Meghan accuses UK royals of racism, says 'didn't want to be alive'

Meghan, the wife of Prince Harry, accused Britain’s royal family of raising concerns about how dark their son’s skin might be and pushing her to the brink of suicide, in a tell-all television interview that will send shockwaves through the monarchy.

The 39-year-old, whose mother is Black and father is white, said she had been naive before she married into royalty in 2018, but that she ended up having suicidal thoughts and considering self harm after pleading for help but getting none.

Meghan said her son Archie, now aged one, had been denied the title of prince because there were concerns within the royal family “about how dark his skin might be when he’s born”.

“That was relayed to me from Harry, those were conversations that family had with him,” Meghan recounted in an interview with Oprah Winfrey aired on CBS late on Sunday.

Photo: Harpo Productions/Joe Pugliese/Handout via Reuters

Meghan declined to say who had aired such concerns, as did Harry. Winfrey later told CBS that Harry had said it was not Queen Elizabeth or her husband Philip.

Harry said his family had cut them off financially and his father Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, had let him down and refused to take his calls at one point.

Buckingham Palace was not expected to give an immediate response to the interview, which aired in the early hours of Monday morning in Britain.

The two-hour broadcast was the most anticipated royal interview since Harry’s late mother Princess Diana shared intimate details of her failed marriage to Charles in 1995, denting the heir’s reputation and the family’s standing in the eyes of the British public.

Nearly three years since her star-studded wedding in Windsor Castle, Meghan described some unidentified members of the royal household as brutal, mendacious and guilty of racist remarks.

She also accused Kate, wife of her husband’s elder brother Prince William, of making her cry before her wedding.

While the family came in for open criticism, neither Harry nor Meghan attacked the 94-year-old queen directly.

Still, Meghan said she had been silenced by “the Firm” - which Elizabeth heads - and that her pleas for help while in distress at racist reporting and her predicament had fallen on deaf ears.

“I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember how he (Harry) just cradled me,” Meghan said, wiping away tears.

‘REALLY LET DOWN’

Harry and Meghan’s announcement in January 2020 that they intended to step down from their royal roles plunged the family into crisis. Last month, Buckingham Palace confirmed the split would be permanent, as the couple looks to forge an independent life in the United States.

Harry, 36, said they had stepped back from royal duties because of a lack of understanding, and he was worried about history repeating itself - a reference to the death of his mother Diana who was killed in a 1997 crash as her car sped away from chasing photographers.

Asked what his mother would say about events, he answered: “I think she would feel very angry with how this has panned out and very sad.” He felt “really let down” by his father.

Harry denied blindsiding Queen Elizabeth, his grandmother, with his decision to shun life within the monarchy, but said Prince Charles stopped taking his calls at one point.

“I had three conversations with my grandmother, and two conversations with my father before he stopped taking my calls. And then he said, can you put this all in writing?”

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, gives an interview to Oprah Winfrey in this undated handout photo. Photo: Harpo Productions/Joe Pugliese/Handout via Reuters

Detractors say the couple, whose official title is the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, wanted the limelight, but were not willing to live with the attention and scrutiny it brought.

To supporters, their treatment shows how an outdated British institution lashed out against a modern, independent biracial woman.

“I know first-hand the sexism and racism institutions and the media use to vilify women and people of color to minimize us, to break us down and to demonize us,” Serena Williams, one of the world’s most successful tennis players and friend of Meghan’s, said on Twitter.

Amanda Gorman, the poet who wowed viewers at the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden, said on Twitter Meghan had been the “Crown’s greatest opportunity for change, regeneration, and reconciliation in a new era. They didn’t just maltreat her light - they missed out on it.”

LIES AND TEARS

There have also been allegations of bullying against Meghan which appeared in The Times newspaper in the buildup to the couple’s appearance. Buckingham Palace said it would investigate the claims, adding it was “very concerned”.

Meghan told Winfrey people within the royal institution not only failed to protect her against malicious claims but lied to protect others.

“It was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to understand that not only was I not being protected but that they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family,” Meghan said.

Meghan denied a newspaper story that she had made Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, cry before the wedding and said it was a turning point in her relations with the media and the palace.

“The reverse happened,” Meghan said. “A few days before the wedding she (Kate) was upset about something, pertaining to yes the issue was correct about the flower girl dresses, and it made me cry. And it really hurt my feelings.”

Meghan, who said they were not paid for the interview, conceded she had not realised what she was marrying into when she joined the British monarchy and “went into it naively”.

The couple also revealed that Meghan, who is pregnant with their second child, was expecting a girl.

Harry said Meghan had “saved” him from his trapped royal life. “I would disagree, I think he saved all of us. You made a decision that certainly saved my life,” Meghan said.

“This is in some ways just the beginning for us.”

(Source: Reuters)

Royal couple sought a half-in half-out deal, but are ‘out’

Duke and Duchess of Sussex have gone from ‘stepping back’ as senior royals to stepping down

After 10 days of turmoil over the future of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the outcome is, perhaps, not the half-in, half-out role the couple appear to have anticipated. Harry and Meghan have gone from “stepping back” as senior royals to stepping down. They are out. And destined, it seems, to spend most of their time in North America.

Buckingham Palace’s statement makes clear that it is felt the couple “can no longer formally represent” the Queen. On their new website, sussexroyal.com, where they set out their intention of carving out new “progressive” roles, along with becoming “financially independent” the couple seemed to have hoped to become hybrid royals.

They felt they could “continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty the Queen, while having the future financial autonomy to work externally”. They also wanted to retain their patronages and “proudly” carry out “works for the monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon”.

Goodbye to all that - the couple at their wedding just 20 months ago. Photograph: Steve Parsons/AP

However, for the Queen, it seems, this was a step too far. She will not be calling on their services.

Her personal statement is warm, and acknowledging of the “challenges they have experienced as the result of intense scrutiny”. She speaks of her particular pride in “how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family”.

“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family,” she said, as a grandmother, rather than a sovereign.

A separate Buckingham Palace statement makes clear the couple is “required” to step back from royal duties. Any doubts over whether they could be both in and out, is now clarified. The latter has prevailed.

The crunch issue at the Sandringham summit on Monday was, undoubtedly, funding. Just how could the couple go about earning their own income? This issue has taxed working royals in the past – notably the Earl and Countess of Wessex. Both, in the end, gave up their businesses because of potential conflict of interest.

The prospect of the Sussexes cutting commercial deals, while still representing the monarch, was too great a risk

The prospect of the Sussexes cutting commercial deals, while still at times representing the monarch, was too great a risk to the reputation of the House of Windsor and the monarchy.

Though Harry and Meghan still technically retain their HRH styles, they have agreed they will not use them. They have not been stripped of them, unlike Harry’s mother Diana, Princess of Wales following her divorce.

They will continue to use their titles of duke and duchess, and henceforth will be styled Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

This raises the question of what will happen regarding their new sussexroyal brand, which they have already trademarked for up to 100 items, if they are no longer, effectively, working members of the royal family?

Overall, the agreement struck is to the couple’s advantage financially. By virtue of their royal links they have international celebrity to trade on. They are now free from any constraints over how they earn their money. The only thing binding them is a promise that as they embark on their brave new world, that “everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty”.

They will be financially independent of the taxpayer, though for now they will continue to be privately financially supported by the Prince of Wales. They can keep their patronages, though Harry, a former soldier, will have to give up his honorary military appointments. This includes as captain general of the Royal Marines, a position he inherited from his grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh.

On one issue, in particular, it is clear that Buckingham Palace has listened carefully to public criticism since the couple’s bombshell announcement, the timing of which left the Queen and Prince Charles blindsided – or “disappointed” and “hurt” .

The couple are to repay the £2.4m public funds used to refurbish their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage. Though they moved in just nine months ago, the place is already in the process of being shuttered, with staff deployed elsewhere.

(Source: The Guardian)

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)

There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it

Who really knows what is going on with Harry and Meghan? But we can be sure the storytellers, the press, are hardly disinterested observers

To understand the “real” story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, it helps to think in three dimensions. On one level, we have a story about a couple who, for perfectly understandable reasons, want a different kind of life: a new start, a fresh role, less scrutiny, more peace of mind. All eminently reasonable and not very remarkable.

But there is, of course, the second level: they’re inescapably royal. This is hardly the abdication: the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering. But, whether you are a pope or a prince, there are undoubtedly complications in trying to assert a private identity that is decoupled from your apparent destiny or birthright.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: ‘Almost everything we think we know about the couple is filtered through journalists.’ Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA

The third level is the storytellers. Almost everything we think we know about this couple is filtered through journalists. It is unusually difficult to judge the reliability of most royal reporting because it is a world almost devoid of open or named sources. So, in order to believe what we’re being told, we have to take it on trust that there are currently legions of “aides”, “palace insiders”, “friends” and “senior courtiers” constantly WhatsApping their favourite reporters with the latest gossip. It has been known to happen. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know.

But trust in this third dimension is further compromised by the fact that none of the major players filtering this story for our consumption is exactly a disinterested bystander. All three of the major newspaper groups most obsessed with Harry and Meghan are themselves being sued by the couple for assorted breaches of privacy and copyright. There is, to any reasonable eyes, a glaring conflict of interest that, for the most part, goes undeclared.

For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the World).

The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on.

But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn.

Last October, Prince Harry added his own name to the list of people claiming they had been hacked by both the Sun and the Mirror.

To understand why this is, to put it mildly, a bombshell, you would have needed to be following the patient work of Mr Justice Mann (and before him, Mr Justice Vos) in the anonymous Rolls Building, home to the chancery court, just off London’s Strand.

Publicly available court documents detail the alleged involvement of Rupert Murdoch’s son James and the reinstated CEO of News UK, Rebekah Brooks, in suppressing or concealing the true extent of wrongdoing within the Murdoch titles. The Sun’s official position is to “not admit” any unlawful activity, while simultaneously shelling out enormous sums so that this position can never be tested.

Over at the Mirror Group, there is a similar shyness about allowing daylight into the activities of past executives. Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, one of the most vehement critics of the royal couple, does not find time or space to let his readers or viewers know that his name crops up very many times in the generic phone-hacking litigation particulars of claims in front of Mann. Morgan may be entirely innocent, but if you spend your time pouring venom over a claimant in a case that might touch on your own conduct, you’d think there was at least an interest to declare – every single time you do it.

And then there is the further legal action by Meghan against Associated Newspapers claiming assorted breaches of copyright, privacy and data protection. The Mail on Sunday claims “huge and legitimate public interest” in publishing extracts from a private letter from Meghan to her father. We shall see, but meanwhile there’s no harm in portraying her as a ruthless hypocrite and gold-digger. If Morgan’s on hand with the vitriol, everyone’s happy.

So, when reading about Harry and Meghan, it really does pay to keep your wits about you. There is a surface level to the story – not all of it untrue – and there are many anonymous sources of varying degrees of reliability to give colour and context. And, in the background, there are quite a lot of worried newspaper executives and former editors, who have absolutely zero interest in treating the couple kindly or even-handedly.

The metrics are irresistible: this couple sell newspapers and attract eyeballs by the billion. There is little hope that editors are going to dial down their coverage. But there is kindness; and there is fairness; and there is honesty. A little bit of each of those would help the rest of us understand better and trust more.

(Source: The Guardian)

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)

Royal Family: From costs to carbon, how do they travel?

The image of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge stepping onto a budget flight contrasted somewhat with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's travel this summer.

Prince William and Kate's cheap hop on Flybe from Norwich to Aberdeen was compared unfavourably by critics to Prince Harry and Meghan's trips by private jet.

But who decides how the Royal Family travels? And how much do they spend getting about?

Official v unofficial
While the costs of official royal trips are published online in annual reports, the amount the royals spend on unofficial travel is not.

Spending on official travel, which is paid for by taxpayers, was £2.7m overall last year. Of trips costing more than £15,000, Prince Charles spent the most.

Tradition dictates that what the royals spend in their own time is up to them and so we only know what gets reported, often by chance.

Kensington Palace would not comment on the cost of the Cambridges' personal travel after they were snapped boarding their budget flight this week. Reports said tickets cost as little as £73.

Meanwhile, Sir Elton John said he lent his private jet to Prince Harry and Meghan to ensure their privacy on a recent visit to his French estate.

Phil Dampier, who has written several books about the royals, said he expects that gifts of flights - which can total tens of thousands of pounds - may need to be disclosed in future.

"I think what will have to happen in future is that any flights given to them by the likes of Elton John or any benefactors they'll have to declare," he said.

Helicopters are preferred
When travelling in an official capacity, the royals make use of chartered helicopters far more than private jets.

Figures published by the royal household showed that 207 trips by helicopter were made last year, compared with 56 flights on specially-chartered planes.

The vast majority of the helicopter trips were short hops and cost less than £15,000 each, the accounts showed.

But the royals almost exclusively use chartered planes when travelling abroad.

The introduction of a royal helicopter operated by a civilian crew saved thousands of pounds

Among the more expensive trips taken was the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall's official visit to the Caribbean Islands and Cuba aboard RAF Voyager which cost £416,576.

Costs have plummeted
Despite the seemingly high costs, royal travel still costs a lot less than it did a few decades ago.

According to the National Audit Office (NAO), official royal travel costs declined by 76% in real terms between 1991-2 and 2011-12.

The NAO said that was because the household switched from using RAF helicopters to a civilian service and by taking fewer flights on more expensive planes.

Official royal travel is paid for by the Sovereign Grant, funded by the taxpayer.

This year, the grant - which also pays the Queen's household staff and upkeep of palaces - is expected to be £82.4m in total.

Last year, the money spent on official royal travel (£2.7m) was roughly the same as the previous two years. In 1997-98, the equivalent figure was £17.3m.

It's not all about money
The decision to charter a special plane or fly on a commercial flight is often taken by senior royal staff in conjunction with government, according to a former head of royal protection.

Dai Davies, who led palace police in the 1990s, told the BBC: "Convenience in terms of the routes, the number of the visits, the timings, and in some parts of the world the need for security [are all considered]".

Prince Charles and Camilla arrive in Vienna after a flight on a RAF Voyager plane

But the suggestion, made by celebrities who came to the defence of Prince Harry and Meghan, that the couple are not safe flying on a normal airliner was untrue, Mr Davies added.

"It's absolute nonsense in terms of security," he said.

'More Travelodge than palace'
For trips closer to home, the royal train is still used by senior members of the Royal Family, despite the current stock dating back to the 1970s and it costing more per mile than a plane.

The train was most recently used by the Queen in March 2019, when the monarch slept on it overnight before an early visit to Somerset. Her combined train and helicopter for that trip cost £21,230.

The interior of the royal train has been likened to a Travelodge

Yet the train costs much more per mile than chartered flights.

A September 2018 trip by the Prince of Wales from Aberdeen to Euston cost £22,086, around £40 a mile, but a similar journey by the Queen on a chartered flight in October 2018 cost £17,689, or £32 a mile.

Courtiers have argued that using the train reduces the need for costly and disruptive hotel stays.

The train has begun to show its age. Sir Alan Reid, the former keeper of the palace purse, told MPs in 2013 the interior of the train "is very G-Plan, which is either '60's or '70's".

"It is not luxurious by any stretch of the imagination, but it does offer a very safe, secure and effective way - particularly as the Queen has got older - of having her go up the country in order to do engagements first thing the next morning."

A reporter for The Daily Telegraph once said the décor was "closer to a Travelodge than a palace".

Mr Davies added: "In truth it is an antiquated system that costs a huge amount in terms of security and protection… I think there's a question mark as to whether it is justified."

Carbon controversy
Prince Harry and Meghan's recent flights to Nice generated an estimated 37.6 tonnes of carbon, which Sir Elton John said he paid to offset.

The couple had previously told their followers on social media that "every choice... every action makes a difference" to climate change.

Royal historian Caroline Aston told the BBC that the younger royals should practice what they preach.

"If you're going to create your own 'woke up' brand of greenness and ethical behaviour, then you do need to dot the 'i's' and cross the 't's' a little bit," she said.

Yet claims of hypocrisy when it comes to how senior royals travel are nothing new.

Ms Aston said history was "packed with examples of royalty who have been attracted to the glitzy lifestyle" of private jets only to find "the friend who extended the hand might just have been doing it for their own reasons".

"Now because we finance the Royal Family... they have to be seen to earn our respect. We don't give it anymore purely because of an accident of birth, it has to be earned."

Prince Charles faced claims of hypocrisy in 1991 after making a speech on "monstrous" motorcars only to have his favourite Bentley driven 800 miles to then-Czechoslovakia ahead of a visit.

Prince Charles' favourite Aston Martin runs on eco-friendly fuel

In 2015, he was accused of "double standards" by making an 80-mile journey by helicopter just days after urging people to save energy by turning off their lights.

Prince Charles, who takes on the lion's share of royal travel as heir to the throne, now lists measures his household takes to reduce his carbon footprint online, including the use of waste from the production of wine and cheese to fuel his prized Aston Martin.

Despite the measures, the royals' latest accounts revealed that the family's carbon footprint from official travel nearly doubled last year, to 3,344 tonnes of CO2.

It is unclear which members of the Royal Family engage in so-called carbon offsetting. The Foreign Office, which organises the royals' official trips abroad, spent £43,635 on offsetting the carbon created by international flights in 2017-18.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman told the BBC: "Travel arrangements for members of the Royal Family are made taking into consideration security, efficiency, cost, effective use of time and disruption to others.

"Official overseas travel undertaken by members of the Royal Family is done so at the request of government."

(Source: BBC)

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)