Meghan Markle’s friend and seemingly constant spokesperson, Omid Scobie, reportedly stated on the recent Discovery+ U.K. documentary that she “was wrong in her interpretation.” But is that true, or just another way the Duchess of Montecito is trying to spin the disastrous Oprah Winfrey interview.
In his statements on the documentary, entitled “Meghan and Harry: Recollections May Vary,” Scobie said, “If we are only going by what Meghan said to Oprah and what the palace have said so far about the situation with Archie, perhaps one can assume that Meghan was wrong in her interpretation of it.
“But we also know that there is much more to this story that we don’t know about.”
Wait, what? Meghan Markle clearly stated in the interview that she knew about the Letters of Patent written by George V, which designates who is a prince and princess and who is not. It was amended slightly for Prince William’s children, due to their proximity to the throne and the long lifespan of Her Majesty, The Queen, it became necessary, but it would have never included Archie.
She had to have known this, but instead she lied to Oprah.
In the interview she stated that she was upset about the “idea of the first member of color in this family not being titled in the same way that the other grandchildren would be.
“It’s not their right to take away.”
But it wasn’t his right to have in the first place. George V designated that only the grandchildren of the male descendants of the monarch are entitled to prince and princess titles and designed as his and her royal highnesses (HRHs). Archies is the Queen’s great-grandchild, therefore he is not entitled to become a prince, but he could have the title Earl of Dumbarton.
For her to say otherwise or imply that it was because of race is an outright lie.
And also, who says that a child should automatically get a title based on his or her race? If that’s the case, then the children of Lady Davina Windsor and her ex-husband Gary Lewis, who is a native New Zealander with darker toned skin, would be first in line.
But royalty is not like the woke California culture. Titles are not handed out based on how many specialty and minority boxes that you can check, it’s about birth order. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it’s been that way for over a thousand years.
Yes, having a person of African descent join the family is an important symbol, but Archie is seventh-in-line for the throne, and has now spent more of his life in California than in the United Kingdom. At this point, he no longer needs a title if he’s more familiar with the beaches of Malibu instead of Norfolk.
Her claim that he was denied a title and thus security is also ridiculous. Only the principals have fulltime security, Archie is constitutionally irrelevant in the United Kingdom. Why would he need security? Though there were likely threats, perhaps most of it has been overblown as well.
Also, if a title meant that someone had security, then Princess Beatrice and Eugenie would have it, and neither of them do.
So maybe that’s why Meghan is finally backtracking a bit on her outrageous claim of racism in regard to Archie’s nonexistent title, which makes no sense to begin with because she was given a title. If the title was all about race, then she would never have been allowed to marry into the royal family in the first place.
As the fallout over the Oprah interview continues, it’s likely Meghan is concerned that not only will her children not have titles right now but may never be offered them. As Charles prepares to take the throne, he may issue a new Letter, denying Meghan’s children the prince and princess title she so desperately seems to crave.