[ad_1]
When asked to explain why her son does not have the title of prince, the Duchess of Sussex replied: “I can give you a completely honest answer.”
Well here it was, a bomb was dropped. Markle continued: “While I waited, two things were my routine: talking about not giving the future child protection or title, and concerns and conversations about how dark the child’s skin color would be.”
In this single sentence, the institution of the monarchy was immediately condemned as scandalous and malicious (because it did not grant royal status and seventh place on the throne), heartless (because it did not provide protection to the child) and, worst of all – racist. This drama raises the great constitutional question, writes dailymail.co.uk.
Still, royal family journalist and biographer Robert Hardman sincerely believes that such accusations against the monarchy are false.
With the help of O. Winfrey, the couple investigated the allegations in depth and detail. However, in the end, two of his statements from the above do not appear to be true, and the third is vague at best, Hardman says.
Throughout the interviews, the truth was emphasized many times, although the Royal Household staff were fiercely accused of lying. So it would probably make sense to take a closer look at the most controversial moments in the interview.
When the children of Prince Harry and M. Markle were born, none other than the couple made it clear that the Sussexes did not want Archie to get the title.
It is worth remembering that at that time there was a lot of uncertainty about a wide variety of things. Suppose that when the Sussex servants announced that the Duchess would soon give birth, it was in fact already eight hours after giving birth. Still, in terms of the title, everything was clearer than clear: thanks, no need.
In fact, Archie had a good selection of titles. It could have been (and theoretically is) an Earl of Dambarton. It is an honorary title awarded to the eldest son of the Duke of Sussex.
Having decided that Count Archie’s title was too great, the couple could have simply named him Lord Archie, choosing a title that was customary and appropriate for the prince’s son.
However, neither of these options suited Harry and Meghan. His son simply became Archie Harrison of Mountbatten-Windsor.
The couple’s favorite biographer and journalist, Omid Scobie, tweeted in support of the decision: “All of this will allow you to live as normal a life as possible.” Well now it is said that it was “fake”. It turns out that Meghan and Harry really wanted Archie to be a prince. And here the royal family and / or courtiers (and it is not clear exactly what) disagreed. “They thought it was the right solution,” Meghan said. “There was no explanation,” added the princess.
However, no explanation was needed. All the rules were laid down on November 30, 1917. in a special order from King George V.
It teaches that the children of the monarch, the children of the children of the monarch and the eldest grandson of the Prince of Wales are considered princes or princesses and are titled “His Royal Highness” or “His Royal Highness”. In other words, when the Prince of Wales becomes King, Archie will become Prince anyway. Since there are such rules, no “decision” can be made.
The Sussexes were understandably outraged that Queen Elizabeth II changed the rules set by George V for the benefit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Still, it has nothing to do with downplaying Archie or his parents. In fact, the changes took place in 2012, long before Cambridge had children. The 1917 rules were changed simply to avoid discrimination on the basis of sex.
If the old rules had been followed, and Cambridge’s eldest son had been a girl, she would not have a royal title, and here the younger brother would have already been “her prince of royal majesty.” True, the couple’s first child was Prince George, so in this case, such a move was ultimately not necessary.
The Duchess of Sussex hinted that even when Archie receives the title of “Her Royal Highness”, there will already be some secret plan to take the title from him.
Instead of examining hypothetical future actions, the pair could simply recall the case of the Earl and Countess of Wesx. Their two children, a daughter and a son, were born entitled to the titles of prince and princess, “their royal majesties,” but their parents simply chose not to choose these titles.
Therefore, according to R. Hardman, the explanations that Archie will lose security without the title of prince have no rational basis.
If that was the case, it would have nothing to do with the royal family. This is the job of Britain’s Home Secretary Priti Patel, who decides on political issues. You probably would not like to receive accusations of racial discrimination against the baby.
This is the time for perhaps the most resounding interview moment. Meghan said that during her pregnancy she had had to deal with unpleasant trivia and “conversations” (there were many, she said) related to the skin color of the future child. Meghan admitted that she personally did not witness these conversations.
But an hour later, Prince Harry, who finally joined the interview, did not follow the planned scenario. He completely confused and ruined his wife’s story.
Speaking of “that conversation” (according to him, only one), the prince explained that it took place “at the beginning of the pregnancy”. He also added: “Well, from the beginning, when we weren’t even married, there were obvious signs that there were considerable difficulties ahead.
According to R. Hardman, this does not mean that such conversation (or even conversations) did not take place. However, no context is provided. There are only irregular and contradictory statements about a “decision” on racial grounds not to confer a title that did not exist at the time, and the power taken by the royal family of the government, which did not happen either.
So this does not appear to be a sufficient basis to condemn the monarchy or sound the alarm bells.
Attitudes towards the monarchy seem to be more related to emotions than to facts. The Duke of Sussex said he had no choice but to accept the media’s proposals because the family had “literally cut funding” last year.
Some may see this as a commendable attempt to achieve financial independence. Others will note, however, that the prince’s father paid the couple’s bills in previous years, when they were busy trying to create the SussexRoyal brand and organize events and memorabilia related to it.
The Duchess of Sussex claims to have been a true prisoner of the control of the crazy palace staff who controlled her passport, keys and even dinner plans. However, he later said that no one cared about the palace. “There were no guidelines. There was no training that was probably organized for other family members. But they did not offer me such a thing,” Markle said. So what was it really like?
It seems that there are many more questions than answers. Obviously, there is no lack of guilt and empowerment on both sides. Understandably, now that the new resume has been opened, Sussex is feeling much happier, so they probably want to justify their decision.
However, they still tried to open up instead of cooperating. The personal cost of such behavior does not really decrease.
So Hardman thinks we should hear another “heartfelt” answer to another question: Did it really translate into doing it?
It is strictly prohibited to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in traditional media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to indicate DELFI as the source.
[ad_2]
