Omid Scodie says Meghan was wrong about Archie becoming a prince at birth

(1000 Posts)
artquejtion Sat 01-May-21 09:32:57

He has publicly stated that Meghan was incorrect about her understanding of the protocol around Archie becoming a Prince.

Considering Omid seems to the M & H unofficial spokesperson, it is more than likely that Meghan now realises this is the case and his skin colour would not have been a deciding factor in it.

it does make you wonder why Harry did not explain it to her ? did he just not have a clue about about Royal protocol and succession, maybe he never needed to understand it. . Or was he so desperate to get her to marry him that he fed her a load of bull, i.e. our kids will be princesses and princes. Did he hope he could convince the queen to change protocol for his family?

Please don't get this thread deleted with comments which MN don't like, I am beginning to suspect there are posters who purposely troll M & H threads to ensure MN will delete them, so there is never a discussion allowed to stand..

OP’s posts: |
DaenarysStormborn Sat 01-May-21 09:36:44

It'd only because it is the most obvious claim that can be disproved. The irony is that she danced round the specifics during the interview so now she can 'clarify' as they've drifted out of the news to get more coverage.

Theunamedcat Sat 01-May-21 09:38:11

I think they might be cautiously backtracking on a few of their "revelations"

Harry would have known about this he should have prepared her better i actually think he has treated her quite badly as well as his family

SmallPrawnEnergy Sat 01-May-21 09:42:26

Christ is this still being dragged up. Just get on with your own life ffs. You also don’t get to police who comments on threads.

JustLyra Sat 01-May-21 09:42:35

I think from the interview it was quite clear they knew he wouldn’t automatically be a Prince, but she said they expected all the grandchildren (of Charles) to be treated the same.

So, they’ve probably had to reflect on why they assumed the same would be done for Harry’s kids as was done for William’s children.

My feeling on that is that it’s one of the things she was let down on by him. He should have known the protocol and he shouldn’t have assumed.

Arbadacarba Sat 01-May-21 09:43:45

Did he hope he could convince the queen to change protocol for his family?

The Queen changed protocol for William and Kate - the standard is for only the eldest son of the monarch's grandson to be a prince, but it was changed to include Charlotte and Louis. So, if there had been such a hope, it wasn't completely unfounded.

YellowGlasses Sat 01-May-21 09:50:25

In the article I read where OA said this, it wasn’t as clear cut as the headline of this thread because he went on to say something else showing his clear support of Harry and Meghan. I’d like to read all of it to see what the full context was that he said it in.

I’m amazed Meghan didn’t already know it. After all, it was a big enough issue to be one of her focal points to talk about in her OW interview so why hadn’t she brought it up with Harry or any of her staff or in-laws before. It seems odd to have made such an assumption without anyone saying anything to her and her not asking anyone. I mean, she could have asked me (a normal person walking along the street) and I could have told her or she could have used Google. As I say, it’s odd she didn’t know. But then again, she confuses a wedding rehearsal with being the proper legal event so maybe she’s not that bright.

JustLyra Sat 01-May-21 09:56:21

It’s very odd that the question of titles for the children wasn’t discussed when they got married. That’s when it was decided that Edward and Sophie’s future children would use HRH Prince/ss

Jakc Sat 01-May-21 10:07:41

YellowGlasses

In the article I read where OA said this, it wasn’t as clear cut as the headline of this thread because he went on to say something else showing his clear support of Harry and Meghan. I’d like to read all of it to see what the full context was that he said it in.

I’m amazed Meghan didn’t already know it. After all, it was a big enough issue to be one of her focal points to talk about in her OW interview so why hadn’t she brought it up with Harry or any of her staff or in-laws before. It seems odd to have made such an assumption without anyone saying anything to her and her not asking anyone. I mean, she could have asked me (a normal person walking along the street) and I could have told her or she could have used Google. As I say, it’s odd she didn’t know. But then again, she confuses a wedding rehearsal with being the proper legal event so maybe she’s not that bright.

She never said it was a proper legal event. It’s the same as people who get married abroad but get legally married at registry office first here. The would say they got married in Barbados etc they wouldn’t have to say legally we only pretended to get married. They say the “real wedding” was for the public but to them they wanted something more meaningful for them so did wrote their own vows and did it with just them and priest. In their eyes that was them getting married. What they said got twisted.

thereisonlyoneofme Sat 01-May-21 10:08:45

Edwards children are not Prince/princess are they ?

Jakc Sat 01-May-21 10:10:17

Also the rules got changed for Williams children they got the title they weren’t supposed to get so why wouldn’t they think that all the great grandchildren would get the same? The only one who didn’t get the title was Harry and Meghans son.

Arbadacarba Sat 01-May-21 10:12:58

thereisonlyoneofme

Edwards children are not Prince/princess are they ?

They are styled Viscount Severn and Lady Louise - Edward chose that because he didn't want them to grow up in the limelight (very sensible in my opinion). As grandchildren of the monarch, they could have been styled prince/princess if he'd wanted - (like Beatrice and Eugenie ).

Cacacoisfarraige Sat 01-May-21 10:15:02

@jakc

In the Oprah interview, Meghan said that "three days before our wedding, we got married". "No one knows that. But we called the archbishop, and we just said, 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us,'" she said

Marriage is a legal ceremony. If they didn’t get married, they shouldn’t have said that.
She could have said ‘we exchanged private vows before the ceremony’ but she thought she was being clever

Lockdownbear Sat 01-May-21 10:19:25

George as the first son would always have been a Prince. But if he'd had an older sister she would have been first in line, but not entitled to Princess, so out ranked by younger brother.

The M&H bit that makes no sense, they don't want to be working Royals but want the titles.
It's all about status symbol. Bit like the people who have flash cars on credit. Status symbol.

sitandwait Sat 01-May-21 10:20:50

The penny's now dropped that the way it was told in the interview doesn't fit with the many explanations out there, dating from the time of George's birth and also Charlotte's, of why the titles were done that way. Some back tracking is now required. Omid is the designated spokesperson.

why wouldn’t they think that all the great grandchildren would get the same? The only one who didn’t get the title was Harry and Meghans son.

No, neither Peter Phillips nor Zara Tindall's kids got those titles and they were born before
Archie. Same now for Eugenie's son.

JustLyra Sat 01-May-21 11:16:24

thereisonlyoneofme

Edwards children are not Prince/princess are they ?

Yes they are. Sophie Wessex said in an interview that they have the titles and can choose to use them at 18 if they want, but she doesn’t expect they will.

JustLyra Sat 01-May-21 11:18:43

Jakc

Also the rules got changed for Williams children they got the title they weren’t supposed to get so why wouldn’t they think that all the great grandchildren would get the same? The only one who didn’t get the title was Harry and Meghans son.

The rules were only changed to prevent a future Queen being “Lady Windsor” while her younger brother was a Prince.

He’s not the only great grandchild untitled, but is the only one (so far) who’ll be entitled to it in future so it’s not a ridiculous assumption, but it’s definitely one Harry should have clearly explained to his wife.

ginghamstarfish Sat 01-May-21 11:24:48

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Tippexy Sat 01-May-21 11:25:26

Arbadacarba

*Did he hope he could convince the queen to change protocol for his family?*

The Queen changed protocol for William and Kate - the standard is for only the eldest son of the monarch's grandson to be a prince, but it was changed to include Charlotte and Louis. So, if there had been such a hope, it wasn't completely unfounded.

Not really, George is going to be King one day. It’s a bit different!

Crocidura Sat 01-May-21 11:32:05

Jakc

Also the rules got changed for Williams children they got the title they weren’t supposed to get so why wouldn’t they think that all the great grandchildren would get the same? The only one who didn’t get the title was Harry and Meghans son.


They changed the rules for William's children for a specific reason to do with the line of succession, which is not relevant to Harry's children.

Arbadacarba Sat 01-May-21 11:33:11

Not really, George is going to be King one day. It’s a bit different!

It wasn't George it was changed for, though. George would always have been a prince for the reason you state. It was changed for Charlotte and Louis, who are unlikely to become monarchs.

Crocidura Sat 01-May-21 11:49:01

Considering Omid seems to the M & H unofficial spokesperson, it is more than likely that Meghan now realises this is the case and his skin colour would not have been a deciding factor in it.

It's hard to believe she didn't understand the whole Letters Patent thing at the time - has she really only found this out from the reaction to the Oprah interview, and then waited 8 weeks before saying, ok I was wrong about that? This is just a way of trying to stay in the papers, isn't it, maybe they're a bit miffed by the coverage of the Cambridges' anniversary or something. Tedious.

EdithWeston Sat 01-May-21 11:55:51

In their eyes that was them getting married. What they said got twisted

Not twisted, just taken that what they said was what they meant. Which is why the Archbishop issued a clarification, because obviously he could not have even the slightest hint that he had been party to a legal marriage beforehand.

With the benefit of hindsight, I do think this was probably some sort of mis-speaking about what it felt like to have a wedding rehearsal, and for everything to be becoming very real

JustLyra Sat 01-May-21 11:59:51

Not really, George is going to be King one day. It’s a bit different!

It wasn’t changed for George though. It was changed for a possible older child and carried on for younger children.

Charlotte and Louis would be Lady and Lord Windsor atm had the change not happened which risked highlighting the sexist nature of the LP’s in the midst of celebrating the change in primogeniture rules. (And going forward George’s potential children will be the same as the 1917 LP’s weren’t changed, the Queen just created new ones specifically for William’s children).

didofido Sat 01-May-21 12:23:41

W & K's children will one day be grandchildren of the monarch. Then later, children of King W.

Archie & sister would be eligible for Prince and Princess titles when Charles becomes King. Will they have the nerve to ask for them now?

This thread is not accepting new messages.