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..

[EdithWeston]

I meant projecting as in assuming that everyone who commented on the sling was doing so because she was a 'useless' mother.

As you say, you were not a sling user, so wouldn't have the same reaction to an obvious problem as those who do use them, and so perhaps read too much into many of the comments

[artquejtion]

I have asked for my post and the other post regarding the DJ racist comment to be removed, while I didn't repeat the disgusting comment, another poster did and it should never be repeated.

So as soon as Charles becomes King, Archie will automatically be entitled to become a prince ? is that correct ? even if the Sussexes have relinquished their Royal roles.

He won't lose the title when William takes the throne, unless protocol is changed to facilitate a slimmed down Royal family ?

[Lockdownbear]

I'm just amazed that there is so much criticism and nastiness about a woman about to give birth after a miscarriage, all on a parenting website

If you criticise others while they are dealing with serious / terminal illness and tell half truths about them. Then be prepared to get pulled up on it pregnant or not.
Don't give out what your not prepared to take back.

[DeeCeeCherry]

There's another very similar thread running right now.

The obsession is relentless

[JustLyra]

@artquejtion

I have asked for my post and the other post regarding the DJ racist comment to be removed, while I didn't repeat the disgusting comment, another poster did and it should never be repeated.

So as soon as Charles becomes King, Archie will automatically be entitled to become a prince ? is that correct ? even if the Sussexes have relinquished their Royal roles.

He won't lose the title when William takes the throne, unless protocol is changed to facilitate a slimmed down Royal family ?

Yes, as soon as Charles takes the throne all of his grandchildren (as they’re all male line) are automatically entitled to use HRH Prince or HRH Princess.

Titles aren’t removed when the next monarch takes over - for example the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra are all still titled.

In fact Princess Alexandra is the best example - she is titled as she’s the granddaughter of King George V, but she was actually born after he died.

[Roussette]

As you say, you were not a sling user, so wouldn't have the same reaction to an obvious problem as those who do use them, and so perhaps read too much into many of the comments

No, I did not read too much into them at all. There were some vile comments.
I am amused at the thought that some of those posters were just worried about poor little Archie. Nah. It was just a way to attack her.

[Crocidura]

To be fair, this thread is in response to their unofficial spokesman saying something about their prime time interview. All presumably designed to get / keep people talking about them.

[Roussette]

The obsession is relentless

Yep.

[FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop]

@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.

This was done long before George was even born though

[JustLyra]

Also titled and roles don’t go hand in hand. It was decided when they were young that Beatrice and Eugenie wouldn’t be working royals.

Prince Michael of Kent has never been a full time working royal, nor his wife.

The slimmed down monarchy is far more about high profile roles and official patronage’s than titles. And it was never, ever going to include Harry and his wife imo. That’s too slimmed down too quickly for when William is king.

[FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop]

@Jakc

Also the rules got changed for Williams children they got the title they weren’t supposed to get so why wouldn’t they think that all the great grandchildren would get the same? The only one who didn’t get the title was Harry and Meghans son.

Because George is in the line of succession so would always be Prince. Before George was born, the Queen changed the rules so that siblings of the child in line of succession would be Prince and Princess too, because of fairness. If she hadn't done that Charlotte and Louis wouldn't be titled until the were grandchildren of the monarch.

Grandchildren of the monarch get titled. Great grandchildren - such as Archie - don't.

Mia, August, Isla, Savannah, Lina, etc also do not have titles.

[JustLyra]

Before George was born, the Queen changed the rules so that siblings of the child in line of succession would be Prince and Princess too, because of fairness.

She didn’t change it for fairness.

She changed it because the primogeniture changes had been made that meant if William and Kate had a girl first she’d be the future Queen, even if she had a younger brother.

However, a girl would have been Lady Windsor whereas her first brother would have been HRH Prince.

It was simply to remove/hide (depending on your opinion) the sexism in the 1917 LPs from being blatantly obvious if there was the situation where a young future Queen had a lesser title than her younger brother.

[FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop]

I really don't see why she even brought this up anyway, because

1. When he was born in their statement they specifically mentioned they wanted to raise him as a 'private citizen' and not be titled
2. They moved half way across the world so that they didn't have to be part of the RF anymore. Why then get upset about a title?

[DeeCeeCherry]

OP you've started a post about Archie's skin colour.

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

& You've already judged and decided Archie's skin colour doesn't come into it. As if the 'spokesperson' isn't just another with useless attempted denial tactics concerning racism.

Yet later you're complaining about mere mention of Danny Baker's abhorrent depiction of Archie?

It's ever the case that racism is sly here. Racism and prejudice are palpable, people just think 'if I try to sound "naice" it's all ok and I'm not as blatant as others'.

Not as blatant but the basis is the same..

[Pomped]

She wanted a title for her son (and herself) but yet bin the ‘duty’ element so she could fanny around doing whatever elements suited her.

The Archie Prince thing and the early ‘marriage’ were deliberately portrayed in a certain way for maximum impact/drama. I’d say wilful ignorance but I think it’s more than that.

[artquejtion]

@FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop

I really don't see why she even brought this up anyway, because

1. When he was born in their statement they specifically mentioned they wanted to raise him as a 'private citizen' and not be titled
2. They moved half way across the world so that they didn't have to be part of the RF anymore. Why then get upset about a title?

It seems she brought it up as an example of the racism their family experienced from within the Royal family. In hindsight, it appears, she now agrees that it was due to protocol and they made an incorrect assumption on that one particular aspect.

I suppose they could raise him as a private citizen even if he had the title of Prince, or is that not possible ?

[Crocidura]

It seems she brought it up as an example of the racism their family experienced from within the Royal family.

They seem to have brought up two examples of racist treatment by the family - the Prince thing, which they now admit was not about race, and the comments, which they won't quote or attribute to anyone, so can't be verified or dealt with.

There is more evidence of racism on the part of her husband and her best friend than this.

[TruelyWonder]

Oblivious should just have done what Katie Price did. She named her daughter princess. It would have been hilarious to see peoples reaction if they had called him prince Poor kid all this fuss about him and all he is probably interested in at the moment is play doh and dinosaurs.

[EdwinPootsLovesArchaeology]

If you go back to the press reporting from around 1st July 2019, all the mainstream papers in the UK are quoting the 'private citizen' stuff re Archie's upbringing, the request for a private christening etc.

So I guess that's where the public got the idea from that H&M didn't want a title for him, not even to use the Earl of Dumbarton.

I don't think it's unreasonable of the British public to be a little bemused at all this, within that context.

[Mummy194]

OP your thread is clearly put here to have another go at H&M.

First of all you say OS is their mouthpiece just because he did not jump on the hate bandwagon. Would you then call Richard Kay / Camilla Tominey / Angela Lavin / Rihcard Palmer and tens of other RRs who are constantly praising W&K their mouthpiece as well?

You then carry on with the narrative that MM said Archie should be a prince right now, which she never said in the first place. I listened to the interview plenty of times, she even quotes the LP, and specifically says they wanted to change the rule so that A will not be Prince when the time comes, and on top of that the palace linked his lack of title to security. At one point H points out that the security was taken from them and he asked if the level of threat has changed and his role was then linked to security as well.

You wil also know that OS words were twisted . This is his response :

What we’re not going to do is take me recapping a question asked in a documentary interview, twist it and pretend that’s my opinion and then completely ignore my actual answer. Take your pathetic clickbait and do something better with your dry life. Literal trash.

[BalloonSlayer]

But I clearly remember her saying in the interview that she knew Archie would not be a prince straight away, but that he would normally have become one when Charles became King, but it was THAT which she had been told would not happen.

Is my memory faulty? Am I the only one who remembers that bit?

[BalloonSlayer]

Oh sorry x- posted with @Mummy194, glad I am not going mad.

I am not much of a H&M fan but it's not fair to say Meghan said something she didn't.

[Stopstaringatmehenry]

I think Meghan had a point. The interview at that point is a bit unclear about what they thought would happen when Archie was born and how that impacted security but it’s obvious they know about the letters patent as Meghan referenced the George V or VI protocol, which is the one that would ensure Archie became an HRH on Charles’ ascension, but it was indicated to her this might change. That is entirely in keeping with Charles’ plan for a slimmed down monarchy. So whatever the motivation, I do believe that conversation took place.