Of all the so-called ‘bombshells’, this was the big one, the 50-megaton whopper dumped from on high at the 40-minute mark.
No wonder it prompted the usually unflappable Oprah Winfrey to emit a ‘W-haaat?’
Asked to explain the lack of a princely title for her baby son, the Duchess of Sussex replied: ‘I can give you an honest answer.’
Whereupon – kerpow! Cue detonation: ‘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.’
In this one sentence, the institution of monarchy was simultaneously traduced as spiteful (withholding royal status from the seventh in line to the throne), callous (denying him protection) and, worst of all, racist. If one is seeking the big constitutional question amid the psychodrama, this is it.
Asked to explain the lack of a princely title for her baby son, the Duchess of Sussex replied: ‘I can give you an honest answer’
To which, I will simply echo the duchess and give an honest answer of my own: I don’t believe it.
The couple, assisted by Oprah Winfrey, went into all these charges at length – as viewers will have seen last night. But, ultimately, their claims fall down on two counts and are, at best, hazy on the third.
Time and again during this show, we heard – rightly – much being made of ‘the truth’ (though Palace staff were, very specifically, accused of telling ‘lies’). So it is only right we should submit this most incendiary of moments to closer scrutiny.
At the time of their son’s birth, it was made very clear – by the couple’s own staff, no less – that the Sussexes did not want a title for Archie.
There was much obfuscation on other matters, you may recall, not least when the Sussexes’ staff announced that the duchess was going into labour – eight hours after she had already given birth. However, on the title, things were crystal clear: No handle, thanks.
Archie actually had a choice of titles. He was (and, in theory, still is) the Earl of Dumbarton, the courtesy title for the eldest son of the Duke of Sussex.
Robert Hardman: Of all the so-called ‘bombshells’, this was the big one, the 50-megaton whopper dumped from on high at the 40-minute mark. No wonder it prompted the usually unflappable Oprah Winfrey (pictured) to emit a ‘W-haaat?’
Having decided that Archie’s earldom was too grand, the couple could have styled him ‘Lord Archie’, according to established form for the son of a duke.
But, no, the couple wanted none of it. He would be plain Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
As Omid Scobie, the couple’s biographer and favourite journalist, tweeted approvingly: ‘All part of giving him as normal a life as possible.’ Except we are now told that this was all ‘untrue’. Meghan and Harry really did want him to be a prince, after all. It was the Royal Family and/or the courtiers (we never know for sure) who refused. ‘It was a decision that they felt was appropriate,’ said Meghan. ‘There’s no explanation,’ she added.
No explanation was needed, however. The rules were laid down by George V in letters patent on November 30, 1917.
These state that the children of the monarch, the children of the sons of the monarch and the eldest grandson of the Prince of Wales all qualify as a prince or princess with the style of HRH. In other words, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, Archie will become a prince anyway. And since those are the rules, no ‘decision’ had to be taken.
‘At the time of their son’s birth, it was made very clear – by the couple’s own staff, no less – that the Sussexes did not want a title for Archie,’ Robert Hardman said
No doubt the Sussexes may feel irked that the Queen has amended George V’s rules in favour of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with snubbing Archie or his parents, though. It actually happened in 2012, well before the Cambridges even had children. The 1917 rules were simply changed to prevent sex discrimination.
As things stood under the old rules, if the Cambridges’ eldest child had been a daughter she would not have been royal whereas a subsequent younger brother would have been HRH Prince ‘X’. (In the end, they had Prince George first and the move was redundant.)
The duchess went on to suggest that, even when Archie does get his ‘HRH’ status, there is some secret plan at work to remove it.
Instead of seeking out future hypothetical slights, the couple could always look to the Earl and Countess of Wessex. Both their children were born princely – with ‘HRH’ – but their parents have chosen not to use either.
So, did Archie’s lack of princely status deny him ‘security’ – whether on racial grounds or any other?
‘No doubt the Sussexes may feel irked that the Queen has amended George V’s rules in favour of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. That has nothing whatsoever to do with snubbing Archie or his parents, though. It actually happened in 2012, well before the Cambridges even had children. The 1917 rules were simply changed to prevent sex discrimination,’ Robert Hardman said
If it did, it has nothing to do with the Royal Family. That is a question for the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who decides police matters. She may not take too kindly to being accused of racial discrimination against a babe in arms. And then we come to the nuclear nub of this issue. Meghan said all this viperous pettiness and those ‘conversations’ (plural) about her child’s complexion – which, she admitted, she did not witness – were swirling around during her pregnancy.
Yet, an hour later, after Harry was finally invited on to the sofa, he hadn’t been following the script. Because he drove what lawyers might call a coach and horses through his wife’s testimony.
Referring to ‘that conversation’ (singular), he said it took place ‘right at the beginning’, adding: ‘Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.’
I am not saying this conversation (or even conversations) did not happen. But we are offered no context. What we are being given are loose, conflicting allegations of a racially driven ‘decision’ to block a title that did not yet exist and a royal usurpation of police powers which hasn’t happened.
That does not strike me as sufficient grounds to trash the monarchy, let alone to summon the tumbrils.
‘They have done more to entrench positions than to shift them, and at great personal cost all round. So let’s have one more ‘honest answer’ to one more question: Was it really worth it?’ Robert Hardman asked
But, ultimately, feelings towards the monarchy are more about emotion than facts. The Duke of Sussex has said he had no choice but to sign up to media deals because his ‘family literally cut me off financially’ last year.
Some will see this as a laudable quest for financial independence. Others will point out that his father was paying the couple’s bills the year before while they were busy registering trademark applications for ‘SussexRoyal’ events, books, stationery, socks and pyjamas.
The duchess said that she was a virtual prisoner of Palace control freaks who took control of her passport, keys and even her lunch plans. Yet, later, she said that the Palace took no interest at all. ‘There was no guidance,’ she said. ‘There’s none of that training that might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me.’ Which one was it?
This is an exercise which has raised more questions than it has answered. Clearly, there is an element of fault and regret on both sides. Clearly, the Sussexes feel a lot happier in their new life and, as such, may feel vindicated in doing what they have done.
However, they have done more to entrench positions than to shift them, and at great personal cost all round.
So let’s have one more ‘honest answer’ to one more question: Was it really worth it?