Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet

[Snog]

Do you think Prince Charles will bestow titles on Harry's children when he becomes king?

Having dropped previous links to European royalty and the title Prince, Philip was designated Prince of the UK in 1957. He was the Duke of Edinburgh on his marriage.

Philip was no longer a Prince when he married.

He was created HRH The Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day.

Without the Letters Patent Charles would have been the Earl of somewhere (I can’t remember).

He wasn’t created a Prince of the UK until after the Queen was on the throne.

Cross post, @JustLyra!
(Great minds....)

Charles would have been the Earl of Merioneth (The Duke of Edinburgh’s secondary title).

@Raspberryjam22 and @WomanStanleyWoman2 you don't believe MM, just because it's her and you don't believe a thing she says, that is your prerogative, but I don't see why you are even having debates about her then.

I believe her, especially in this instance, as I said it was not denied that this conversation took place. I do not agree however, with people twisting it like she said Archie is already supposed to be Prince when she clearly referred to the King George patents.

@JustLyra
I only mentioned the first instance of when changes were made to Charlotte because the rest of your examples include a time when MM (a woman of colour was already in the picture). So these instances do not remove the race suspicion.

I think MM said it out there, publicity, last year on purpose before the rules were changed, in order to get a chance that PC does not go ahead with the changes.

TBH, What I would ask is why does PC even bother with Archie, it's not like he will pass the Prince title down to his children, this comes across as petty, racist, maligning of Archie and just small minded. I would have just let him be, ffs, the RF already has a reputation problem with race, why do this for the first child of colour in the family. Just let it be.

@Raspberryjam22 and @WomanStanleyWoman2 you don't believe MM, just because it's her and you don't believe a thing she says, that is your prerogative, but I don't see why you are even having debates about her then.

The debate isn’t about her.

@notanotheroneagain

I think MM said it out there, publicity, last year on purpose before the rules were changed, in order to get a chance that PC does not go ahead with the changes

Last year was still after multiple chances for the changes to be made. The most obvious being when they married - Harry could have been given and Earldom and the comparison to Edward’s children would have been right there.

You’re entitled to your opinion, we just have differing ones. Nothing that has been done so far with regard to Harry and Meghan suggests to me that the slimming down was ever going to include them or their kids. It would have been easily sorted long before now if it was.

Charles isn’t a stupid man. He knows he’s not going to be anywhere near as popular as his mother. Even if he was/is a rampant racist he’s not thick enough to make one of his first moves the decision to remove titles from his mixed race grandchild/ren.

You are correct @JustLyra we have different opinions. For me, any funny / demoting/taking away/ whatever changes made after MM would smack of racism. Which is why I said, they had their chance before she arrived to change things, why not then.

As for PC, and the palace they have demonstrated enough already that they can treat MM anyway they want, and no one is going to bat an eyelid and as demonstrated, people will just find ways to blame itt on MM's 'behaviour'.

May I ask any reason why you think Harry is comparable to Edward instead of Andrew for example. (I take Anne out of the equation because of her gender and technically, her children are Philips after all.) So, surely Andrew is the spare and Edward, the spare of the spare. Harry is William spare, so comparable to Andrew, surely?
At some point, either you or another poster said the children would not be treated the same. I have to say, I have never seen HMQE particularly malign Andrew because he is the spare - indeed he is seen as the favourite, his children are styled Princesses. It seems to me Harry's blueprint should be Andrew and that is what he was following (the only reason he left was the treatment, but before that it was an Andrew blueprint - minus the dodgy dealings and young girls etc😅.).

philip was a British citizen from birth, by virtue of the Sophia Naturalisation Act of 1705.

however, this was somehow overlooked by everyone, including Louis Mountbatten, who was an ardent genealogist, and thus he applied for naturalisation in 1947

Which is why I said, they had their chance before she arrived to change things, why not then.

why haven’t they made them since she arrived, but before Oprah? They had plenty opportunity.

Thats why I don’t think it’s remotely clear cut that that is the plan. The chances were there before the publicity happened

May I ask any reason why you think Harry is comparable to Edward instead of Andrew for example.

I didn’t say I thought he was. It was simply an example of a very simple opportunity that the royals could have used to make the “we’re slimming down - this is the route we take now” changes essentially taking away princely titles from any future children.

I think Harry’s blueprint is more likely to be a mix of Andrew and Edward rather than Andrew specifically, purely because of the passage of time.

Andrew’s girls were born in the 80’s. Edward’s children in the early 2000’s. The age gap between Edward and Charles, means his children age more with the great-grandchildren than the grandchildren. So they’re a kind of bridge between the two.

I’m sure I have seen a clip from a tv interview where Sophie Wessex says they were asked not to use Prince/princess for their children, albeit entitled. Ie, it wasn’t her/Edward’s idea

I will try to find it

I'd be interested if you can find that @Mumsnut because I've never heard that before (and I have to say sounds rather rude, even petulant, which is most unlike her)

The choice of an Earldom, rather than a Dukedom, was definitely theirs (or at least Prince Edward's, as he's spoken about his reasons for the title he has)

For me, any funny / demoting/taking away/ whatever changes made after MM would smack of racism.

Presumably the main reason you think that though is because of Meghan and Oprah’s discussion, with Meghan wanting watchers to conclude it must be racism? Did you think it was racism when the Queen and Edward and Sophie announced their children wouldn’t be Prince or Princess, or some other reason?

May I ask any reason why you think Harry is comparable to Edward instead of Andrew for example.

The obvious reason is when the position of their children was announced in 1999 Edward and Sophie weren’t intending to be working royals. By the time that Archie and Lilibet become eligible to use the titles, their parents won’t have been working royals for some time. Meaning they Edward and Sophie precedent is closer to their situation than the Andrew precedent. Also, as JustLyra says, attitudes have changed since the 1980s when Andrew’s daughters were born.

I think also it drew a line under his Schleswig Holstein Sonderberg Gluckstein family, and officially made him a more acceptable bridegroom, even if technically he didn't need to do it.
His mother was born at Windsor Castle!

Thanks for explaining all!

Presumably the main reason you think that though is because of Meghan and Oprah’s discussion, with Meghan wanting watchers to conclude it must be racism?
Presumably, Meghan herself thinks the reasons are racist, don't see why she would want the public to think it's racist, if she herself does not believe that it's racist. She even gives an example of why she thinks it's racist, and it's the conversations that show concern for Archie' skin colour.

Did you think it was racism when the Queen and Edward and Sophie announced their children wouldn’t be Prince or Princess, or some other reason?
I am not aware of anyone going through the trouble of changing 1917 patens for Edward's children. I am not even aware of anything saying such a discussion (of changing patens) has even, ever taken place.

Edward and Sophie weren’t intending to be working royals. By the time that Archie and Lilibet become eligible to use the titles, their parents won’t have been working royals for some time.
The conversation of changing patents that MM is talking about took place while she and H were actual senior working royals. At that point there were no talks of them resigning when PC takes over.

I think the titles would be an advantage in the US. Meghan continues to use her own title for everything. Even her book has her title on it. Harry uses his and has secured some very lucrative roles with it. The children will be scrutinised by the British press regardless of what they call themselves so it makes sense to me if their parents want the titles to give them a leg up in life.

I am not aware of anyone going through the trouble of changing 1917 patens for Edward's children. I am not even aware of anything saying such a discussion (of changing patens) has even, ever taken place.

No one has done this for Harry’s children either.

@notanotheroneagain

Harry is not the spare . George is.

I’ve never seen, or read, anything along those lines. Would be very interested to see that as everything I’ve ever read has said that it was solely their decision, and one mostly driven by her.

If you read the responses you would understand it was in the context of the following:

Under HMQE - PC is heir, Andrew is the spare, Edward is the spare of the spare
Under PC - William is the heir, Harry is the spare (there is no 3rd child, so no spare of the spare)
Under William - George is the heir, Charlotte (now that rules include females) is the spare, Louis is the spare of the spare

The conversation was really about the children rather than who is next in line, otherwise we would not even be talking about Andrew or Edward, who are so far down, they are beyond even Archie and Lilli. Edward is what? the 14th in line.

Personally I think two things are colliding here - a general view that non-working royals don’t need/shouldn’t be given Prince/Princess titles, and Prince Charles’ long-reported desire to slim down the number of senior working royals and the number of titles handed out to the next generations.

If you were drawing a Venn diagram now, Harry and Meghan and their children would be in the intersection of those two circles. They weren’t at the time that Meghan was pregnant with Archie, but they did fall into the second circle then, which does give another reason for the conversation.

Also, I don’t see anything sinister in the reference to changing the Letters Patent. Pretty much every monarch since George V has fiddled about with them to get the outcome they want. If slimmed down is Charles’ vision for his monarchy, held since long before his second son even met Meghan, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t formalise those changes once he’s King (and also no reason why he wouldn’t try to put them into effect informally within his own family as the issue becomes relevant).

Edward was third in line when he was born though. It’s hard to assess relative constitutional importance when it changes over time as it does. Prince Michael of Kent being another good example of this - 5th/6th when born but in the 50s or so now.

Harry won’t be sixth in line forever (in actual fact he’ll move up a spot once his father is King, but it must be considered unlikely that none of his niece and nephews would have any children so over time he’ll move back down).

I haven’t either, but I’d assume it was encouraged by the palace.

The children would never be working royals, so they are an obvious target for slimming down. Plus the fact it would make their lives easier.

I don’t think it was encouraged by the palace tbh. At the time in the 90s it was a surprise that Edward got a “lesser” title and his children weren’t going to have princely titles.

Until that point it was entirely expected that Charles, his wife, Andrew, his wife, Edward, his wife and Anne would all be full time working royals in the lifetime of the Queen.

The reason Edward and Sophie lived together so openly and so long was to give her the freedom to continue with her business and the trying to find a hybrid model was pushed by Edward and Sophie rather than the palace.