Confused by lineage

[LunaHeather]

Just to start, I like Harry and Meghan, this is not a post designed to be goady.

When they left the family last year, I thought that meant he was removing himself from the royal line.

Now I'm hearing people say he should be removed, which confused me as I thought he'd removed himself! Anyone know the answer?

Thank you.

They're no longer working royals but this has no relationship with succession

@LunaHeather

Just to start, I like Harry and Meghan, this is not a post designed to be goady.

When they left the family last year, I thought that meant he was removing himself from the royal line.

Now I'm hearing people say he should be removed, which confused me as I thought he'd removed himself! Anyone know the answer?

Thank you.

He stopped doing ‘duties’ but remains part of the family

That's part of my confusion

If you don't want to do that kind of work, then surely if some unusual event put Harry on the throne, he wouldn't want that either?

I'm sure his wife could persuade him to take the throne

Actually, the idea of being in charge is a lot different isn't it.

It’s a non argument to sell headlines through outrage - he’s 6th in line for the throne.

Consider it like a family business, with granny in charge.
He quit from the business, but that doesn’t prevent him from taking charge if the rest of the family dies.

He’s not going to be king unless something happens to everyone else

@Tommika

It’s a non argument to sell headlines through outrage - he’s 6th in line for the throne.

Consider it like a family business, with granny in charge.
He quit from the business, but that doesn’t prevent him from taking charge if the rest of the family dies.

He’s not going to be king unless something happens to everyone else

Yes, but that's not impossible.

I honestly thought it was the case that he'd not been included when he left, but clearly not.

The family business analogy doesn't work - there's no reason why the next in line can't do it and would be better suited as that would be someone who hadn't resigned, so to speak.

But yes, I do see that being in charge is a very different thing than what he was doing before.

Also, I thought he partly left to spare Archie the problem of being in line. But I'm not up on these things.

I just liked them so was rather sorry they left. Completely understand it though.

I think because it's hereditary he can't be removed. He would have to abdicate if he didn't want to do it if it ever got to that stage.

I think you can relinquish your place in the succession. But only for yourself and any DC born after you relinquish.

So even if Prince Harry decided that there was no way he's ever agree to be king, Archie would remain in the succession unless/until he, as an adult, decided to relinquish as well.

Keeping Archie out of the firing line IYSWIM, if there were some terrible accident to all the Cambridges, might be quite a strong reason to stay put in the succession

Ah thanks never knew that

Up until recently if you married a Catholic you were removed from the line of succession. Autumn Kelly converted before her marriage to Peter.

You don’t have to be a working royal to be in the line of succession.

The kids of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are in the line of succession. If you cared enough to search them the line just keeps going and going and going.

There are various reasons to stay in the line of succession, but mostly there’s no real reason to take himself out of it. If he was to find himself in position of being the King then it would be because of horrific tragedy and who knows how he may feel then. Also, as others have said he can’t remove Archie so it keeps him one step away from the main limelight.