Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 16,733
I think it's a bit more complicated.
Certainly the 1917 declaration limits prince/princess titles to monarch, children and grandchildren. Obviously no-one thought that there would be an occasion with great-grandchildren, and that's why it was changed for George/Charlotte/Louis. It seems inconceivable that this was not known, and the interview allowed the water to be muddied heavily by the complete lack of challenge.
As such, there is no doubt that Archie should not currently be Prince Archie.
As you touch on, it's pretty widely reported that Charles and William have drawn up plans to slim the monarchy down - I've seen that reported (but nothing more, i.e. with no official confirmation) that what was talked about in the interview was that these plans would exclude Archie from becoming Prince (without something catastrophic happening). At that point, it could be potentially be news to them - at that point, it turns into whether what was known has been misrepresented or not.
Was Meghan's son Archie denied the title 'prince' because he's mixed race?
The Duchess of Sussex told Oprah she was shocked at the decision – but who made it, and was it fair?
www.google.com
The Sussexes indicated in the interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed - in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed down monarchy - so that Archie would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince.
As you say it is complex. There was obviously a breakdown in communication, and this wasn't helped by the discussion of race and colour (if you assume that such a conversation took place).
Although it could be a constructed narrative based on untruths. But that still wouldn't change my opinion on monarchy though, it is an anachronism that doesn't belong in a modern 21st century. I wouldn't shed a tear if it collapsed because of lies.
Last edited: