So did Harry and Meghan get married in their ‘backyard’?

I have been slow in the uptake. When I saw the Duchess of Sussex complain in her interview clips about how her son had not been given a title and then move on to the alleged racism of an alleged speculation by an unnamed but probably royal person about the possible skin colour of the child she was expecting, I did not immediately see the connection. The full interview makes it clear. Meghan is saying that Archie was not allowed to be a prince because of his skin colour. Oprah: ‘Do you think it’s because of his race?’ Meghan: ‘We have in tandem the conversation of “He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title” and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born… if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one.’ Leave aside whether what she said was true (which, for slightly involved reasons about princely titles, and also for reasons of common sense and common decency, it cannot have been). Consider the import. Meghan is creating what will soon become a social media dogma that her son is really a prince but has been denied his title because of royal racism. Obviously, even the imaginative Duchess cannot claim that Archie is heir to the throne in preference to the established three-generation line of Charles, William and young George. But she might hope to disrupt the monarchy by doing something like what Diana attempted when she said that her former husband should not be King and the throne should pass directly to her elder son. Untitled Archie becomes the prince over the water. For this myth to grow, no further facts are needed and no factual disproofs will avail. As the prince in exile, he will be recognised, Meghan may hope, by people of colour everywhere.