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..

Are there people who just casually dislike her solely for her behaviour? Who liked her fine, but only dislike her due to recent events? Absolutely yes.

I am one of these people (but began to have misgivings at the engagement interview) and can't understand why those who don't have a hidden agenda should be so petty and vitriolic towards her - why are they so bothered by her unless there's more to their dislike?

'Are there people who just casually dislike her solely for her behaviour? Who liked her fine, but only dislike her due to recent events? Absolutely yes.'
'I'm glad we can establish that.'

Yes and it does seem to be these people that debate now.

'Janiie hope you don't mean me lol. We made up didn't we?!'

No no we disagree strongly but always politely barring a bit of light ribbing! No I have a weird, dedicated bunch from reddit who stalk me but as I say rarely get past a deletion. Sorry I'm derailing now

I mean... really.....come on....

You say this
"None of us know for sure, so we stick to facts of what happened - and the facts, unfortunately for H&M do not come out on their side."

Then immediately follow it up with this...
"They are both very entitled and self-absorbed people that expect to be forgiven any bad behaviour, but equally and hypocritically will not tolerate anything from anyone and cut people out left, right and centre"

That is opinion. You dislike them. Fine. But please do not dress opinion up as fact, when it is clearly not.

Bob Dylan? confused I don't like him but wasn't aware he was some kind of code.

There's a now-banned troll who had a very weird and very specific sexual fetish involving Bob Dylan, who tried to shoehorn Bob Dylan into every thread, then slowly turn the conversation to issues surrounded their fetish. I believe they've returned several times after being banned.

So because of that, anyone who does innocently just like Bob Dylan is suspected of being that poster.

@ohforarainyday, @Roussette there’s no excuse for that hate and behaviour from some posters on MN. I’m really sorry to hear that you have experienced it.

There's a now-banned troll who had a very weird and very specific sexual fetish involving Bob Dylan, who tried to shoehorn Bob Dylan into every thread, then slowly turn the conversation to issues surrounded their fetish. I believe they've returned several times after being banned.

Wow, I’m obviously on the wrong threads!!. Would love to see how they managed to shoehorn that in all over the place.

I’m not a Bob Dylan fan so it’s not me but I’m now tempted to drop his name in somewhere and see what happens!

Much appreciated MummyJ12

Luckily I'm a tough old bird (no ageism here as I'm referring to myself as old )
Although I will say... so unlike me... last year I had some sleepless nights with it as it was relentless.

I'm a tad worried here..... DH is a massive Bob Dylan fan! Must go and check his internet history 😂

Opinions often results from facts People misrepresenting facts to suit their opinion when facts speak otherwise = people with an agenda.

No representing here! It's all just opinion. Also.... no agenda. Just discussion and differing opinion on a forum.

*misrepresenting

No there is lots of misrepresentation of facts - points towards Harry and Meghan they mispresented protocol and facts and then further misunderstandings of protocol follow - however, not directed at you - I speak generally to the board and not to individuals unless I've put their name in so don't worry - not thinking/talking to you...speaking much wider. I should have put rainy's name in my post I suppose as it was points raised in that post I'm responding to.

Fair enough

@grumpytoddler1

Because clearly the (future) king's first non-white grandchild - the most famous baby in the country, on the cover of every newspaper, dealing with constant racism before he was even born, with members of Neo Nazi organisations being sentenced to prison for conspiring to murder his father for being "race traitor" - by any objective standard has a high need for security.

The baby did have security. His parents had 24/7 police security. Does a baby need separate security from his parents? And yes, it is assessed according to need, by the home secretary. Because it is provided by the police. If, as an adult, it was judged that he needed his own security, the home secretary would presumably make a decision at that point. What the fuck has any of that got to do with his title?

And you seem to have a lot of inside information about their staff, considering you're berating other posters for being too invested...

In the days after the interview aired, a former hes dog security for the royal family (and someone who managed the security for William and Henry) stated that protocol says that the child benefits from the security of the parents. William and Harry didn't receive their own protection until they were about 3 years old respectively and attending nursery.

So gives insight into why Archie wouldn't have had his own protection detail from birth - he would have been protected using Harry and Meghan's details.

Well this thread took an odd turn 🤣

@ohforarainyday

Some of those numbered threads actually still stand. But people do have a habit of totally missing them

So, I wonder how this child security was supposed to work, when MM is told she must go back to acting, because 'we cannot afford to pay her'. She would not be protected in USA, most likely with Archie while H is busy working in the UK.

@ohforarainyday

Bob Dylan? confused I don't like him but wasn't aware he was some kind of code.

There's a now-banned troll who had a very weird and very specific sexual fetish involving Bob Dylan, who tried to shoehorn Bob Dylan into every thread, then slowly turn the conversation to issues surrounded their fetish. I believe they've returned several times after being banned.

So because of that, anyone who does innocently just like Bob Dylan is suspected of being that poster.

I had read references to Bob Dylan, and was very confused. Thank you for explaining.

I understood that H & M were given the option before they married, for her to continue working. They decided that they were happy to take on a full time Royal role, and would hit the ground running.

I honestly can't see HM saying that money was tight. I've heard this comment before, but have no idea where it came from.

@Mummy194

So, I wonder how this child security was supposed to work, when MM is told she must go back to acting, because 'we cannot afford to pay her'. She would not be protected in USA, most likely with Archie while H is busy working in the UK.

Was Meghan told she had to go back to acting due to the fact ‘we cannot afford to pay her’ I thought it had been discussed with the Queen and H&M before the wedding and they were given the choice Didn’t know there was any mention of UK taxpayers not paying her

I seem to recall carrying on working was phrased as might help to "fund their lifestyle" ie. their expectations of being important.

It was clear they were never going to accept playing the second fiddle until William's children are older and then go into the other room and play percussion. They wanted the which ever fiddle William and Kate were playing, but with some glitter on it too. They were not accepting of an ever diminishing role within the RF, due to Harry's position as behind William's three children. Their expectations were attempting to be managed and their daft idea of "shaking things up".

Not sure how Bob Dylan is a code but if anyone bored - the album Dylanesque by Bryan Ferry I think it great

( this is left field - I know that )

@ajandjjmum

I understood that H & M were given the option before they married, for her to continue working. They decided that they were happy to take on a full time Royal role, and would hit the ground running.

I honestly can't see HM saying that money was tight. I've heard this comment before, but have no idea where it came from.

It's in the interview, she was explicitly told to go and work, because the palace "could not afford her". Why do you think people were so upset when hearing the revelations of the interview.

H confirmed this and pretty much said, he was realising that her acceptance into the palace was not going to be easy.

Did you guys not watch the interview?

Ooooh thanks for that.... maybe my DH who is a huge Dylan fan might like that... although, knowing him, he will not 🤣

I did miss that - although I knew I'd heard it somewhere. So from Meghan we heard it then.

I'm still a bit confused about the Dylan troll - did they insert lyrics into their posts, like a calling card...and why, what were they trying to achieve.

SO MANY DYLAN TROLL QUESTIONS....