Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[becca]

Thanks for answering.

Didn't they make a change to the rules when it was decided that Princess Charlotte would not be pushed behind her brother, Prince Louis, in the line of succession just because she is female? There is an example of grandchildren of the future king being taken into the consideration. I'm just trying to understand why the same can't be done for Archie and his new sister.

Charles abandoned the family. It's my experience that many kids who come from broken homes start to view financial support as a sign of affection. They think that parents who financially support them are parents who care. The parent OTOH struggles to build a more meaningful relationship with the kid and starts to resent how the kids always ask for money. It's a negative cycle that is rarely broken.

It's Charles' fault that he wasn't able to build a relationship with his kids besides spending lots of money on them.

Charles should have never married 19 year old Diana. But by the time they got divorced she more than contributed to the break up of her marriage including affairs of her own.

By the time you had those interviews with both of them the Queen was the one who said enough.

Harry is a grown adult who shouldn’t be treating anyone like a cash dispenser.

Charles literally gave him millions. At some point it’s reasonable for a parent to say enough. It’s not even loving to allow it.
And if that’s the only way for Harry will have a relationship Charles is right to say enough.

Harry isn’t the only who has had divorce in his life. And yes my Dad to at some point was like that the financial person. But you know what I stopped expecting money from my Dad at a much younger age than 36.

The way Charles and Diana were fighting that divorce was probably for the best.

And is thrilled that I am living my life in a way where I need nothing from him.

 

[MsZem]

For example, if Harry remarried a Royal princess from another country, would they really not title his kids Prince/Princess of the UK?

There isn't much of an age-appropriate selection

 

[skategal]

There isn't much of an age-appropriate selection

Cradle robbing was popular among the aristocracy in times past.

 

[MsZem]

Cradle robbing was popular among the aristocracy in times past.

Prince Andrew has entered the chat

 

[becca]

I keep thinking that it wasn't communicated to H&M until they were pregnant because it is a contentious issue and if they never had kids, why would you even mention it?

Or if H&M divorced or Meghan passed away without them having children and Harry married again and had some kids they may decide to let his kids have a title depending on who Harry married?

For example, if Harry remarried a Royal princess from another country, would they really not title his kids Prince/Princess of the UK?

I don't know....it's all a bit hard on the head...

Meghan says they were telling her about the rules when she was pregnant.

I would imagine that no Harry’s children from another woman wouldn’t be HRH either at least not via the UK.

However they may be HRH through their mother’s kingdom. So if he married the heir to another throne those children would be HRH because of their moms country. That has nothing to do with their relationship with the UK

 

[skategal]

Meghan says they were telling her about the rules when she was pregnant.

I would imagine that no Harry’s children from another woman wouldn’t be HRH either at least not via the UK.

However they may be HRH through their mother’s kingdom. So if he married the heir to another throne those children would be HRH because of their moms country. That has nothing to do with their relationship with the UK

Yes that is what said. They told her when she was pregnant.

Harry's children from whoever are supposed to be HRH when Charles is King as in keeping with current and past protocol as grandchildren of the Monarch.

Charles wants to change that.

I don't think he would change it if Harry married another Royal.

 

[MsZem]

I don't think he would change it if Harry married another Royal.

When was the last time that two actual royals married one another? Princess Caroline of Monaco and Prince Ernst August of Hanover? This is their daughter, BTW

Even royal weddings involving people with titles aren't that common nowadays, I think the last one was Stephanie and Guillaume in Luxembourg.

 

[skategal]

When was the last time that two actual royals married one another? Princess Caroline of Monaco and Prince Ernst August of Hanover? This is their daughter, BTW

Even royal weddings involving people with titles aren't that common nowadays, I think the last one was Stephanie and Guillaume in Luxembourg.

Awesome. I had no idea there was a Royal figure skater.

I guess another example would be if Harry married the daughter of a close friend of Charles.

Would he be motivated to not give the children titles then?

But for sure, if Harry married someone that is easier to cut off, he was going to do it.

 

[MacMadame]

I think Meghan was referencing point 2 in the interview when she said something like “They told us Archie wouldn’t be a prince and would be changing a rule to make it that way.”

Speaking of points 1-3, what's up with 3? Why wouldn't the kids be Lords and Ladies?

Charles abandoned the family.

In what way? I don't think he was a good father but he didn't take off and leave them.

I guess another example would be if Harry married the daughter of a close friend of Charles.

Would he be motivated to not give the children titles then?

I'm going to guess yes. But I also think that the way this was handled was insensitive and not a good look. Especially since Archie isn't allowed to be Lord Archie. That has nothing to do with slimming down the monarchy. It's just being petty.

 

[Karen-W]

Speaking of points 1-3, what's up with 3? Why wouldn't the kids be Lords and

I'm going to guess yes. But I also think that the way this was handled was insensitive and not a good look. Especially since Archie isn't allowed to be Lord Archie. That has nothing to do with slimming down the monarchy. It's just being petty.

There is nothing preventing either of Harry's kids from being Lords/Ladies, at least not in the 1917 Letters Patent. Great-grandchildren in the male line from the monarch can be styled that way... which is why we have Lord Freddie Windsor and Lady Gabriella Kingston (nee Windsor), etc and the other great-grandchildren of George V styled as such.

It was stated when Archie was born that his parents wished for him to be known as MASTER Archie rather than Lord Archie or even the Earl of Dumbarton, which is Harry's secondary title. That announcement is part of why most experienced royal watchers are going "whuuuuuuh?" now with what Meghan said in the Oprah interview regarding the titles. Archie and his sister are most certainly able to be titled as Lord and Lady.

There is absolutely NOTHING petty with how Archie is currently styled. Unless you are saying that you think his parents, in a huff over the lack of a special LP from the Queen to make Archie and HRH from birth, decided that he should have NO title. Which would be petty and childish, for sure, but not out of the realm of possibility, especially considering that this was a non-issue before Meghan decided to bring race into it.

 

[MacMadame]

I forgot to say that I want Archie to become Earl of Dumbarton and move to the Bay Area so he can do over the Dumbarton bridge every day on the way to work.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I'm going to ask another dumb question. Maybe this has been answered upthread, and frankly, it's a full-time job reading everything in this thread. M

Why weren't Harry and Meghan told that Archie wouldn't be getting a title before they ever got married? The issue as to whether any of Harry's children should have been resolved long before the marriage ever took place, if for no other reason, everyone would have known have known what the expectations were. Or were they told what was going to happen and everyone all of a sudden has amnesia? I'm curious. Yes, I'm sure she loves Harry, but I'm willing to bet that one of the reasons that she married Harry was for the title, the security, and everything that goes along with it, including the publicity.

Either way, I'm not impressed with QE's or Charles' parenting skills. QE had the ability to fix this. If she can name celebrities and Olympic athletes knights, she can certainly make sure that her grandson and great-grandson, who are direct descendants to the future king, are taken care of, at least as far as security is concerned. This isn't a situation that Harry created himself, unless you count choosing a wife. (That's not a dig). Charles has always been a first class prick, but I thought that was reserved for outsiders, not his own children. Refusing phone calls like a teenage girl? Did he block his number, too? Good grief! They all need therapy.

Harry didn't need to be told. He knew.
George V in 1917 set the rules about who gets what titles and when.
QE had no reason to fix anything. The line of succession is clear. It goes from the sovereign to the first son (Charles) and then to his first son (William) and then to (George)

The Queen did make one change "On December 31, 2012 Queen Elizabeth II made an amendment to the 1917 Letters Patent by issuing a Letters Patent which gave the title and style His/Her Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom to all the children of the Prince of Wales's eldest son."

In order for Harry not to have known how the line of succession works in his own country he must never even opened a textbook or looked around.

As for Meghan....she never read up on protocol or rules before she married into the Royal family? She never asked about the status of their future children? Well shame on her. All she had to do was take the time and energy to make sure she wanted to get into what she was getting into.

Did they think that rules which are over 100 years old would not apply to them?

And did they think if they moved out of the country, resigned as working royals, and perpetuated their incorrect version of the laws of England things would get better?

I am surprised that Oprah's people did not research this to make sure what was fact and what was fiction.

Those guys are kookoo

 

[becca]

I forgot to say that I want Archie to become Earl of Dumbarton and move to the Bay Area so he can do over the Dumbarton bridge every day on the way to work.

Technically Archie is the Earl of Dumbarton everyone expected Archie to be styled as an Earl at birth it was said it was the parents choice because he Already was an earl. I have a hard time thinking the Crown would have photos of Archie meeting the Queen.

Photos of christening but would deny him the title of Earl a title people less ranked then him hold.

Furthemore Archie will inherit the Duke of Sussex title. Something that his younger siblings will not. So he is in line to inherit a Dukedom.

I don’t think it would matter to Prince Charles who Harry married they are concerned about too many HRHs And not being a bother to tax holders. If Harry married someone with an HRH those kids may very well have HRH due to their mother. But they won’t replace Archie in the line of succession or in line to inherit his Dads title.

So Archie is not going to be equal to his cousins but his brothers and sisters won’t be equal to him. That’s the way the system works.

A Future Dukedom is nothing to snuff at.

 

[FiveRinger]

The Talk Goes on Hiatus After Sharon Osbourne's Heated Comments

 

[manhn]

The Talk Goes on Hiatus After Sharon Osbourne's Heated Comments

That sucks for the rest of the hosts and the crew because of her abhorrent behaviour. Why not have her go on a hiatus while the show goes on? I am assuming none of them will get paid during this time.

 

[Oreo]

I wonder how enthusiastically H&M will want to support Archie when he is 36.

 

[MacMadame]

Though it's about "the monarchy" it's as much about the Oprah interview as anything:

The monarchy: so what are they for?

When Harry and Meghan took on ‘the firm’ in front of 50 millionviewers, it put the spotlight on the future of the royal family. Will it change with the times or fade under a future Charles III?

www.theguardian.com

 

[kwanfan1818]

I'm still having difficulty understanding the Letters of Patent. I thought that, aside from the direct heirs' line, the George V Letters of Patent limited the title to the grandsons of the ruling monarch, and that Queen Elizabeth II changed that to include all grandchildren of the ruling monarch.

Currently, the only grandchildren are William and Harry, who is not a direct heri, so Harry's children wouldn't be entitled to the title until Charles is King, because only then would they be the grandchildren of the ruling monarch. I also thought the issue is that under the current rules, M&H had reason to believe their children would eventually get the title, but that Charles has said that he plans to streamline the rules when he is King so that they no longer qualify.

Where am I going wrong?

 

[overedge]

That sucks for the rest of the hosts and the crew because of her abhorrent behaviour. Why not have her go on a hiatus while the show goes on? I am assuming none of them will get paid during this time.

They might get paid, if there's a clause in their union agreements about suspending the show temporarily (as opposed to cancelling it permanently). My guess is that the powers that be decided to shut it down for a while because that would be easier to manage than keeping it on the air while trying to avoid the backlash of Sharon's comments.

 

[MLIS]

The letters patent says that all male-line grandchildren (so children of the monarch’s sons) are HRHs. That would currently be Charles, Andrew, and Edward’s children (William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James). Edward and Sophie have chosen for their children not to use the HRH to which they are entitled, so they are using “lesser” titles as children of an earl (Lady Louise and Viscount Severn). The Queen’s other grandchildren, Zara and Peter Philips, are from a female line (the Queen’s daughter), so they are not entitled to HRHs. Any titles they would have would come from their father, and he and Princess Anne declined a title for him when they were married.

The letters patent also covers the oldest son of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales. So Prince George, William’s son, would be an HRH, but not his siblings. The change the Queen made was to cover all of William’s children (otherwise he would have HRH Prince George, Lady Charlotte, and Lord Louis). None of the Queen’s other great-grandchildren (Peter, Zara, and Eugenie’s kids) have any titles at all.

As things currently stand, any children of Harry and Meghan would become entitled to the HRH when Charles becomes king, but not now. I am sure Harry has understood this all his life, so I think what they seem to be saying is that they were told that someone (Charles?) intended to change this when he ascends the throne, so Harry’s children would not become HRHs after all. It has been long known that Charles favours slimming down the monarchy and focusing on the direct line, but his plan always seemed to include Harry and his future family. That must have changed. It very possibly had nothing to do with race, and was likely a decision made before Meghan was even in the picture, but the optics of changing the rules to exclude the first biracial member of the royal family are not great. And Harry and Meghan’s major issue seems to be that this would also mean Archie (and other children) would not be entitled to security protection, as William’s children are.

 

[becca]

I mean

I'm still having difficulty understanding the Letters of Patent. I thought that, aside from the direct heirs' line, the George V Letters of Patent limited the title to the grandsons of the ruling monarch, and that Queen Elizabeth II changed that to include all grandchildren of the ruling monarch.

Currently, the only grandchildren are William and Harry, who is not a direct heri, so Harry's children wouldn't be entitled to the title until Charles is King, because only then would they be the grandchildren of the ruling monarch. I also thought the issue is that under the current rules, M&H had reason to believe their children would eventually get the title, but that Charles has said that he plans to streamline the rules when he is King so that they no longer qualify.

Where am I going wrong?

George V changed rules so in his day less HRH.

Queen Elizabeth only changed the rules for Williams kids because their father will be King.

She talked about making Peter and Zara Princes/Princess but mom said no and that was a long time ago. Her youngest grandkids do not use the HRH title but the lesser Titles. Per the patent rules all Great Grandkids male line get styles as kids of a Duke.

Talk is Charles wants to make it so only HRH goes to direct heir get HRH.

But look Harry already had titles even a Dukedom that will pass to his son. They gave him that at marriage partly so his Son would have a title.

As for security the York Princesses don’t have it. Anne and Edward don’t. So HRH doesn’t equal security

 

[FiveRinger]

Independent Law Firm Hired to Investigate Meghan's Alleged Bullying
Yet no one hired the firm to investigate Prince Andrew. I can't agree with that.

 

[becca]

Independent Law Firm Hired to Investigate Meghan's Alleged Bullying
Yet no one hired the firm to investigate Prince Andrew. I can't agree with that.

Technically the firm could be found liable in this bullying case not so much with Andrew

 

[AxelAnnie]

Technically Archie is the Earl of Dumbarton everyone expected Archie to be styled as an Earl at birth it was said it was the parents choice because he Already was an earl. I have a hard time thinking the Crown would have photos of Archie meeting the Queen.

Photos of christening but would deny him the title of Earl a title people less ranked then him hold.

Furthemore Archie will inherit the Duke of Sussex title. Something that his younger siblings will not. So he is in line to inherit a Dukedom.

I don’t think it would matter to Prince Charles who Harry married they are concerned about too many HRHs And not being a bother to tax holders. If Harry married someone with an HRH those kids may very well have HRH due to their mother. But they won’t replace Archie in the line of succession or in line to inherit his Dads title.

So Archie is not going to be equal to his cousins but his brothers and sisters won’t be equal to him. That’s the way the system works.

A Future Dukedom is nothing to snuff at.

I mean

George V changed rules so in his day less HRH.

Queen Elizabeth only changed the rules for Williams kids because their father will be King.

She talked about making Peter and Zara Princes/Princess but mom said no and that was a long time ago. Her youngest grandkids do not use the HRH title but the lesser Titles. Per the patent rules all Great Grandkids male line get styles as kids of a Duke.

Talk is Charles wants to make it so only HRH goes to direct heir get HRH.

But look Harry already had titles even a Dukedom that will pass to his son. They gave him that at marriage partly so his Son would have a title.

As for security the York Princesses don’t have it. Anne and Edward don’t. So HRH doesn’t equal security

Just a slight correction. Queen Elizabeth changed the rules so that female children are included in the line of succession, not just Willliam's. (they used to skip over the girls)

 

[AxelAnnie]

Independent Law Firm Hired to Investigate Meghan's Alleged Bullying
Yet no one hired the firm to investigate Prince Andrew. I can't agree with that.

I don't think Andrew was ever accused of bullying. He is a complete douchebag, but I can't find any bullying. He rattled his saber re his children but that is about it. His televised interview was a disaster for him.

 

[Karen-W]

Just a slight correction. Queen Elizabeth changed the rules so that female children are included in the line of succession, not just Willliam's. (they used to skip over the girls)

No, this is not correct. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Queen Elizabeth II, nor would we have had a Queen Victoria.

In 2011, after William & Kate married, the Commonwealth realms agreed that the succession needed to be changed from male primogeniture (males ahead of females) to absolute primogeniture (oldest first). The change to the line of succession was an Act of Parliament and took several years to be passed in all of the Commonwealth realms (came into effect on March 26, 2015) but it was applied, retroactively to anyone born after October 28, 2011 (the date that the Commonwealth realms agreed to the proposal - called the Perth Agreement because it was agreed upon at the 22nd Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, held in Perth, Australia on October 28-30, 2011).

The effect of this legislation is that Princess Charlotte did not fall behind Prince Louis when he was born in the order of succession. She remains, after Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince George, 4th in line to the throne, while Louis is 5th. Had this legislation not been passed Louis would be 4th and she would be 5th in line.

What QEII did was issue a Letters Patent amending the 1917 George V LP, to give the HRH title/style to ALL of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Had she not changed this, then only Prince George would be HRH while Charlotte would be Lady Charlotte and Louis would be Lord Louis. The LP was issued to ensure that the heir to the throne, whether a boy or a girl, and all of the direct line heirs, would have the HRH title/style from birth regardless of gender.

 

[AxelAnnie]

No, this is not correct. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Queen Elizabeth II, nor would we have had a Queen Victoria.

In 2011, after William & Kate married, the Commonwealth realms agreed that the succession needed to be changed from male primogeniture (males ahead of females) to absolute primogeniture (oldest first). The change to the line of succession was an Act of Parliament and took several years to be passed in all of the Commonwealth realms (came into effect on March 26, 2015) but it was applied, retroactively to anyone born after October 28, 2011 (the date that the Commonwealth realms agreed to the proposal - called the Perth Agreement because it was agreed upon at the 22nd Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, held in Perth, Australia on October 28-30, 2011).

The effect of this legislation is that Princess Charlotte did not fall behind Prince Louis when he was born in the order of succession. She remains, after Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince George, 4th in line to the throne, while Louis is 5th. Had this legislation not been passed Louis would be 4th and she would be 5th in line.

What QEII did was issue a Letters Patent amending the 1917 George V LP, to give the HRH title/style to ALL of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Had she not changed this, then only Prince George would be HRH while Charlotte would be Lady Charlotte and Louis would be Lord Louis. The LP was issued to ensure that the heir to the throne, whether a boy or a girl, and all of the direct line heirs, would have the HRH title/style from birth regardless of gender.

Actually, after Edward VIII stepped down "for the woman he loved" the Crown went to George VI.

Elizabeth was born into royalty as the daughter of the second son of King George V. After her uncle Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 (subsequently becoming duke of Windsor), her father became King George VI, and she became heir presumptive. Elizabeth assumed the title of the queen upon her father's death in 1952
The only way for a woman to ascend to the throne, as Queen Elizabeth did in 1952, had been if the previous monarch had no sons. ... The changes mean that, regardless of gender, any first-born child of Prince William, second in line to become king after his father, would eventually become the monarch.

As to Queen Victoria, Her father died shortly after her birth and she became heir to the throne because the three uncles who were ahead of her in the succession - George IV, Frederick Duke of York, and William IV - had no legitimate children who survived. ... On William IV's death in 1837, she became Queen at the age of 18.

There have been 8 Queens of England, and they all came to the throne because there were no male heirs to the throne.
Women Rulers of England and Great Britain

• Empress Matild (August 5, 1102–September 10, 1167) ...
• Lady Jane Grey (October 1537–February 12, 1554) ...
• Mary I (Mary Tudor) (February 18, 1516–November 17, 1558) ...
• Elizabeth I (September 9, 1533–March 24, 1603) ...
• Mary II (April 30, 1662–December 28, 1694) ...
• Queen Anne (February 6, 1665–August 1, 1714)

Fascinating family tree!!

 

[Judy]

I'm still having difficulty understanding the Letters of Patent. I thought that, aside from the direct heirs' line, the George V Letters of Patent limited the title to the grandsons of the ruling monarch, and that Queen Elizabeth II changed that to include all grandchildren of the ruling monarch.

Currently, the only grandchildren are William and Harry, who is not a direct heri, so Harry's children wouldn't be entitled to the title until Charles is King, because only then would they be the grandchildren of the ruling monarch. I also thought the issue is that under the current rules, M&H had reason to believe their children would eventually get the title, but that Charles has said that he plans to streamline the rules when he is King so that they no longer qualify.

Where am I going wrong?

The same was for William and Kate too but the Queen allowed it for their kids. Harry and Meghan stated that they just wanted it for the sake of security for Archie. Keep in mind this was still when they were working Royals.

 

[becca]

The same was for William and Kate too but the Queen allowed it for their kids. Harry and Meghan stated that they just wanted it for the sake of security for Archie. Keep in mind this was still when they were working Royals.

William and Kate are the direct heirs to the throne. Edward and Sophie are working royals it’s been made clear to their kids that they won’t be. Twenty years from now the attention will shift to George and his siblings as it should since George is the heir.

No one feels the York girls ended up better of them their cousin Zara.

 

[skategal]

Here we go...

More than 50% of Canadians think the monarchy is obsolete. Highest is in Quebec.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/monarchy-poll-canadians-meghan-harry-interview-1.5951515