In his newest venture with Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry devolves into his consistent, and now rather repetitive, ‘woe is me routine’ when it comes to his mental health on their new Apple TV + project, “The Me You Cannot See.” What’s perhaps most interesting isn’t his shameful blaming of his family for every single failure of his, but the shocking revelation when it comes to his son, Archie.
The child’s hair is not red as the public was led to believe in the couple’s Christmas card, where Archie’s tone of hair nearly matches his father’s, it’s either brunette or a very, very dark auburn.
Harry and Meghan have misled or lied to the general public about a simple, physical aspect of their son.
This publication posited in one of its earliest posts that Archie’s hair was most likely not red but in fact likely brunette, as Harry and Meghan had seemingly gone to great lengths to keep it a secret. The child was always posed in black and white pictures or videos, and at Christmas the couple did an artistic style card where a picture was made into a painting.
Even in his mother’s latest paparazzi stroll, his head was covered by a beanie, despite the California heat.
Why was that? Most likely, to lead the public into believing that their son’s hair was like his father’s, a typically fiery red.
But it isn’t.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a child having red or brunette hair. Every child is a blessing, and nothing can take away from that. But why would such a public couple, who should know that hiding their child’s hair is pointless, would lie or mislead the public about it.
Honestly, it’s unclear. However, Harry and Meghan clearly have a problem with the truth, and this was profoundly evident in their recent interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Meghan specifically mentioned that a title was her son’s “birth right.” That’s a lie. It’s not his birth right, but in fact something that he can only inherit when his grandfather becomes king. It has nothing to do with the color of his or his mother’s skin, and everything to do with precedent, history and tradition.
It’s possible that an exception could have been made to allow Archie to become a prince, but the Queen and Charles likely thought, ‘What’s the point.’ As the child of the spare, Harry would only be on the throne in a catastrophic event. No need to give Archie the burden of a title, especially now as he lives in LA.
There’s also the claim that Archie was denied security because he wasn’t a prince or princess. Again, perhaps Meghan should have conversed with other family members. Only the principles have 24/7 security, that includes the Queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Catherine and, by extension, their children.
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie very publicly had their security pulled. As Prince William and then Prince Harry have more children, the girls sadly become more irrelevant constitutionally. Even Prince Edward and his wife, who are working royals and close to the Queen, do not have 24/7 security. They only have it for events when they represent the crown.
Meghan’s argument was either entirely misleading or a blatant lie.
What about her statements about being unable to leave the U.K. or her house?
It’s seemingly impossible that a woman under house arrest, as Meghan claimed, would be able to fly all over Europe, including to resort areas like the South of France and Ibiza, and to the U.S. for a ridiculously expensive $500,000 baby shower.
If that’s house arrest, then sign me up.
She also claimed her passport was taken, and yet she was able to fly all over Europe and the U.S. Isn’t it possible that as a principle of the royal family, her team had copies of her passport and driver’s license in order to help facilitate certain things?
Nope, it’s somehow all a conspiracy against her. Nothing is her fault, and she continues to lie in order to manipulate the public and the media.
While her machinations work on some, most of the world is seeing through the couple’s lies and half-truths. It’s both damaging to their image and brand, especially since there is no good reason for their actions unless they are trying to elicit a reaction.