr Michaelson says Prince Harry and Meghan's relocation is also an opportunity for the pair to deepen their engagement with organisations like the Prince's Trust Canada, a charitable endeavour established by Prince of Wales in 2011.

Meanwhile, a columnist with the National Post newspaper said the debate over the likely negligible relative cost of protecting direct close relations to Canada's head of state "has revealed one of the ugliest elements of the Canadian national character".

"It's true, Canada. We're a nation of cheapskates," wrote Matt Gurney.

Richard Powers, with Toronto's Rotman School of Management, told the BBC that Canada could see some economic benefits from having the famous couple in the country, primarily in the non-profit sector.

Both Prince Harry and Meghan have said they are interested in continuing with their charity work, with the duchess visiting two Vancouver-based women's organisations this week.

But Mr Wudrick dismisses the idea that doing charitable works should be enough to open the public purse strings.

"If a Hollywood star or a pro-sports player with a lot of money moved here and they donate to charity and they do good things, they [still] pay for themselves," he said.

(Source: BBC)

Harry and Meghan: Royals gather for talks over Sussexes' future

The Queen will meet senior royals in Sandringham later to discuss the future roles of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Prince Harry, the Duke of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales will all attend, while Meghan is expected to join the discussion by phone from Canada.

The Sussexes say they plan to step back as senior members of the Royal Family.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond described the meeting as "royal history in the making".

It is hoped the talks will produce a "next step" on the way to defining the couple's new relationship with the Royal Family - in line with the Queen's wish to find a solution within days.

The Duke of Sussex, the Duke of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales will all attend talks on Monday

However, our correspondent said a deal "might take time".

Among the issues likely to be discussed are what funding the duke and duchess will receive, whether they will keep their titles, and what royal duties they will continue to carry out.

Monday's gathering at the Queen's estate in Norfolk - being described as the "Sandringham summit" - will be the first time the monarch has spoken face-to-face with Prince Harry since the Sussexes' announcement.

Prince Charles has returned from Oman for the talks after attending a condolence ceremony following the death of Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said.

Prince Harry is understood to be travelling to Sandringham from Frogmore Cottage, his home in Windsor.

In their statement on Wednesday, posted on the couple's official Instagram account, they said they intend to "step back" as senior royals and work to become financially independent.

They also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America, while "continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages".

The Queen, Prince Charles, William and Harry are expected to review a range of possibilities for the Sussexes, taking into account plans outlined by the couple.

If a deal is agreed in the coming days, there is a general understanding that it will take some time to implement.

Newspaper reports suggested the couple could conduct a potentially damaging television interview if they were unhappy with the outcome of the discussions.

Broadcaster and friend of the couple, Tom Bradby - who made a documentary with them last year - wrote in the Sunday Times: "I have some idea of what might be aired in a full, no-holds-barred, sit-down interview and I don't think it would be pretty."

Meghan is in Canada with her eight-month-old son Archie after flying there amid the ongoing discussions, which have involved the UK and Canadian governments.

She and Prince Harry had been in Canada over Christmas, before they returned to the UK last week after a six-week break from royal duties.

Last October, Prince Harry and Meghan publicly revealed their struggles under the media spotlight.

The couple were already preparing to launch their own Sussex Royal charity, which they set up after splitting from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's foundation in June last year.

And in December it was revealed that the couple had made an application to trademark their Sussex Royal brand across a string of items including books, calendars, clothing, charitable fundraising, education and social care services.

(Source: BBC)

Gender equality cannot happen without men: Meghan Markle

Duchess thanks roundtable for letting Prince Harry 'crash the party'

The Duchess of Sussex has said conversations about gender equality “can’t happen without men” while taking part in a roundtable discussion on the subject.

On Friday 25 October, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex arrived at Windsor Castle to meet with youth ambassadors from One Young World, a non-profit organisation that champions young leaders.

During their roundtable conversation, Meghan voiced her opinion that gender equality can only be achieved when individuals work together as a unit.

“What you’re all capable of doing independently is incredible but then when you work collectively, our intention today is to try to create somewhat of a task force to see what we can do within our communities and then use that knowledge to apply it to whatever is happening in all these other communities,” the royal said.

“In terms of gender equality, which is something I have championed for a long time, I think that conversation can’t happen without men being a part of it.”

The duchess added that for that reason it “made complete sense” for Prince Harry to also be in attendance for the roundtable discussion.

“So thank you for letting him crash the party,” Meghan said.

Earlier this month, while in South Africa on a royal tour, Meghan visited the University of Johannesburg to participate in a conversation with the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) about gender equality in education.

The 38-year-old became patron of the ACU in January, taking over the role from the Queen, who held the position for 33 years.

During the event, Meghan affirmed that when a “woman is empowered it changes absolutely everything in the community”.

“The goal here is to be able to have gender equality, to be able to support women as they are working in research and higher roles. And also to be able to have workshops, convene things that are really helping people understand the importance of gender equality,” she said.

In January, Prince Harry described himself as a feminist while visiting women’s support charity Tomorrow’s Women Wirral with Meghan.

The couple spoke to members of the organisation in Birkenhead about the charity’s purpose as a centre for women who want to make “positive lifestyle changes”.

“During a discussion about Tomorrow’s Women Wirral being a women’s only centre Prince Harry, to our delight, declared ‘I’m a feminist’ and highlighted that it is equally important for men to support the movement in female empowerment!” said Angela Murphy, CEO of the charity.

(Source: Independent)

Danny Baker’s excuses don’t cut it – the impact of racism is inseparable from the intent

Baker was tweeting as a public figure, representing the BBC. That should bring an awareness that anything he makes public carries weight in a way that the average person’s views don’t

The excuses vary, but they amount to the same thing. “I didn’t mean it.” “It’s a joke.” And, as of yesterday, when BBC 5 Live presenter Danny Baker was alerted to the racist connotations of tweeting a photo which appeared to compare the newborn royal baby to a literal ape, he said: “Sorry my gag of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.”

We can take him at his word, call it an oversight and forgive his classic response that only “real bigots” attack people knowingly. The trouble is that when we look at the history of humour and racism in Britain, it’s clear that they have remained linked on just this kind of nod and a wink. Baker has paid a price, but we have let these “jokes” slide without so much as a slap on the wrist for too long.

Baker’s sacking has led some to question whether his intentions should have been more carefully considered before letting him go. I can hear the furious clacks of the PC-gone-mad keyboard warrior brigade echoing out all over the country already.

But whether or not his intentions were pure is beside the point. We live in a world that has habitually dehumanised black people, and relied on comedy as a crutch to do so. Danny Baker lives in that world too. It isn’t something he can dismiss or ignore. His choice to seek out, upload and tweet that photo without apparently pausing to think speaks to that much bigger, more dangerous phenomenon.

The perception that blackness points to a lack of civility stretches back centuries. It’s an idea that has been presented as fact – in 1798, for example, black people were described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as “strangers to every sentiment of compassion” as well as “an awful example of the corruption of man when left to himself”, according to the BBC.

It has been used to justify some of society’s greatest ills: slavery, rape, murder, torture. It has been pushed in children’s novels by authors like Agatha Christie and Enid Blyton, and in comic series like Tintin. It has been used to sell products, to entertain, to abuse.

And of course, it plays to the sentiments of people who quietly believe there to be elements of truth in these racist tropes. That was the risk in Baker’s case, and, I hope, a big part of the BBC’s decision to let him go.

Baker was tweeting while a public figure, representing a publicly-funded broadcaster. That should bring an awareness that anything he makes public carries weight in a way that the average person’s views don’t. When that includes clumsy, lazy or casual sharing of racist tropes, then it has the capacity to further embolden those who already buy into discriminatory ideas. After all, it has not gone unreported that the Duchess of Sussex is mixed race: he has little excuse.

The consequences of his error are greater than his sacking. Tweets like his push the notion that blackness in itself – in the most basic understanding of all that means – is comedic or worth ridicule in itself.

It’s the reason blackface has been such a huge part of British comedy for so long. Why comedians have routinely avoided culpability for engaging in it. They’re just playing characters who happen to be black, it’s the performance from the comedians themselves that make it funny, some would argue.

I also suspect it’s the same reason other figures who’ve made similar, but less unequivocally racist “jokes”, have escaped responsibility.

When Alan Sugar, the host of BBC show The Apprentice, decided to compare the Senegal national football team to black immigrant street vendors in Marbella, for example, the repercussions weren’t quite as bad. There were no monkey comparisons or bananas thrown, no overtly racist language, depending on who you ask. But the sentiment behind it, that black people are a monolith, was similarly damaging.

When it comes to racism in Britain, naivety has long been key to pushing the harmful messages we accept as inadvertent or good natured. But there’s no excuse. Whether or not these acts are accidental, the impact is almost always inseparable from the intent. You don’t have to have a “diseased mind” to be part of the problem, but blind belief in your own sense of decency in the face of facts that suggest otherwise, definitely helps.

(Source: Independent)

Was the royal baby really born at home? Here's why I hope you never find out

Rebecca Schiller, author of Your No Guilt Pregnancy Plan, explains why she hopes we never find out where Harry and Meghan had their baby

Since the Duchess of Sussex announced that she was planning a home birth, we’ve seen endless criticism of her choices, and now it seems many are delighting in the rumours that her hopes were scuppered and she ended up having to be whisked to hospital.

Personally, I hope we never find out where Harry and Meghan had their baby. Women’s decisions in childbirth should be made in private with personalised, evidence-based information and compassionate support.

But I also hope that we can get beyond the flawed idea that a change of plan means the plan wasn’t worth doing in the first place. Birth planning is about listening to women. It reminds those around us that we matter, that we are autonomous individuals and that we must be afforded dignity, respect and kindness.

On paper I had the births I wanted: two planned home births that ended with a baby born safely in my home. Nevertheless each birth brought unexpected challenges, like when my second baby’s birth unfolded in a painful, 40-minute blur. My son was born so shockingly quickly that my midwife and doula were still racing towards me as he emerged on my bedroom floor.

Dominic Lipinski/PA

I was lucky. I had good support before and afterwards: people who actually listened to me, and realistic childbirth education and midwives and doctors who (for the most part) treated me with respect. My babies’ births strengthened me.

Sadly my positive experience is not universal: 25 to 35 per cent of women describe childbirth as traumatic. This is worrying when we consider that women remember their childbirth experiences vividly for years, that this is the time in a woman’s life when she’s most vulnerable to mental illness and that suicide remains the leading indirect cause of maternal death.

Of first-time mothers planning a home birth, 45 per cent transfer to hospital. Though birth planning is officially encouraged, perhaps part of the reasons it’s often not respected is because we just can’t control some aspects of childbirth. A detailed birth plan can can lead to sneers from some doctors and, at the births I’ve attended, eye-roles and negative comments from midwives.

We shouldn’t promise women the perfect birth because it doesn’t exist

We shouldn’t promise women the perfect birth because it doesn’t exist. If we put the responsibility for having a good birth on individual women entering an enormous system that she can’t control, then we risk making her feel like a failure especially when the stakes feel so high. Women receive a drip feed of information from the media, public health messaging and healthcare professionals that what they eat, drink, how much exercise they do, the way they give birth or feed their babies might have an impact on their child’s future.

Focusing on promoting one kind of birth as the “best” or “safest” pits women against each other and fails to account for bumps in the road and our individual needs. It’s easy for those of us who want to help mothers thrive to fall into the trap of telling women that it’s up to them to get birth right.
Courses, classes and products sometimes sell the perfect birth for the right price, to the woman who is most dedicated.

This is perhaps why people seem so exhilarated by the schadenfreude of rumours that Meghan’s birth didn’t go to plan. We attach a sense of failure to a birth that doesn’t go to plan, and there’s a sense of vindication in seeing someone like the Duchess of Sussex succumb to the same humanity as the rest of us. We forget that a good birth isn’t about sticking to an ideology but navigating an ever-changing event surrounded by people who listen to and care for us.

But the reality is that however well prepared women are for childbirth, however many hours of hypnobirthing they have done, the system is still unfriendly to women much of the time. NHS leaflets, websites, national maternity policy and best practice all promise choice of where to give birth, respect for women’s decisions and are often quick to explain the benefits of “natural” birth. Yet many women find little support for their choices, an overstretched system that favours intervention and a culture that infantilises or ignores them. We need to prepare them for this, mitigate it as much as possible and change the system at the same time.

Emergencies and changes of plan will happen. Women who plan home births may still give birth in hospital and those who plan elective caesareans may end up push their babies out in the taxi on the way to hospital. Instead of using this as a reason to reject the idea of women daring to have an opinion about this most personal of events, we should remember that they are less traumatised by events in childbirth if they respect if they feel in control and treated kindly.

We should stop picking over the details of Meghan’s birth and accept that in this most private of moments there is no right or wrong way to do things. A change of plan is not a failure just as making a plan is not naive. A woman who dares to do things her own way should receive only our quiet gratitude and support.

(Source: Independent)

8 unusual royal traditions after the birth of Meghan Markle's son

The baby was born at 5.26am on 6 May

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced the arrival of their first child.

Born at their home in Windsor on 6 May and weighing in at 7lbs 3oz, the baby boy was announced via a statement on the Sussex Royal Instagram account.

Speaking to the press outside the stables, Prince Harry stated he is in awe of his wife Meghan Markle, saying that seeing her give birth was an "amazing experience."

In October 2018, Kensington Palace announced that Harry and Meghan were expecting their first child.

Following the birth of a child, common practice may dictate new parents to post the first picture of their child on social media or start perfecting the art of fitting a baby seat in the car.

But when it comes to the royal family, they have more unusual post-birth traditions.

From announcing the birth via an easel outside Buckingham Palace to royal babies wearing the same christening gown, here’s a list of the most bizarre royal birth traditions.

Royal babies are delivered by a royal gynaecologist
As per tradition, a royal child is delivered with the assistance of at least one royal doctor.

The current royal surgeon-gynaecologist is Alan Farthing, while the royals’ consultant obstetrician is Guy Thorpe-Beeston.

Both medical professionals helped deliver the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s three children, Prince Louis, Prince George and Princess Charlotte.

Royal gynaecologists Marcus Setchell (C) and Alan Farthing leave the Lindo Wing following the birth of the son of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at St Mary's Hospital on July 22, 2013 in London, England (Getty Images)

Sir Marcus Setchell, who was Queen Elizabeth II's surgeon-gynaecologist and who delivered Prince George, has since retired.

In his only interview about Prince George’s birth, Sir Marcus described the midwifery team as “perfectly wonderful”.

During an interview on Woman's Hour' BBC Radio 4, the gynaecologist added: "You just keep reminding yourself that although it's very important, for the couple and the about-to-be-born baby, it's just another healthy young couple giving birth to a hopefully very healthy baby.

"And I constantly reminded myself of that so that the pressures of the hundreds of media people outside the hospital didn't affect me, at least not more than minimally."

The parents don’t have custody of their children
A law enacted more than three centuries ago means that the Queen has full legal custody of any child born into the royal family.

The law, called “The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family,” was introduced by King George I in 1717.

“George I did not get along with his son, the future George II,” explains royal expert Marlene Koenig previously to The Independent.

Members of the Royal Family attend the 2018 Trooping the Colour (Getty Images)

“I believe it came about when the Prince of Wales [George II] did not want to have the godparent for his son that his father wanted - so George I got Parliament to come up with something.”

An annual register published in 1772 states that the then King had the care of the royal children and grandchildren, and the presumptive heir to the crown.

However, while law dictates that the Queen legally has custody of her grandchildren, Koenig doesn’t think she would ever act upon the right.

“I would doubt that the Queen would interfere. [It’s] more of a formality,” she says.

“I think the Queen has let her children raise their kids.”

The birth announcement is displayed on an easel
A royal birth is traditionally announced via a bulletin placed on an easel in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace.

The framed typewritten bulletin, which is commonly brought out of the Privy Purse door after it is driven to the palace by car from the birth, is signed by the medical team which attends the royal birth.

Senior footman Olivia Smith (L) and footman Heather McDonald place a notice on an easel in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace in London to formally announce the birth of a baby boy to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at the Lindo Wing of St Mary's Hospital on April 23, 2018 in London, England (Getty Images)

It includes details as to the baby’s gender, time of birth, as well as a status confirming the health of the mother and child.

Following royal births at the Lindo Wing in recent decades, it has also become tradition for the new parents to present their child on the steps of the hospital ward’s entrance.

Royal babies are wrapped in a G.H. Hurt & Sons blanket
For their first appearance to the world, royal children are traditionally wrapped in a blanket made by Nottingham-based knitwear company G.H. Hurt & Sons.

Prince Charles was the first royal to be bundled in a blanket by the company following his birth back in 1948.

Prince George and the Duchess of Cambridge on the steps of the Lindo Wing, St Mary's Hospital (Getty Images)

In 2013, Prince George was wrapped in one of the company’s ivory white merino wool shawl and Princess Charlotte was bundled in a scalloped edge wrap in 2015.

Prince Louis, meanwhile, was wrapped in the company’s ‘Nottingham Lace Knitted Baby Shawl’ following his birth.

The name isn’t announced for days
Following an appearance outside the Lindo Wing, it has become common practice among the royal family not to release the child’s name for several days.

After Prince George and Princess Charlotte were born, the public waited two days before learning their respective names.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Register The Birth of Their Son Prince George of Cambridge In London (Getty Images)

However, it was another three days before Prince Louis’ name was announced on 27 April to the world.

The child will wear a special christening gown
It is customary for the royals to pass down a christening robe for the newest member of the family to wear at their christening.

For George, Charlotte and Louis’ christenings, the trio each wore a replica of an original robe made in 1841 for Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa.

The original gown was made from white silk with a handmade lace overlay and was worn by 62 royal babies over the course of its 163 years of royal service. It was hand-washed with spring water after each christening ceremony and stored in a dark room until its next use.

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, carries Princess Charlotte of Cambridge as they arrive at the Church of St Mary Magdalene on the Sandringham Estate for the Christening of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge on July 5, 2015 (Getty Images)

George VI and the Queen wore the white lace dress, as did Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince Harry. The last royal to wear the original gown was Lady Louise Windsor, Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex's daughter, in 2004.

Prince George became the fourth royal child to be christening in the gown, which was reportedly replicated with the help of the Queen’s personal wardrobe advisor, Angela Kelly, in 2011

Zara Tindall’s second daughter, Lena, was the most recent royal to wear the gown at her St Nicholas Church in Cherington, Gloucestershire earlier this month.

Gun salutes follow the birth announcement
It is customary for a birth announcement to be followed by a royal gun salute.

Following Princess Charlotte’s birth, volleys were fired by soldiers in Hyde Park and the Tower of London to honour her arrival at 08:34 BST on 2 May.

At 14:00 BST, soldiers from The King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery rode out in a procession from Wellington Barracks, near Buckingham Palace, to fire 41 shots.

The Honourable Artillery Company fire a 62 round Royal Gun Salute outside the Tower of London to celebrate the birth of the royal baby on July 23, 2013 in London, England (Getty Images)

The Honourable Artillery Company also fired a 62-gun salute at the Tower of London.

Royal babies don’t automatically receive royal titles
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's child will not receive a royal title upon birth, unless granted by the Queen.

A Letters Patent passed by King George V in 1917 reads:

"...the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms.”

To put it simply, this means that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s children, should they have any while the Queen is on the throne, will not be HRHs or princes or princesses, but will be known instead as Lord or Lady (forename) Mountbatten-Windsor.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (L) and Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, watch a musical performance at Canada House, the offices of the High Commision of Canada in the United Kingdom, during an event to mark Commonwealth Day, in central London, on March 11, 2019. (Getty Images)

However, the Queen could issue a new Letters Patent to change this, as she did for Prince William and Kate Middleton’s children.

In December 2012, the Queen issued a Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm declaring “all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of royal highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour”.

This explains why Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis all have HRH titles.

(Source: Independent)

Has Meghan's accent changed since marrying Prince Harry?

A lot has been written about the Duchess of Sussex in recent months, from speculation on her relationships with other members of the Royal Family to endless discussion of how much she cradles her baby bump.

Now even her accent has become a topic of debate.

When clips of Californian-born Meghan speaking are shared online, the same suggestion often pops up: Has she adopted a British accent?

Do you Adam and Eve it? It might not be full Cockney Rhyming Slang,
 but some say the duchess is sounding more British

Some speech experts say they can hear a change, but others are not convinced.

"There does seem to be something in the idea that Meghan Markle's speech has changed a bit, at least in some settings," said phonetics and pronunciation specialist Dr Geoff Lindsey.

"There are occasional vowels which sound a bit more British," he said, while conceding it was tricky to make absolute statements.

One example is her more British pronunciation of the word "all" when she met crowds in Cheshire in June 2018, compared to her pronunciation of the same word in her and Prince Harry's engagement interview in 2017, he said. But "the differences are subtle," said Dr Lindsey.

Meghan Markle’s got a case of the Madonna! She’s now speaking with a British accent! It happens! Have you heard Lindsay Lohan talk lately? 😜 pic.twitter.com/sexMnNlglc

— Perez (@ThePerezHilton) 6 July 2018

And Dr Lindsey, an honorary linguistics lecturer at University College London, added that her intonation is more British than American when asking the yes/no question: "Did you make that for us?" in a clip from Birkenhead in January 2019.

Marisa Brook, assistant professor in linguistics at the University of Toronto, said the duchess has "developed a style that sounds very English-aristocratic for interacting with the public".

Among the examples she highlighted was the duchess saying "I do appreciate that" in the same clip from Birkenhead (above) in January 2019.

"The vowel in 'that' is further back in the mouth than you would expect for American English," said Ms Brook, suggesting it could be a consequence of living in southern England.

Ms Brook, who has studied accent changes in high-profile figures, said: "I think a lot of it is deliberate on her part.

"She's developed a style to be used when directly talking with the British public.

"These are the situations where people might be judging her in public instantly, where it really benefits her to sound British and aristocratic."

"I wouldn't be surprised if the duchess had had some coaching," Ms Brook added

"If it's conscious, I don't think it makes her manipulative, or a poser or anything," said Ms Brook, who attributes any change to the duchess's "unique position".

"She's someone who's very off-beat from those who usually join the Royal Family - it makes a lot of sense. It's not that she is changing who she is.

"It's like she's changing how she dresses - it's like an extremely fancy outfit.

"I would call it a reasonable resource for her to draw on, given how unlikely her change in circumstances - and how dramatic."

'Weird if she spoke like the Queen'
Phonetics professor Jane Setter, from the University of Reading, agrees there is some difference in the duchess's vowel pronunciation in public since her move to the UK, but "it's not huge".

Professor Setter said the crowds "will make a difference" because of something called accommodation, which is when people adapt their speech - consciously or unconsciously - to the people they are talking to.

Accommodation "is a social thing, showing a willingness to move closer to a
 speaker," says Professor Setter

"We all do this to some extent - speak differently with different people," said Professor Setter.

"In a social role like the one Meghan is now in, where she has to meet lots of people and basically make a good impression on them in a short space of time, the ability to do this is very useful.

"But it would be weird to take this too far. I don't think British people would accept her if she suddenly started sounding like she was in the cast of EastEnders - or spoke like the Queen.

"She is who she is and it's important that she is genuine. Speech is part of that."

Accents can reflect various things about people, said sociolinguist Dr Ella Jeffries, from the University of Essex - not only our background, but also our affiliations and aspirations.

And for someone like the duchess, whose success may depend on trying to fit in, accent changes can happen naturally and fast.

"Lots of different factors play a role in who accommodates, how they accommodate and why," said Dr Jeffries.

"Someone who has a strong affiliation with the region they grew up in and is very proud of their heritage for example, might not change the way they speak much - even if they move to another part of the country, or even abroad.

"However, someone with lots at stake in trying to 'fit in' or sound like they belong to a new in-group - British royalty, in the case of Meghan - might find accommodation happens quite naturally and quite quickly."

Some features of language - like saying "lift" instead of "elevator" -
tend to alter faster than pronunciation, said Dr Jeffries

 Could her background in acting play a role in how easily her accent might change?

"Certainly any potential accent coaching she has had will have made her more aware of the differences - and potentially better at mimicking them," said Dr Jeffries.

"But on the other hand, maybe she therefore has better control of her accent than others and if she decides she wants to, might stay staunchly American sounding."

But overall, Dr Jeffries said she did not hear much evidence of the duchess sounding more British.

And Professor Paul Kerswill, a sociolinguist from the University of York, is even less convinced, saying "there really isn't much to go on".

"Meghan is pretty consistent in her accent... whether acting a 'FedEx girl' in 2011, or a lawyer in Suits the same year," he said.

"In the interview with Harry, the same thing applies: the only point where I felt there was some Received Pronunciation creeping in was in the word 'roasting', where the vowel is central and not back."

Interestingly, he added that the duchess's clothing could be a reason for any perceived accent change.

"It's been proved that appearance, ethnicity and age all influence what we think we hear, even when there's no difference in what is being played back in the audio," said Professor Kerswill.

Meghan's accent: Examples of American English vs Standard British
Vowels
In American English, "all" is pronounced more like "ol" whereas Britons pronounce the word "orl". The duchess uses the more British "orl" when saying "Yes, we all had a good day I think," says Dr Jeffries.

Consonants
In words ending with "t", American speakers typically sound the final "t" more weakly. Speakers of standard British English explode the "t" - which means pronouncing it strongly, like at the beginning of a word. The duchess seems to do this, says Dr Lindsey, when she says "sweet" here and here.

Intonation
In questions which require a yes/no answer, such as "are you okay?", Americans typically just use a rise in intonation, whereas in British English the pitch falls and then rises. Dr Lindsey says the duchess adopts the British style when she says: "Did you make that for us?"

(Source: BBC)

It’s no surprise Thomas Markle and his daughter Meghan are now estranged

Criticising a woman for having boundaries is a great way to convince her to reinforce them

Thomas Markle has taken to the airwaves, again complaining to the world’s media about his “controlling” daughter and marvelling, again, why on earth she might not want him in her life. Because nothing says “loving father” more clearly than a man who denigrates his pregnant daughter on morning TV.

Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, has been remarkably dignified through her father’s media rampage, which has now lasted six months, never complaining or explaining. But, of course, she doesn’t need to: I think we are all getting a pretty clear view of what Meghan’s childhood was like every time Thomas decides his need for attention outweighs his concern for his daughter’s wellbeing and rings up Piers Morgan to complain about her some more.

It is interesting how Meghan, very much despite herself, has become such a lightning rod for so many controversies, from the royal family’s – shall we say – race issues to the British media’s obsession with pitting women against one another, with claims that she and Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, are at one another’s throats. And now Meghan has become a high-profile example of some men’s inability to understand that women are allowed to say no.

Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. Photograph: AFP/Getty

On top of her father refusing to accept his daughter’s limits, Piers Morgan, the James Boswell to Thomas’s Samuel Johnson, has similarly been raging this month about Meghan “sacking [him] like a sack of potatoes”. In this case, Meghan’s crime was not becoming Morgan’s BFF after their one drink, once, in a pub several years ago. Tellingly, perhaps, Morgan had a somewhat different take on his and Meghan’s relationship exactly a year ago, when he wrote about “my beautiful friendship with the amazing Meghan Markle”. True, he acknowledged, he hadn’t seen her in a while, but, he concluded at the time: “All will be forgiven if I get an invite to the wedding.” Guess it was lost in the post.

In both these cases, we have men acting like they have some kind of right over a woman: they are entitled to Meghan’s time, and their feelings about being ignored by her are more important than her feelings about them slating her all over the media. They are the equivalent of the man from Kristen Roupenian’s viral short story, Cat Person, insisting again and again that a woman explain why she doesn’t want to see him, only to demonstrate why by verbally abusing her. Hot tip, men: women are allowed to have boundaries and you insisting she is wrong to have them is a really great way to get her to reinforce them.

Quite why Meghan has become such a symbol for controversy, in the way her mother-in-law was before her, is a question for another day. But, on an individual level, here is an adult woman who has estranged herself from her father. And, with every interview he gives, he proves she was right to do so.

(Source: The Guardian)

Meghan and Harry's future daughter could be first to inherit royal title

The law currently states that only a son can inherit the dukedom

An antiquated law that states that only sons can inherit hereditary peerages is being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

This could have significant implications for the future children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, should they have any daughters.

Kensington Palace has announced that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are expecting their first child in spring 2019.

The law currently dictates that only a son can inherit a dukedom, meaning that if Prince Harry and Meghan have a daughter, she will not be bestowed with the title.

However, a case being put forward to the ECHR is arguing that this ruling should be changed.

“Under the current system, any child of the Duke and Duchess won’t automatically have a royal title,” royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams explained to The Independent.

“The peerage, unlike the succession to the crown, favours males and if they have only daughters, the title of Sussex could die out as it did before.”

The challenge to the ECHR is focusing predominantly on the case of five women, all of whom are daughters of peers and yet don’t have the right to sit in the House of Lords.

The case, which was put forward in Strasbourg, France by a group of lawyers in July, has been lobbied by pressure group Daughters’ Rights.

“It is 100 years since women got the vote and it is outrageous that women still don’t have the right of election to our upper house,” Charlotte Carew Pole, head of the group, told The Times.

“This is the last state-sanctioned sexual discrimination and it needs to be eradicated from the statute book.”

In 2013, the Succession to the Crown Act outlined that the gender of a member of the royal family would no longer determine where they stood in the line of succession.

This meant that when Prince Louis was born on 23 April this year, his older sister Princess Charlotte made history as the first female royal to retain her claim to the throne.

While this law was enacted specifically with the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in mind, the same was not done at the time with Prince Harry and his future offspring.

Some argue that the House of Lords and the peerage system shouldn’t exist at all, as it undermines the notion of a democracy.

The women included in the case submitted to the ECHR in Strasbourg are Lady Tanya Field, Lady Willa Franks, Hatty Byng, Lady Eliza Dundas and Sarah Long.

All five are daughters of peers, and yet don’t have the right to sit in the House of Lords among their male counterparts.

On the royal family’s official website, Meghan’s biography includes the quote: “I am proud to be a woman and a feminist,” as articulated during a speech at the UN on International Women’s Day 2015.

(Source: The Independent) 

'Allo princess: is Meghan Markle acquiring a British accent?

A video of the duchess speaking to well-wishers is evidence that her accent is evolving, but how long does it normally take for you to lose your accent?

When a video of the Duchess of Sussex greeting the public surfaced this week, America’s greatest fear was confirmed: the duchess has gained a British accent. It’s a subtle difference, but one can detect a hint of the Queen’s English in the duchess’s intonation.

“You can hear some sounds changing, yes,” confirms speech and dialect coach John Fleming. “Some examples can be heard in her R sounds at the end of syllables. In recent clips, those Rs are lighter than the typical general American accent. She is also using the British English vowel normally heard in the word ‘thought’ in the phrase ‘We all had a nice day’, in the word ‘all’.”

Meghan said my name, that’s me done😭 pic.twitter.com/167F2ubjUh

— Aya El Zeiny (@elzeiny99) June 14, 2018

People changing accents is often criticised as a sign of inauthenticity. Madonna, for example, was ridiculed when she started talking like her former husband Guy Ritchie. But dialect coach Pamela Vanderway explains that a change in accent is unavoidable when you start life in a new country.

“It’s absolutely normal for a human being to take on the accent of the people around them when they want to belong to that group,” she tells me on the phone from Los Angeles. “Accents are one of the ways human beings identify as being part of a group. [In] Meghan’s situation, she is representing the royal family, so she’s part of England. So there’s a particular pull for her to take on that way of speaking [and] she may or may not be taking it on consciously.”

 Meghan, Duchess of Sussex meets guests during the Your Commonwealth Youth Challenge reception at Marlborough House. Photograph: WPA Pool/Getty Images

She says even the idea of a single royal enunciation is a misconception. “Prince Charles himself, if you look up his first television interview ever, his accent has changed,” she says. “Speech is a living thing. It’s not locked down.”

Which makes sense when you recall Lindsay Lohan’s bizarre new accent, debuted after spending time in Turkey, or Charlize Theron’s gradual shredding of her Afrikaans drawl. According to Vanderway, it’s a fast way to fit in or to declare: “I’m with my people.”

But that’s also why the recent duchess revelation has left those of us in North America puzzled as to her new dialect – we feel left behind. (Or maybe more specifically, “What, you think you’re better than me?”) “There’s very much of a cultural identity thing and what [accents] signify,” she says. “And then we have that other layer of experience, that if someone’s leaving our group and hear them change, we get nervous. My own mother acted like I smelled funny because I talked differently after college.”

Plus, there’s the matter of the duchess being a trained actor. “She likely has had to work in accents before, British or otherwise. This means that her mouth is a little bit more malleable, and so – in the same way that you might pick up a bit of southern US accent on a trip to Georgia – she has picked up some British English sounds after being immersed in the culture and surrounded by various UK accents.”

So even if the duchess begins to sound more British, it’s not a question of abandoning her California dialect, but more a willingness to adapt and to belong with her new family.

And that means we needn’t worry about the duchess rejecting us, because like us, she’s just learning to adapt.

“Do you know how many accents there are on the planet?” Vanderway asks me before we hang up. “Exactly as many people there are.”

(Source: The Guardian)

Meghan Markle's dresses have a secret feminist message

The duchess has worn dresses by female designers including Clare Waight Keller, Carolina Herrera and Stella McCartney

It’s a well-known fact that the Duchess of Cambridge is a very proud feminist, having represented the United Nations in 2016 as an advocate for women’s empowerment and gender equality.

The dresses that she’s worn at royal engagements since marrying Prince Harry have made that even more clear, due to her choice of designers.

If you cast an eye over the dresses that the duchess has donned at events such as Ascot and the Trooping of the Colour, you’ll notice that every single one has been created by a female designer.

It began with the much-anticipated dress that Meghan wore when she walked down the aisle on 19 May, which was designed by Clare Waight Keller.

Waight Keller became the first woman to be named artistic director of Givenchy last year.

Meghan has since gone on to wear dresses by Givenchy on two more occasions since the royal wedding, in addition to gowns by other female designers such as Carolina Herrera.

Here’s a breakdown of the dresses that Meghan’s worn since becoming a royal:

The wedding dress

The former Suits actor chose for Waight Keller to design her wedding dress due to her admiration for her “elegant aesthetic, impeccable tailoring and relaxed demeanour.”

The pair worked together to create a look that was minimalistic, meeting eight times for fittings prior to the nuptials.

The dress was designed with a bateau neckline, a feature that Meghan evidently has a particular affinity for.

Waight Keller created a double bonded silk cady material for the dress in pure white in order to give it a look that was matted and contemporary.

The evening reception gown

Following the afternoon reception of the wedding ceremony, the newlywed duke and duchess departed for their evening reception in a change of outfits.

Meghan wore a halterneck dress designed by Stella McCartney for the evening do, which was created with a low-back design.

“I felt that the dress represented her, it was a little whiff of her spirit. I love that,” McCartney told Vogue.

Following the wedding, McCartney put a replica of the dress up for sale for £3,500.

People interested in purchasing the dress were able to either through private appointment or by visiting the label’s Bond Street store during the week of 13 June.

The birthday celebrations

Meghan’s first public appearance after the royal wedding came 23 May, during the Prince of Wales’ 70th Birthday Patronage Celebration at Buckingham Palace.

She wore a £590 ‘Flavia Dress’ designed by Goat, a fashion brand founded by designer Jane Lewis in 2001.

The luxury label is a particular favourite of Meghan’s sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, and other celebrity clientele including Victoria Beckham and Gwyneth Paltrow.

The Trooping of the Colour

Earlier this month, the royal family celebrated Her Majesty the Queen’s 92nd birthday by attending the Trooping of the Colour.

During the event, Meghan wore an off-shoulder dress designed by Carolina Herrera.

A number of people speculated that the duchess was making a feminist statement with her choice of neckline, as it seemingly broke away from traditional royal protocol.

The outing with the Queen

A couple of weeks ago, Meghan attended her first public outing alone with the Queen when the pair visited Cheshire to open the Mersey Gateway Bridge and Chester’s Storyhouse Theatre.

The dress that Meghan chose to wear was another Givenchy piece, demonstrating Meghan’s clear admiration for Waight Keller.

Meghan’s decision to wear Givenchy was particularly poignant given the importance of her excursion with the grandmother-in-law.

The first trip to Ascot

On Tuesday last week, the duchess ventured to Royal Ascot for the very first time.

She chose to wear Givenchy yet again, wearing a white shirt-dress for the extravagant event.

Meghan chose not to wear the name tag that members of the royal family are usually expected to wear on the day, which some theorised was due to the delicacy of the fabric.

The Queen’s Young Leader Awards

A couple of days ago, Meghan and Prince Harry joined the Queen at Buckingham Palace to celebrate young people across the Commonwealth who have made a “lasting change in their community and beyond" as part of the Queen's Young Leader Awards.

The duchess opted to wear a Prada top and skirt for the event in a light pink hue.

Miuccia Prada is head designer and co-chief executive officer of the fashion house.

In 1992, Miuccia introduced the subsidiary line Miu Miu into the collection.

(Source: The Independent)