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..

*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.*

No the palace does not decide on the Baron title. It was BP however, who put out the announcement and said it's Mister, apparently without consulting H&M on the matter.

The Met cannot just rock up and show up at the palace with guards without being summoned / requested and no one signed off on this for Archie. It has to be signed off and approved.

The same courtiers/advisors who suggested a change to PC and PL changes were now telling H&M that they are now linking Archie security to the Prince title, therefore they were not willing to request the Met to make security arrangements for him. They were also saying that A will not get prince when PC is King meaning he could not get security when he becomes king either.

If A cannot get security without being a prince, then the Baron and other titles are irrelevant considering his threat.

I think I made this particular point so many times now.

@Mummy194

*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.*

No the palace does not decide on the Baron title. It was BP however, who put out the announcement and said it's Mister, apparently without consulting H&M on the matter.

The Met cannot just rock up and show up at the palace with guards without being summoned / requested and no one signed off on this for Archie. It has to be signed off and approved.

The same courtiers/advisors who suggested a change to PC and PL changes were now telling H&M that they are now linking Archie security to the Prince title, therefore they were not willing to request the Met to make security arrangements for him. They were also saying that A will not get prince when PC is King meaning he could not get security when he becomes king either.

If A cannot get security without being a prince, then the Baron and other titles are irrelevant considering his threat.

I think I made this particular point so many times now.

Then H&M could simply have put out their own announcement, as they have several times, correcting the error.

You can make that point as many times as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact the Met have said how it works and disagreed completely with any linking of title and security. They don’t need to request security - his security would have been discussed by the Met long before he was born.

The changes made for Charlotte and Louis don’t suggest any changes for Harry’s children. At the time they were made, if that was the wish, then the LP’s from 1917 could have been completely re-written and updated. They were not. So there is no suggestion whatsoever that that was the plan as the best and easiest chance to make that change wasn’t taken. In fact the LPs being left standing show that there is very little actual modernising being done in terms of titles and passing them on despite the progressive reason the matter was discussed before George’s birth.

You can make that point as many times as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact the Met have said how it works and disagreed completely with any linking of title and security. They don’t need to request security - his security would have been discussed by the Met long before he was born.

So before he was born they knew about the Neo-nazi threats?

@Mummy194

You can make that point as many times as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact the Met have said how it works and disagreed completely with any linking of title and security. They don’t need to request security - his security would have been discussed by the Met long before he was born.

So before he was born they knew about the Neo-nazi threats?

Considering two sent to prison for making them were identified after their court appearance in December 2018, and Archie wasn’t born until May 2019, I doubt it would be beyond the skill of the group of professionals who’ve assessed and protected the royal family (and others) for years to consider the risk to the unborn child.

It was BP however, who put out the announcement and said it's Mister, apparently without consulting H&M on the matter.

@Mummy194, do you mean Archie's birth announcement?

It seems the palace up to a point does decide what titles will be used whatever the person's entitlement to the title is. For example they decided Camillla would not be known as the Princess of Wales. And they will decide whether or not she will be known as Queen or Princess Consort.

@Viviennemary

It seems the palace up to a point does decide what titles will be used whatever the person's entitlement to the title is. For example they decided Camillla would not be known as the Princess of Wales. And they will decide whether or not she will be known as Queen or Princess Consort.

If Charles wanted Camilla to be known by that PoW title then he could do that. There’s a big difference between a discussion and a decision made for PR reasons and the suggestion that they could stop someone using their legally held title if they wished.

there’s obviously no desire for the Wessex children to use their HRH Prince/Princess title, yet their mother stated that the titles are their and they could opt to use them from 18 if they wished. Clearly showing that an adult can choose for themselves, and there would be no way of preventing Harry using one of his lesser titles for his son if he wanted.

Ultimately Charles will decide Camilla’s title as he’ll King. Just as the Queen had ultimate say over the decision to title all of William’s children, and also the decision not to alter the LP’s meaning Harry’s children will be automatically HRH Prince/Princess when they’re born. The courtiers will have their say, but they can’t actually make someone use or not use a title.

I don't think there has ever been a statement from anyone why Archie is not the Earl of Dumbarton, following the normal pattern of using the subsidiary title for the eldest son (like son of Earl of Wessex being Viscount Severn, or son of the Duke of Gloucester being the Earl of Ulster and in turn his son being Lord Culloden, or son of Duke of Kent being Earl of St Andrews). Same applies to non-royal dukedoms (eg son of Duke of Rutland being the Marquis of Granby)

I also thought the first announcement of his name was on their Instagram

I know there was cock ups with the announcement of his birth in terms of the grammar and misspellings (plus on the creation of his page on the royal family website that listed the Cambridge’s as his parents), but I thought his name was first announced on Instagram

I'dvlike to know who decided that Archie wouldn't have a title. I assumed it was his parents but perhaps it wasn't. If the palace said well no you can't how difficult would it be to say stuff you we're doing it anyway.

@EdithWeston

I don't think there has ever been a statement from anyone why Archie is not the Earl of Dumbarton, following the normal pattern of using the subsidiary title for the eldest son (like son of Earl of Wessex being Viscount Severn, or son of the Duke of Gloucester being the Earl of Ulster and in turn his son being Lord Culloden, or son of Duke of Kent being Earl of St Andrews). Same applies to non-royal dukedoms (eg son of Duke of Rutland being the Marquis of Granby)

I think this is the interesting question. Like many others, I assumed that Archie would be known as Earl of Dumbarton. We don't really know how it was decided that the son of a royal duke would be simply Mr.

@Viviennemary

It seems the palace up to a point does decide what titles will be used whatever the person's entitlement to the title is. For example they decided Camillla would not be known as the Princess of Wales. And they will decide whether or not she will be known as Queen or Princess Consort.

It would have been a bad mistake for Camilla to use the Princess of Wales title while that still referred in the public mind to the sainted Diana whom Charles and Camilla had "betrayed". Doesn't alter the fact that she IS Princess of Wales, and will be Queen, even if they think it politic to give her a subsidiary title.

Archie's birth announcement was done in the usual way of an easel in front of BP.

H&M were saying all the problems they encountered in their term at the palace. I think a lot of it came from the courtiers in the form of instructions and 'advice'. I believe at some point, they realised that they were being messed about and would not take some of it, hence the tabloids stating H&M are doing what they want and not listening. I don't think that was their reaction initially.

I remember H bff army buddy, Dean Stott saying in an interview that H&M were constantly being instructed by the courtiers (who are titled (and entitled too from the looks of it) despite being senior working members.
When I heard this, I recalled the time MM was called up and told not to wear the H&M necklace by an employee, which I thought was out of order because surely, they would have gently advised H to tell her. I found this cf to call her directly and give her instructions.

I am confused now because I thought one of Meghan's points was that she didn't get any help and advice and was thrown in the deep end (she mentioned examples of the curtsey I think and the national anthem?) But Mummy you reckon the problem might have been too much advice?

I'm confused about the whole bloody thing to be honest. I'm not doubting that the experience was horrible for them and they hated it. They clearly were very unhappy. But lots of this stuff just sounds like a big misunderstanding (probably on both sides). It's such a shame that it's come to this.

The interview was clearly aimed at American audiences.

AFAIK she didn't talk in the interview about the ways in which she was publicly made welcome. She was invited to Christmas when still a fiancé, no one else got that honour. The Archbishop agreed to marry her in the Church even though she's divorced. A lot of divorced people are denied a church wedding. Including Charles and Camilla.

There is no way Charles and Camilla would've had a church wedding like that, even if they could. There was a lot of bad feeling about Camilla. It would not have gone down well. It had to be low key because of public opinion.

mummy164 - senior working royals - what that means in fact is they are in a supporting role to the Head of State and follow orders from the Queen.

The Queen is the RF - the others are there in a supporting role as head of state. It's not courtiers making rules up. The Queen receives direct advice on how a decision will impact her constitutional role and then the Queen makes decisions and the Palace works within that framework.

Every single thing that H&M have been told they can't do is direct from the Queen.

Every time H&M threw another meltdown about what they're not allowed to do - it is the Queen they are attacking.

Do you get offended when you go to another country and have to drive on a different side of the road? I assume you must be offended as it's your starting point on anything that is simple for others to understand.

You realise the officer that arrests you didn't make the rule up and not being "mean" - the officer is working on behalf of the institution and within the rules of that country. Simple, eh?

@Roussette

There is no way Charles and Camilla would've had a church wedding like that, even if they could. There was a lot of bad feeling about Camilla. It would not have gone down well. It had to be low key because of public opinion.

They couldn't have a church wedding. They planned to marry at Windsor in a low key ceremony. Then they were told they couldn't marry in the church because of their divorces. So they married in a civil ceremony in Windsor. It had to be rearranged last min because the Pope died

They were told they could not have a church wedding? I didn't know that.

I read that they wanted it this way, not that they didn't have a choice.
Not doubting you saying this... just saying I thought they really wanted low key as far as I remember.

Bad feelings about divorcees getting married in church has waned over the years.

What did the Popo dying have to do with Charles and Camillas wedding?

But yes they were told they couldn't marry in CoE, his sister Princess Anne remarried in CoS to avoid upsetting CoE.

Spelling Popo?? Pope maybe

What did the Popo dying have to do with Charles and Camillas wedding?

This:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/monarchy.catholicism