Harry - what next?

[TrashyPanda]

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

welcome back everyone!

Really admire Edward and Sophie sparing their dc from all this. Harry and Meghan should have looked to them to see how to navigate being a younger son.

Actually you are probably correct. I think it's been Charles vision for a long time only the Monarch siblings and children will be working royals

Although, without getting into another long discussion, I still think William will sooner or later need some (not all) of his cousins to be working Royals.

Especially if people still want the Royals to open things and be figure heads for so many charities and causes and do so many events.

I think they will need to make a change.

If George had been Georgina, then her DC would not be titled before she ascended the throne. Whereas Louis's would have the titles/styles of the grandchildren of a monarch in the male line from birth.

No urgency, because those circs won't arise until a further generation or two

It's also an assumption that the males will reproduce.
Remember the Queen wasn't born to be Queen, but even if her Uncle didn't abdicate, he still never produced an heir, so Elizabeth would still have become Queen when he died.

That’s a very good point. I never thought of that.
imagine if William had been infertile or gay?

How could not including Harry's potential children in the changes to the Letters Patent, which was done in 2012, be racist!

I think It was frequently said on MN how grabby Andrew was for insisting that B&E had princess titles even though at the time it was expected.

No such comments when H&M declared Archie & Lillibet prince & princess- just that it was their right. Which obviously it is.

I actually think H&M are even more grabby than A&S.

A&S expected their girls to be full-time working Royals. H&M aren't even full-time Royals themselves never mind expect their kids to be.

I'll say it again.

George was not 'fast tracked' - under the 1917 Letters Patent he would always be HRH Prince from birth. IF he had been Georgina s/he wouldn't have been, and a younger brother WOULD have while Georgina being ahead of her younger brother in the line of succession. So QE2 made all their children HRH Prince/ss from birth.

Harry's future, potential children didn't matter because they were not the children of the eldest son of the PoW, so further down the line of succession, and they would have all been treated the same as each other.

All of QE2's other great-grand-children have been treated the same as Harry and Meghan's children, in that the Letters Patent of 1917 apply.

He hadn't met Meghan then. No-one knew his future wife would be a POC, so I don't see where racism comes in.

Security is not linked to title.

A heriditary monarchy is inheritently unfair in that the eldest child (used to be the eldest boy, that has now been changed) gets the job. Yet Harry does not advocate republicanism.

Is Harry ignorant or obtuse?

Exactly.
Now think about the next generation, if George doesn't have children, then the crown would go to Charlotte / her first child.

If they hadn't changed the male / female thing then it would have skipped Charlotte and gone to Louis / his eldest child.

@Milcar - in a nutshell.
That Harry seemingly didn't know this, and encouraged the racism accusations is very poor on his part.

No @Milcar you’re confusing two different issues. You’re referring to another issue law that was changed so Cambridge’s first child regardless of his gender would still be the next heir.

The letters patent issue I am referring to is different and regards when the Cambridge and Sussex children got their Prince and Princess titles that they were ALL to get upon the death of the Queen.

Many posters have said the Sussexes shouldn’t have these titles at all as the monarchy is being slimmed down. That may be your view but like it or not it’s, not how it’s meant to be done.

All the Cambridge and Sussex children were meant to be prince and princesses if they wished on the death of the queen.

The issue is that the letters patent were changed for the Cambridge’s to get them sooner not the Sussexes.

Letters patent issue on this website 1917 letters patent was changed because it mentioned children of the sovereign, which at birth of Cambridge children, they weren’t. It was therefore ad hoc changed for the Cambridge children so that despite them being the grandchildren, not children of the sovereign, they would have titles.

“ It was George V who created the rules which are still being talked about today. In 1917, he decreed that ”the children of the sons of any such Sovereign….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 prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.”

The letter patent allowed for
Children of the sovereign - effectively Charles generation
Grandchildren of the sons of the sovereign- Williams generation (note Anns kids daughter no titles)
The first son of the heirs eldest son - George

It was changed to allow for all the children of the heirs first son. Because it would have been daft should George not exist for Charlotte to being raised as a future Queen with no title but for Louis to be Prince.

Pigeons, chess boards…

It will all resolve itself in the next generation anyway because the Prince and Princess titles end with Archie and Lilibet.

@Ohpleeeease the Dukenof Sussex title will live on. May even make its way back eventually given their love of marrying cousins removed.

@Labradorandshiraz you were complaining about the Prince and Princess title. The Dukedom is a separate issue.

Sorry, I cut and paste the highlighted parts, now it's all come as one paragraph.

Yep. Very very determined pigeons at that...

I think people are getting confused between all grandchildren/great-grandchildren being equal in the eyes of their grandparent/great-grandparent (true, fine) vs the 6th and 7th in line to the throne being equal to an heir (2nd) and 3rd and 4th in line to the throne in the eyes of a monarch (definitely not true, that’s the point).

The Patents are patents and are there for a reason and should be followed as such.
They already differentiate between first born and children of sovereign. If you wanted to differentiate between no4 and no7, then you should have had those patents drawn up already.

Bear with me, I'm going to cut and paste my post to have paragraphs, so it's readable and then ask MN to remove my previous posts.

Considering their attacks on the RF, the Commonwealth and all the accusations they've made of indifference/cruelty etc I do wonder why they are so attached to their titles, and to having their children have titles (unlike Ann who didn't want them for her children). Ann is a great example of how to live as a spare. The only explanation is that the care very much indeed, and want the status of titles. I still think it's all about being angry he was born second, and demanding as much attention and 'equal' treatment as possible.

@Labradorandshiraz

I think I understand where you are coming from with all this. In summary

(1) All children of the Sovereign can be called a prince or princess;
So far so good. All 4 children of the queen were called by their titles.This is still the case now that Charles is King.

(2) Those children, whose father is a son of the Sovereign, can be called a prince or princess;
Ties in with the above. However, it excludes Anne - who was not the son but daughter of Sovereign. It does however include Edward. Who may have chosen or told not to use the titles for his children. Certainly Andrew choose to use this right for his children.

(3) The eldest son, of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, can be called a prince.
This is the tricky one that was changed. Because it technically says only George would be prince, till Charles takes over.
We were told about how Charles wanted to slim down the monarchy. If that was the case this rule would have been changed to

3.1) The eldest child (be it male or female) of the eldest child (once more, male or female) of the Prince or Princes of Wales, can be called Prince or Princes.

This way, if Charlotte was born before George, only she would be called Princess and younger siblings George and Louise would wait till Charles comes to the throne.

Now, according to Harry and Meghan, the palace were looking at the patents and wanted to change the rules for Harry's children, so that Archie and Lili once Charles comes to the throne, they would not have the titles.

People excused this for slimming down titles. If that was the case, then why was this not changed as above in point 3 for all children.

Now don't forget that Charles was announced as King and William as Prince of Wales as soon as the queen died. It took 9 months of public complaints for Archie and Lili to be publicly acknowledged - which arouses suspicions from a lot of people.

On preview this now has paragraphs.