Experts have rubbished Meghan Markle's claim about her and Prince Harry's son Archie being denied his "birthright" title by the Royal family.

Meghan claimed race was a factor in Archie, who is almost two, not being made a prince in the couple's bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, which aired on Sunday night in the US and on Monday on ITV in the UK.

But Craig Prescott, one of the UK's top constitutional lawyers, said: "It is very clear Archie, or indeed any of the Sussexes' children, would not have the right to be a prince or princess as the duchess has suggested.

"The rules are clear, albeit perhaps slightly confusing for some, but they are governed by letters patent by George V."

The written order by King George V – the Queen's granddad and Harry's great-great-grandfather – declared that only royal offspring who are in the direct line of succession could be made a prince or princess and receive titles of His or Her Royal Highness.

Sources say "there was never any grey area" in explaining the rules, signed in 1917, to Harry and Meghan.

Under the 104-year-old rule, only Prince William and Kate Middleton's eldest child George was entitled to be a prince.

The Queen did issue new rules in 2013 to allow George's future siblings to become princes or princesses.

The rules mean Archie would still be entitled to be HRH or a prince, but only when his grandad Charles takes the throne.

Mr Prescott said: "The Queen stepped in to produce another patent to ensure the Cambridge children were placed on an equal footing.

• 

  Is Britain a nation of lockdown lovers – take Just Jane's Daily Star Sex Q&A

"It could be that Charles, William or even George when the takes the throne will issue further patents to change the rules as they see fit, but for now, it's very clear."

Meanwhile, the former head of royal protection said the couple's plan to live abroad while maintaining their full taxpayer-funded security was "wholly unworkable".

In the Oprah interview Harry and Meghan were critical of their security being removed after quitting as senior royals.

• 

  Meghan Markle wants to 'take down Royal family after marrying wrong prince', MP claims

Instead Harry paid for security privately from money left to him by his late mother, Princess Diana.

Dai Davies, the former chief superintendent who led the Metropolitan Police's royal protection unit, said the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were "obviously confused" about the way it works.

He said their intention to live abroad while keeping their publicly-funded security was not possible.

Mr Davies branded the couple "arrogant" that they expected the taxpayer to foot the bill, which was an estimated £4million per year.

He said: "It shows you their naivety and sense of entitlement.

"It was utterly unrealistic to think they could continue to have their royal protection team working in America – in fact it would have put their (police) lives at risk.

"It was simply arrogant to presume they and their baby would get protection."

Source: Read Full Article