Harry and Meghan what they’ll do next

[PelicanPie]

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

Good point about the Duchy of Cornwall. It will also be interesting to see how the title referring to the Principality of Wales is handled if and when there is a female heir apparent.

Senaca

I’m curious as to how you know all this? Are you a Historian or just generally interested in the Monarchy?

Seneca sorry!

Good point about the Duchy of Cornwall. It will also be interesting to see how the title referring to the Principality of Wales is handled if and when there is a female heir apparent.

I think there was a bit of relief in some quarters when George was born as it meant both of those issues could be put aside and dealt with by another generation

I don’t understand why Charlotte and Louis would not have been HRH without a letters patent? As children of the future King why would they automatically not be Prince and Princess?

PelicanPie It's because in the Letters Patent of 1917 HRH only goes down as far as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. So that's George. The Queen had to amend that so that Charlotte and Louis could be HRHs, too.

@Froq: I hope it’s not real but I’m sharing that last bit for my CV: 2010 - 2020 Citizen of the world
I can go one better. During my teen years, which was decades ago, I was absolutely obsessed by hard science fiction and probably spent about three years pretending that I lived three centuries in the future. My favourite writer was probably Robert A Heinlein. One of his books was called "Citizen of the Galaxy" and I (sadly) still like to think of myself as that.

I now probably wouldn't tell anyone in real life.

Also, sorry I'm responding to a fairly old post. I'm just catching up, and the citizen of the world comment really struck a chord.

The LPs of 1917 also govern Archie's status. When Charles is king, Archie will be a grandson of the king in the male line and so a prince and an HRH. I would say though that chances are high that the choice will be made for him not to use that title, as it was made for the children of Prince Edward.

Because it's only the direct male heirs of the current monarch beyond grandchildren are automatically granted HRH status.

If PC was King, Charlotte and Louis as grandchildren of the current monarch to a Male father (note not female) would automatically be prince/princess.

As great-grandchildren they were not unless HMQ "made it so" which she did.

That would theoretically have been context automatically when PC becomes king but in the meantime would have created an inequality between the Cambridge children in the meantime which was HMQ prerogative to "correct" - in the same way she made Phillip "Prince" and not "just" Duke (though that took until after Charles and Anne were born).

I think people always think of "Prince Phillip" but for over a decade he was "simply" a Duke and effectively "lesser" than his own
children in terms of titles - which is presumably why HMQ rectified this.

I’m curious as to how you know all this? Are you a Historian or just generally interested in the Monarchy?

I'm not a professional historian. I do have a degree in history, specializing in British early modern history. Also I read a lot of history, especially social history and biography. I'm American but went to university in the UK.

Thanks Senaca, that’s interesting. You are very knowledgeable and your contributions are always very informative.

Thanks, Pelican. As you can see, I do enjoy talking about it.

If PC was King, Charlotte and Louis as grandchildren of the current monarch to a Male father (note not female) would automatically be prince/princess.

Sorry just to clarify.

What I meant by this is if Harry hard been born female, even if Archie was the grandson of the current monarch he would not automatically be HRH.

Charlotte and Louis gain their HRH from their Royal Male father.

You cannot automatically gain that from your royal female mother.

Hope that makes sense (though Seneca is much better at articulating this than myself).

If that’s true, it’s a disgrace that male primogeniture is still so important in the RF. Female Royals should of course pass on their status to their children in their own right.

This is such interesting stuff.

One question ... Edward is an Earl. So how did Harry become a Duke?

Surely if these rules apply he should also be an Earl?

Mind you Prince Andrew also a Duke. Was Edward just so far down the line at that point?

Hardly seems fair on him.

Also I should clarify that the Queen issued the LPs regarding William's children before George was born. The change from male preference primogeniture was in the works and without a change in the LPs, it would have been possible, if Charlotte had been born first, for the heir to have been Lady Charlotte and a younger brother to have been a prince.

Edward was made an earl with the understanding that he would become Duke of Edinburgh after Philip.

Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh once Philip dies so in the interim he is an Earl.

Just found this, which if true is just nuts.

He demoted himself (temporarily) because of his love of a Shakespeare play?

www.google.com/amp/s/www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2019061974380/why-prince-edward-is-not-a-duke/%3fviewas=amp

@SenecaFallsRedux thanks for all the fascinating info tonight!

Great source of knowledge on all things Royal, appreciated.

Actually feel a bit daft posting the above link now. I can see why he took a lesser title so he could wait for the all Important one.

But Princess Anne and Mark Phillips chose for him not to be given a title on marriage. It would have been possible - Justin the way you cite that Charles and Anne were given titles. Anne didn’t want Peter and Zara to have titles.

Harry’s position is no different to Andrews in terms of his relation to the monarch and future monarchs. If Andrew doesn’t need taxpayer funded security then neither does Harry

I knew about the plan to 'upgrade' him but still find it a bit morbid. I would prefer in his shoes to just have my own title (surely there are plenty of dukedoms available?) and not be waiting for my dad to die, or to have my promotion associated with his death.

While we're at it, why do some people get counties and some cities? Why isn't Andrew the Duke of Yorkshire, or Harry the Duke of Brighton? @SenecaFallsRedux, you probably know if there's an explanation..

He demoted himself (temporarily) because of his love of a Shakespeare play?

@Shoeshelpplease not because of a Shakespeare play, because of a fictitious character in a FILM about Shakespeare - arguably even more nuts