A big topic of conversation during Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah was the fact that Archie was “denied” the title of a Prince. This led them all to make the assumption that because of his race, Archie wouldn’t be a prince and therefore he wouldn’t be offered any protection.

If you watched the interview as opposed to just reading what articles are saying, everything about the topic of “protection & security” was a never ending cycle of going back and forth, without much explanation. I feel like even Oprah was confused.

The interview seemed to rely heavily on the American audience (which they know is lazy for the most part and don’t care enough to learn about the logistics of this information) to paint a picture that: Archie was denied the title of prince & protection of security because of his race.

I’ve done a lot of research about this and spoke to a lot of you guys on Twitter to get the full unbiased approach.

Before I get started, let it be KNOWN that we told you guys first that Meghan was upset that Archie didn’t have the prince title like William’s kids, MONTHS AGO. But y’all harassed us and started teaching us the roles as if I said she was right.

Here’s what I wrote in May:

And here’s what the media is reporting:

For months, everyone spammed my comment sections with “you know nothing about the royal family, Archie doesn’t have the right of the prince title” and I’m like relax….. I KNOW, but Meghan clearly fcking doesn’t. So the fact that this is a whole big ass debate tells you that my source was just citing what Meghan wanted, not what the actual facts were. It’s not too late to apologize.

Kidding kidding… not really

Here are the facts

Meghan claimed that the title of prince was Archie’s “birthright.”

That’s inaccurate.

Conventions were put in place over a century ago by the Queen’s grandfather, George V, which state that only children and grandchildren of a sovereign had the automatic right to the HRH title or Prince and Princess. In the case of Archie who is a great-grandchild of the monarch and child of the second son of the heir to the throne, he would have a right to bear the title: Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

At the time of his birth, it was marketed and said that Harry & Meghan didn’t want an official title so Archie can lead a more private life. Therefore, Archie would be addressed as Master Archie. Also, a reader told me that if they accepted the Earl title, they wouldn’t be able to later accept Prince. Elaborate on that if you guys know more.

Archie would be able to get the Prince title once Charles becomes King and this is something that Harry knows. So why would the family explain it to Meghan when her husband can?

Meghan is arguing that she doesn’t care for the title, she just wanted security.

Regardless of him getting the title or not, he still wouldn’t be entitled to private security and there are many reasons for that.

Firstly, apparently Charles is supposed to rebrand the monarchy because the people (aka the taxpayers that fund them) are unhappy with the number of funds spent on them for things that aren’t necessities.

For example, Prince Andrew’s daughters; Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, were stripped of their private security ten years ago. On top of that, The Queen told them to go out and find their own careers as they are not going to be working royals, even though Andrew wanted that for them.

Usually, the working royals are the more relevant family members. The DailyMail called both Beatrice and Eugenie “losers” back in 2011 and that they didn’t need private security.

His argument that they should have security failed because their cousin Zara Phillips, the daughter of Princess Anne, has no protection – even though she has a higher public profile.

On top of that, Prince Andrew apparently fought hard for his daughters to get the Her Royal Highness (HRH) Princess titles. This has to do with the monarchy trying to restrict the titles to only main working members of the royal family and in turn, save the taxpayers’ money. Elaborate in the comments if you guys know more.

A source even told the DailyMail that, “He believes his daughters are already being overshadowed by William, Kate and Harry and the situation will get worse as Prince George and Princess Charlotte get older.”

I’m pretty sure if we saw the following written about Archie, we wouldn’t hear the end of it:

In 2009, Prince Andrew spoke publicly saying that he wants his daughters to continue his work as a trade ambassador. However, he lost that battle too.

Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, he’s The Queen’s youngest son and his kids don’t have any special titles. His kids are titled, Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “you’re a little black, you’re not getting sh!t,” but more of… we are prioritizing the children of the future King so… keep it cute or keep it moving. But let me give Meghan the benefit of the doubt. She wanted the title for security, right?

On the topic of security, the royal family doesn’t get to say who gets security and who doesn’t. Again, it’s reserved for working members of the royal family and that security is decided by London's Metropolitan Police Service.

There are 2 sections of the Protection Command:

1. Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP), providing protection to the Royal Family

2. Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection (PaDP), providing uniformed security to government buildings, officials and diplomats.

So which institution told you that Archie wasn’t getting protection, Meghan & Harry? The senior royals or the Metropolitan Police Service?

Even if Archie got the title, he still wouldn’t be granted private security so Meghan’s argument of “I just wanted the title due to security :(“ falls flat. He also wouldn’t be a working royal and therefore his security wouldn’t be funded by the taxpayer’s money. If Harry and Meghan stayed as working royals, he would get security through them, but as he grows older, he’ll probably be told the same thing that Beatrice and Eugenie were told —GET A JOB, WE HAVE MORE RELEVANT WORKING ROYALS. Obviously, this is something that Meghan & Harry could have fought for just as Andrew did, but they didn’t.

Meghan said, “They were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or princess, which would be different from protocol.” Well Megs, that ain’t protocol. I don’t doubt they said that. I just don’t think they did it with a vendetta towards Meghan. I feel like they could have even argued their case the way Andrew was fighting his. Meghan was painting it as “THEY’RE AGAINST US” when Anne’s kids don’t have titles and the royal family basically told Andrew’s kids to fund their own fcking security.

The fact that Princess Anne’s kids don’t have titles was the argument used against Prince Andrew in regards to Beatrice and Eugenie.

Archie wasn't automatically entitled to the Prince title since he is not the child of a future monarch. Being a prince or princess does not automatically mean royals have police protection. Under the law, he would have gotten the Prince title if Charles were to become King and there is no factual evidence that anything was “changed” because of Archie.

Also, Meghan was talking about how amazing and wonderful The Queen was so WHO exactly was telling you otherwise if it wasn’t the head of the monarch?

It’s convenient for Meghan & Harry how all of this information was left out of the interview. It’s also convenient for them to talk about how they wanted security in America and complained about it being cut off. At your grown ages, you wanted Daddy to pay for your security (and he did) from TAXPAYER MONEY? In a country that you aren’t serving for anymore????

Where is the sense in that?

Let me know what you guys think in the comment section down below. Enlighten us if you have more information to add. You can comment anonymously so take advantage of that. I will be reading and replying back.

Where to find or contact us: