The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[Karen-W]

I'm sorry that's so effed up. I know it has now changed, but still ...

It actually hasn't changed. If Harry was Harriet, then his children would NOT be entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess. Charles hasn't issued any changes to George V's Letters Patent from 1917.

 

[MacMadame]

It is accurate that they rejected the title Earl of Dumbarton. Gossip at the time was they didn't like the name Dumbarton and thought he could be teased over it.

I don't blame them. The Dumbarton name is on lots of things here (streets, bridges, etc) and it's a name that makes me giggle. I had assumed that a dude named Dumbarton had done "stuff" in the area but it turns out that the bridge is named for Dumbarton, Scotland and it seems the other things followed the bridge. Dumbarton is a perfectly fine name for a town, but a name with 'dumb' in it is problematic for humans.

 

[canbelto]

It actually hasn't changed. If Harry was Harriet, then his children would NOT be entitled to be HRH Prince/Princess. Charles hasn't issued any changes to George V's Letters Patent from 1917.

I just find this awful. I'd hate for Charlotte to think that her children were less than because she's a girl.

 

[Karen-W]

I just find this awful. I'd hate for Charlotte to think that her children were less than because she's a girl.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's changed before she gets married, or at least that's my hope.

 

[just tuned in]

What I love about the Archie and Lilibet situation is that The Hallmark Channel and other movie studiots has already written the movies with the plot lines. Secret prince and princess! From Genova, or Beladia, or Dumbarton! And their future bride / groom had no idea!!

 

[canbelto]

It's strange that people say Harry looks more Spencer. I think (except for the red hair) he looks Windsor. The small narrow set eyes, the lack of an upper lip, the somewhat bulbous nose.
I think Will looks more Spencer.

 

[marbri]

I don't blame them. The Dumbarton name is on lots of things here (streets, bridges, etc) and it's a name that makes me giggle. I had assumed that a dude named Dumbarton had done "stuff" in the area but it turns out that the bridge is named for Dumbarton, Scotland and it seems the other things followed the bridge. Dumbarton is a perfectly fine name for a town, but a name with 'dumb' in it is problematic for humans.

I mean that was royal tradition and the name both his parents held. Wouldn't be the first kid with an embarrassing "surname". I think it's more problematic that millions of people around the world were led to believe he wasn't born a prince because he was bi-racial and his parents were more than happy to let that hang in the air for two years .

Title that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'turned down' for son Archie

In line with royal tradition, Archie was to be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton as it is the subsidiary style of his father’s official title.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

"At the time of their wedding, the late Queen made Prince Harry and Meghan the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton and the Baron and Baroness Kilkeel.

In line with royal tradition, Archie was to be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton as it is the subsidiary style of his father’s official title. But according to a report in The Telegraph, the new parents didn’t want their son to be known by a title that contained the word ‘dumb’."

 

[puglover]

Based on what I have read, Princess Anne's children did not automatically inherit a royal title but the Queen did offer them each one which Princess Anne turned down. When asked about it , she said she felt it was a good decision and later said "I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue there are downsides to having titles. I think that was probably the right thing to do".

 

[MLIS]

My understanding is the Queen didn’t offer titles to Anne’s children, she offered a title to Anne’s first husband when they married, but he and Anne declined. If he had accepted, it would have been similar to Princess Margaret’s husband, Tony Armstrong Jones, who was made Earl of Snowdon when they married, and that made Margaret’s children Lord (now the second Earl of Snowdon following his father’s death) and Lady (now Lady Sarah Chatto). If Anne’s first husband had accepted a title he would have been Earl of Wherever, and their children would have been Lord Peter and Lady Zara (but not Prince and Princess), and Peter would inherit his father’s title in due course. When Anne and Mark Phillips declined the offer of a title at the time of their wedding, they knew it meant no titles for their future children. But I think Anne (and Peter and Zara!) have always been clear they think it was the right choice.

 

[overedge]

Princess Anne's kids were not entitled to royal titles, as they are not male-line grandchildren of a sovereign. They're not the children of a peer, so they don't get to be Lord and Lady, either. I believe it's Edward and Sophie who wanted their kids to decide how they'd like to be styled.

According to this, Mark Phillips (their dad) was offered an earldom, and turned it down. The phrasing of this story, with Princess Anne saying "it was probably the right thing to do", sounds like she and Mark mutually decided to decline the earldom so that their kids wouldn't have to deal with the downsides of being titled. https://www.hellomagazine.com/royal...dall-peter-phillips-do-not-have-royal-titles/

 

[Spikefan]

The other side of this is that I don't know about Lady Louise or what the future holds for Lilibet, but I think when I was a little girl if I'd found out I could have been a princess and my parents had already said no, I'd have been VERY annoyed!

This is exactly what I was thinking. Teen me would have complained every day. Why give yourself that extra headache as a parent.

 

[becca]

This is exactly what I was thinking. Teen me would have complained every day. Why give yourself that extra headache as a parent.

Lol . I think Lady Louise and Zara likely know that being a Princess is more than just pretty dresses and tiaras and they can borrow family tiaras if they want.

I read that the concern Edward and Anne had is they wanted their kids to understand very clearly they are in not the same position as their cousins being a working royal is not really an option for them. They will be expected to work hard and get jobs.

The thing is that yes Harry didn’t get the same stuff William did but he got benefits his cousins did it I read Beatrice and Eugenie would have liked to have been working royals.

But the royal family knows it won’t survive if they have all those hanger ons.

The truth is that Edward and Anne’s kids are still extremely privileged and I actually think it’s good parenting for Edward and Anne to want their kids to have realistic outlooks and not be too tied to the crown.

Zara and Peter have made it clear that they absolutely are cool with their moms decisions that if gave them more freedoms then their cousins.

 

[puglover]

Somewhat interesting that Anne, titled since birth, seemingly describes it as "easier for them" and "most people would argue there are downsides to having titles" that her children did not have titles.

 

[becca]

Somewhat interesting that Anne, titled since birth, seemingly describes it as "easier for them" and "most people would argue there are downsides to having titles" that her children did not have titles.

I also think it would be hard because as Princess and Prince her kids would always be competing with their cousins and well they are always going to not be as important as their cousins no matter what they do.

Archie will never be like George.

By embracing no titles and stressing your not like them they are free to develop their own lives and the public will feel less like they own them

 

[ballettmaus]

By embracing no titles and stressing your not like them they are free to develop their own lives and the public will feel less like they own them

Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking about in my previous post when I said that I'm not sure they're doing the children a favor. The titles define the children and set them apart. The kids will always be Prince Harry's children but I feel like the titles make it so much harder for them to find their own identity because it already gives them an identity. And I think it's always easier to add something than get rid of something especially when it comes to an identity that has been established in the public.

 

[starrynight]

By embracing no titles and stressing your not like them they are free to develop their own lives and the public will feel less like they own them

Yes - I think the idea that the public own the royals is a compromise and a shift from a more historical concept that the royals own the public.

It’s this delicate social contract that allows the monarchy to maintain its position.

Those titles do position the individual as a representative of Britain and the Commonwealth and as a public servant. And by that token they should be subjected to the kind of scrutiny that people in public office face. (eg the reason why the peers’ tiaras and ermine robes were left at home for Charles’ coronation).

It makes sense to only have working royals have those titles because they have offices and staff positioned to assist them through this tricky minefield.

Where that leaves two American kids with minimal connections to the UK or the Commonwealth I don’t know.

 

[Jenny]

The thing is that yes Harry didn’t get the same stuff William did but he got benefits his cousins did it I read Beatrice and Eugenie would have liked to have been working royals.

I've thought all along that while yes indeed the future king is going to get more attention (inside the family and in the world) and whatever other privileges go with it, it also comes with a lot more responsibility, scrutiny and burden than being the second child. There was a time when I thought Harry enjoyed his position, when he was younger, but now it's just all poor me. Again yes he's had a challenging life, but it's also full of privilege too, and he's also got a lot to be happy about. For his own sake he needs to focus on that.

If it's true Beatrice and Eugenie want to do more, I say why not. They already have the titles, they seem to be publicly well-liked and scandal free, and it would do a lot to help rehabilitate the damage Andrew has done to the RF from a reputation standpoint.

 

[becca]

I've thought all along that while yes indeed the future king is going to get more attention (inside the family and in the world) and whatever other privileges go with it, it also comes with a lot more responsibility, scrutiny and burden than being the second child. There was a time when I thought Harry enjoyed his position, when he was younger, but now it's just all poor me. Again yes he's had a challenging life, but it's also full of privilege too, and he's also got a lot to be happy about. For his own sake he needs to focus on that.

If it's true Beatrice and Eugenie want to do more, I say why not. They already have the titles, they seem to be publicly well-liked and scandal free, and it would do a lot to help rehabilitate the damage Andrew has done to the RF from a reputation standpoint.

I think the problem is expecting the public to support them financially

 

[starrynight]

Just on the titles bit…

I do think though that Lili and Archie actually have real surnames on birth certificates that they can use and the title isn’t actually built into their legal names (unless that’s somehow changed).

On Lilibets US birth certificate Harry had to put ‘Duke of Sussex’ as his first name and ‘His Royal Highness’ as his surname. Which shows how clumsy it gets with no surname outside of the UK.

Harry’s full legal name is His Royal Highness The Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex. Wowsers. A lot more impressive than being Mr Henry Smith. That’s what the allure of these titles are.

 

[MsZem]

On Lilibets US birth certificate Harry had to put ‘Duke of Sussex’ as his first name and ‘His Royal Highness’ as his surname. Which shows how awkward it gets with no surname outside of the UK.

The BRF has a surname: Mountbatten-Windsor. And in his military days, Harry went by the last name "Wales".

 

[starrynight]

The BRF has a surname: Mountbatten-Windsor. And in his military days, Harry went by the last name "Wales".

Harry doesn’t have an actual legal surname on his birth certificate though.

 

[Jenny]

I think the problem is expecting the public to support them financially

Right, forgot about that. And maybe then it's Andrew who wants them more in the public spotlight, so they get stuff.

But then again maybe there's a lot KC can do. Andrew gets no pay because he's doing nothing, but as a courtesy gets one of the king's houses and whatever basics to run said house. Beatrice and Eugenie can perhaps get involved in some charities, sit in for other members of the RF when needed, show up at the big events, maybe not on full payroll but expenses paid, I don't know if that's possible.

The bigger issue is when you look at the list of charities they are patrons of, and the events that they attend, I think a lot could go, but another then again, aside from tradition etc, one doesn't want to think the royals only care about the bigger flashier charities and events.

Charles may want to streamline, but without his oldest brother and his second son/daughter in law active, that's a lot more on the few that remain who are still young enough to contribute.

The BRF has a surname: Mountbatten-Windsor. And in his military days, Harry went by the last name "Wales".

Well that'll be a challenge for Archie and Lilibet's soccer jerseys for sure.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Beatrice and Eugenie can perhaps get involved in some charities, sit in for other members of the RF when needed, show up at the big events, maybe not on full payroll but expenses paid, I don't know if that's possible.

Isn't that what H&M asked for, more or less, to be part-time royals, and they were turned down?

I don't know if King Charles meant dropping royal charities when he talked about slimming down the momarchy, but like many businesses, he's getting short staffed.

 

[canbelto]

I recall that Meghan was not allowed to put her legal name on Archies birth certificate. She had to put "Duchess of Sussex."

 

[Jenny]

Isn't that what H&M asked for, more or less, to be part-time royals, and they were turned down?

I don't know if King Charles meant dropping royal charities when he talked about slimming down the momarchy, but like many businesses, he's getting short staffed.

True. But the difference might be in the details - at the time that Harry and Meghan put forth the idea, they had already put up a website and attempted to trademark their own royal brand, not to mention making it clear they would spend significant time living outside Britain.

Beatrice and Eugenie also have homes elsewhere too, but a lot closer and far as I know they have not attempted to monetize their titles or positions.

In other words, Harry and Meghan wanted to call all the shots, maybe Beatrice and Eugenie just want to help out.

But whatever, we'll never know all the details I think, let alone what each of these people actually wants.

 

[becca]

True. But the difference might be in the details - at the time that Harry and Meghan put forth the idea, they had already put up a website and attempted to trademark their own royal brand, not to mention making it clear they would spend significant time living outside Britain.

Beatrice and Eugenie also have homes elsewhere too, but a lot closer and far as I know they have not attempted to monetize their titles or positions.

In other words, Harry and Meghan wanted to call all the shots, maybe Beatrice and Eugenie just want to help out.

But whatever, we'll never know all the details I think, let alone what each of these people actually wants.

I think one of the problems is the monetizing titles which the royal family doesn’t want to happen.

There are articles out there about how Louise should take up duties till the Wales kids are older.

But that’s rather unfair to Louise do this now till we dump you. She is currently at university.

 

[Winnipeg]

I heard the British government disallowed Harry to pay for his own police escort?? I must be missing something here. Does anyone know about this?

 

[airgelaal]

I think the problem was not only in monitiziong, but also in PR. The family did not trust Meghan and Harry in this aspect, and judging by the situation in New York, they were right.
If I remember correctly, there was a scandal with Andrew on everyone's lips. The Queen and Philip were still alive, but their health was not the same. Therefore, I think the family wanted to protect the crown from scandals.

 

[MsZem]

I heard the British government disallowed Harry to pay for his own police escort?? I must be missing something here. Does anyone know about this?

The court ruled against him. You can't pay for police protection in the UK.

Prince Harry loses bid to challenge UK government over security

Duke denied permission to challenge Home Office over decision on private payment for security services

www.theguardian.com

 

[MLIS]

I heard the British government disallowed Harry to pay for his own police escort?? I must be missing something here. Does anyone know about this?

When Harry and Meghan moved to the US and were no longer working royals, they were no longer entitled to taxpayer-provided police protection, and have had to hire private security (as celebrities do, as opposed to, say, prime ministers or elected officials, and as opposed to William and Kate, who have police protection as internationally recognized people of interest or whatever the term is). Harry and Meghan have argued that the threats to them and their children are not reduced due to them no longer being working royals (and I do think there are likely legitimate threats to them, some the kind that any celebrity deals with and some specifically about them and perhaps racist in nature, but as evidenced by the conflicting reports about the car chase/paparazzi in New York last week, there may also be a difference in perception of what constitutes a threat), and the question of who would/should pay for their security has been one of the biggest sticking points in their "exit" from the royal family. They have said that they do not feel safe in the UK and do not want to bring their children there without proper protection. What Harry's lawsuits have been about is that he has accepted that he is not entitled to taxpayer-funded police protection in the UK, but he has argued that he should be allowed to pay the difference in costs himself and have that level of protection while he is there. I think part of it is that his private, hired security are not allowed to carry weapons in the UK, as they are in the US, and also there was some question of having access to intelligence reports, known threats, etc. The police and the UK government, on the other hand, have argued that if they let Harry pay to "hire" the police for his private security while he is in the UK, that sets a precedent that would see any number of celebrities wanting to do the same thing, and the UK police/government are not in the business of providing private security for private citizens. In the latest decision that came out today I think the courts have ruled that he cannot proceed with this lawsuit.