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..

That may well be so Bluntness, I have no idea. I just think it's very wrong to insinuate they were lying when MM said they were not paid a fee for it. And that's why Harry didn't come out at the beginning.

@grumpytoddler1

I don't know why you are bringing Priti Patel in this, as I don't think things went as far as the home office. Most certainly H&M never said it was home office who refused security, just that it was confirmed that the level of threat has not gone down.

Also, the security was taken away when they were in Canada, not the US.

@Roussette

That may well be so Bluntness, I have no idea. I just think it's very wrong to insinuate they were lying when MM said they were not paid a fee for it. And that's why Harry didn't come out at the beginning.

I’m sorry I’m not sure if that’s aimed at me, but I specifically said I believe it’s true they were not paid a fee for it. I do believe they owned it after and made a small fortune on selling it. That’s a different thing.

No. Not aimed at you. As you can see from my previous posts on here about it.

[quote Mummy194]@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.[/quote]
I know that is when it will automatically happen.

What I’m saying is that if they’d said Harry had always been told the one off change for William’s kids would also be made for his and then changed that would seem like a potentially legitimate complain. “Dad said one thing that changed his mind because of Meghan’s race” = fair enough, your kid isn’t entitled to it at that point but that’s unfair and understandly upsetting. People would have sympathy with that even though it wasn’t an automatic thing.

Saying first they thought the grandkids were going to be the same (suggesting they were expecting him to be titled), then the security issue, the saying “and then they said they were changing the rules anyway” just made it a big garbled mess.

What was assumption? What was previously discussed - for example the titles of Edward’s and Sophie’s future children were discussed and announced when they got married - with regards to the titles?

It’s just such a mess where it sounds like Harry just didn’t have a clue.

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

I don't think we can necessarily take everything they said in that interview as fact.

Well this is where people twist things.

They never said anything about W children, at all. They were baffled by the link of Prince to security, they even asked why?

So I can't see why people are harping on about they lied, A was not supposed to be prince now, they never said he was supposed to be prince now, just that he would not be when PC is 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.

Like others, when H&M said this, I assumed it was all about the slimming down of the monarchy. However, I wonder if it has ever been stated, or hinted, by anyone else, that the slimming down would actually involve Archie not becoming a prince when Charles becomes king?

they never said he was supposed to be prince now

She said the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be. Which does suggest that she was expecting Archie to have the prince / princess title from birth, like his cousins.

@Roussette Do you really believe that the couple did not gain any financial advantage/valuable benefits as a result of doing the interview? It may be true that no fee was paid directly to Meghan and/or Harry, but I believe they have made material gains from doing the interview, so it was disingenuous of Meghan to imply that they received nothing. I see Meghan as an actress, playing the part of a victim, while being economical with the truth.

@justlyra - being son of a king doesn't amount to much when your brother has three children of his own. The line has already moved away from you directly downwards and you become irrelevant - Anne doesn't walk in front of William at public events (except PP's funeral).

Anne's a senior working royal but accepts her place, Harry very much wants to always be equal to William. He isn't, he is now behind W's children in line of succession.

Over the next 10 years Harry will be required to walk behind his nephew and in turn Charlotte and then Louis - at public events he would be publicly demoted from being a visible senior royal.

Yes, he could still work as a senior royal same as Anne was on offer but being required to walk behind William and his children was becoming increasingly difficult for Harry (see his meltdown over the Commonwealth Service, embarrassing how furious he was not to be walking with William). The RF again bent to Harry's wishes and protocol to appease him. Trouble with appeasing people is they are never satisfied and always want more. The final "no" has come as they realise H's always wants more.

@Mummy194

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?

They mean glamorous above her station. All corners of this nonsense relate to Meghan Markle accessing a lifestyle and class status which affected posters deem to be beyond her allotted maximum station in life.

No picsinred- it means not attending at the military event they were expected and and instead going to Lion King premiere touting for voiceover work. Things like that. HTH

@PicsInRed

I have seen so much of this narrative, and I was quite confused really.

MM has worked in soup kitchens before H and they continue to do as much as Covid has allowed in the last year. So it seems rather futile and pointedly false actually to accuse her of this.

Lion King was actually part of one of the initiatives of their main charities. Frankly, I saw no problem with them going as this was linked with the elephant charity for the voiceover, which eventually paid a nice check to the charity itself for which the charity was grateful for and expressed how much they were desperate for the money.

Another negative media spin I suppose, when in actually fact they could either try to raise actual funds, or look 'serene and dignified' while bringing nothing but themselves. I guess they chose to bring the money in instead. It sure bits having charities close down afaics.

@Andylion

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.

Like others, when H&M said this, I assumed it was all about the slimming down of the monarchy. However, I wonder if it has ever been stated, or hinted, by anyone else, that the slimming down would actually involve Archie not becoming a prince when Charles becomes king?

No it does not. It means he should have the same prince status that he is entitled to when PC becomes king.

@Mummy194 I don't understand your reply to my post.

@Mummy194

Well this is where people twist things.

They never said anything about W children, at all. They were baffled by the link of Prince to security, they even asked why?

So I can't see why people are harping on about they lied, A was not supposed to be prince now, they never said he was supposed to be prince now, just that he would not be when PC is king.

Meghan did. She said that they thought all of the grandchildren were to be treated the same.

Then came the security chat and then the changes when Charles is king so he wasn’t a Prince.

Yes mummy you wouldn't see the problem with going to the Lion King whilst Harry was Captain General of the Royal Marines, would you?

You don't really understand the role of the monarchy as you repeatedly show. Most other people instinctively understand why Harry, then working on behalf of the Queen as Head of State should select a premiere with his friend Elton etc rather than attend the military event.

That's what the RF is about, the private charities would be secondary to the military service patronages.

Have you not the seen the clip of Harry speaking it is awful and you can see they want the ground to open up beneath them. It is butt clenching embarrassment for all around them.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-harry-put-disney-networking-before-the-royal-marines-
"But perhaps more worryingly, Mr S remembers that Harry and Meghan were criticised at the time for choosing to attend the glitzy premiere when they had also been invited to a memorial concert, on the same night, for the Royal Marines killed by the IRA in Deal, Kent – especially as Prince Harry is Captain General of the Royal Marines. A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman confirmed in August last year that Harry had been 'unable to attend the memorial concert', but did not explain why he opted to spend his time with Hollywood A-listers and celebrities on the red carpet instead.

Mr S wonders now if Harry already had 'financial independence' on his mind, when choosing which event to attend..."

They were also having the meetings with www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/04/02/harry-meghan-talks-video-platform-year-megxit/

It isn't representing the Head of State, they are representing their own self-interest. That's why they're gone, that's why they're now private citizens but they're still trying to offer they'd be up for the half-in/half-out blackmail that's going on and being studiously ignored. They're gone for good from the RF, they haven't accepted it just yet.

Harry would have had a full on role for many years under the current set up. Why he didn’t want that we’ll never really know. There are going to be obvious issues when you are treated the same and then suddenly different, and I do think that’s likely very highlighted when there’s only two siblings instead of 4/5/6 as previous generations had.

In 2018 there were 11 royals who did more than 200 engagements. On top of that four more fun around 400 between them (due to maternity leave for two and slowing down for two others). There were four, the Queen’s four children, who did 400+.

Even if all of William’s children are full time working royals by the time Louis is 21 that’s still 18 years from now. Of the 11 in 2018 there are only a few that will still be doing duties at that time (bar William and Harry the youngest will be 76).

There was already going to be a much smaller core of RF, and Harry would have played a major part in that.

*Meghan did. She said that they thought all of the grandchildren were to be treated the same.

Then came the security chat and then the changes when Charles is king so he wasn’t a Prince.*

MM did not at all mention Charlotte and Louis with their premature change of status. But yes, when PC becomes king they would expect A to be prince as he should be as the rules apply with all PC grandchildren. Treating him differently is actively changing the rule for only him and siblings specifically to be downgraded.

MM did not at all mention Charlotte and Louis with their premature change of status.

She did. Sorry to keep quoting the same thing for those who have already got it, but she said:

the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be

"Other grandchildren", so not just George. And "titled in the same way" must surely mean titled from birth, since Archie becoming a prince is not being titled in the same way as the Cambridge children.

(Archie becoming a prince when Charles becomes king is not the same as the Cambridge children, I mean.)

www.insider.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-canada-taxpayer-security-justin-trudeau-discussions-2020-1

They went on holiday to Canada in November and decided they would leave as working royals and live abroad as private citizens in January and didn't return to live in UK after that.

The farcical situation with the Met officers in Canada happened because H&M were first on holiday there as working royals in November and stayed there over Christmas when they decided not to return to live in the UK anymore and removed as HRH working royals.

Their decision to do this whilst on holiday in Canada caused problems for Canada as the host country with security. There was no plan in place as H&M were unwilling to wait any longer for the RF decision on whether they could have their half-in/half-out.

Trudeau was soft soaping them that the obligation for Canada to pay for them would potentially still be on offer as host country even as private citizens. That turned out to be not the case as no country is required or responsible for paying for H&M as private citizens.

Harry just creates problems because he won't listen, but he expects everyone to clear up after him. This mess he's looking at is all his own and no-one is going to clean it up for him this time.