Ang

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@littlemissy195 @RNN_RoyalNews A country with a president as head of state also checks all kinds of details about presidential candidates and nobody says the public is being invasive or the rules are just traditions. A lot is on the line for heads of state. Meghan can choose to withdraw the kids from LOS. 2/2

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@littlemissy195 @RNN_RoyalNews The expectation to validate children in the Line of Succession isn’t merely because the public pays for the monarch. It’s because the monarch is the head of state for the UK and other nations and hence anyone eligible to become monarch can end up being head of state. 1/2

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@littlemissy195 @RNN_RoyalNews People don’t care who her doctor was. The doctor’s signature represents proof that the children met the criteria for being in the line of succession. The doctor lends their professional licence and reputation to vouch for this being the truth and not simply made up.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@littlemissy195 @RNN_RoyalNews The potential surrogacy is a second issue, because per the rules any children not born of the body (surrogacy, adoption, etc.) do not qualify for titles or Line of Succession. This is not just the public being invasive. It’s the public expecting compliance with the rules.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@littlemissy195 @RNN_RoyalNews The primary issue is that the doctor’s signatures were not provided publicly. That’s the requirement. The definition of Line of Succession is exactly that these children are eligible to become king/queen if the ones ahead of them can’t. So the rules are equally important for them

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@RNN_RoyalNews @sharon_maas You’re wrong Brittany. The rules state that a doctor has to publicly sign off on the delivery. No, that’s not invasion of privacy. Nothing private needs to be divulged. Yes, she can choose her delivery medical team as any certified doctor can provide the required signature.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@RNN_RoyalNews Obviously they don’t care, as they’ve not produced it to date. But constitutionally it’s not right and the people the monarchy represents DO care that this wasn’t done properly.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@RNN_RoyalNews The monarchy not doing this doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. They equally didn’t do anything about Randy Andy both in his personal and commercial dealings and we all know how legit that approach was.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@QLoTII Don’t you know Meghan is 43% Korean now?

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@QLoTII @England The moron of Montecito strikes again.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@sage1411 It would prove right that you can’t build your happiness on someone else’s unhappiness.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@unreMARKLEble Harry was consistently unfaithful to Chelsy so it would be shocking if he stayed faithful to anyone.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@DeeDee84276236 @nancytsidley

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@LMclennan61301 @hilltopjennifer Your statement makes zero sense. It’s like your comment is in response to a separate conversation you’re having with someone else.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@nypost Clearly not private if he’s updating the world based on this meeting.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@TheOnlyDuchess6 A person who doesn’t show affection would never refer to Harry as “my darling boy”, which Harry admitted to.

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@09steffie Let’s also be clear that if anybody else would’ve written about extensive past and present use of illicit substances and promoted their use outside the context of a medical facility, no children’s charity would ever allow such a person to be their patron or interact with children

[Ang @ArcheSmart]

@LMclennan61301 @hilltopjennifer Huh? These are Harry’s words that contradict his obvious basking in the glory of flashing cameras.