(Quotes in italics are from a previous post).
"In the meantime, within the palace someone raises concerns about the baby's skin tone, at the same time H&M are told that their babies will not be Prince and Princess. This is apparently due to slim down, too many prince/ess apparently, despite the fact that the palace went out of their way to change Charlotte and Louis - instead of saying first born is to be titled wether boy or girl and we just stick to that line. So H&M figure, too many princes is not the problem here. What if W&K had 5 children. Also the rule is not extended to H himself who may have had his own 6 children. So at the time of the rule, you never know if there could eventually be 11 prince/es."
Harry and Meghan gave different accounts during the OW interview. Meghan said "I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time ... we have in tandem the conversation of 'he won't be given security. He's not going to be given a title' and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he is born."
Harry said there was one conversation, and "that was right at the beginning...right at the beginning."
The skin colour conversation (one, not plural), as Harry described it, had actually taken place before the couple had even got engaged, at quite an early stage of their relationship. The question had not been asked specifically about Archie, but about any babies that Harry and Meghan might possibly have. 'Yeah,' said Harry, confirming the question that had been put to him by the unnamed person was 'What will the kids look like?'.
The Letters Patent were not changed specifically for Charlotte and Louis. The change was made in 2012 before any of the Cambridge children had been born. It ensured that if a girl was born first, she would not have a 'lower' title in the event she had a younger male sibling. It also said that all future Cambridge children would be titled prince/princess from birth, not just the eldest.
"To top it off they are told that because of this lack of prince title, the baby will not have protection. H&M ask why, no answer (they are well aware that security is about threat, from the Met because H did ask that question on an unrelated matter). They are well aware at this point that the palace can alter rules as they wish."
Royal security is decided and provided by the Metropolitan Police, specifically the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. The Royal households ('palace') do not decide who does and does not get security.
"Archie is born, and without consultation, he is titled Master. A statement is put out as such, with a brief that H&M wanted it so to protect the baby. Except, they never said any such thing."
Either the mother or father must be present when a birth certificate is produced. If 'someone' told the registrar to write something on the certificate that either parent was unhappy with, they could have declined to sign it. They could have put the registration on hold to seek clarification. Births do not need to be registered until 42 days after the birth. There was plenty of time to discuss how they wanted Archie's title to appear (they could have used Harry's lower title for him).
"At this point H&M realise that it could well be a reality that LPs really could be changed for their DC."
Their DC will be prince/princess according to the current Letters Patent as soon as Prince Charles ascends the throne. Only the monarch can issue LP's and there have been no reports that the Queen is planning to make any changes.
To put it another way - immediately upon the Queen's death, Archie and Lili will become prince/princess. At that point, Charles cannot issue LP's to take those titles away. Only an Act of Parliament can remove a birthright title once it has been granted (the 1917 Title Deprivation Act).
"They ask themselves, what is the point of them being senior working royals and getting the brunt of the criticism, working at a senior level with all the threats, when babies will not even be protected. They could be like the cousins B&E etc. They can go out make a living (does not have to be a 9-5, could be different projects like the Philipps etc.), but they will be there if HMQ needs them for something. Sussex Royal umbrella will take care of the existing charities if need be. They will set up shop on CW country of Canada to make working together easy."
According to this timeline, by this point Harry and Meghan had been upset by the 'skin colour' comment from a family member, were upset that Archie was not going to be a prince and have no security and disagreed with what was written on his birth certificate. Yet they still wanted to remain working for the Queen, albeit on a reduced basis. From their own statement: "The preference of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex was to continue to represent and support Her Majesty The Queen albeit in a more limited capacity, while not drawing on theSovereign Grant."
"PC cuts the funds and security. H asks if the risk has been assessed as lowered. No."
Prince Charles has no power/authority to cut security. This can only be done by the Metropolitan Police (the Royal and VIP Executive Committee). The protection of members of the royal family is based on a threat assessment conducted by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and is based on intelligence, with security given to those who “face a large enough risk”.
When the accounts were published today, it was confirmed the Sussexes no longer received funding from Prince Charles by the end of the first fiscal quarter (some point between April-June 2020).
"They scramble around. Tyler Perry to the rescue - come live at my empty house and security will be provided. (I have to say at this point that PC was likely instructed at this point to cut the funds, don't think he would have just done in personally, with a grandchild this young). Yes, they go. Advice from old friends about a way forward. Netflix, Spotify etc. are concluded."
The Sussexes moved into Tyler Perry's LA home in March 2020. Meghan confirmed this date in the OW interview. Harry added: "The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed."
Omid Scobie has released a statement on Twitter today which says: "Despite some confusing reports, Prince Charles and Prince Harry's timelines for the period the Sussexes' financial support ended are the same. Clarence House says funding continued until last summer (Q1 of the UK's fiscal year is April to June) and Harry told Oprah the same.'
For clarity, what Harry actually said is: "Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2021". (I.e. Harry didn't mean calendar quarter, he obviously meant fiscal quarter!!!)
We now know the move to LA was somewhere between 1 to 3 months before the funding from Prince Charles ended. I don't think that is particularly 'short notice' (it's a standard notice period in England). Omid Scobie has now gone on the record agreeing with the funding timeline and therefore must also agree that the Sussexes were in LA for at least one month (and up to theee months) before the funding ended.
"H&M were hurt that security was taken from baby Archie definitely, and were also hurt by what they saw as racism against him. What parent would not be. They were not whinging and complaining. They had resigned themselves to what took place. There were lots of questions about why they left. I think they just came to recount a certain time and the events that took place."
There seemed to be a significant downshift in public sympathy towards the Sussexes following the Tom Bradby "not many people have asked if I’m ok" interview while on the Africa tour. It was seen as 'whinging and complaining' whilst among some of the poorest human beings on the planet.
Even in spite of all the 'hurt', the Sussexes still wanted to work for the Queen albeit on a limited/part time basis. I doubt the OW interview and subsequent public outpourings would have happened if their request had been granted.