Archie’s name showed that Harry and Meghan’s gift for surprise had not deserted them. The baby’s name broke every rule in the royal book and was as maverick, unexpected, untraditional, and woke as could be. Royal children have always been named after royal antecedents. Harry and Meghan, however, proved that they so seriously took their goal of change as a perpetual precept that no area of their lives would be safe from their innovations. These might have been gratifying to their admirers and were certainly fodder for the press, who thrive on novelty, but the dizzying array of newness was starting to become disturbing to traditionalists.
Never before had a royal child been given a nickname instead of a Christian name. Had he been called Archibald, there would have been no issue, for Archie is a diminutive of that name, though Archibald is not actually a Windsor family name, being one of the four or so names the ducal house of Argyll has reserved over the centuries for its dukes and lords. The 9th Duke of Argyll had been married to Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Louise, so to that extent there was a royal connection. But Archie? It is a name which has customarily been given to dogs belonging to the upper classes, and only latterly to working class Britons, so its choice caused consternation.
Meghan and Harry would later claim that their inspiration for the name came from the ancient Greek word Arche whose primary and secondary meanings are ‘beginning’ and ‘origin’ with the tertiary meaning being ‘source of action.’ It is this third meaning which they have stated led them to call their son Archie.
Their choice of name was commendably erudite, to say the least. Few people nowadays are as familiar with Ancient Greek as they are, so it shows that they really are far deeper thinkers, with far greater sensitivities and far greater vision than the other royals, who call their children such mundane names as Charles, James, William, Henry, Andrew, Edward, David, George or any of the other names the Royal Family has used throughout the centuries. It also shows how liberal Harry and Meghan are in selecting only those aspects of something which suit them, for the word Arche is not pronounced Archie as in Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, but Arkie, as in the Archangel Gabriel and the ie sound at the end Penelope.
The source of the baby’s middle name was equally innovative. In British terms, Harrison is not a Christian name, but a surname, though the American custom of endowing children with family surnames as Christian names has resulted in the actor Harrison Ford possessing it as a first name. Claims that the name had been chosen by Meghan to honour the baby’s father were greeted with perplexity, for no one in Britain attaches the Scandinavian suffix of son to a father’s first name and uses that as a middle name, nor does it seem to be a practice followed in North America. Only in ancient times and in countries such as Denmark or Norway would Harry’s son gain the distinguishing suffix and become Harrison. Even then, it was not a middle name, but a distinguishing mark which is how surnames came about.
The uniqueness of the baby’s names aside, one consolation was that Meghan and Harry could not complain about being denied their choices the way the Yorks had been when they were prevented from calling one of their daughters a non-royal Christian name because there was no royal precedent for it. This was proof, yet again, that the Royal Family and the palace were tearing up the rule book to facilitate Meghan and Harry’s choices.
Although the family and the courtiers might have thought they were doing the couple a favour, in reality they were not. Sufficient people in the world at large knew about royal rules, regulations, practices and customs to be alert to the possible meaning of this latest game-changer. It wasn’t only the baby’s unconventional names that were flying in the face of convention, but his moniker. And that could mean something huge.
All legitimate royal children, like all legitimate progeny of peers, are born with titles. If the child of a peer or royal is born without a title, the implication is that it is illegitimate. The eldest sons of dukes, including royal dukes who are the grandsons of a monarch (with the exception of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, whose children are granted the style and title of royal highness and prince or princess) take their father’s subsidiary title, and their eldest sons take the tertiary title. The style and title of the firstborn legitimate son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is Earl of Dumbarton, and his firstborn legitimate son would be Lord Kilkeel. When the Sussexes therefore announced on Instagram that their son would be known as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, this fed the supposition that Meghan had not carried or produced the child, for he should by rights have been Lord Dumbarton, and if he is not, that means he is not legitimate in the eyes of British law.
British and American laws governing surrogacy are completely different. In Britain, a child is deemed to be illegitimate, even if it is the biological issue of a married couple, as long as it is borne by a surrogate. The law in the US states that a child born of a surrogate is the lawful and legitimate child of the mother and father who have arranged the surrogacy. In England, however, the legal mother is the surrogate even though the legal father is the inseminator. Under English law, the woman whose egg produced the child has no legal status at all. If she wishes to be acknowledged as its mother, she has to adopt it. Even then, the child remains illegitimate at birth.
Under the laws governing titles, no illegitimate child can succeed to a peerage and no illegitimate child can therefore use the secondary and tertiary titles which customarily attach to peerages. Illegitimate children cannot have royal or aristocratic titles. Even if they are subsequently legitimised, they are disqualified from inheriting peerages, though they can acquire the style and title of second sons or daughters, i.e. courtesy titles. This puts them on a par with adopted children who, until 30th April, 2004, were prevented from using even courtesy titles. Only the persistence of the Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair on behalf of her four adopted children resulted in a change to the law, but illegitimate children are still denied any titles at all unless they are then adopted or legitimised.
The baby’s style and title were not the only indications alighted upon by the sceptics, that the internet stories about her bump being a prosthesis might have merit. Archie was allegedly born weighing seven pounds three ounces. This was hardly a huge baby. While it was impossible to discern his size with accuracy during that first interview at Windsor Castle when he was two days old, the internet came alive with comments that he was suspiciously big for a two day old baby whose birth weight had been so slight. The gist of the comments was that, unless Archie had been padded deliberately, which seemed unlikely, his size suggested an infant of his birth weight who was rather older than two days.
Harry’s comments during the interview further fostered the theories about Archie not being born when and to whom it was alleged. Had Harry wanted to increase rather than decrease the rumours about his son’s birth, he could not have done so more effectively than the response he gave when asked who the baby looked like. He said ‘everyone says the baby’s changed so much over two weeks we’re basically monitoring how the changing process happens over the next month.’ This was an extraordinary statement to make. Archie was two days old. Babies don’t change appearance markedly and frequently in a forty eight hour period. Yet here was Harry asserting not only that his son kept on changing appearance over a two week period, but that he had done so to such an extent that it was impossible to say whom he looked like; notwithstanding the baby being officially two days old.
Any student of behaviour looking at that interview can see Harry trying to retrieve his slip of the tongue. Not only does he waffle on about monitoring the changing process over the next month, but he then slips back in that his son has been around but ‘it’s only been the last two and a half to three days….’ Notwithstanding the fact that Archie wasn’t officially more than two days old.
In reality, English and Scottish law are such that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor being the son of a royal prince makes his position very straightforward. If he is the natural and legitimate son of Har
ry and Meghan gave birth to him, he is not Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor but Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton. By law, he would only be Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor if he had been carried by a woman other than Meghan. Whether she is the biological mother is irrelevant under English law. A famous jurist told me, ‘The father is the person who usually registers a child’s birth. If the father informs the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages that the baby had been born to him and his wife, the certificate would be issued without further ado. Hospitals don’t register births. Parents do. And no one checks the information given.’ In such an eventuality, the child would therefore be apparently legitimised but would not be able to succeed to his father’s peerage. And he would have no place in the line of succession, as illegitimate children cannot inherit the Crown.
Nevertheless, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is listed as being seventh in line of succession to the throne. This is on the strength of the birth certificate which was issued stating that Harry is his father and Meghan his mother. A royal told me, ‘You see the mess.’ No prominent family, royal or otherwise, welcomes speculation about the arrival of a child, and the fact that this speculation has been all over the internet has been a monumental embarrassment. While Meghan’s supporters will say that she has every right to conduct herself as she pleases, and the more extreme ones will even say, ‘And damn the consequences,’ one member of the establishment who supports the monarchy expressed the view shared by many of Meghan’s critics on the internet. ‘She’s the one who’s caused all these problems. People pick up on her not being real. That’s the root cause of all of this. She’s incredibly spoilt and utterly selfish. She’s also the most pretentious person anyone will ever meet. Have you seen her handwriting? Almost as contrived as her personality. Her whole life’s an act. Like all people who are basically hollow, she covers it up with all sorts of gush intermingled with unreasonable demands, including wanting a buffer zone between them and everyone else. But he’s completely captivated by her. He truly adores her and I know he honestly believes that she loves him. He’ll do anything to keep her happy. He’s terrified of losing her. I think his feelings are caught up with having lost his mother. Remember: death is the ultimate rejection. He can’t afford to have another Mummy leave him. She mothers him as well as lays it on with a trowel being the little woman to his big man one minute, then the big bad mama to the naughty little boy the next. He goes along with everything because he’s terrified of losing her. He’ll do anything to keep her happy.’
What people on the outside looking in might not realise is how very much the human factor counts in this story. People close to Harry are genuinely worried that he could suffer a total mental breakdown or even commit suicide if his relationship with Meghan should be threatened or fail. A psychologist who knows him told me that he displays all the symptoms of someone who is co-dependent. If Meghan is addicted to success, Harry is addicted to her. People like Nikki Priddy believe that Meghan is tough and will sacrifice anyone or anything if they stand in her way; Harry will sacrifice anyone, including himself, to maintain her regard and remain by her side.
Because Harry’s emotional fragility plays such a part in everyone’s calculations, Meghan is beyond the control of everyone but herself. This is not as enviable a position to be in as it might appear to be. In fact, there is much to be said for the fact that Meghan’s strength of character has isolated not only Harry but also herself. Had she had someone who could have stood up to her, who could have helped her adjust to a new way of life in a truly meaningful way instead of enabling her when he should have been informing and at times diverting her, she might well have gained greater appreciation of a way of life she was dismissive of. Everyone needs guidance at times, strong people included. They also need resistance when it is necessary. When they are making mistakes, they need someone to tell them. In situations such as Harry and Meghan’s, it is fruitless to apportion blame, for Harry is highly emotional without the outstanding intellectual capabilities a woman as strong and intelligent as Meghan would require, to divert her from the path of certitude upon which she consistently treads. And without a naysayer, she has made mistakes which she could easily have avoided. These have affected her popularity, and brought condemnation down upon her.
Two incidents in particular which turned the British public against her stand out. The first was when Meghan flew to New York for a baby shower which was reported as having cost $300,000. One must remember that the press often exaggerate how much things cost, but even so, there is no doubt that the event was lavish. It was organised by her friends Genevieve Hillis, with whom she has been friendly since their days together at Northwestern University when they were sorority sisters in Kappa Kappa Gamma, Jessica Mulroney and Serena Williams. Gayle King said, ‘I think her friends just wanted to celebrate her. Those were the three women who put it all together. It was a very, very small, private affair and just a very special time for her.’ Held at the Mark Hotel, in its most luxurious suite, it was attended by her fifteen closest friends including Amal Clooney, on whose jet she was given a lift coming and going. For the forty eight hours that she was in New York, Meghan provided photo op after photo op for her admirers, to the annoyance of her detractors. She was a news editor’s dream, her hand perpetually hovering over her bump like a helicopter above a landing pad, a faint smile playing on her lips as if she had some secret only she knew about, but wasn’t it wonderful? This patent enjoyment of life appealed to her admirers but riled her detractors, who kept on saying they wished she’d look a little less smug, while the former group exulted in her open joyousness at her good fortune. While the battle raged, Meghan treated all onlookers to a fashion parade. Whatever her critics say, they cannot deny that she is a beautifully dressed, stylish woman who knows how to wear clothes and shows them, and herself, to advantage.
It was interesting to see how radically different the American newspaper and television coverage was from the British. In the US, there was universal celebration for Meghan’s good fortune in not only having hooked a prince and become a duchess, but also in luxuriating so effortlessly and stylishly in a paradise only a hallowed few will ever be able to occupy. In Britain, there was universal condemnation for what was perceived as crass and vulgar wallowing in a tasteless display of conspicuous consumption. The British don’t mind their grandees living in palaces and castles, don’t even mind them wearing millions of pounds worth of inherited jewels and sitting upon tens of millions of pounds of chattels, but they do object to royalty cadging lifts on celebrities’ private planes, staying in hotels where suites cost tens and tens of thousands of dollars a night, wearing tens and tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of clothes which will only ever be worn once. To them, palaces, castles, furniture, art work, and jewels are heritage, and therefore acceptable. But putting a match to that amount of money for one night’s stay, for one outfit’s outing, for one party which will be over in a few hours, is offensive to them. These are fundamental cultural differences which it would have behoved Meghan to understand and Harry to explain.
I was told that Meghan was extremely upset by the criticism levelled against her. She simply could not understand why the British weren’t thrilled with her the way the Americans were.
So what is she’d got a lift on Amal Clooney’s aeroplane? What was all the fuss about? Amal was using it whether she was on it or not. And in any event, who flies commercial if they have the chance to go private? She found the British attitude stupid and unreasonable.
This clash of cultures could have been avoided with greater discretion, but the fact is, Harry did not help negotiate Meghan’s way around the shoals. He was simply not canny enough to spot the sinkhole into which she was stepping. He also shared a damaging trait with his great-great-great-uncle David, the Duke of Windsor, who was so also enraptured by his wife that he too could never prevent her from hurling herself headlong into unnecessary pits. Like David, who thought that Wallis was a paragon of perfection, Harry thoug
ht that Meghan had much to teach his compatriots. He honestly believed that the monarchy was run by stuffed shirts and several members of his family were jealous of him and Meghan to such an extent that they all wanted to keep them down when everyone could learn so much from her. In his estimation, the monarchy could have become so much more relevant under her guidance. It could have been a force for change in a way it was not and had never been. He earnestly believed that they’d be able to show everyone how they could shake things up if only the prigs would give them free rein.
This, of course, was precisely what the courtiers and family did not want. They didn’t want Meghan and Harry chucking out the babies with the bath water when, in their view, those babies were the future of the monarchy and the country. They were only too aware that only a small percentage of the country shared Meghan and now Harry’s perspective. The monarchy needed to represent that vast swathe of people whom Meghan especially looked down upon for being traditional, old fashioned, politically unenlightened, sticks-in-the-mud. But then, Meghan’s focus had never really been on Britain, but on the United States, and gradually she had induced Harry to share her vision.
No one knows precisely when Meghan decided that Britain would not work for her. Some of her old friends believe that she never had any intention of making the transition from the US to the UK. They posit that she is the archetypal businesswoman who saw the opportunity a takeover of Harry Incorporated presented. Being dished up with a handsome and eager prince whom she found physically and personally attractive, who was so keen to please her that he slotted into the role of adoring poodle without her even needing to train him up, was too good an opportunity to miss. They postulate that she walked into this with her eyes wide open, with no intention of fitting in. If Britain wouldn’t mould itself to suit her, she would bide her time, complain about how unappreciated she was, and move back to the US with the added benefit of royal status - with or without her husband.
Meghan and Harry Page 28
