Harry - what next?

[TrashyPanda]

Continuation thread for all things Harry, Meghan and all things Archewell.

welcome back everyone!

Eugenie and Beatrice were the grandchildren of the monarch at their birth and so entitled to be Princess. Archie and Lilibet were the great grandchildren of the monarch and so NOt entitled to be Prince and Princess until the death of Queen Elizabeth made them the grandchildren!

Andrew's children were grandchildren of the monarch at birth.

Harry's children were not.

You need to do some basic research, rather than trying to peddle lies that were debunked here and elsewhere over two years ago.

As for your other 'point', Harry is an adult who chose to live on the other side of the world. With no job, no role and not even a home. 3 years later, he still barely has a job. That's on him. You don't flounce out of the family business on a whim and demand that your family subsidise your poorly thought out choices.

Beatrice & Eugenie were the grandchildren of a monarch, Archie & Lilibet were the great grandchildren of a monarch (it doesn’t just go on indefinitely otherwise there’d be thousands of princes and princesses after a few generations). Once KC became monarch Archie and Lilibet became the grandchildren of a monarch and were entitled to be prince and princess and they started using those titles as soon as they were eligible.

Before they made the changed only Williams eldest son would have been titled at birth.

The rules were written, without taking into account that it would be common for a Great Grandparent to be on the throne and before girls were give equal status to boys.

Neither were Prince Andrew’s but they got Princess titles at birth. They also have parents with high profiles who at the time the decision was made, were senior working royals.

Yes, they did, but that is because when they were born they were grandchildren of the monarch. As Archie and Lili are now. Not great grandchildren

I fear a pigeon had alighted on the chess board….

I don’t understand how nobody is understanding my point.

the laws were changed so that the Cambridge children could be Princes and Princesses at birth even if Charles was not yet king.

Therefore the Cambridge children had a law passed that “fast tracked” their titles before QE2 died.

The Sussexes did not have a law passed that changed the rules and allowed their titles to be “fast tracked”.

I mentioned Andrew’s children in response to someone saying you should only have a title if your parent is the heir.

Therefore the fact their children had to wait and the Cambridge children had a law passed so that they did not have to wait for their titles, is perhaps the cause of acrimony over titles between both camps.

3rd time's a charm!

William and Kate's children are the children of a future king, and one is a future king himself.

Harry's aren't.

Got it?

Under the Letters Patent of 1917 the eldest son of the eldest son (William) of the Prince of Wales (Charles) would be HRH and 'Prince', their siblings would not be.

In those days there was male primogeniture, so the eldest son of the eldest son could not be displaced from inheriting. Once girls were equally in the line of succession with boys, if a girl had been born first to William they would be in line for the throne, but not 'HRH Princess', while a younger brother would have been 'HRH Prince'.

But honestly, even if that wasn't the case, the monarchy (which Harry endorses as a system of choosing a head of state, and of which Harry continues to use his titles to signify his 'high' status) is inheritently unfair in this respect. That's how it works. If Harry is in favour of equality he should espouse republicanism and stop using his title.

William and his family are more important, in royal hereditary terms, than Harry and his. Different rules apply!

There are no 'camps'. There are only two embittered exiled royals peddling fake grievances in the belief that many are completely ignorant about how these things work. And they may not be wrong in that regard.

@Labradorandshiraz The Cambridge children did not have their titles “fast tracked”. The reason for the change has been explained to you above. It isn’t complicated.

The reason was the laws under the previous King George were not set up expecting anyone to live long enough to worry about great grandchildren. You will note that the rules were not changed for the Tindalls, the Phillipses, the Mapelli Mozzis, the Brooksbanks… prince and princess titles do not go on forever. The Wales children are the children of the heir, that’s why they are the exception. George will be King, Charlotte will be the “spare”, Louis will hopefully be the next Anne or Edward. Whereas Archie is the future Sienna Mapelli Mozzi or the future David Armstrong-Jones or the future Duke of Gloucester/Kent. Just not very important in the long-run.

Regarding the birth of Prince George

”Mr MacMarthanne added: "As the great-grandson of the sovereign, he, like Prince Charles before him, would have been born without royal style or title under George V’s Warrant of 1917.
"Just as her father had done it took the Queen issuing Letters Patent to remedy the situation."

They were given titles to take account of a new set of circumstances, that they were the great grandchildren of a monarch but were also directly in line to the throne. William’s first child would never have had to wait as you put it . As a direct heir, his first child would have been “Prince” if a boy and “Lady” if a girl, as per the old LP’s. This was changed so that all William’s children would be of equal status in case his first child was a girl. So yes in that sense, William’s children had their titles sooner than they would have previously, but this was done so
all his children were of equal status as soo as they were born not was nothing to do with personality favouring the Cambridges as they then were, it was to do with their place in the line of succession.

Why some people in the Royal Family are Princes and Princesses and some are not | Tatler

Much like his great-grandson, Prince Charles, King George V was intent on a so-called 'slimmed down monarchy'. As such, he issued a new law, a Letters Patent, in 1917, which limited the number of royal relatives that could use the title of prince or princess. It reads: 'It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of prince or princess

I have no idea where you got your unsourced quote, but it's not correct.

As the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, George was always going to be a prince at birth. However, if Charlotte had been born first, she would have been merely the Lady Charlotte Mountbatten Windsor, despite being a future queen. Hence the letters patent.

In any case, this has nothing to do with Harry's children, as has been explained to you multiple times.

Well then you have answered your own question. It was down to “remedy the situation” with regard to those in direct line of the throne. So not relevant to Harry. However much he and his wife wanted it to be. Harry’s children were entitled to use Harry’s lesser titles but apparently didn’t like them.

@tigger2022 yet Prince Andrew’s daughters were born with titles despite not being the daughters of an heir.

Given there’s two sons of the future king and not four children, and the expectations of Harry as a working royal were similar, I believe this is unfair.

Especially when that title impacts security if those children who are expected to be photographed from babies & have parents with enormous profiles. this was said in the interview. I do believe the children’s title would influence whether government of the day spend on security.

Exhausting going to bed nkw

Charlotte and Louis 'got' their HRH early (from birth instead of after QE2 died), George would always have had it as eldest son of eldest etc etc

As has been explained to you many times, Andrew's daughters were grandchildren of the monarch at birth. Not greatgranchildren.

And titles do not 'impact security'. That is complete nonsense.

BUT ANDREWS CHILDREN WERE BORN GRANDCHILDREN OF A MONARCH. NOT GREAT GRANDCHILDREN. SO THEY WERE AUTOMATICALLY PRINCESSES. SAME AS ARCHIE AND LILI WHEN THEY BECAME GRANDCHILDREN OF A MONARCH WHEN THE QUEEN DIED AND THEIR GRANDFATHER BECAME KING. AAARRGH!!!!

It’s already been explained to you - Beatrice and Eugenie were grandchildren of the sovereign. Archie and Lilibet were not, they were entitled to be prince and princess as soon as they became grandchildren of a sovereign. It also has no impact on security, Beatrice and Eugenie don’t have 24/7 royal protection. At the time of Archie’s birth, the heir already had an heir and two spares. There was no need to make up new rules for Archie.

@Labradorandshiraz if you read the bit I quoted just before the eldest son of eldest son I put in bold, you will also see that these are also HRH Prince/ss:
'It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son.

So, all QE2's children, and then the children of her sons.

Edward's children have been entitled to the title (😀) from birth, but their parent's chose not to call them HRH Prince/ss as they are a long way down the succession. Anne's children were/are not entitled because she was a daughter of the Sovereign, not a son.