Harry and Meghan what they’ll do next

[PelicanPie]

Let’s strive to keep on topic and not engage with posts designed to disrupt.

But the Queen offered Anne titles for her then husband and, when born, the children. She declined.

That would still not have made them royal; they would have noble titles, but they would be commoners. When Charles becomes king, Archie automatically becomes a prince unless new Letters Patent are issued.

I still think the basic conflict is that Harry and Meghan want to be "progressive cultural influencers" in the vein of, say, Michelle Obama or Angelina Jolie, and not staid old ribbon cutters as the royals are really required to be.

Completely agree with the above @WhatKatyDidNot

This sort of muddle of monarchial models is why we've just had a few pages of discussion about what exactly members of the Royal Family think being royal is versus what the public think it is.

There's been a crucial element missing in that discussion, which is how communication has changed. These days, famous people have an easy way to 'take control of the narrative': social media. Meghan aside, it's a medium that is a natural fit for Harry - informal, direct, limited to what you put out and what you choose to engage with.

There's been a lot of talk here about how Harry's position must be hard because unlike Wills, H's role is undefined. Yet the flip side of that coin is that Harry gets more freedom than Wills. And that's been represented in how he comes across versus how Wills has come across. Unlike Wills, without the weight of Will's responsibility and the expectation placed on him as people watch his move, Harry has been able to kick back a bit more, share a laugh with common folk more, to be the fun, more relatable one.

He's talked a lot not only his mother's death but her work and how she was with people. He seems to have inherited some of her natural touch and modelled himself on her. She was the People's Princess, and to a certain extent he probably sees himself - and has been seen by others - as the People's Prince.

It's highly likely that Princess Diana would have embraced Instagram wholly and enthusiastically. and down the influencer/cum charity thing. It's therefore not a surprise that he's chosen to go down that route to be in touch with the people, and that he's chosen a wife who is wily at it.

Every successful influencer on Instagram, even those with charitable aims, knows the importance of having a USP. Harry (and Meghan's) is being royal. That's why people click on his photos. There's no way he would have chosen this route if he had to give up all of his royal titles and privileges. You can't be a brand if you're not allowed to be a brand. 'Just call me Harry' only works because we all know that the unspoken end of that sentence is 'even though I'm royalty'.

Yes, 'just call me Harry' can only work if you know people are expecting to have to be deferential, ie you maintain a privileged position.

For two people who ought then to be good at communicating with the public, we'll see how they do once they actually have something to say about their causes and plans. I can't say they've wowed me with their approach lately.

The downside of being in control of the narrative is that you're responsible for the success of the narrative. Unless you can find scapegoats .

Maybe M&H should take a leaf out of this guy's book and share their wealth and do good instead of hoarding and wanting more wealth for not doing very much.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51332811

I think the problem is that Meghan saw her huge new global celebrity as giving her a platform and her opinions more gravitas than they deserved.
No-one seems to have conveyed to her that her role was to support and represent the Queen. Not to tell millions of adoring fans how to lead their lives. The first mis_steps h and m took were getting the tone wrong in their speeches.

HaM can always blame the media for turning people against them, no matter how many pretty photos they post.

@SenecaFallsRedux
Princess Anne decided to unroyal her and her brother.

Not really. Her children are not royal because of the inherent sexism in the way titles are passed down
That's bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Princess Anne declined titles for her children. It's on record that she did decline. Princess Anne wanted her children to grow up without the burden of Royal Life

The downside of being in control of the narrative is that you're responsible for the success of the narrative

A very pertinent point, Buttery - and one which Harry may struggle with, coming from a family who retain the concept of the "whipping boy"

When someone's been surrounded by sycophants on all sides I don't imagine it would be easy to accept responsibility for their own choices, to say nothing of the consequences

That's bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. Princess Anne declined titles for her children. It's on record that she did decline. Princess Anne wanted her children to grow up without the burden of Royal Life

What I said is not bullshit. Princess Anne declined an offer for her husband to be made an earl as the Queen had done for Antony Armstrong-Jones so that Princess Margaret's children would have titles of nobility. The titles held by Princess Margaret's children are not royal and they derive from their father.

It is sexist that a prince can pass down titles to his children but his sister cannot. It is sexist that the husband of a princess must be given a title so that her children can have a title in that her status counts for nothing in any title that her children have.

There is a difference between a noble title, like Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones, and a royal one, like Princess Beatrice of York. Beatrice is royal; Sarah is not. Princess Anne did not turn down a royal title for her children; she turned down a noble one. She did not "unroyal" them because their was no royal in the first place for them.

Another example of sexism: Princess Alexandra's children have no titles at all. Her brothers' children do.

Other examples: There are very few women in the UK who hold peerages in their own right. Why is that? Male primogeniture.

Seneca, how can the queen’s children have titles then if women can’t pass down titles?

Because their father is a prince?

Queens are different! She’s not just a woman, she’s on a whole different level.

Felt like I should have put my hand up there before answering! I'm finding al this very fascinating.

Aw (sulks)

Wasn’t Philip a Greek Prince though, so how can they have British titles?

A Queen regnant can pass titles down. But when she was Princess Elizabeth and pregnant with Charles, her father King George VI had to issue new letters patent in order for her impending child to be a prince or princess; otherwise Charles would have only had a title of nobility from his father, who at the time was only a Duke, not even a prince of the UK (the Queen did later make Philip a prince of the UK).

Charles would have been Earl of Merioneth (one of Philip's subsidiary titles) and Anne would have been Lady Anne Windsor.

Philip renounced his Greek titles before marrying Elizabeth and became just Lt. Philip Mountbatten. George VI made him HRH Duke of Edinburgh, but did not make him a prince of the United Kingdom. The Queen rectified that oversight later.

Because being a queen trumps being a Prince I think, someone more knowledgeable can correct me here. Prone Philip had to give up his claim to the Greek throne in order to marry HMQ.

So basically there are all these rules set in law. But at any time they can just rip up the rule book, issue new laws as a one off jobbie and make an exception for their own nearest and dearest?

Interesting.

All this is fascinating stuff, thanks Seneca

So basically there are all these rules set in law. But at any time they can just rip up the rule book, issue new laws as a one off jobbie and make an exception for their own nearest and dearest?

The royal titles are not so much set in law as in the monarch's prerogative. So yes, the monarch can change it up for her nearest and dearest. The last time was recent: the Queen issued Letters Patent so that Charlotte and Louis could be HRH and princess and prince. Without that, only George would have been a prince.

Just to add to seneca's posts I'm not sure how many people realise that despite the rules of succession changing wrt the throne there have been no charges regarding the Duchy of Cornwall.

By this I mean if Charlotte had been the first born Cambridge child, whilst under today's legislation she would be 3rd in line (as George is) but she would NOT be eligible to inherit the Duchy as that is the proviso only of a first born male heir.

To answer the question as to why the Queens children can inherit titles it's simply that the status of monarch overrides the "deficiency" of being female.

For any royal female and indeed the British aristocracy the rules of Male precedence apply.

There are a number of examples of members of the aristocracy having only female children and them being effectively disinherited to Male cousins.

Make no mistake misogyny is rife when it comes to titles and take note that the legislation to change the succession to allow a first born woman to inherit the throne only happened after George was born.

The primary Letters Patent that still govern titles in the RF are the ones issued by George V in 1917. The title of prince/princess and accompanying HRH goes to the children of the monarch, the grandchildren of the monarch in the male line and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. That's why the Queen had to issue special letters for the other children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Thanks for the figures of £600000 for protection for H&M in the UK .

So the thinking is that they will need 3 times that now .

Any savings to be factored in for no longer being required to represent the Commonwealth or carry out official duties ?

There will be no savings to be made if they keep their current security level. Living in Canada they’ll basically be in the commonwealth the whole time, but Canada won’t be chipping in like a country being visited would

Security costs are massive for tours because everyone has to be paid for the 24 hours, no-one goes home and then comes back for the next shift. That’s what H&M are going to cost constantly now