The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021

[rominet09]

How far gone and spineless has become that allows and does along with this cruel travesty? It’s kicking down people who can’t fight back and it’s his own family!

Am I the only one to think that, if Daddy hadn't stopped his payment, nothing would have happened ?

 

[Kellydofc]

Am I the only one to think that, if Daddy hadn't stopped his payment, nothing would have happened ?

No, I tend to agree with you. I think if he'd have kept up the money train and paid for security I think they'd have kept quiet.

 

[ruaudladoube]

I haven't seen the interview, only seen comments and analysis of it.

My take on the interview is this: Harry is being seen (on Twitter at least) as this devoted husband saving his wife from a toxic environment.

What makes that view questionable for me are a couple of things:
1. It seems that Harry did virtually nothing to prepare Meghan for what she'd be facing in the Royal Family. William spent years preparing Catherine, so she'd know what she was getting into.

2. I find it hard to swallow that Meghan was in need of mental health help and it was refused. First, it's been made clear that Harry and others in the family have been given help when it was needed. Second, it sounded like she had no idea how to go about getting it (the HR story). Which begs the question - why didn't Harry step in and make sure she got the help she needed? He's had help himself, and is supposedly a champion of people getting help. It feels like he failed her here as well.

3. The story about the color of their kids' skin. Now, it seems that this comment was not made to Meghan, she was just repeating what Harry told her. They made sure that everyone knew it wasn't the Queen or Philip, but in doing so, they essentially threw Charles under the bus. From what I'm seeing, Twitter has already condemned him as the guilty party. I doubt it was him, and honestly, I'm not sure I believe the story at all.

4. There seem to have been some factual inaccuracies in the interview which are easily fact-checked and do nothing for their credibility.

In sum, I'm not sure where the problem is, but it seems there was at best a failure in communication, and I'm also not buying Harry as the paragon of husbandly virtue we're being presented. His behavior is seriously questionable, imo.

 

[Erin9]

Interesting, I make it a habit not to read comments on articles on social media so all I was seeing was Twitter which seemed to be totally pro H&M and acted like this interview was going to bring the monarchy down, which I thought was a little over the top. Anyway, it's interesting to hear that you're saying the support wasn't so universal.



I know lots of people watched this interview but I'll be interested to see what happens when the Spotify/Netflix projects actually get off the ground. Will people constantly tune in to those or have they alienated more Americans even than they thought?

The support is far from universal. I don’t pay attention to Twitter, but my FB has lots of articles and a ridiculous amount were about these 2 entitled people. Sure they got some sympathy, but there was a lot of disgust for them too. I just read a comment about how great the “be kind” movement is going.

Lots of disgust about them whining, throwing their family under the bus, plenty think they lied, sounded entitled, jokes about how much they wanted privacy- but do this, etc.

 

[Sunnystar]

Firstly, there would be no security for Archie. Fine, we can use the examples of Zara, Peter, even Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. But think for one moment - Archie's parents are at high risk of a security incident from occurring, which would have been made at the government level. Yet the Royal Family Inc are telling Meghan and Harry their BABY would not have security protection .

Secondly - Royal Family Inc admitted to Harry and Meghan that when Charles ascends, the 1917 (and 2012) letters patent would be changed meaning their children will not have the HRH Prince/ss of Great Britain. The titles issue had nothing to do with the current 2012 letters patent the Queen issued. And they gave no reason behind this future change. Hmmmmm...

So, here is my one question regarding the security conversation... At no point did Meghan clarify exactly when Archie was going to not have security protection. My supposition, because we know that there was also the discussion about the HRH title going on at the same time, is that the conversation was basically "Archie's security is not going to be publicly funded, and once he is an adult, he won't have any security unless you two pay for it yourselves, similar to how Andrew paid for Beatrice & Eugenie for several years. Oh, and there's been the intent for the past 10-15 years to reduce the number of people entitled to HRH after the Queen passes, so, no Archie won't have that style ever."

Now, whether Harry just never really believed that was going to be the case for him and his family or was completely blindsided by this information is the real question. I have a hard time believing, especially since he & Meghan are supposedly close to Eugenie, that, at the very minimum, she didn't at least point out that H&M's kids would be in the same position as she & Bea (as well as Louise & James, to be honest), and that they shouldn't expect the HRH style or publicly funded security. But, I can also imagine Harry being arrogant enough to believe "oh, no, my children will be different" and Eugenie just politely saying "Okay, then..." and having a good "yeah, we'll see who's right after Granny dies" commiserative chat with her sister about Harry's delusions.

 

[Erin9]

Am I the only one to think that, if Daddy hadn't stopped his payment, nothing would have happened ?

Nope. They’re pretty bitter about daddy not paying for everything after they chose to walk.

Somehow the fact that they failed to plan ahead is not their fault.

 

[mary mary]

I am sorely disappointed in Harry's lack of EVERYTHING. He saw what Kate went threw, what his previous girlfriends went. He talks about his mother but has learned nothing from her experiences.

This was my main takeaway too, and I say this as someone who has always been fond of Harry in particular. He has seen it all before, he's at times seemed practically consumed by anger and resentment towards the media and what they did to his mother, and he's been very vocal about this. And, if memory serves, word was that his past girlfriends knew they didn't want to sign up for that life.

So I'm left thinking that Harry was so crazy about Meghan that he intentionally wanted to move quickly in their relationship, encourage her to remain naive about just how bad/claustrophobic the media coverage can feel, and get married before she really saw what her life would be like with him and was scared away. I think he was afraid of losing her if they took more time to settle her in to the UK before an engagement/marriage -- clearly she felt that life would destroy her, once she was living it.

Plus I think Harry pretty clearly has always wanted an out, and I suspect he thought that Meghan (as an American/living in Canada for all those years) gave him a better justification to leave if/when necessary. I don't think he was just using her so that he could leave, but I think he probably justified moving so quickly in their relationship and not doing more to prepare her by thinking that they would have an easier out if things went as bad as he could imagine and they needed to leave.

And of course Meghan should take responsibility for her self-inflicted naiveté too, but Harry absolutely 100% (without needing to do any homework or prep) knew what would be coming for her.

 

[Leopoldine]

When Harry was responding to Oprah's question about the skin color conversation, he mentioned it happened back in the beginning, along with a family member asking him if Meghan could keep working as an actress because there was no money for her. This had to be a joke, right?

 

[ruaudladoube]

...He has seen it all before, he's at times seemed practically consumed by anger and resentment towards the media and what they did to his mother, and he's been very vocal about this.

---

Plus I think Harry pretty clearly has always wanted an out, and I suspect he thought that Meghan (as an American/living in Canada for all those years) gave him a better justification to leave if/when necessary. ..

I completely agree, I think he's never really fully dealt with the trauma about his mother's death, even if he's had help with his mental health.

And I agree he wanted an out. I firmly believe that while it seems like he specifically said Meghan was why he left - he would have left no matter WHO he married.

It might have taken longer with someone who wasn't subject to the racist attacks in the media that Meghan was, but I think it still would have happened.

 

[Kellydofc]

Nope. They’re pretty bitter about daddy not paying for everything after they chose to walk.

Somehow the fact that they failed to plan ahead is not their fault.

They also knew for over a month Canada was going to not give them security anymore and yet claim they were completely blindsided by that. This is why I don't know if they're delusional, expected the BRF to go "oh H&M are SOOOO popular we MUST have them back!" and swoop in and save them or if they're just out and out lying. But no matter what, huge chunks of their story don't add up with the public record.

 

[Kellydofc]

When Harry was responding to Oprah's question about the skin color conversation, he mentioned it happened back in the beginning, along with a family member asking him if Meghan could keep working as an actress because there was no money for her. This had to be a joke, right?

The working actress part seems totally off because as I understood it the paired down royal family Charles had planned was himself, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse (Meghan). That means Meghan would be a fulltime working royal. There'd be no time for her to be an actress and there would certainly be money to pay her.

I can't help but feel this sounds like something Andrew or even Sarah would say because they've both had money troubles and Andrew has notoriously felt shunted to the side. I could see how he would say this as one second son trying to warn another second son knowing that yes, eventually Harry and Meghan would have to retire and give way for George, Charlotte and Louis but that's wasn't going to happen for a long time.

 

[Prinsara]

I see so many shades of the Edward VIII and Wallis relationship in Harry and Meghan. And I never thought David and Wallis had a great grand love. I thought he was obsessed by her and she loved him at one point, when she first became his mistress, but then got in way over her head and by the end just tolerated him. Maybe Harry and Meghan will turn out better in their private life with one another but it's clear their relationship with the BRF has just become the mirror image of David and Wallis.

Perhaps it's time to show what "much-loved family members" they are, and make Harry the Duke of Sussex and Windsor?

Has a catchy ring to it.

 

[Missjersey]

Am I the only one to think that, if Daddy hadn't stopped his payment, nothing would have happened ?

I agree with so many folks here. I’ve never thought she loved him but I do think she loves the title (ooh la la, all the attention), now she’s squawking about her boy having a title. Sure seems she wants to be number one and have the last word. I thought she played Harry for a fool but really went out of her way to suck up to Charles early on. JMO but I’ve never felt she liked William because she could sense he saw through her. She seemed a chameleon to me reeling Harry in, and now, to me, he looks like a chameleon in training (I taped/watched late last night). Oh ‘the wow is me’ is just beginning. Part of me hopes the RF doesn’t respond because Oprah will be ready with the mike for a rebuttal, it’ll just be inviting more drip drip drip. I can truly understand no contact sad as it may sound. It appears to me that Meghan is going to continue to do what she wants with Harry’s full support. And if you think she kicked Kate under the bus just wait until it’s Harry’s turn....and I do think that day will come. I know many people here like them, me not so much, never cared for her

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

So, here is my one question regarding the security conversation... At no point did Meghan clarify exactly when Archie was going to not have security protection. My supposition, because we know that there was also the discussion about the HRH title going on at the same time, is that the conversation was basically "Archie's security is not going to be publicly funded, and once he is an adult, he won't have any security unless you two pay for it yourselves, similar to how Andrew paid for Beatrice & Eugenie for several years. Oh, and there's been the intent for the past 10-15 years to reduce the number of people entitled to HRH after the Queen passes, so, no Archie won't have that style ever."

Now, whether Harry just never really believed that was going to be the case for him and his family or was completely blindsided by this information is the real question. I have a hard time believing, especially since he & Meghan are supposedly close to Eugenie, that, at the very minimum, she didn't at least point out that H&M's kids would be in the same position as she & Bea (as well as Louise & James, to be honest), and that they shouldn't expect the HRH style or publicly funded security. But, I can also imagine Harry being arrogant enough to believe "oh, no, my children will be different" and Eugenie just politely saying "Okay, then..." and having a good "yeah, we'll see who's right after Granny dies" commiserative chat with her sister about Harry's delusions.

Here is the transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: It was really hard.

Oprah: What do you mean?

Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.

Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?

Meghan: That’s right, I know.

Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?

Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . .
‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.

--------------------------------------------------
My interpretation is that without the HRH Prince/ss title, Archie would receive no protection, despite his age.

 

[Kellydofc]

Perhaps it's time to show what "much-loved family members" they are, and make Harry the Duke of Sussex and Windsor?

Has a catchy ring to it.

? I love it!

 

[Prinsara]

? I love it!

You know how Meghan loves her titles, and her research into the BRF.

 

[Queen Ester]

11) "Life is about storytelling, right? About the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we're told, what we buy into, and for us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens, that's hopefully uplifting, is gonna be great, knowing how many people that can land with and being able to give a voice to a lot of people that are underrepresented and aren't really heard." And there you have it... It's all about "storytelling, what we buy into, from a truthful lens"

From The Game of Thrones: " The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.

Lord Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.

Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.”"

 

[Kellydofc]

Here is the transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: It was really hard.

Oprah: What do you mean?

Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.

Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?

Meghan: That’s right, I know.

Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?

Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . .
‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.

--------------------------------------------------
My interpretation is that without the HRH Prince/ss title, Archie would receive no protection, despite his age.

Having a title doesn't automatically give you protection. Even Princess Anne, Prince Edward, the Countess of Wessex only gets protection when they're at events. Prince Andrew paid for Beatrice and Eugenie's security himself for years. Harry's knows this. I just think he thought he was special and his son would get special consideration.

Prince Andrew tried this same thing with security for Beatrice and Eugenie and got told no. Which is why it's even more amazing Harry and Meghan thought they could pull it off.

 

[Kellydofc]

11) "Life is about storytelling, right? About the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we're told, what we buy into, and for us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens, that's hopefully uplifting, is gonna be great, knowing how many people that can land with and being able to give a voice to a lot of people that are underrepresented and aren't really heard." And there you have it... It's all about "storytelling, what we buy into, from a truthful lens"

From The Game of Thrones: " The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.

Lord Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.

Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.”"

Ah but look at what happened to Varys and Littlefinger in the end. Better to be Sansa or Bran or Arya, in the end they all played the Game much better.

"When you play the Game of Thrones you either win or you're dead."

 

[Erin9]

I see so many shades of the Edward VIII and Wallis relationship in Harry and Meghan. And I never thought David and Wallis had a great grand love. I thought he was obsessed by her and she loved him at one point, when she first became his mistress, but then got in way over her head and by the end just tolerated him. Maybe Harry and Meghan will turn out better in their private life with one another but it's clear their relationship with the BRF has just become the mirror image of David and Wallis.

I see a lot of Wallis and David too in them.

And their relationship with the BRF may just be that non-existent from here on out.

Did I get it right that they found out from an assistant about Philip being in the hospital? Speaks volumes right there. And that was before this aired.

 

[Sunnystar]

Here is the transcript:
----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: It was really hard.

Oprah: What do you mean?

Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.

Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?

Meghan: That’s right, I know.

Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?

Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . .
‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.

--------------------------------------------------
My interpretation is that without the HRH Prince/ss title, Archie would receive no protection, despite his age.

Oh, I listened to that part of the interview very carefully, but thank you for the transcript. Again, Meghan isn't exactly forthcoming with what is meant by Archie not receiving security. Exactly when is he not going to receive his own security detail? Because as long as he is at Frogmore Cottage, he is in a secure environment, and he is going to receive security as long as he is with one or both of his parents. So, at exactly what point is the lack of an explicit security detail for Archie a problem? He doesn't need his own security detail right now and won't until he at least enters pre-school in a few years. Do we really think that Charles wouldn't have privately funded a security officer for a few hours a day when his grandson is in class?

There's just too much grey area in Meghan's comments for me not to have questions.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Having a title doesn't automatically give you protection. Even Princess Anne, Prince Edward, the Countess of Wessex only gets protection when they're at events. Prince Andrew paid for Beatrice and Eugenie's security himself for years. Harry's knows this. I just think he thought he was special and his son would get special consideration.

Prince Andrew tried this same thing with security for Beatrice and Eugenie and got told no. Which is why it's even more amazing Harry and Meghan thought they could pull it off.

Security is assessed by Scotland Yard. Harry himself said the high-risk security assessment on him and his family had not changed. When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie had their security revoked, they were deemed low risk by Scotland Yard. The same with Prince Andrew, Princess Anne and Prince Edward. The security around the Wessex children is actually unknown. I cannot find anywhere that states that the Earl and Countess of Wessex are privately funding for their underage children security.

The fact is Harry was told, as a full-time royal that his infant child would not receive security protection, although they were deemed of high risk. Archie needed to be a HRH Prince to receive it.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Oh, I listened to that part of the interview very carefully, but thank you for the transcript. Again, Meghan isn't exactly forthcoming with what is meant by Archie not receiving security. Exactly when is he not going to receive his own security detail? Because as long as he is at Frogmore Cottage, he is in a secure environment, and he is going to receive security as long as he is with one or both of his parents. So, at exactly what point is the lack of an explicit security detail for Archie a problem? He doesn't need his own security detail right now and won't until he at least enters pre-school in a few years. Do we really think that Charles wouldn't have privately funded a security officer for a few hours a day when his grandson is in class?

There's just too much grey area in Meghan's comments for me not to have questions.

Take for example when Prince George had outings with Grandma Middleton. George had his own security personnel with him, because somewhere someone deemed Willam and Kate to be high-risk, their children high-risk and their children are HRH Prince/ss of Cambridge. As it stands, if this was the case with Archie and Grandma Doria, he would not be receiving his own security as he is not a HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

 

[Sunnystar]

Security is assessed by Scotland Yard. Harry himself said the high-risk security assessment on him and his family had not changed. When Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie had their security revoked, they were deemed low risk by Scotland Yard. The same with Prince Andrew, Princess Anne and Prince Edward. The security around the Wessex children is actually unknown. I cannot find anywhere that states that the Earl and Countess of Wessex are privately funding for their underage children security.

The fact is Harry was told, as a full-time royal that his infant child would not receive security protection, although they were deemed of high risk. Archie needed to be a HRH Prince to receive it.

Nope, that isn't what was said. That's what Meghan implied. Harry didn't explicitly say anything about the security other than that the funding for it was cut off once they were no longer working royals.

What I suspect is that Harry was told "once Archie is old enough to need a security detail (at school, etc), you will have to pay for it" and even then, I'm not sure that they weren't also told "Oh, as long as Harry, Meghan & children are deemed high-risk, there will be security, but, eventually, we anticipate that your children will no longer be considered high-risk and the public funding of said security detail will be reassessed" - in other words "sure, the baby has security now, but there's no guarantee that he will have it for the rest of his life unless you are willing/able to pay for it privately."

 

[Queen Ester]

I wonder if Meghan did call the Queen- and if so- did she do it out of genuine concern or just so she could say she did to Oprah? I’m cynical enough about Meghan to think the latter.

Are we supposed to believe that Charles will not take Harry's calls, but HM will take Meghan's, well, ok then

 

[Kellydofc]

Nope, that isn't what was said. That's what Meghan implied. Harry didn't explicitly say anything about the security other than that the funding for it was cut off once they were no longer working royals.

What I suspect is that Harry was told "once Archie is old enough to need a security detail (at school, etc), you will have to pay for it" and even then, I'm not sure that they weren't also told "Oh, as long as Harry, Meghan & children are deemed high-risk, there will be security, but, eventually, we anticipate that your children will no longer be considered high-risk and the public funding of said security detail will be reassessed" - in other words "sure, the baby has security now, but there's no guarantee that he will have it for the rest of his life unless you are willing/able to pay for it privately."

Thank you, you said that far better than I did.

 

[Erin9]

Are we supposed to believe that Charles will not take Harry's calls, but HM will take Meghan's, well, ok then

Good point. Another reason to wonder if that call even happened- much less Meghan’s motives for supposedly making it.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Nope, that isn't what was said. That's what Meghan implied. Harry didn't explicitly say anything about the security other than that the funding for it was cut off once they were no longer working royals.

What I suspect is that Harry was told "once Archie is old enough to need a security detail (at school, etc), you will have to pay for it" and even then, I'm not sure that they weren't also told "Oh, as long as Harry, Meghan & children are deemed high-risk, there will be security, but, eventually, we anticipate that your children will no longer be considered high-risk and the public funding of said security detail will be reassessed" - in other words "sure, the baby has security now, but there's no guarantee that he will have it for the rest of his life unless you are willing/able to pay for it privately."

There were two security matters that was mentioned in the interview: one was for Archie, the second was when they were no longer working royals. When Meghan was pregnant with Archie, they were certainly working member of the Royal Family.

Based on what I have heard from the interview and the transcript, the Royal Family Inc were not going to pay for Archie's security because of a lack of a princely title. He had no pricely title at the time of his birth, and it seems he will not have the HRH Prince of Sussex title in the future

 

[Sunnystar]

There were two security matters that was mentioned in the interview: one was for Archie, the second was when they were no longer working royals. When Meghan was pregnant with Archie, they were certainly working member of the Royal Family.

Based on what I have heard from the interview and the transcript, the Royal Family Inc were not going to pay for Archie's security because of a lack of a princely title. He had no pricely title at the time of his birth, and it seems he will not have the HRH Prince of Sussex title in the future

But that's not what was actually said by Meghan in the interview. She gave a huge word salad that let the implication hang, and Oprah didn't elicit a full answer from Meghan either. That entire portion of the interview was jumping around the title and security and then the skin tone, and it was filled with a bunch of "jaw-dropping" wordy sentences that didn't really answer the basic questions. It was very carefully worded and I firmly believe that was deliberate on both Meghan and Oprah's parts.

 

[Kellydofc]

There were two security matters that was mentioned in the interview: one was for Archie, the second was when they were no longer working royals. When Meghan was pregnant with Archie, they were certainly working member of the Royal Family.

Based on what I have heard from the interview and the transcript, the Royal Family Inc were not going to pay for Archie's security because of a lack of a princely title. He had no pricely title at the time of his birth, and it seems he will not have the HRH Prince of Sussex title in the future

Unless they amend the act of succession, through an act of Parliament, then actually Archie and his sister will both automatically become HRHs when Charles ascends the throne. Again something Harry absolutely knew. Now there might be some talk of trying to get an amendment but it hasn't happened. So as of now, Yes, Archie will be a Prince.

This is of course assuming nothing else happens like the Sussexes are stripped of their titles, which again takes an act of Parliament, and are removed from the succession.