Well no doubt the press will wonder if they were planning to change the letters patents to prevent the Sussex children from becoming HRH once Charles is King. I mean people on this board speculated and suggested it TL happens.
As for the skin color comment? Why is anyone surprised?
Overall I felt Meghan went out of her way to talk positively about the family. It was Harry would really went into specifics.
That said — truly fascinating interview.
Meghan's account of Archie's title (or lack thereof) was confusing.
First, she seemed to imply Archie was not made a prince as a great-grandson of the Queen and presented that as something exceptional when it is simply a straightforward application of the Letters Patent of 1917 and 2002 and applies to all of HM's great-grandchildren, except George, Charlotte and Louis.
Next, she changed the narrative somewhat implying, I think, that there was some discussion about the rules being changed in the future for Archie not to become a prince when Charles is king. That is very suspicious, first because , at the time Archie was born, a member here at TRF posted a reply from the Palace confirming, when asked about it, that the Letters Patent of 1917 would be followed and Archie would become a prince upon Charles' accession. Second, and that is my personal opinion, Charles would never openly discussion new LPs upon his accession while his mother is still alive because he knows the hierarchy and knows that titles of the RF are a matter for the Sovereign to decide, not the heir.
Third, Oprah then tried to suggest that Archie being deprived of his title was somehow tied to his race, which Meghan, in the best case scenario, did not deny. Even assuming Charles might one day
as king limit the HRH to children of the heir only, that would simply be following a common trend in Europe which already applies to grandchildren of the monarch for example in the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Moreover, Archie wouldn't even be the first grandchild of a monarch who does not use or have the HRH as there is already a precedent, albeit voluntary, in the case of James and Louise. In any case, there would be no reason to assume that would have anything to do with Meghan or Harry personally (other than the fact tha Harry is a second-born son) and, much less, that it has anything to do with Archie's "race" or "skin color".
The part about the title is not really significant though, other than hurting Meghan's credibility (like the part she admits she had an illegal wedding, which I can't honestly believe). The most damaging parts of the interview IMHO actually were:
1) When Meghan claimed she was suicidal and the Palace was unresponsive or even uncooperative.
2) When Harry said he was sorry for Charles and William for being "trapped" into a system they can't get out of , implying, as I interpret it, that he is calling for the monarchy to be abolished so that his family can be set free, and that they don't do their job on their free will, but because they are forced to. Keep in mind that is
not the first time Harry makes that kind of claim; he had already said something similar at least once, even before he left.
3) When Harry claimed that the RF was afraid of Meghan's star power after the Australia tour and that she could become a new Diana, and that caused a change of attitude towards her.