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

[artquejtion]

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..

Nothing stopping the palace telling us what those recollection are then.

Strange that in their statement, they never even bothered to put their stand against racism.

[quote Mummy194]@derxa

It would have been a big issue for them to just name the person though. The RF knows who it is, and this gave them a leeway to explain themselves and apologise, and they did not. Think of it this way. You see someone do something wrong, so you tell them to report themselves and explain, or you will do it, and it will not come out right.

They clarified in the interview that they themselves were not being listened to, so it's not like they were getting any support on anything.

His family can either choose to stand fast on their bigotry or admit what they did and work to be better next time. Up to them.[/quote]
The RF is not one hive mind. I think if I was Zara Tindall for instance I would not want to have any lengthy or detailed conversations with Harry ever again. I would think that Harry is no longer a part of my life and that it's his loss not mine.

Reportedly (!) Prince Charles wanted to do a point by point rebuttal but the Queen said no, and went with her usual approach of 'this will be sorted out privately within the family' or whatever the wording was. I thought "recollections may vary" was the closest to a public reprimand I've ever seen from her and was quite surprised.

[quote Mummy194]@derxa

It would have been a big issue for them to just name the person though. The RF knows who it is, and this gave them a leeway to explain themselves and apologise, and they did not. Think of it this way. You see someone do something wrong, so you tell them to report themselves and explain, or you will do it, and it will not come out right.

They clarified in the interview that they themselves were not being listened to, so it's not like they were getting any support on anything.

His family can either choose to stand fast on their bigotry or admit what they did and work to be better next time. Up to them.[/quote]
Of course, H & M would need to get their act together, and decide when the racist comment was made.

According to Harry, it was a conversation when they were first together, according to Meghan, it was several conversations whilst she was pregnant with Archie.

If they can't get that right, no wonder some of us doubt the truth of the statement.

In the interview Meghan said that they were talking about changing the rules when Charles becomes King to stop Archie being made a prince at that point. As things stand this would happen automatically so it would be a proactive change and I think that was what she was complaining about. Everyone says that she thought that Archie should be a prince from birth and that she didn’t know it wouldn’t be automatic but I think they haven’t listened carefully to what she did say.

Have you digested the fact that H&M didn't want to stop being working royals? They were demanding half-in/half-out since their marriage. They wanted to monetise the titles for their own personal glory - turn up for balcony appearances and shakes hands only with people they deemed "worthy" of their attention etc. The RF are part of our political system and not celebrities - H&M's demands were refused.

The only revealing part of the "interview" was to show Harry to be the most useless and unsupportive husband who also tricked M into thinking they would be much more important in the RF than his position places him.

Harry, unable to source mental health help for his wife and accepted an apparent "no" from a non-plussed member of staff wondering why they were asking HR for help. This would have happened at the same time that H&M were confidently refusing royal medical staff and sourcing their own team for maternity and birth (and to this day, those details are unknown and private). The idea they couldn't find suitable medical support is not credible.

When Harry didn't get the various changes in protocol and the threats of "leaving" the RF didn't seem to be working, is when the accusations started. Transparent to everyone, except those that preen themselves thinking they "see things" others can't. They don't "see things" others can't, they just can't see what's right in front of their eyes. Charlatans, trying to make themselves sound interesting/clever/whilst tapping their nose with a knowing nod. No-one is fooled, except those that wish to be fooled for their own motives.

No-one doubts they were both deeply unhappy, but the reasons for that were they were not willing to accept the restrictions that come being a civil servant with a tiara. Didn't "reveal" anything other than lack of suitability to accept rules, protocols for a public service job. Mismatched expectations would be a very polite description.

The only people believing the lies are those that see mileage in "victim" currency (or the very dim with no comprehension skills and can't hold two ideas in their head at once).

Here is the transcript I am talking about:

Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . .  You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

....
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.

Oprah: Yeah.

Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

So Omid is wrong and Meghan is (likely) right.

I am sure they were trying to protect the children from The York Princesses half in half our position. There is precident with the Wessex children who could be princess and prince as grandchildren of the monarch via the male line but aren’t and probably much better off for not being. However to take the away would need agreement from Harry and Meghan and it sounds like they were being pressured into it.

@Cacacoisfarraige

Has Charles not spoken about slimming down the monarchy for years ?

I remember was PA not very unhappy about it ?
PH is PA in 30 years when Williams children are grown and have their own families ?

Absolutely- that will have been the motivation for the idea. Nothing to do with race.

Yeah, sure she said said - but she implied it's because of racism is the issue. It isn't, anyone in the UK knows the RF will slim titles down in the future so we don't have endless Princes, not remotely close to the throne knocking about - ie. the Queen's current cousins are known as Princes - but no-one actually knows who they are (you might, but lots won't). In the future, the plan is not to have that situation of princes/princesses not in direct line of the throne.

Look up the Queen's cousins and their titles. When George is King - that's who Archie would be an unknown non-senior royal known as a Prince, it's not the future of the RF.

Also the jetting off comments are in response to M's ridiculous claim that she was trapped and her passport was withdrawn.

H&M refused the usual Balmoral summer holiday and went off with Elton. The baby shower in New York etc. Things like facts get in the way of the very tall stories of not having access to her family. Ridiculous claims - there are people trapped in abusive families - they weren't - they just wanted to take charge of something which wasn't theirs to take charge of.

@Cacacoisfarraige

Has Charles not spoken about slimming down the monarchy for years ?

I remember was PA not very unhappy about it ?
PH is PA in 30 years when Williams children are grown and have their own families ?

Yes since before Harry met meghan

@Cacacoisfarraige

I’m guessing Harry didn’t tell Meghan that either?

And she feels it’s a skin colour issue when it’s not,
or perhaps thought by introducing skin colour she could force their hand to keep their kids as Prince/Princess.

Seems doubtful,

The difference in the brothers seems to be

William, prepared kate waited 10 years even splitting up at one point yes they have had difficulties but they have been kept (quite rightly) private (i dont believe we should have 100%access to there lives they are allowed to be human)

Harry, didn't prepare meghan met and married in a heartbeat (compared to his brother anyway) struggling to find "their place" tries to make demands/loud requests walks away expecting something tantrums again when they get limited reaction from the family Harry comes off seeming immature meghan comes off as unprepared and they both come across as bloody naive

That does not even make sense, Harry was very much a senior royal. The slimming down included him in the fold. This means that when PC becomes king, A and sibling also become prince and princess. Only when W becomes king, then A and sister's children do not become princes that makes sense and is basically what would happen.

From what you are saying the palace then was saying that H must remain a senior working royal with all the responsibility and scrutiny, but they will take away Archie prince status. Then when H says, ok then we will become like the cousins B&E (whom I presume their children will not be princes/princess), but it does mean having your own job while helping, then the palace says no, you must give your all as senior royals, we will just take away A and sibling status and security. Does not make sense.

I didn't think the Palace decided upon security. I thought what everyone was trying to say above is that it's provided by the met police and is the responsibility of the home office, is it not?

Yes, it is.

In the interview, H&M say the palace were linking it to his title.

Well, the met are not just gonna show up at H&M's door and force security, there has to be protocol followed, which should start with the palace actually asking for the protection, and it seems that is what they were not willing to do. No one wanted to sign it for him.

Did he not have his parents' protection? I'm afraid I still don't really understand what they're so upset about. They had 24/7 protection, he's a baby, he gets their protection. If he's still really famous and vulnerable when he grows up (I'm not sure how likely that is) can't they request security for him then, and the home office may or may not provide it. If they don't provide it he will have to fund it himself, like Beatrice and Eugenie.

Harry being a senior working royal for now, dwindling over next 15 years as William's children grow up. Do you not know how RF hierarchy works at all? It is strange you don't understand Harry's dwindling role, most people do.

In future Archie would be cousin to a King (George).

The Queen's cousins currently have title of Prince, which no-one really wants to continue - remote from the line of succession and known as Prince/Princess. Have a look at our Queen's cousins - that's how minor Archie's role in the RF in the future is.

Harry's senior role is until William's children are old enough (meant to be kind, doting, supporting uncle of a future King). Not a demanding, tantrum, status obsessed person that Harry was shown to be when he ran of to the Hollywood Hills.

Embarrassing for him - supporting uncle to a future King - not a "star" in his own right. In 10 years time - Harry will be walking behind William's children. Harry isn't happy about being demoted.

The palace doesn't decide on security. What needs to be remembered is how difficult it would be to have the Met out in the US.

Firstly you have officers away from their families for weeks and then swopping out and flying back at great expense. Then you have the fact that you need 2/3 cops to cover one post on a 24 hour basis.

And the most difficult part is the the Met don't have police powers in the US and not being on an official visit they also can't call on the secret service for additional support either. So the Met are not all that helpful to M&H when not on official duties.

And then there's the fact that continuing the security in the US will have made a significant dent in the resources that are available here in the UK. Close protraction is a specialist role and there's not that many of them. They are also normally 'double hatted' as a firearms officer so having a number of them permanently based in the US is not something that can easily be agreed to.

I'm quite sure home office is well versed in how security works overseas. We have ambassadors, diplomats and all sorts of officers in the US with protection.

Its not very likely Archie will ever be a working royal or indeed know very much about royal protocol. What is the point of him being titled Prince when he lives in a country that doesn't even have titles. Charles wants a slimmed down monarchy. Its certainly the way forward and I hope its sorted out officially.

Also apparently they wouldnt have been allowed to be armed which rather waters down the protection doesnt it