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..

Pope John-Paul II's funeral was held on the Friday, which was also the original date for Charles & Camilla's wedding. The prime minister and Archbishop of Canterbury said they would be attending the funeral. Prince Charles represented the Queen, hence the wedding was moved to the Saturday. Full story here.

It was also highly significant that the Queen (as Head of the Church of England) did not attend Charles and Camilla's wedding ceremony, (she attended the church blessing instead), but did obviously go to Harry & Meghan's wedding.

The planning of Charles and camilla’s wedding was a minefield.

First they wanted to marry in St George’s, but couldn’t have the church ceremony. Then they were going to have a civil ceremony at Windsor until they realised the process of registering Windsor meant other people would then have to be allowed to marry there. So, they opted for the Guildhall. Then the re-jigging for the Pope’s funeral happened.

The paperwork containing the legal discussions surrounding the marriage are secret until after Charles’ death.

There is a difference between giving proper needed advice and giving petty forbidding.

So the palace were clearly not doing what they were supposed to do, like give her a proper intensive course on protocol. This is a well known and used strategy to gain control. Give people info little by little, so they either make a fool of themselves or have to come running to you.

There is also giving the new people info and telling them this is what is done as and when, another strategy. People do it all the time in the workplace.

At one point the interviewer asked, but H&M are the Senior working royal, meaning they are management. Dean answers that yes, that may be but these people have been working in the palace for years, so they claim to know better, and you have to bear in mind they are senior with titles too.

So all in all, yes HMQ is the Chair/CEO, but W,K,S, E, H&M are all senior management.

I believe that K would have gone through the something similar, however due to how long she had known and observed it would not have been so easy to fool her, at the point of marriage, she was in the high circles, so was Sophie. MM represented a totally new, fish out of water. Easy to take advantage. Add in a sprinkling of looking down on an American (how could she know British nuance), black (some people subconsciously have a natural looking down on and seeing black people as incompetent, lazy, and thieving - like following them at shops). You then have a very toxic mix.

You have to bear in mind that the courtiers and advisers are old school people who have been advising the queen for years, they have their mind set I think.

Maybe Meghan, an American, did not want her child called the Earl of Dumbarton because of the first 4 letters? It's not something the English might even notice , it's literally just struck me. Maybe they really don't like it as a title.

I don't know the reasons, but I remember getting the impression at the time that it was parents' choice not to use the available title.

@BalloonSlayer

Maybe Meghan, an American, did not want her child called the Earl of Dumbarton because of the first 4 letters? It's not something the English might even notice , it's literally just struck me. Maybe they really don't like it as a title.

He would never have been Earl of Dumbarton as Harry uses that title in Scotland.

He would have been Lord Kilkeel from Harry’s Baron Kilkeel title.

You would give the highest ranking secondary title the eldest son.

How it was used before the birth of the son isn't a showstopper. Also Harry would just as much have been Baron Kilkeel when travelling there, so no difference really.

Precedent for royal dukedom, the Kents and the Gloucesters (and I'm sure there are others)

No mummy, wrong again. The Queen is the Head of State - the others only have power for decisions if she has directly given them that power for particular tasks - so currently Charles and William are looking into the future of the monarchy on the Queen's behalf. No-one does anything without the Queen's say so. However, everything is then discussed with the Queen and advisers and official frameworks.

It is NOT like a private company. It is like the Army. What the commanding office decides is what happens and happens within a framework of permitted rules.

The people down the line don't decide to do something different because it suits them and they do not have executive power to overturn a rule may by their commanding officer.

Senior management, keep them coming - it's getting funnier and funnier how little you understand I am laughing out loud at this statement of yours below:
"So all in all, yes HMQ is the Chair/CEO, but W,K,S, E, H&M are all senior management." Senior management?!!!

@EdithWeston

You would give the highest ranking secondary title the eldest son.

How it was used before the birth of the son isn't a showstopper. Also Harry would just as much have been Baron Kilkeel when travelling there, so no difference really.

Precedent for royal dukedom, the Kents and the Gloucesters (and I'm sure there are others)

The Kent’s and Gloucester’s are different as they don’t use their titles differently in Scotland.

When Harry visited Scotland it was as HRH The Earl of Dumbarton. In the same way Charles is Duke of Rothesay and William is Earl of Strathearn.

So, because the title is in specific use, the next most senior title would be used by his son.

courtiers are old school ha ha (they've been created by mice from the Fairy Godmother and have ideas above their station).

You have researched via Disney productions haven't you.. They all follow advice from top down. Harry's few purely executive powers would be the sort of thing he cocks up ie. deciding which event to accept - Lion King or his military patronage? That sort of thing. When he gets free choice, he cocks it up.

The Kent’s and Gloucester’s are different as they don’t use their titles differently in Scotland

Well of course they don't now not after the birth of their eldest and their courtesy use of the title. It's not a static picture.

Prince Harry has (apparently) chosen not to do that, so is free to contribute to use the title when he wishes to do so. That's fine, but it is not the sole permitted option. Indeed he's the outlier.

Prince of Wales and a Prince William have not conferred their subsidiary titles, which is the norm in their positions in the succession.

Prince Harry is like the Kents/Gloucesters because he's a younger son. He was free to opt not to follow the tradition, but it was not because it's impermissible (including in the circumstances you describe

[quote Cacacoisfarraige]@Mummy194

So Meghan said they didn’t get advice, her friends said they did.

You’ve now decided that the advice was at fault without again any evidence.

Was she lying again in the interview, are Harry’s friends lying now.

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink springs to mind here.[/quote]
I find it hard to answer people who are clearly being deliberately obtuse.

I had clearly stated that its not real advice, H&M understand it as such, so does everyone. It's instructions, forbiddings etc. not real advice.

The only one being "obtuse" as you say above - is you. Wilfully so, I can only assume.

You do not "clearly understand" anything you say you understand. You really, really don't.

I assume you've fallen hook, line and sinker for two people twisting facts for their own ends. Or, as above.

Have you even yet grasped they want back IN the RF? they don't want out, they really don't - they want half-in/half-out and are publicly blackmailing the RF. All can see that except for those that wish to create division.

So just to be clear Mummy - even though they have managed to bring several other non Royal people into the family smoothly (presumably thanks to successful help and advice), in Meghan's case the Queen instructed her staff not to give her advice, in order to control her, but instead to give her too much forbiddings and instructions. Is that right? And we believe this because Meghan, who we know lied in the Oprah interview, said so? 🤔

Presumably Harry was also in on this plot of the Queen's to control Meghan by not giving her advice? He could certainly have taught her the words to the national anthem. I wonder whether it was the Queen herself or the courtiers who told him not to.

@Crocidura

So just to be clear Mummy - even though they have managed to bring several other non Royal people into the family smoothly (presumably thanks to successful help and advice), in Meghan's case the Queen instructed her staff not to give her advice, in order to control her, but instead to give her too much forbiddings and instructions. Is that right? And we believe this because Meghan, who we know lied in the Oprah interview, said so? 🤔

The Queen has nothing to do with this !

Also MM never lied about anything, the papers claim that to be so, and frankly a lot of grown ups don't buy that.

As for the national anthem, why should it be H teaching her, if she had received the proper protocol course, this would have been part of the curriculum surely.

@Cacacoisfarraige

She could have googled the anthem, but oops I forgot she never googled Prince Harry and the royal family and we know this because she doesn’t lie !

that is exactly what she said, she had to go google it.

You reckon she'd never heard out national anthem being sung? I could make a fair pass at the US, French, Australian and German anthems if pushed.
God Save the Queen has 7 lines, and most of them contain the words "God save the Queen". It's not exactly difficult to learn. Unless she thought she needed to learn all six or seven (can't remember how many) verses .

@Cacacoisfarraige

I think she said she trusted Harry to tell her anything important - but I’m sure after 5 minutes in his company it was clear that he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer and she might need other sources.

She’s an actress, do they not have to research roles ? That’s what the good ones do anyway.

Or maybe H, like most men does not pay much attention to tights, off the shoulder dresses, tiaras, hats etc.

With all this protocol, a proper formal course is what is needed, and the palace did not provide.

You can only research so far without a lead of which direction you are supposed to be researching anyway.

@MrsFin

You reckon she'd never heard out national anthem being sung? I could make a fair pass at the US, French, Australian and German anthems if pushed. God Save the Queen has 7 lines, and most of them contain the words "God save the Queen". It's not exactly difficult to learn. Unless she thought she needed to learn all six or seven (can't remember how many) verses .

You are hardly going to be up in the balcony / stage, with cameras pointing at you, mumbling everything and only piping up 'God save the queen' are you?

Most people have an idea of the tune to the US anthem, the other countries, if they have lived there mostly, unless they specifically follow the anthems / specific of countries.

The Queen is the RF. The others are the direct heirs - William and Charles.

That's why Harry leaving is neither here nor there. No-one cares and it doesn't impact on our political/constitutional system in any way at all.

If the Queen or Charles or William decide the job isn't for them we have what would be known as a constitutional crisis on our hands and a lot of work behind the scenes would happen.

Nothing has happened since Harry left, just some patronages to share round or to inform no royal support available.

Harry isn't the RF - he was working within the framework, but he's not anymore. He's biologically related to the royal family - but the royal family that plays a constitutional role in the UK is more than a family - it's a a job, which he no longer has.

Basic google search - top return might help you, it isn't difficult to find out some facts of what the RF's role is - if you want facts rather than just being mortally offended.

"Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament. The Queen plays a constitutional role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law."

That's what the RF are - it's not about smiling at charity events, that's a by product - the actual role is part of our system of government in the UK.

The system carries on as it is the role that is important, not the person. The person accepts the role and is respected for that duty. Harry's a twonk and it is of no consequence him not wishing to be a working royal, he's not very bright and still hasn't realised it and saying he's a victim.....yawn