Harry has a lot to answer for.

[Corcory]

I think Harry has a lot to answer for in this whole debacle. He's a 35 year old man brought up as a Royal who should know how the whole thing works and how to ensure his wife is fully educated in the rules and regs. of being a Royal. She was his wife, why on earth was she going to HR at the Palace for help with mental health problems? Harry has loads of experience and the knowledge of where to get help, what on earth was he doing? Harry knows full well that there is a rule about not being given a royal title when it comes to Archie. Why didn't he explain this to Megan? It has absolutely nothing to do with Archie's skin colour. Why is Harry moaning about having their security removed given his father paid £4m for their security after the tax payer stopped paying after they moved to California?
It is not the Royal family's decision whither or not someone has The Metropolitan Police fly over to do security duties.
Prince William sorted the press out when they were making disparaging comments about Kate, why didn't he put his foot down as his brother did?

Think about it this way, who is interested in the Queens or Princes Charles's cousin's?

Most of us have to go look them up to figure out who they are?

Archie will be in exactly that same position when he's an adult.

Being a Prince means he can't stand for Parliament and it also puts an expectation on him that he'd enter the military.
Not sure why Bea and Eugenie escaped that expectation, maybe because they are girls but ultimately the Queen served.

Now do you still think Archie should have that put on him?

Harry is saying my Dad and Brother are trapped but I want my son to have the same title but not be trapped.

King George in 1917 probably didn't expect any Monarch to have Great Grand children hence he limited the Prince / Princess thing to Grand children of the Monarch.

Nor could he have anticipated the roll that TV and social media was to play in 100 years time.

Thinking of the girls and military, girls were lower in the pecking order than younger brothers. So that may be part of the same thing that means they aren't expected to enter military.

I wonder what will happen with Princess Charlotte in time to come.

ok - lets repeat this AGAIN. Bearing in mind that George was born in July 2013

"On 30 November 1917 letters patent were issued declaring that henceforth only the children of the sovereign, sons of sons of the sovereign and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be entitles to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince of Princess."

so under this the first born child of William, if a female, would not be entitled to be princess. However, due processes were in place to equalise male and female children

"The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015".

ie they pre-dated George's birth. If the first child had been a girl, she would have been in direct line of succession but would not be entitled to be princess on birth - that title would be awarded to the first born son of the son of the sovereign. Hence the variation to the 1917 letter patent

"On December 31, 2012 Queen Elizabeth II made an amendment to the 1917 Letters Patent by issuing a Letters Patent which gave the title and style His/Her Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom to all the children of the son of the son of the sovereign".

would you want to go backwards on female equality?

This was done before any child of William was born, to avoid all the female equality issues which particularly effected Princess Anne, for example.

@SallyLockheart
Thanks for that explanation. I hadn't realised that the 1917 stuff went as far as the PoW Grandson.

So, if Charles and Diana had had a daughter, she would not have automatically had the right to be titled Princess under the rules at the time as she would only have been a granddaughter (not a the son of the son of a sovereign) - only when Charles became sovereign would she have became a child of the sovereign and hence a Princess.

@SallyLockheart am I wrong? . . . I thought Meghan said that she knew Archie wouldn't be a Prince till Charles acceeds to the throne but she had been told that it wouldn't happen after then either. I am wondering if I misheard.

@ BalloonSlayer yes she did say that and suggested it was to do with Archie being mixed race .

Meghan claimed that talks were afoot not to give Archie a title at all - who knows. Certainly, Charles has aimed to slim down the monarchy for some time and I imagine that a discussion took place along the lines of "do you want your child to have a title" especially if they had already being making noises about being trapped within the RF. We don't know.

It was reported at the time that the Queen offered to give titles to Princess Anne's husband in order for Zara and Peter to have titles too - they have no titles by virtue of Anne being female, and Zara would have been precluded under all the rules - but Anne declined them. So conversations about royal children not having titles had taken place decades earlier.

Good point about any daughters of Charles, there must have been some provision for the York girls, even if they would have been bumped by a younger brother.

Princess Elizabeth was the Daughter of the DoY too.

I think we can surmise that Meghan knowledge of some things aren't accurate - married three days before the big do. It suits her narrative to say so.

She can hardly say "bugger, I married the wrong one, didn't realise the great grandson of the sovereign doesn't immediately get a title".

it ties up with both of them erroneously linking paid for protection and security with a title.

I think we'll use the Queens words 'recollections may vary'

But this whole Royal titles and stuff is like What, how does that work, and then they all change titles just to confuse!

sorry, google error there re letter patents. one version says children of the sons of the sovereign can be prince/princess - hence Eugenie and Beatrice. Which given their status must be right.

scrap my post about daughter of charles and diana - I blame googling and taking the first obvious answer.

So, if Charles and Diana had had a daughter, she would not have automatically had the right to be titled Princess under the rules at the time as she would only have been a granddaughter (not a the son of the son of a sovereign) - only when Charles became sovereign would she have became a child of the sovereign and hence a Princess.

No, she would have been 'princess' because she was a grand daughter through a son - same as the York girls, same as Edwards kids although they don't use the title.

W/H's children are a generation further away, and the only provision was for the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son - because at that point a boy would outrank his sisters in the succession.

THEN, when primogeniture was introduced, that created the situation where the eldest child of the eldest child of the eldest child might be a girl, and therefore NOT titled a princess although in line to inherit the throne, while her younger brother WAS titled prince but was not in line to inherit the top job.

@LittleBearPad

Given Harry had already experienced his relationships ending (if reporting was correct) over the complications of marrying into the RF and the amount of scrutiny it brought, and having been aware of the amount of shit that Diana, Fergie, and Kate all got from the press, it is completely unfathomable to me that he didn't prepare her.

I think he was worried she’d run too and he was desperate to be married and have children.

Fundamentally the problem is that Harry is thick.

This ^^ I think Harry is so enamoured of M, and has been from the first moment, that he would do and say anything to keep her. I suspect he has misled her and as she’s discovered the reality she’s reacted as any sane woman would, which is to run away. He’s just baggage for now and will be tossed over the side when M has her ducks in a row (as they say on here).

allington. agreed. see my earlier scrapping that sentance

It is interesting stuff though.

It must be children of the children of the Sovereign and the 1st Son of the 1st Son, of PoW. ie Prince George.

Which would cover the then King being able to give Princess Ann her title. As she was Princess Elizabeth's daughter.

I'm sure Ann refused titles, Mark Phillips also refused any titles as they could have been made Duke / Duchess on marriage. Instead Ann ended up as Princess Royal.

I think the issue is compounded due to the longevity of the RF, and people in general.
We've never had 4 generations in direct line to the throne before, so the rules re titles aren't "fitting" very well to the current situation.

The queen's cousins are equally as long lived, so we have more princes and princesses than ever before: Prince Richard, Prince Michael etc who were all grandchildren of a reigning monarch when they were born.

It's exceptional for a monarch to have great grandchildren so an exception to the "who can be a prince" rule was made for them.

An exception was also made fir PA's girls as he kicked up a fuss ( they were in a similar situation to Archie - children of the brother of a future monarch).
PC obviously has a harder heart than the queen!

Archie was offered an earldom though, but M&H turned that down. At the time it was assumed so that he could have a similar, non-royal life, but in retrospect possibly because an earldom wasn't good enough. Although that's what Prince Edward's son was given.

No exception was made for Eugenie & Beatrice. They are grandchildren of the monarch through the male line. So they are Princesses. It’s incorrect to say Prince Andrew kicked up a fuss. He’d no need to as the HRH Princess title is theirs by right.

Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are actually HRH Princess Louise & HRH Prince James but don’t use those titles.

I think the 4 generations is confusing stuff too.

Andrew must have been entitled to the titles for his Daughters, remember they are Princess Beatrice of York, etc

Who is Prince Richard?

Prince Richard is the Duke of Gloucester. The Duke of Kent is Prince Edward (not to be confused with Prince Edward the Queen’s son) and Prince Michael of Kent is his younger brother.

I guess the other thing making things complex is back in the day, minor Royals would marry into other Royal families.
That no longer seems to happen.

Who is Prince Richard?

I think that rather proves the point

Honestly did anyone really think Archie or his siblings would be made a Prince after how hard Harry's made out he's had it? I definitely thought he was of the view it was a poisoned chalice that he wouldn't want for his children, and fair play to him for thinking long term. And that's before you also take into consideration Charles's well known views on slimming down the monarchy, which we've also seen happening in Sweden.

I just can't help thinking that whole aspect has been weaponised to sell a certain narrative.

Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, born Monday, May 6, is entitled to be the Earl of Dumbarton.

However when his birth was announced they had not excepted the title offered. No public explanation why. However Haz's cousins have also not wanted titles for their children (Zara Phillips for example). So it was just seen as wanting a more private life for their child. Now it looks like they have either changed their minds or were not happy with the title 🤷‍♀️