Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Omid Scodie says Meghan was wrong about Archie becoming a prince at birth

999 replies

artquejtion · 01/05/2021 09:32

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..

OP posts:
Marmaladeagain · 04/05/2021 18:29

I think the issue with "proof" is that only positive spin is allowed, whether true or not.

So fair play : if you're allowed to say your positive personal story, then why isn't someone else able to relay their negative experience too? Genuine question?

Why would only a positive person's experience be allowed to be relayed? Bit George Orwell otherwise isn't it?

Cacacoisfarraige · 04/05/2021 18:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HeadNorth · 04/05/2021 18:30

Well I gave my negative experience of Anne kicking kittens, if that adds some balance for you?

Marmaladeagain · 04/05/2021 18:36

No, you miss the point - her post was deleted and yours aren't. That's the point. Positive story stands. Negative story deleted. That is not allowing people to relay their experience. If the poster is happy to stand by her experience and asks MN to look into it, which she did.

Roussette · 04/05/2021 18:38

I imagine it's bordering on libel to be honest.

cheezy · 04/05/2021 18:44

I doubt Penguin would be publishing this book if it’s too similar to the other one mentioned.

HeadNorth · 04/05/2021 18:44

Oh dear, I thought my story about Anne was pretty negative. You must hate kittens.

Skiptheheartsandflowers · 04/05/2021 18:48

@Roussette

I imagine it's bordering on libel to be honest.
I've seen plenty of posts about William, Kate etc on here that would also fit that description, but don't get removed.
EdwinPootsLovesArchaeology · 04/05/2021 18:50

Is it perhaps a re-telling of The Boy On The Bench from the mother's point of view?

Marmaladeagain · 04/05/2021 18:50

I haven't looked, but I assume it wasn't deleted, is the point .....................................

Skiptheheartsandflowers · 04/05/2021 18:54

@Roussette

No different to HRH The Duchess of York 'budgie' books
Exactly. That was what came to mind for me too. Children's book publishing is hard to get into but lucrative and a lot easier if you're a celebrity name. Just look at David Walliams.
Marmaladeagain · 04/05/2021 18:55

yep, just looked still there - so the point is that you've missed is that the people that report posts and ask for deletions etc are after one particular view of events. So that's the point of the point I made.

People that request deletions are a particular type of "no debate" unless people are saying the "correct" view.

SueSaid · 04/05/2021 19:01

'Oh and this one...."Dining with the Duchess : Making Everyday Meals a Special Occasion" All the Budgie books were written by' HRH Duchess of York.'

Just cringeworthily awful. There should really be a rule that titles can only be used in official capacities, as in representing the Queen. Any other money grabbing commercial projects should be name and surname only. Fergie and Markle as bad as each other.

Roussette · 04/05/2021 19:01

I think the point is... if posts break TG, they break TG

And not all posts that are deleted are reported. MN delete posts of their own accord.

Roussette · 04/05/2021 19:06

Fergie and Markle as bad as each other.

One book from Meghan that hasn't been published yet so you don't know what she will call herself.

Yet 80+ books from Sarah is the equivalent? I think not.

She even did a tell all book about life in the royal family, the men in grey suits, the establishment sabotaging her and the collusion of certain people in the palace etc. Nothing Meghan has done is comparable and before anyone says the OW interview, Sarah did two of those.

You cannot say the two are the same. Meghan's one childrens book hasn't even been published yet.

Lauren15 · 04/05/2021 19:07

I think most celebrities who come out with a children’s book get flack. It’s a boring and unoriginal idea. For me it was when, not if, M wrote one.

EdwinPootsLovesArchaeology · 04/05/2021 19:22

Our Asda children's book section, which has been open throughout lockdown, is wall to wall David Walliams. Big £££ deals and small literary talent.

ohforarainyday · 04/05/2021 19:27

People that request deletions are a particular type of "no debate" unless people are saying the "correct" view.

Yes, it's absolutely horrendous how those with an agenda to smear Meghan and her supporters constantly use troll tactics, lies, derailment, and abuse of the report system to try to get anyone who has a different opinion from them banned and deleted.

And horrendous how they deliberately derail their own threads in order to get the entire thread deleted whenever a thread doesn't go their way, or when posters disagree with or challenge them. Like the recent thread where a poster claimed to have found a link to an official Royal document online proving something negative about Meghan, but could only provide a link to a Wikipedia page citing Fox News and the Daily Express as sources (which amusingly didn't even say what she claimed it said), and when other posters pointed out, "you claimed to have X, so either post it or it'll be proof you lied about having it", her friends flooded the thread with rule-breaking posts on purpose in order to get the thread deleted so there'd be no record of her getting her arse handed to her.

And horrendous how they coordinate mass false reports and deliberate lies to get posts that don't break talk guidelines deleted (like the incident where MNHQ deleted and then UN-deleted a black woman's post detailing her experience of working at Netflix; MNHQ confirmed it was deleted because numerous posters reported it for "quoting a deleted post" but after looking at the post again, MNHQ could see the post did not quote a deleted post. MNHQ made the decision to un-delete the post, and confirmed that the reports that led to the original deletion had been malicious lies.)

And horrendous how they created an entire spin-off forum for posters who had been banned from Mumsnet for racism and abuse, where they have whole conversations about the best tactics to use to get "Meghan defenders" and other posters they dislike deleted and banned. That's the forum that photoshopped the fake PM conversation to try to get PatricksRum banned for wanting a Black Mumsnetters section, and who openly brag about how they lied and pretended to find a certain post offensive to trans people, and how "gullible MNHQ were woke enough to believe it."

And HILARIOUS when they throw massive toys-out-the-pram when a single one of their posts is deleted for very obviously breaking talk guidelines.

ExitChasedByABee · 04/05/2021 19:29

@JaniieJones I didn’t know Meghan was going to write a children’s book. It sounds like a lovely thing to do seeing as she will be having a baby soon and Archie is still very young. Anyway, what do you suppose she call herself when she publishes this book?

If she uses Meghan Markle or if she chooses a name with no link to the royal family would you think she wants nothing to do with royal family and is doing it as a deliberate snub? But if she does use something linked to the royal family, is she cashing in on her royal connections?

EdwinPootsLovesArchaeology · 04/05/2021 19:33

What's her actual legal name now as is recognised in the US?

I suppose I mean, the actual name she files her taxes in. Just curious.

Marmaladeagain · 04/05/2021 19:39

oh, I see so it was you rainy -

JustLyra · 04/05/2021 19:39

Not sure of the US, but her name here is HRH The Duchess of Sussex.

The messing around with how titles and names are written started when George was born and in their “William and Harry’s wives aren’t/won’t be princesses” weirdness they went down the road of Catherine, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. Which is just incorrect and stupid - if you’re going to have a system of using titles then use them properly and stop making pretend rules.

Meghan should be the same as Camilla, Kate, Diana, Sophie, the duchesses of Kent and Gloucester (and any other wife of a royal) in that her own first name shouldn’t form any part of her title unless she is the Queen Consort.

SueSaid · 04/05/2021 19:39

'If she uses Meghan Markle or if she chooses a name with no link to the royal family would you think she wants nothing to do with royal family and is doing it as a deliberate snub'

Meghan Sussex? I just think using 'Duchess' when they were all so awful to her makes her look a bit silly tbh.

EdithWeston · 04/05/2021 19:40

The name of the cover of the book is Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex

Roussette · 04/05/2021 19:42

Even less than Sarah's books then.

HRH, the Duchess of York. After she'd left the RF and was divorced.

So there should be no complaint about Meghan.

Swipe left for the next trending thread