Papers from the end of the 1960s that we know were still applied in the 1970s - and no evidence of their not reflecting royal policy and practice over many years. Indeed, all the evidence in this thread has been on one side, hasn’t it? The statements of various royals including the queen over the years, the links with fascism (again including the queen), Meghan and Harry’s testimony from inside, etc, etc…
The ‘that was a different time’ defence won’t wash either, I’m afraid. It’s used habitually in defence of racial slavery and colonialism - except that the true history here is that people always knew they were wrong. Read the contemporary accounts.
At the very time UK royals were giving nazi salutes right-minded Brits were out fighting fascism in Spain - many paying with their lives. Of course people knew what was right and wrong.
I was a child in the 60s, but remember them well - the height of the black civil rights movement in America, Martin Luther King’s speeches all over television, etc - and the 70s, when I went to university - Black Power, the Mangrove 9 trials, Rock Against racism, etc. etc… These were huge, dominant issues in those days - nobody was unaware of what was happening, and nobody should be excused for not knowing right from wrong in that time’s own terms.
As I said earlier in the thread, I don’t know any royals so can’t judge who’s telling the truth on that basis - but I do know whose version is consistent with all the other evidence we have. So where is the actual evidence that casts doubt on Meghan’s first-hand account?