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..

@FollowYourOwnNorthStar

Also, Archie could have been Lord Dumbarton now, which is Harry’s courtesy title. If they wanted him to be a Prince, why not use that title now? Similar to what Edward has done with his children.

This is what I have wondered. They're choosing not to use the Earl of Dumbarton title. I thought it was because they wanted no title at all for him, but it seems they do?

[quote ExitChasedByABee]@blacksax He seems to be the unofficial spokesperson for H&M. Also, he was co-author of H&M’s unofficial biography although there has been snippets of information in said biography which has caused doubts on how much influence H&M have had this unofficial biography.[/quote]
Don’t forget Judge Warby stating Meghan or her team did pass information to him.

Also, in court documents Meghan admits to passed information on for Finding Freedom. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/18/meghan-markle-admits-giving-personal-information-authors-finding/

Maybe Meghan didn't think Earl was a proper title. It is a given name in the U.S.. and a bit down market. Did anyone think to tell her he'd be called Lord Archie, and his sister Lady (name) Sussex

Did anyone think to tell her he'd be called Lord Archie, and his sister Lady (name) Sussex

Likely not, since the children's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, not Sussex.

What they said got twisted

No it wasn’t. In fact the only thing that was twisted was Megan saying it in the first place.

Millions upon millions of people were rooting for her and had been from day one but it mattered not a jot to her when she delivered her little gem regarding the wedding. She was determined to lash out and so she did regardless of anything else.

As for OS - they’ve really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel with him for a mouthpiece.

The children would be Lord Dumbarton and Lady (name) Mountbatten-Windsor and then any further sons or daughters would be Lord/Lady (name) Mountbatten-Windsor.

It'd only because it is the most obvious claim that can be disproved.

I thought the Archbishop of Canterbury got roped in to disprove the most obvious?

I do think MM has been portrayed in a racist manner. The worst I've seen was under the guise of Le Satire in Charlie Hebdo. I mean, just fuck off with that shit.

But the OW interview has holes in it.

@Jakc - in their eyes that was them getting married. What they said got twisted.

No it didn't. Meghan literally said that was their proper,official wedding so when they arrived at St George's chapel, they were already married.

Which is a big lie.

@MissLathbury

ExitChasedByABee I think your interpretation is broadly correct.

I don’t think anyone can deny that there were racist things in the press. The press have downplayed it and tried to wriggle out of it but it was there, and it shouldn’t have been. Oprah shouldn’t have mocked up those misleading headlines for the interview, it’s muddied the issue again.

MM often didn’t seem to know how to behave, what to wear etc. (Some of which was actually quite trivial). But a definite pattern. And as well as Harry she had dozens of staff whose whole job was to make her look and say and do the right things. Either a) they didn’t (unlikely), b) she didn’t understand (unlikely - she’s not an idiot), or c) she ignored them and did whatever she wanted. From the evidence available my money’s on c.

The title thing is a load of nonsense but I can imagine her being genuinely upset/enraged about it. She should have understood, but perhaps thought the rules were more flexible than they were. I don’t believe there was any racial element but she may have thought there was. She may have tried to think of a reason that would justify her feelings, make the RF look bad, and maybe even try and force them into changing the decision (if she did think that, it really underlines the fact that she didn’t understand how titles etc work). The ‘security’ thing is obvious rubbish but helps to make it seem that she wasn’t interested in the title for status reasons.

This. And I get it. She was 37 with a Hollywood career behind her. She knew how to be LA famous. Why should she listen to anyone telling her how to be famous?

I've known many Americans also massively underestimate the culture shock when moving to the UK. They think that same language = same culture and find it very hard when that isn't true.

I also think she didn't expect the interview to be shown in full over here. So she said things, like the wedding story, that would have been plausible to the US audience. I'm sure they don't know how our marriage laws work here, just as I don't know the laws in the US

I wish they would now say who said what and when. The palace keep pushing them, so its getting more and more likely they'll crack and tell us the rest IMO.

What word was used? What was the conversation? Given Harry's emphatic "I'll never say", I bet it's an absoute corker.

@Arbadacarba

Did he hope he could convince the queen to change protocol for his family?

The Queen changed protocol for William and Kate - the standard is for only the eldest son of the monarch's grandson to be a prince, but it was changed to include Charlotte and Louis. So, if there had been such a hope, it wasn't completely unfounded.

The wish and decision to change the laws of succession did not come from either the Queen or anybody else in the royal family.

It was a democratic political decision

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement#Background

Let’s not kid ourselves; the change to allow the titles for all of William’s children was to push any discussion about the sexist way titles are dealt with down the road and was forced by the change to primogeniture rules.

If there was a true modernisation of the titles then the LP’s would have been completely re-written.

However, as it stands it is still only grandchildren if the monarch on the male line and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales are automatically entitled to have the HRH Prince/Princess title. The tweak for William’s children was a one off, in the same way George VI did it for the Queen’s children, the chance to make wholesale changes going forward was not taken.

@PicsInRed

I wish they would now say who said what and when. The palace keep pushing them, so its getting more and more likely they'll crack and tell us the rest IMO.

What word was used? What was the conversation? Given Harry's emphatic "I'll never say", I bet it's an absoute corker.

IME when someone says that a nasty comment was made, but refuses to say who said it, it either means;

A) the comment was never made
B) it was taken out of context and they know it
C) in this case it was said by someone like Princess Michael of Kent who no American has probably heard of.

[quote tenlittlecygnets]**@Jakc* - in their eyes that was them getting married. What they said got twisted.*

No it didn't. Meghan literally said that was their proper,official wedding so when they arrived at St George's chapel, they were already married.

Which is a big lie.[/quote]
She didn’t say that at all.

She said

“You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. But we called the archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us.’ So, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our back yard with the archbishop of Canterbury.”

The Archbishop issued a formal denial that he married them then. It is a shame he was put in a position where it was necessary for him to do that.

@EdithWeston

She said

“You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. But we called the archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us.’ So, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our back yard with the archbishop of Canterbury.”

The Archbishop issued a formal denial that he married them then. It is a shame he was put in a position where it was necessary for him to do that.

It doesn’t matter what she said, there will always be some someone so intent on defending her that they will find an excuse. They will be the same people who claim it wasn’t a lie because it was Meghan’s truth so that makes it true even though she completely lied through large parts of the interview so why should people believe what little can’t be proven either way? Still, the Queen’s truth is that recollections may vary and I’m inclined to believe that is true!

@EdithWeston

She said

“You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that. But we called the archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us.’ So, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our back yard with the archbishop of Canterbury.”

The Archbishop issued a formal denial that he married them then. It is a shame he was put in a position where it was necessary for him to do that.

I missed all of that. It sounds a bit like a more upmarket Jeremy Kyle show. I only read articles when there was an uproar of the Oprah interview and I get my tidbits of info from here and then google when I am then curious by what I’m reading.

@YellowGlasses I also didn’t know that it was actually proven that Meghan was feeding personal stories of her version of events for the book. Just assumed it was an unofficial biography and it wasn’t going to be totally accurate.

The more I find out, the more I just feel that we should be done with the whole royal family altogether. It all seems quite sordid. They are hardly going to struggle without the pageantry and they have enough assets. QE2 has been stabilising factor but I don’t know what role Charles and others can play. They all seem to have too much dirty laundry

I do love the historical aspect of the royal family but apart from that, they’re just fallible people behind the smokes and shadows. Do they really want to hang on to the monarchy as well? Maybe they too would be relieved not to have deal with all the pomp and pageantry and just fade into obscurity in their palatial grounds and roam merrily in their lovely landscaped gardens. I’m sure they have enough wealth, assets and connections that they will be fine. And I think Balmoral and Sandringham Palace belongs to the royal family whereas the rest of the palaces belong to the crown. Maybe they could stick around to give tours? That would be a great way to attract even more tourists.

I guess there would be other things to consider like the property tax but if Amazon et al can get away with it, they too probably will find a way.

Royal Mail, HMRC etc can remain as they are and instead of changing they currency per monarch, we just keep it as it as until new notes and coins start circulating.

I think it could be done and the royal family can live their lives in peace. Presumably, security would then have to be paid for just as it is for former presidents for say Charles and his progeny. And the extended members can pay for their own protection officers if they so need it. If the state feels like there is a valid reason to provide security for any other members, that can be provided from the income from the Crown’s Estate.

@FraiseRoyale

Did anyone think to tell her he'd be called Lord Archie, and his sister Lady (name) Sussex

Likely not, since the children's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, not Sussex.

That's the name when he has when no title. His.title would have been Dumbarton, his sister would take her parents' title, Lady (name ) Sussex

Remember William Wales & Harry Wales? Father's title as surname

The thing is that I suspect she is one of those people who has a rather nebulous relationship with the truth. She probably genuinely believes that she is telling the truth , that’s what all this business about ‘her truth’ is . It’s not that she is consciously trying to deceive it’s just not that important to her

I hope this comment doesn't sound ignorant, but I wonder if always emphasizing when an individual is the first non-white to join an institution isn't discriminatory in itself. It is done with the Royal Family, Household Cavalry, news presenters , certain regiments, the US Presidency. The same with women prime ministers here, and Presidents in US.

Really, I think individuals ought to have the right and freedom to define themselves as they wish, and just be reported as a person doing something. The press shouldn't choose what is significant, rare, newsworthy to report about them. Nobody can accurately and certainly analyse why fewer women MPs used to put themselves forward for party leadership than they do now, or why fewer members of ethnic minorities than white people have married royals in the past. So why flag up this amazing fact instead of letting the individual project who they are as they wish to do it?
Why underline one fact about a person when the editors are not going to be going on to make any meaningful observations?

I'd be hacked off to have one aspect of my history or identity constantly flagged up and spurious extrapolations made by trite newspaper stories.

I dont know if this is the racism which people talk about. But I find it rather offensive.

I didn't feel I'd personally come across other racist news stories about Meghan, although, obviously, there may have been some I didn't know about. But to harp on about a person's race or sex or life story and link it to that silly expression, 'making history', feels discriminatory in itself.

If they went down the Lord and Lady titles they’d be Lord and Lady Windsor, like Lady Louise. They wouldn’t have used the Sussex title in conjunction with that.

@GlencoraP

The thing is that I suspect she is one of those people who has a rather nebulous relationship with the truth. She probably genuinely believes that she is telling the truth , that’s what all this business about ‘her truth’ is . It’s not that she is consciously trying to deceive it’s just not that important to her

If she wasn’t consciously trying to deceive why did she go on OW and do exactly that? Getting one thing wrong is one thing but she systematically lies and then gets caught out. Even back to the link I shared above where she denied helping the authors of Finding Freedom and then admitted it in court documents. She’s a liar and like the boy who called wolf, she won’t/isn’t believed when telling the truth.

@Diverseopinions

I hope this comment doesn't sound ignorant, but I wonder if always emphasizing when an individual is the first non-white to join an institution isn't discriminatory in itself. It is done with the Royal Family, Household Cavalry, news presenters , certain regiments, the US Presidency. The same with women prime ministers here, and Presidents in US.

Really, I think individuals ought to have the right and freedom to define themselves as they wish, and just be reported as a person doing something. The press shouldn't choose what is significant, rare, newsworthy to report about them. Nobody can accurately and certainly analyse why fewer women MPs used to put themselves forward for party leadership than they do now, or why fewer members of ethnic minorities than white people have married royals in the past. So why flag up this amazing fact instead of letting the individual project who they are as they wish to do it?
Why underline one fact about a person when the editors are not going to be going on to make any meaningful observations?

I'd be hacked off to have one aspect of my history or identity constantly flagged up and spurious extrapolations made by trite newspaper stories.

I dont know if this is the racism which people talk about. But I find it rather offensive.

I didn't feel I'd personally come across other racist news stories about Meghan, although, obviously, there may have been some I didn't know about. But to harp on about a person's race or sex or life story and link it to that silly expression, 'making history', feels discriminatory in itself.

But what about Queen Charlotte who was the wife of King George III?

My point is that she really has no concept of truth versus lies , it’s all about ‘the story’ life is a series of stories it really doesn’t matter to people who subscribe to this whether something actually is verifiable because it’s ‘their story’