Harry - what next?

[TrashyPanda]

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

welcome back everyone!

Royal baby: Duke and Duchess of Sussex name son Archie - BBC News

BBC report from when the name was announced, also indicating it was the parent's choice

This is it - once it's out there , it can't be retracted. Funny how things changed by the time of the Oprah show.

The whole thing does make me wonder if Edward did in fact refuse the titles, or he was told and it's now being repeated. He was not called The Duke of Edinburgh till the Sussexes said princess 9 months after the queen's death - btw, wasn't he supposed to be called that after his father's passing.

@MarcelProust My understanding is the title of DoE immediately passed to the then PoW on the DoE's death. It reverted to the Crown on the Queen's death and at that point the new King was in a position to confer it on someone else. I also understand that it is quite commonplace for new titles to be bestowed at key dates - weddings and birthdays which is what happened here.

quote function fail by me there! Sorry - the first paragraph was quoting your post Marcel!

I don't think Ed could get DoE title until the Queen died - technically as the DoEs wife she was the Duchess of Edinburgh.

I find it nuts really that H&M have kick up a fuss over titles from an institution that they don't want anything really to do with. It's all about the £££&$$$

Charles inherited DoE when his father died. When QE2 died and Charles became King it became available for him to give to someone else.

I'm not sure there's anything suspicious about waiting a few months and then giving it as a birthday present! No doubt there were other bits of paperwork that were more urgent immediately after she died.

I don't think Ed could get DoE title until the Queen died - technically as the DoEs wife she was the Duchess of Edinburgh.

it’s as Milcar and MyrtleWilson have explained. You are correct that QEII was also the Duchess of Edinburgh. However, once the Duke of Edinburgh died, QEII became the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh, with Charles inheriting the title himself and Camilla becoming the new Duchess. Obviously though, as all three had other titles they were already using, this did not make any material difference to how they were styled.

Once Charles becomes King, William inherits the Duke of Cornwall title (and a couple of others that pass to the heir automatically) and all other titles Charles holds are his to do what he wants with.

Only odd thing about Edward's DoE title was that it just for lifetime and not being passed down - that's a change I think.

Archie will at some point be the Duke of Sussex and if he has a son he can be too - I don'k know if that would be useful to them if they stay in USA or a hinderance.

I think the 'lifetime' only is part of the slimming down of the monarchy, and it does make sense to me.

Rumour has it that the Edinburgh title will ultimately be given to Charlotte, but maybe that again will be on a 'lifetime' basis too? Or maybe Charlotte will ultimately be the Princess Royal, and Louis 'Edinburgh', as the York title which is normally awarded to the second son may not now be so desirable!

Maybe - in time - the Prince and Princess titles will only be used by those working full-time for the Monarchy. So all children could be referred to by a lesser Lady/Lord title, but could be 'promoted' to Prince/Princess/Duke/Duchess if they were appointed (and wished) to be FT Royals.

It's a quiet morning here!

Prince Edward's son currently uses the title Earl of Wessex as a courtesy because it is the senior subsidiary title of his father (now a duke), just as before Edward's elevation he was Viscount Severn (the former senior subsidiary title). He will become the Earl in his own right (not just as a courtesy) on the death of his father, and any future son will inherit the earldom

So I think it's quite possible that the "spare" branches will still be ennobled as a wedding present (not least to avoid the horrible sounding "Princess Louis" scenario) but it will be further down the peer's pecking order of titles.

I think it's because his son hasn't made a decision about whether or not he wishes to be a working royal. It would devalue the title of DoE if James decides not to be a working royal and nobody would want him to be under pressure to be a working royal because he would be the next DoE. I understand that DoE is a senior Dukedom so they'd want someone higher up the Line of Succession to hold it.

I can see good reasons to make it lifetime only - but I'm not aware of it having been done before like that before- that may have been examples I'm not aware of.

It does suggest it's being treated more like York, Rothesay and Princess Royal titles and reading about the title - it been was first created for Fredrick grandson of George I then merged with crown later when his son became King - then Queen Victoria used it for her second son - instead of York - who then after becoming Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha did pass it to his son on his death but that son died with no heirs so revert back to crown then available to create again for Prince Philip - so it's not really got much of a history of being passed down.

But the delay in giving it didn't seem unusual just fact it was just for him - it may be that it was Edward and Sophie preference as well as I've certainly seen her say in one interview that they were raising their children with expectation of careers and working for a living ie non royal lives.

As @BoohooWoohoo says, the DoE is a very senior Dukedom, the most senior in Scotland I believe. It wasn’t felt appropriate for it to follow a line which would become increasingly remote from the monarch. I think the solution was an elegant one.

the DoE is a very senior Dukedom, the most senior in Scotland I believe

Although it takes its name from the capital of Scotland, the dukedom is created in the peerage of Great Britain rather than the Peerage of Scotland.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/the-history-of-the-dukedom-of-edinburgh-180719/

Though that just means it was created between Act of Union 1707 and 1800 - though it was possible to create just Scottish peers at that time they didn't automatically get seat in Lords till 1960s.

I think it's Prince Phillip who's made it a prominent title - Victoria gave it to her second son forth in line to the thrown at time with expectation it would be passed down - and that son was always in line for inheriting Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

The Duke of Rothesay - which is Prince of Wales in Scotland title - then Duke of Hamilton - which is a peerage of Scotland and is classed as premier peer of Scotland are most senior.

I can see why they'd want to keep it close to main family - not least the association with Duke of Edinburgh award scheme but mainly it's long association with Prince Philip.

@Serenster a reporter not their press offficer.

Apologies, Labradorandshiraz but I have no idea what you mean (or why you tagged me?)

Thank you for that link, @TripleDaisySummer very interesting to see the history behind the title.

This BBC report you just linked says the same thing as Scobie. It does not quote Harry and Meghan with regard to the line of title choice. Which then tells me this line was produced by the palace. Even on the video on there Harry and Meghan do not refer to the baby's title at all.

The irony is not lost on me that the people who claim to 'dislike H&M because of the OW interview' seem to not have even watched the interview because they would have remembered OW addressing this question and Meghan answering that no one consulted them about the titles, they just saw the announcement coming out.

As for the statement about Edward, well it says right there that the queen made the decision, and E&S agreed. Explicitly, the queen has decided.
Nothing about children's private lives etc. which is being touted now, and is also touted about Harry and Meghan supposedly wanting the same.

But you've not shown where H&M have said they did not choose master/miss rather than earl/lord/lady, nor any repudiation of the positive coverage of the choice

The OW interview does not cover that choice. It does cover that they had no choice (at that point) over prince for Archie.

But we do have a solid example of the Palace waiting for the parents to make their choice (after Charles' accession) and then immediately endorsing it

What we have proof of is that the palace naturally changed the line of succession as they should when the queen dies. They also naturally changed the titles of Charles and Camilla.

What they did not do was naturally change the titles of Archie and Lili.

And don't tell me about birthdays and anniversaries, because all the above happened as soon as the queen passed - as it should.

They changed the titles within hours of the patents making their wishes known.

What were they meant to do? Deny the parents theier choice?

Maybe the Sussexes wanted to announce the Princess title at the Christening and asked that the palace not discuss it until afterwards ? Controlling the timing of personal announcements is a reasonable adjustment for Megxiting.

And don't tell me about birthdays and anniversaries, because all the above happened as soon as the queen passed - as it should.

You are assuming that the Sussexes definitely wanted Prince/Princess titles for the kids when QE passed. They may have wanted time to consider it and control when the announcement happened.

Based on what she said during Oprah then it's not unreasonable to assume that they wanted the titles immediately but the couple have complained about being controlled and announcing it at the christening is a form of them taking control back.

This is a new narrative now, that the palace is listening and doing the demands of Harry and Meghan.
Were we not told that they are being ignored and snubbed left right and centre and the palace is going on with business as usual ?

Part of the business as usual is changing the titles and succession order as usual. Only when Harry and Meghan object, should it be reverted to Master, usually with an explanation statement that is the wish of the parents - only problem here, is that H&M now have the platform to dispute any lies if they never said so.

Even the palace source has not leaked this, considering the outcry from some quarters, you would have thought they would have run fast to the tabloids with these news- didn't they tell us about H&M 'eviction', and all sorts of gossip the other day.

As 'tainted' by lies and hyperbole as the press may be, the Royal Family did listen to public demands via the media when Diana died.

I think they do listen. They have public relations experts and that's what they do - gauge what the general mood is at the time and implement strategies accordingly. Not only do they listen. They seek to influence public opinion