Questions raised about explosive Meghan and Harry claims

Expert opinion has cast doubt on a number of bombshell claims made by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in a major TV interview with American celeb Oprah Winfrey – including disputes about the date of their marriage and the entitlement of their son Archie to the rank of prince.

In the course of the extensive discussion, Ms Markle appeared wounded by a royal decision not to grant her son Archie the rank of prince.


She even appeared to tie her complaint in with explosive race claims, complaining about “the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be.”

But Archie is not the grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II, but rather her great-grandchild.

Constitutional expert Craig Prescott clarified the rules to the MailOnline news website: “The Letters Patent of 1917 established the practice that sons and daughters of the monarch, and those whose father is a son of the monarch are entitled to be called Prince.

“The Queen issued further Letters Patent in 2012 so that all children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would become Princes or Princesses, because one day, they will be children of a future monarch.”

The rules mean Archie could take the title prince when Charles ascends to the throne, but undermine Markle’s suggestion that her son’s lack of the title at present represents a breach of protocol.


This site reported yesterday how Meghan Markle had also claimed that the couple were in fact married three days before their extravagant Royal Wedding – which cost the taxpayer millions of pounds in policing costs.

“I was thinking about it, you know our wedding—three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that” claimed Markle.

“We called the Archbishop and we just said: look, this thing, this spectacle, is for the world. But we want our union between us, so the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury…”

The claim sparked outrage with one social media user branding the subsequent ceremony a “waste of taxpayers money”.

But UK rules on marriages stipulate that “two or more witnesses must be present at the marriage. There is no restriction on the number of witnesses, nor is there an age limit but they must be able to understand what is taking place and testify if necessary as to what they have seen and heard.”

The rules also demand that “the public must have unrestricted access to the building during any marriage ceremony to allow for valid objections against the marriage.”