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..

People trying to nitpick hoping to catch them out makes no difference really.

Wether she meant from birth or when PC is king, bottom line is that the palace intended on removing his title. As MM said, that is his to decide as and when he uses it.

What is strange however, is that the palace was fully aware of the misogyny of Charlotte being a potential first born and not having a title, yet at the same time had absolutely no time for the racist implications of Archie being the first not to have a title when they head the CW.

Frankly, together with their minimising racism 'recollections vary' statement, with absolutely no care or acknowledgement when you head the commonwealth with 65-75% ethnic population. If you hear this from those countries, how arrogant, colonial and frankly white supremacy does this statement sound. I was disgusted, and I live here and I cannot blame people from those countries being more than disappointed.

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

I wonder why she omits the Wessex grandchildren (of the monarch, not the heir apparent)?

The titles and styles of great-grandchildren are based on primogeniture (direct line of succession) not race, and the amendment to include all Cambridge offspring seems pretty sensible as otherwise it could have ended up (if birth order switched) with Lady Charlotte (3rd in line), Prince George (4th) and Lord Louis (5th) which would be a bit of a nonsense.

I suppose they could have changed it so it was solely great grandchild who was 3rd in line) who was Prince/ss. Personally I think it was better to have all siblings with same style.

Differences in titles and styles between cousins litter royal history

their minimising racism 'recollections vary' statement

Funny how it comes across differently to different people. I took the Queen's "recollections may vary" to mean "they are not telling the truth".

I wonder why she omits the Wessex grandchildren (of the monarch, not the heir apparent)?

The Wessex grandchildren have the titles, their mother confirmed as much, they just don’t use them.

People trying to nitpick hoping to catch them out makes no difference really.

I don't think it's nitpicking to remind people of what Meghan actually said. Nobody's trying to catch them out, this is not a sting or a secret recording of a private conversation. They voluntarily gave an interview and voluntarily said these things.

Bit like Archie could be Lord Dumbarton, but they chose not?

@EdithWeston

Bit like Archie could be Lord Dumbarton, but they chose not?

That’s where, imo, Oprah’s research fell down.

That’s a question that should have been asked.

Though I think he’d have to be Baron Kilkeel as I’m fairly sure Harry used his Dumbarton title in Scotland in a similar way to the Rothesay and Strathearn titles are used by Charles and William.

I would think they are back tracking, it didn't make either of them look credible by being so woefully incorrect about protocol - which really they should have known as nether of them are unintelligent.

The protocol surround a title, the comments about marrying 3 days prior (which put The Archbishops in a tight spot) its illegal to have a wedding without witnesses or to marry someone twice already married.

It made the whole interview seems incredible and them come across as untrustworthy

This is because of a documentary Harry and Meghan: Recollections may vary that Omid is on.

I've also been looking at great grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, and the titles they have.

Most recent examples are eg the Gloucesters. The Duke was child of George V, his sons were Princes William, no children, and Prince Richard, current Duke. Whose DC - great-grandchildren of the monarch - are not Prince/ss as not in the direct line but who are Lord/Lady (with the sons using the subsidiary titles of their father). Same pattern for Kents.

It's what happens to the descendants of younger sons. Who when you move on a generation, many people won't even know how they are related.

It's the Queen's longevity, and that of her cousins, that has pushed the normal merry-go-round of titles out of people's minds, such that the standard precedent isn't remembered

@EdithWeston

I've also been looking at great grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, and the titles they have.

Most recent examples are eg the Gloucesters. The Duke was child of George V, his sons were Princes William, no children, and Prince Richard, current Duke. Whose DC - great-grandchildren of the monarch - are not Prince/ss as not in the direct line but who are Lord/Lady (with the sons using the subsidiary titles of their father). Same pattern for Kents.

It's what happens to the descendants of younger sons. Who when you move on a generation, many people won't even know how they are related.

It's the Queen's longevity, and that of her cousins, that has pushed the normal merry-go-round of titles out of people's minds, such that the standard precedent isn't remembered

It is the longevity of the Queen that has pushed it on a bit.

If she had died at the age of her father or Grandfather then all of Charles' grandchildren would be HRH Prince/Princess at birth as he'd either be King or would have been King if he also died younger.

There would only be discussion if they were going to use titles, but they'd automatically have them. And going by Sophie Wessex's comments about her children having the choice at 18, it wouldn't just be down to Charles/William if they were used long term.

What I wonder, is why it even matters? Surely MM didn’t just marry H for titles, and Archie is entitled to a title being the son of a duke, that his parents have decided not to use, so she clearly isn’t that fussed about titles especially since, by the time of their marriage, W had already produced the next “heir and spare” so Archie will never be on the throne anyway so being a Prince would be more of a hinderance, surely? So why she brought it up in the Oprah interview is beyond me

I don't think it's about the titles though. Not sure why people are confusing this.

I think major issue was when the palace linked the 'prince' title to security.

So they could have named him the honorary Baron title. But she states that they were never even asked about that. It was decided by the palace that he is Mister.

Regardless Archie would always inherit Duke, Lord and Baron. So this is not the issue here.

@Marmaladeagain

no-one is confused about the titles, Meghan pretended to be confused about the titles bringing security, which isn't how it works. No-one's confused. It was a lie and was chucked in with lots of other lies to create an impression of racism for people that can't comprehend facts easily.

Yep!

Harry confirmed it. I will believe them over outsiders, sorry.

Also, it's not like the palace even denied it.

Yes believe Harry the confirmed racist, makes perfect sense for someone concerned about racism. You’re confused because you believe proven liars, no-one else is HTH

@Mummy194

I don't think it's about the titles though. Not sure why people are confusing this.

I think major issue was when the palace linked the 'prince' title to security.

So they could have named him the honorary Baron title. But she states that they were never even asked about that. It was decided by the palace that he is Mister.

Regardless Archie would always inherit Duke, Lord and Baron. So this is not the issue here.

The palace don’t get to decide the Baron title.

Just as Sophie Wessex has made clear her children have the right at 18 to use their legally held titles, Harry and Meghan could have used Harry’s title for Archie.

The Met have already made very clear that the title had no impact on security, and that it’s not the palace who decide, it’s their group that analyses the risk.

Meghan must have spent her entire previous life before Harry not expecting that her future children would be titled. It seems weird that this is so important. Archie and his sister will live in the U S and presumably make their own way in life. Surely a title from birth would not be of fundamental importance.