Meghan said: Idea of the first member of colour in this family, not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be… It’s not their right to take it away’
Fact check: False
Archie did not have a birthright to be a prince, but could potentially become one when Charles accedes to the throne.
That William and Kate’s children have the HRH title and are styled as prince and princesses - and Archie is not - stems from a ruling more than 100 years ago.
In 1917, King George V issued a written order that only royal offspring who are in the direct line of succession could be made a prince and receive HRH titles.
The Letters Patent read: ‘…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms.’
Under the rules, only Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge’s eldest son Prince George - as a great-grandson of the monarch down the direct line of succession to the throne - was originally entitled to be a prince.
The Queen stepped in ahead of George’s birth in 2013 to issue a Letters Patent to ensure all George’s siblings - as the children of future monarch William - would have fitting titles, meaning they were extended to Charlotte and Louis.
Under the George V rules, Archie would be entitled to be an HRH or a prince when his grandfather Charles, the Prince of Wales, accedes to the throne.
Archie wouldn’t get 24/7 security because he wasn’t a prince
Meghan said: In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time, so we (had) the conversation of he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title.
Fact check: False
Being a prince or princess does not automatically mean royals have police protection.
Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie’s security is no longer paid for by the taxpayer.
Harry and Meghan no longer receive British police protection, and are understood to be paying for private security.
Other “facts” are false, contested or cannot be verified.
True
True. We don’t know how it was said. It could have been perfectly innocent.
Yes !
I agree. These two both come from dysfunctional families so one can’t expect normal.
The suicidal thing really got to me. In fact it took over any logical thinking I had after that.
[quote=“pauline3, post: 2051828”]
This is true. If they wanted to get away they should have done just that. They have the money and everything they need. They can afford their own security if they need it. I’m not sure why they felt the need to do an Oprah interview. Maybe it was revenge. Maybe Harry felt betrayed like his mother did. I personally thought the world of Diana. She was the People’s Princess.
I’m saying Oprah made a statement which was intended to enhance the myth of her friend, St Meghan … as it happens, St Meghan certainly appears to have lied several times in the interview - see the fact checks that I have posted …
I agree with you that Meghan probably lied throughout the interview or at least twisted or exaggerated some truths but I highly doubt Oprah would ruin her reputation or her personal integrity for these two. No way. She has high values and too much respect for herself to do such a thing.
And just because she did the interview doesn’t mean she believed everything that was said. She’s an interviewer who asks questions that the average person wants to know and she’s good at what she does.
Having just watched it, apart from the slightly irritating prolonged “leading” style in general, Oprah did seem to over-egg the racism points way too much IMHO. Kept coming back to it over and over again.
Anyway, am sure that everyone will draw their own conclusions. As I suggested earlier on a reply to Muddy, I hope that they feel that it has had a suitably cathartic outcome and that they can move on and that the press can also leave them alone.
By definition, it is unlikely that the royal household will make a response. And indeed, nor could they, for somewhat obvious reasons.
Nicely stated and well-balanced. I appreciate your interpretation. The only thing I would add is that the Sussexes have now had their cathartic moment. It’s time for them to adhere to their stated goals; go home, close the doors, and get on with the private life they claim to want.
I also thought Oprah over emphasized the racist part and the longer I’ve had to think about it , the point did seem to repeat itself. In fact most points were overly emphasized. I’m an emotional person and often think emotionally where my husbands a logical thinker and he was rolling his eyes throughout the entire interview but once the race card was played he got up and said ‘enough of this $hit’ and went to bed.
I’m definitely more gullible and naive. I was sucked in while watching it but after reading many comments from others, I gained a different , more balanced outlook.
Jeez thanks mate…I think……Well allow me to explain. We don’t see ourselves here as having the royals “forced” on us any more. We knocked back republicanism last time because the majority of people (in a majority of states) were happy with the system we have. The consitutional monarchy with QE2 as “Queen of Australia”, We are happy with it because it’s stable and it works for us…even if it doesn’t for you.Quite independent of you (Britain) Australians simply like…or love the Queen. We always have. She came here the first time as a radiant young woman and now she is like a dignified old granny. Philip we have tolerated. Anne we think is an arrogant, rude and sad woman. Andrew is a zero. Edward is?..well what is he really. His wife is nice though. WE have watched Charles being bullied and ridiculed relentlessly by his own people all his life. But m,ost of us think he is a good bloke, My brother was a cabinet minister in WA some decades ago. He met Charles twice on the occasion of his visits to WA and on one he sat next to him at a dinner. Charles said to him…“I love coming here (Australia) I feel so much more accepted among you than I do in my own country sometimes” Anyway we don’t have the same kind of disdain for your royals as you seem to have. When QE2 dies, I think it will be the end of the lot of them…for you and everyone else. Secondly Meghan. To us she is still Rachel Zane, lawyer. We loved Suits. We like her. And we like Harry; and we like Oprah. So we’ll watch it. Bad taste?..Dunno. If it is well I guess that is our cross and we’ll bear it…
PS. I have a pair of pink socks and an old safari suit deep in my wardrobe somewhere. NOw THAT is bad taste…
Whatever he said ===^except I have neon pink socks and a Safari suit but it’s not in bad taste
Majority of the population in SA love QE2 as well!! Pity we exited the Commonwealth and rejoined as it means that we can’t move freely within the Commonwealth.
I’ve been thinking about it. They actually can’t have the private life that they initially said that they wanted because they need dollars to pay for security and their lifestyle.
You’ll notice, Harry made a point of saying that he’s living off his inheritance and that he needs to fund security for them. So, it stands to reason that they’ll have to be more in the public eye eg Netflix, Spotify and product endorsements etc. He mentioned in the interview that ‘streaming’ was not part of the original plan. So, expect to see more of them.
The contradiction, of course, is that they desperately wanted to leave the Royal family yet continue to use it to make their millions.
For me, I had no problem with them wanting to leave and do their own thing, but to reveal such spite, venom and malice towards their family whilst still desperately trying to hang on to their titles and privilidges, just to milk them for even more quillions, is pure hypocrisy.
…Well allow me to explain. We don’t see ourselves here as having the royals “forced” on us any more. We knocked back republicanism last time because the majority of people (in a majority of states) were happy with the system we have. The consitutional monarchy with QE2 as “Queen of Australia”, We are happy with it because it’s stable and it works for us…even if it doesn’t for you.Quite independent of you (Britain) Australians simply like…or love the Queen. We always have. She came here the first time as a radiant young woman and now she is like a dignified old granny. Philip we have tolerated. Anne we think is an arrogant, rude and sad woman. Andrew is a zero. Edward is?..well what is he really. His wife is nice though. WE have watched Charles being bullied and ridiculed relentlessly by his own people all his life. But m,ost of us think he is a good bloke, My brother was a cabinet minister in WA some decades ago. He met Charles twice on the occasion of his visits to WA and on one he sat next to him at a dinner. Charles said to him…“I love coming here (Australia) I feel so much more accepted among you than I do in my own country sometimes” Anyway we don’t have the same kind of disdain for your royals as you seem to have. When QE2 dies, I think it will be the end of the lot of them…for you and everyone else. Secondly Meghan. To us she is still Rachel Zane, lawyer. We loved Suits. We like her. And we like Harry; and we like Oprah. So we’ll watch it. Bad taste?..Dunno. If it is well I guess that is our cross and we’ll bear it…