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..

"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." you really don't have a clue what you're talking about at all I won't help you out, as you don't ever take on board correct information so happy to leave you to your continued sense of injustice where no injustice was dished out.... must be tiring being so permanently befuddled by facts. You seem very happy in that space.

"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"

@Cacacoisfarraige Exactly. That last bit pretty much sums her up - she thinks she's being clever, but most people can see right through her. Like the bit at the start of the Oprah interview, where she was asked to confirm that she was not receiving a fee for the interview, and replied "that is correct". I believe that is why Harry was not sat beside her at that point - HE did not answer the question, so if a fee was paid directly to him, or into a trust fund for Harry, he cannot be called a liar later on, when the details eventually come out. I would have more respect for them both if they just admitted that that have received a fee (or other benefits paid for by Oprah), instead of trying to act like they're above cashing in on the interview. If they said "Yes, we have received a fee/goods and benefits provided by Oprah. Like everyone, we have bills to pay and telling our side of the story helps us to do that." Instead they lie by omission.

@Mummy194

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.

I don't know what your argument is now, are you saying Priti Patel is also a horrible racist who thought Archie was too brown to get security?

The home office provide security. They provided security to H&M (and Archie) and if nothing had changed would have continued to do so. H&M moved to Califonia and the govt ceased to provide it. I still do not understand why any of this means the Queen and/or Prince Charles are racist?

I don't particularly dislike Harry or Megan, if they're happy now then good for them, but I do think that they were just so miserable and upset that they've linked stuff that doesn't seem to be linked.

Should have said "trust fund for Archie", not Harry (but anyway it amounts to the same thing, as the parents would probably be the ones managing it and would be able to access the money). Anyway, this thread will soon disappear (wish they would, too).

@Viviennemary

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.

This.

Archie is currently 7th in line to the throne. Every time George, Charlotte and Louis have a baby he will go even further down the line of succession. If they only have two children each he'll be around 13th in line. He's going to be a very minor Royal in the future.

So now you are saying they did receive a fee in Harry's name and that's why he wasn't there for the majority of the interview so that she could say she wasn't?

You are saying that you would have more respect for them if they did say they received a fee. Could you link to any reputable news source that says this?

Reuters and many other news sites says no fee. Where are the ones that say they did?
Or is this just another made up story to bash them with? Because that would mean Oprah was lying too. More than her reputation is worth I would've thought.

Sorry that was to @UrbanRambler

Princess Alexandra was 6th in line to the throne at the time of her birth. Now she is 55th in line. Charles wants to avoid the expense of all these titled people requiring housing and protection and titles. And that's very sensible.

There was a time when the Queen’s cousins were really helpful before her children were old enough to be working royals.

If they are really going to cut down to just The Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge plus the children then the four adults are either going to very busy indeed or they are going to have to cut the engagements significantly.

I think they should ask some of William cousins to help. At least George will have his siblings when he is King if his children are too young to start.

It would be easier if people could retire from being working royals without a scandal or being 95. The York princesses could do 20 years really usefully now and then retire gracefully when the Cambridge family grow up.

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@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[/quote]
This.

The Protection of Diplomats (UN) Convention covers ambassadors and diplomats (plus their families) when travelling and living outside their home countries.

Ambassadors/diplomats (and their families) have the status of internationally protected persons. Security is provided by the host country.

The original statement on Sussexroyal.com said that as internationally protected persons, H & M would be entitled to security outside the UK. This line was removed from the statement the following day (full details reported here). It must have been clarified that IPP status did not apply once they had stepped back from royal duties.

@Roussette Yes, that's my theory, but I have no proof, hence my words "I believe". If I am right, then strictly speaking neither Oprah nor Meghan lied about the point, but the couple may well have benefited from goods/services paid for by Oprah (eg. refurb of mansion/security services), worth millions. In time I think the truth will come out. Meanwhile, people are not idiots and can draw their own conclusions, by reading between the lines.

Thank you for clarifying it is just a theory. And not fact.

And it is verified in many many news sources that they were not paid a fee.
I prefer to believe that and not rumour.

Yes, Canada and US are the host countries in H&M's case and (host mentioned in goldie's post above) - both countries refused to fund security for H&M as internationally protected. H&M chose to become private individuals.

Unfortunately, they chose a lifestyle way beyond their earned income to date, they'll have to cut their cloth etc - living more privately would keep the costs down, but they have absolutely no intention of doing that. They will insist on trying to be royal and trying to achieve the half-in/half-out they wish for. That's their downfall. They didn't want out at all, they just want it all their own way.

@Viviennemary

Princess Alexandra was 6th in line to the throne at the time of her birth. Now she is 55th in line. Charles wants to avoid the expense of all these titled people requiring housing and protection and titles. And that's very sensible.

Yes, that makes sense. I think Charles will reform the RF when he becomes King, and the RF needs to evolve to survive.

Meghan could have played her part in that, but she didn't like the down side of being part of the RF, she seemed to want the benefits without the burden of duty that such a role involves. Her choice.

@Marmaladeagain

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.

Harry isn’t “supporting uncle to a future King”. He’s the son and brother of future Kings first.

He was always going to be a senior working member of the royal family. It’s going to be considerably longer than 15 years before his role started dwindling down given that George is only 7.

Charles, and the Queen, also still clearly intended to have his children titled when he becomes King as they had the exact opportunity to change the 1917 LP’s when they issued the ones for William’s children in 2012.

To say the Queen’s cousins have had a minor role is also massively downplaying the fact that a good number of them have been full-time working royals for many years. The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, and Princess Alexandra did 500 engagements between them in 2018 & 2019. In fact the Duke of Gloucester did more engagements than William or Harry.

Whilst it’s unlikely, due to William having three children, that Harry’s children would be working royals, there’s absolutely nothing except a very garbled interview that has suggested that they would be untitled as the chance to make that happen officially by changing LP’s wasn’t taken.

@Marmaladeagain You nailed it there. They want a lifestyle beyond their means.

If they are really going to cut down to just The Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge plus the children then the four adults are either going to very busy indeed or they are going to have to cut the engagements significantly.

They’re not going to cut it to just them. William and Kate are going to need Edward and Sophie to be full time royals, and they’re lucky that the age gap between Charles and Edward is likely to make that possible. There’s also not a chance that Anne will not continue. They wouldn’t be able to remotely carry the workload without them.

The oft talked about slimming has already happened. It happened when the York girls and the Wessex children were not going to be working royals as adults. That left Charles, Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie as the core. Will William and Harry and their wives taking up more and more of the slack as the Queen, Philip and the Queen’s cousins stepped back more and more.

The loss of Andrew, Harry and Meghan has taken a minimum of 900 engagements a year out of the potential portfolio which is massive.

For George, Charlotte and Louis to have the gradual introduction to full time royal duties that William and Harry had they simply need others to be working. Otherwise they’ll have to launch into it much younger, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s at least partly behind why William is so annoyed about the situation.

I’m amazed that so many things they said during the interview were clearly incorrect. You would have thought they would have sat down together and decided on what they were going to say and ensured their facts were watertight before going on to accuse people. I don’t think there was any ‘misunderstanding’. I think they both knew exactly what they were doing and most of it was said for effect and to cause waves in the media. They want to stay in the limelight to ensure their cash flow.

I honestly find the whole thing so odd I find myself occasionally musing on it when one of them makes a headline.

There is no way at all both Meghan and Harry didn’t know Archie wasn’t to be a prince. There is no way Meghan didn’t know she wasn’t married three days before hand, and how they both gave totally different accounts of rhe tale about the comment on archies skin colour in the same interview is odd.

I think there was clearly some revenge and vindictiveness at play, as well as a desire to make it as media worthy as possible for the attention. I guess they couldn’t say “look it was all a bit shit and dull, we wanted to mingle with celebs, and get paid loads, not be opening community centres on a rainy wed afternoon and playing second fiddle to Kate and William”

I just don’t understand how two people who had such a strong platform for good as royals, (except they would have had to do it for free), and who wanted their privacy, are now doing all these things for money and basically going hard after the celeb lifestyle. So far there is no work they have done that they couldn’t have done as royals except they would have had to do it for free.

There is no way at all both Meghan and Harry didn’t know Archie wasn’t to be a prince.

This is the one that always baffles me.

If they’d come out and said “Harry had always been told that the decision to title all of William’s children early was going to be done for all of the grandchildren, but then it suddenly changed when he married a black woman” the people would have to listen and think about that.

Even if he’d said “My Dad always told me that until William was King his grandkids would be treated the same and so I assumed that applied here, and then I was upset when it didn’t” you’d have to think “well assumptions are never good so you shouldn’t have, but I can see why that might sting”.

The total lack of basic understanding of the protocol and the LP’s just makes it weird.

I don’t think even Harry was aware of how stifling protocols were as he probably had fewer responsibilities than William or was the “party Prince” or the “Prince of hearts” so probably assumed he could make a lot more changes and doesn’t have to adhere to these rules and protocols as much. Perhaps this why Meghan wasn’t told by him because he just assumed that it’s not a big deal and her being the breath of fresh air, they can modernise them monarchy Certainly some of these protocols do sound weird but he must have been aware of them as that’s his family.

It's possible that Harry was unaware of protocols that affected women, the hat thing, for example.

@Roussette

Thank you for clarifying it is just a theory. And not fact.

And it is verified in many many news sources that they were not paid a fee.
I prefer to believe that and not rumour.

I think it’s correct they were not paid a fee for the interview.however it’s clear the interview is owned by them as when the piers Morgan complaint came out they said Meghan was talking to them anyway about the interview.

The interview was sold in many countries, many. And made multiple millions. It seems this money was theirs with potentially a cut for Oprah.

But technically they were not paid for the interview. They made their money on selling it globally.

@JustLyra

At which point was Archie never going to be a prince. You are well versed in this, so you are well aware that he would be when PC becomes king.

As I said and so have others, H&M were stating that the talks were that this would be changed. So why would they not be surprised that suddenly this rule would change.

Mumsnetters have also been pushing enough of this 'she just wanted glamorous work'. What is this about ? What is glamorous about working in a downtown soup kitchen, delivering food and nappies exactly?