It was “, 'a bit naughty' to imply Archie 'couldn't be a prince because of the possible colour of his skin' when it was due to strict rules,...”

[RickiTarr]

Hugo Vickers made me laugh with his phrasing. So British to say “a bit naughty”.

Also, seriously high lights how many people don’t understand the rules or can’t explain the rules well, and no American has a hope of grasping our quaint & complicated rules and institutions, really.

Sorry, it’s the Daily Fail, but funny.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9340545/Why-Meghan-Markle-bit-naughty-referring-Archies-skin-colour-prince-discussion.html

@SpiderinaWingMirror

The fact is that it would have been simple for her Maj to extend titles to Charles grandchildren, given that they would get them when he becomes King. The fact that she didn't leaves a whole heap of questions.

Yes, like. Why did she think it was important to make Phillip a Prince but not her great grandchildren.

If Meghan & Harry were expected to do royal engagements then it’s completely reasonable to expect that their son, a baby would get security.

“People seem to be missing the bit where Harry said the conversation about colouring came up before they were married, not when she was pregnant as a hateful "we don't want your black baby" rhetoric. Not callously discussing how dark the child she was carrying might be. A discussion before they were married which could even have been "I wonder what any children will look like? Maybe they will have their mums dark skin and your ginger hair. Or would they have lighter skin because you're the father?" The kind of musings you'd often hear from an older, less mixed generation. I doubt very much that it was "your kids will be too dark to have titles, Harry. That's the price you'll pay for marrying this mixed race divorcee!"
I think this too FuckingFabulous. I really want it to be the case anyway.
My 13 year old son watched the interview today and he asked me if they were worried about the baby being ginger like Harry!
Does anyone read into the statement from the Palace, using their names Harry and Meghan rather than their titles the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? Or am I too invested in all of this?! I’m just really sad about it all!

Does anyone read into the statement from the Palace, using their names Harry and Meghan rather than their titles the Duke and Duchess of Sussex? Or am I too invested in all of this?! I’m just really sad about it all!

They’re trying to sound more like family than Queen and co

Philip was already a prince of Greece and Denmark.
he is a cousin of the queen. like most royalty, descended from queen Victoria.
Princess anne's children have no titles at all.
Prince Edward's have honoury titles, but are not prince/ss.
and those are two of the queen's children.
harry is another generation down. no surprise his children not prince/ss.

Makes total sense JustLyra. Thank you. Finding your posts really informative btw!

nor is it true that there were never royal great-grandchildren 100 years ago. Queen Victoria delighted in several.

including the future Edward VIII, who did a bunk.
he was always called by his last Christian name, David.
and one of Harry's name's is David...

@alexdgr8

Philip was already a prince of Greece and Denmark. he is a cousin of the queen. like most royalty, descended from queen Victoria. Princess anne's children have no titles at all. Prince Edward's have honoury titles, but are not prince/ss. and those are two of the queen's children. harry is another generation down. no surprise his children not prince/ss.

Edwards children are Princess and Prince. Sophie Wessex confirmed it and said that they’d chosen not to use them, but the children could use them from 18 if they wish (but doubts they will)

@alexdgr8

nor is it true that there were never royal great-grandchildren 100 years ago. Queen Victoria delighted in several.

The BRF grew completely out of control in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Mainly as a result of Victoria having so many DC. Royal Aunties stuffed into all the palaces, augmented by various Russian and German royal relatives who had come seeking refuge.

There was one huge demotion in which loads of them were ranked down from Prince/ss to Lord/Lady. Maybe in the 1920s?

I can’t remember the details or dates of it all but I think the 1917 Letters Patent we all keep mentioning was one attempt to prune it all back and get it under control. I will look it up tomorrow.

Then the present Queen had a lot of royal uncles with dukedoms who had working roles and helped morale after the abdication and into WW2 (the sons of George V) and they had DC and HMQ went on to have a largish brood herself and soon it was all getting out of hand again.

Nothing ever really changes, just comes around again.

Which is why her great grandson George V brought in the rules in 1917, the situation was getting ridiculous. Also because the Russian royal family had just been murdered and he was petrified of the same thing happening to the British royal family. A lot of them would potentially have had German names which was somewhat sensitive .

Contrary to popular mythology the modern concept of the ‘Royal Family ‘ was a concept propagated by George V and not really Victoria who had loads of children but didn’t operate as a team as such . It was also George V who first used the expression ‘the firm’ .

With regards to Prince Philip do not confuse The Crown with history . Prince Philip is the royal consort , if he had not been created a Prince he would have ranked below his sons which would clearly have been awkward. Plus he was born a Prince of Greece , arguably he was more Royal than the Queen as both his parents were royal but in the postwar period a Greek Prince who was actually German/Danish was considered unsuitable and in fact the press were pretty vile about him so he renounced his title of birth for the Queen, quite romantic actually

Took so long to post that cross posted with loads of others

George V limited the number of HRH’s because there was too many German princes. He didn’t cull it too hard - he had five living children at the time and four were boys so there was still going to be plenty.

Several princes lost their titles because of the Titles Deprivation act, also in 1917.

It was mostly to do with public opinion because of the war and the wish to re-frame the main royal family (him, Queen Mary and their children) as British.

One of the reasons so many of the grandchildren of George V are still so prominent is because of the early deaths of George VI and the Duke of Kent. Combined with the abdication the Queen and her cousins were pretty much all hands on deck.

Nothing ever really changes, just comes around again.

Exactly.

@MrsTabithaTwitchit

Took so long to post that cross posted with loads of others

Well we all seem to agree.

You’re right - 1917 was a crisis for the monarchy (WW1, Russian Revolution)

1936 - another crisis (Abdication)

1939-45 National crisis shores the monarchy back up a bit

A couple of minor wobbles in the next decades

Then the 1990s - another huge wobble of the monarchy (War of Waleses, Andy divorce, Anne divorce, Diana died)

Now the 2020s and the Megxit crisis.

If you go back into the 19th century, there were rocky points then too.

It’s non stop wobbles and crises.Like spinning plates. Their whole mission is to prevent the monarchy from falling.

Several princes lost their titles because of the Titles Deprivation act, also in 1917.

Maybe that’s what I was thinking of. Was that separate to the German titles being relinquished?

@RickiTarr

Several princes lost their titles because of the Titles Deprivation act, also in 1917.

Maybe that’s what I was thinking of. Was that separate to the German titles being relinquished?

That’s what took away the titles and peerages from those considered enemies.

I think you’re talking about the likes of Prince Louis of Battenberg becoming Marquess of Milford Haven and anglicising Battenberg to Mountbatten at the behest of George V to sound more English?

The Queen decided, with the consent of both Edward and Sophie, that any children the couple might have together would not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but instead be styled as children of an Earl. That makes Prince Edward’s children The Queen’s first male-line descendants not to have royal titles, and in accordance with Her Majesty’s 1960 Order-in-Council, they are the firsts to be allowed the proper use of the Mountbatten-Windsor family name.

As a result, their daughter is The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, as opposed to HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, and their son is James, Viscount Severn, who uses his father’s subsidiary title as a courtesy and is not HRH Prince James of Wessex.

extract from
royalcentral.co.uk/uk/wessex/why-are-prince-edwards-children-not-titled-as-prince-and-princess-156838/

they seem quite happy with the set-up.
pity others couldn't have been grateful for what they had.

What I don't understand is if they were so bothered about archie having protection then why not just pay for it themselves? It's not like they can't afford it .

[quote alexdgr8]The Queen decided, with the consent of both Edward and Sophie, that any children the couple might have together would not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but instead be styled as children of an Earl. That makes Prince Edward’s children The Queen’s first male-line descendants not to have royal titles, and in accordance with Her Majesty’s 1960 Order-in-Council, they are the firsts to be allowed the proper use of the Mountbatten-Windsor family name.

As a result, their daughter is The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, as opposed to HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, and their son is James, Viscount Severn, who uses his father’s subsidiary title as a courtesy and is not HRH Prince James of Wessex.

extract from
royalcentral.co.uk/uk/wessex/why-are-prince-edwards-children-not-titled-as-prince-and-princess-156838/[/quote]
They don’t use it, but according to their mother they have it...

Sophie opened up about why Louise and James do not have HRH titles in a rare interview last year.

She told The Times: "We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living.

"Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles.

"They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely."

That’s what took away the titles and peerages from those considered enemies.

Right thanks. You’re good at this.

I think you’re talking about the likes of Prince Louis of Battenberg becoming Marquess of Milford Haven and anglicising Battenberg to Mountbatten at the behest of George V to sound more English?

No something else, but I’m so tired I might be hallucinating it. It might have been to do with overlap of German cousins and the Brits with German titles who had never lived outside of the U.K., though. The Tecks and so on. That might be what I’ve conflated in my head.

I’ll question myself carefully tomorrow.

It's been a while since I've read up on this, but I think one of the problem with the German ones was that titles passed differently (to every child somehow perhaps?), so you ended up with huge amounts of Princes and Barons.

@RickiTarr

That’s what took away the titles and peerages from those considered enemies.

Right thanks. You’re good at this.

I think you’re talking about the likes of Prince Louis of Battenberg becoming Marquess of Milford Haven and anglicising Battenberg to Mountbatten at the behest of George V to sound more English?

No something else, but I’m so tired I might be hallucinating it. It might have been to do with overlap of German cousins and the Brits with German titles who had never lived outside of the U.K., though. The Tecks and so on. That might be what I’ve conflated in my head.

I’ll question myself carefully tomorrow.

Obsessive child was obsessed for several years. “I don’t know” wasn’t worth the fear and hassle it brought 😂

I’m curious now who you are thinking of! The Battenbergs were princes who had to downgrade, but I’ll rack my brains see if I can think of anymore.

Randomly Louis battenberg (Earl of mountbatten’s father) was offered a dukedom, but said he couldn’t afford the lifestyle of a duke. I wondered when I read that how much more expensive being a duke is to being “just” a Marquess!

I’m sure you’re both right.

When you think that aristocracy was bigger and still owned their stately homes at that point, the whole country must have been packed with toffs. Throw a stone anywhere wand you’d hit a fully staffed country home.

That was the first time American brides caused ripples I suppose. Consuelo Vanderbilt and so on.

All the children of the Battenberg’s went from being Prince’s to Lords.

They had a big fancy house, but were apparently skint. Be interesting to know what their definition of skint was. I imagine it wasn’t the same as mine!

I’m curious now who you are thinking of! The Battenbergs were princes who had to downgrade, but I’ll rack my brains see if I can think of anymore.

I think you’re right and it’s just that some of the German titles relinquished, belonged to families with British accents and two or three generations of British residence. That’s what’s muddled me, I think.